login
'The' Gun Thread (Page 19)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-04-04 4:25 AM in reply to: #4685983 |
Champion  7821     Brooklyn, NY |  Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Threadcrusevegas - 2013-04-03 9:44 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-03 4:38 PM crusevegas - 2013-04-03 3:01 PM A picture's worth a thousand words, right? Whoever put that image together didn't select that photo arbitrarily, and I think it's weird. I'd like to know what was behind the choice to use that image. Is he how gun owners see themselves? Or is he supposed to symbolize a generic criminal that we're supposed to be afraid of? jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-03 11:32 AM crusevegas - 2013-04-03 12:09 PM Interesting. I wonder what was originally in the section of the photo that seems to have been redacted on the lower right. I guess you have no idea about that either? It's just a weird picture, IMO. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-02 1:52 AM crusevegas - 2013-03-29 5:58 PM Is the person in the photo supposed to be the one speaking, or is he supposed to be a generic representation of a criminal?  I have no idea. I find it somewhat curious that you find it interesting that I have no idea. The picture in of itself wasn't what I thought was worth sharing, it was the verbiage written on the picture.
I would say this picture is worth 19 words and a little punctuation. I guess if you want to read something else into it, that's your prerogative. Seems like lately you've only been able to come up with two possibilities, both of which for the most part have been to the extreme,,,,,,, possibly it's something in between?!? But while I have your attention, possibly you give me your thought on the positive benefits of "gun free zones"? Off the top of my head, I think that if people are licensed to carry guns, they ought to be able to carry them wherever they'd like, barring courthouses, airports, etc. Are you asking me because of something specific where I said I thought they were a good idea, or are you just assuming that because I don't have any guns that I must automatically be in favor of them? |
| 2013-04-04 6:29 AM in reply to: #4686105 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-04 2:49 AM tuwood - 2013-04-03 5:23 PM Have you seen one of her spokespeople trying to come back from that quote? http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-h... It's truly scary the level of ignorance (or should I say stupidity) that some lawmakers have. If you're going to sponsor a bill to ban something it would really help your cause to at least understand what it is you're trying to ban is. /facepalm CO Democrat Doesn't Understand High-Capacity Magazines Can Be Reloaded
DeGette’s spokeswoman Juliet Johnson issued a statement Wednesday, saying the congresswoman mispoke. “The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism,” Johnson said. “Quite frankly, this is just another example of opponents of common-sense gun violence prevention trying to manipulate the facts to distract from the critical issue of keeping our children safe and keeping killing machines out of the hands of disturbed individuals. It’s more political gamesmanship that stands in the way of responsible solutions.” Rule one when you find yourself in a hole of your own making: Quit digging. This one's at least as bad as "the should thing that goes up" lol, that's even funnier. Do they even make a "clip" that holds more than 10 rounds? I'm only familiar with the M1 Garand and the SKS Stripper clip which I believe all hold 10 or less. |
| 2013-04-04 7:00 AM in reply to: #4686152 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread tuwood - 2013-04-04 7:29 AM DanielG - 2013-04-04 2:49 AM tuwood - 2013-04-03 5:23 PM Have you seen one of her spokespeople trying to come back from that quote? http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-h... It's truly scary the level of ignorance (or should I say stupidity) that some lawmakers have. If you're going to sponsor a bill to ban something it would really help your cause to at least understand what it is you're trying to ban is. /facepalm CO Democrat Doesn't Understand High-Capacity Magazines Can Be Reloaded
DeGette’s spokeswoman Juliet Johnson issued a statement Wednesday, saying the congresswoman mispoke. “The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism,” Johnson said. “Quite frankly, this is just another example of opponents of common-sense gun violence prevention trying to manipulate the facts to distract from the critical issue of keeping our children safe and keeping killing machines out of the hands of disturbed individuals. It’s more political gamesmanship that stands in the way of responsible solutions.” Rule one when you find yourself in a hole of your own making: Quit digging. This one's at least as bad as "the should thing that goes up" lol, that's even funnier. Do they even make a "clip" that holds more than 10 rounds? I'm only familiar with the M1 Garand and the SKS Stripper clip which I believe all hold 10 or less. Offhand I don't know of one. M1 holds 8 The Mauser pistol uses a clip (the gun Han Solo's blaster was based on) but I think it is an 8 shot as well. AR stripper clips are 10 round. For those who honestly don't know both a magazine and a clip are reloadable. You buy them both empty or with ammo purchases but either can be refilled. Anyone who did any background research at all would see this just about immediately. |
| 2013-04-04 8:23 AM in reply to: #4686179 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread I am starting to notice that 5.56 is not selling out as soon as it hits some online sites. It's still pretty high but it's not selling out right away.
|
| 2013-04-04 8:37 AM in reply to: #4686265 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Puppetmaster - 2013-04-04 9:23 AM I am starting to notice that 5.56 is not selling out as soon as it hits some online sites. It's still pretty high but it's not selling out right away.
http://www.ammoengine.com/find/ammo/.223_Remington_5.56x45mm http://ammocrawler.com/search.do?s=.223 http://www.wholesalehunter.com/finders/ammolist.asp?Caliber=223REM&... http://ammoseek.com/?gun=rifle&cal=113&grains=0&mfg=&include_kw=&ex... That said, Wal-Mart had about 20 boxes on the shelf this weekend and they stayed there for at least 24 hours. That was weird. Gander Mountain has some on the shelves again. Looking at the financial pages, ammo companies have gone from a normal of one shift at 40-60% of max output to two or three shifts of 75-100% max output. When this ammo eating train comes to a stop there is going to be one hell of a glut of ammo on the market until they spool down a bit. |
| 2013-04-04 9:23 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
Expert 839 Central Mass | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread No peep about CT's new (probable) law? Mostly useless, except that now its even harder to buy a gun in CT. But it does add some mental health funding and stuff. |
| 2013-04-04 9:27 AM in reply to: #4686406 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread scorpio516 - 2013-04-04 10:23 AM No peep about CT's new (probable) law? Mostly useless, except that now its even harder to buy a gun in CT. But it does add some mental health funding and stuff. I'm waiting until a lot of these shake out and chunks of them get thrown out in court. HIPAA will interfere with quite a few of the new laws thrown about. More than one of the new laws includes some sort of registration which is illegal per US Code, etc, etc. We'll see what parts still exist in a few years. |
| 2013-04-04 10:31 AM in reply to: #4685927 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread tuwood - 2013-04-03 9:22 PM Now here's a well educated young lady. She's 100% right about the facts...and yet, the facts mean absolutely nothing in this debate. Nothing. The 2011 FBI crime statistics show that there were less than 1% of gun homicides were committed with a rifle, and of course "assault weapons" are a sub-set of rifles. In fact there were more homicides committed using "hands and feet" and "knives" then rifles and assault weapons...(7x's more for knives).
But again...this isn't about facts. If this is a rational debate then at some point those calling for an assault weapons ban have to address the statistics and justify focusing on less than 1% of the homicide rate and answer why that is a rational basis for the deprivation of a constitutional right. Or, they can ignore the facts and charge forward...which of course leads to the natural question...of: "Why?" |
| 2013-04-04 5:11 PM in reply to: #4686116 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 2:25 AMOff the top of my head, I think that if people are licensed to carry guns, they ought to be able to carry them wherever they'd like, barring courthouses, airports, etc. Are you asking me because of something specific where I said I thought they were a good idea, or are you just assuming that because I don't have any guns that I must automatically be in favor of them? I take it that you think making schools "gun free zones" is more of a negative than a positive based on what you said here, correct me if I'm wrong. You had said something a couple of pages back to the affect of arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that. I had replied to that post but didn't see a response regarding that. |
| 2013-04-04 5:42 PM in reply to: #4686406 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread scorpio516 - 2013-04-04 10:23 AM No peep about CT's new (probable) law? Mostly useless, except that now its even harder to buy a gun in CT. But it does add some mental health funding and stuff. I'm completely happy our legislature and governor have worked and are continuing to work to make guns as regulated as pseudo ephedrine. No one has the right to bear an exact military rifle nor the ability to fire 154 rounds killing 26 victims in 5 minutes. Thankfully, we now make it more sensible for hunters and homeowners to own sensible guns for sensible purposes. |
| 2013-04-04 6:01 PM in reply to: #4687302 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-04 6:42 PM scorpio516 - 2013-04-04 10:23 AM No peep about CT's new (probable) law? Mostly useless, except that now its even harder to buy a gun in CT. But it does add some mental health funding and stuff. I'm completely happy our legislature and governor have worked and are continuing to work to make guns as regulated as pseudo ephedrine. No one has the right to bear an exact military rifle nor the ability to fire 154 rounds killing 26 victims in 5 minutes. Thankfully, we now make it more sensible for hunters and homeowners to own sensible guns for sensible purposes. However, no law CT has passed has even talked about "exact military rifles" and has not decreased the ability to fire 154 rounds. So what did the law actually DO? |
| 2013-04-04 6:08 PM in reply to: #4687316 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-04 7:01 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-04 6:42 PM scorpio516 - 2013-04-04 10:23 AM No peep about CT's new (probable) law? Mostly useless, except that now its even harder to buy a gun in CT. But it does add some mental health funding and stuff. I'm completely happy our legislature and governor have worked and are continuing to work to make guns as regulated as pseudo ephedrine. No one has the right to bear an exact military rifle nor the ability to fire 154 rounds killing 26 victims in 5 minutes. Thankfully, we now make it more sensible for hunters and homeowners to own sensible guns for sensible purposes. However, no law CT has passed has even talked about "exact military rifles" and has not decreased the ability to fire 154 rounds. So what did the law actually DO? In my opinion, a M16 is an exact copy, save full auto which is easily substituted, of an AR-16. (Do I have the models correct? Working from memory). Also, changing clips takes about 6 seconds if it's well planned. Hence, a person has a better chance of tackling and disarming a shooter win 10x10 shot clips versus 1x100 round clip. Daniel: I know we're on opposite signs of the spectrum. I am happy and proud that we have made the decision to start somewhere. |
| 2013-04-04 6:19 PM in reply to: #4687324 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-04 7:08 PM In my opinion, a M16 is an exact copy, save full auto which is easily substituted, of an AR-16. (Do I have the models correct? Working from memory). Also, changing clips takes about 6 seconds if it's well planned. Hence, a person has a better chance of tackling and disarming a shooter win 10x10 shot clips versus 1x100 round clip. Daniel: I know we're on opposite signs of the spectrum. I am happy and proud that we have made the decision to start somewhere. I can't wait until that law, or most of it anyway, is thrown out. There is no, zero, not a speck, of mechanical difference between an AR15 (semi-auto version) and a Remington 7400 (probably the definition of a hunting rifle.) None. Both are gas operated, magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles. 6 seconds for a magazine change? No matter what side of any spectrum you're on, PLEASE at least do a minimum of research on a topic before having strong opinions on it. I don't care if you end up on the "ban everything" side, just be informed about the topic before you have really strong opinions. Here, this answers a bunch of common questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXA Seriously, I don't care if you end up still wanting to ban everything. All I ask is people know what the heck they're talking about. Especially the legislators but I'm finding that's asking way too much. |
| 2013-04-04 7:40 PM in reply to: #4687324 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-04 4:08 PM DanielG - 2013-04-04 7:01 PM In my opinion, a M16 is an exact copy, save full auto which is easily substituted, of an AR-16. (Do I have the models correct? Working from memory). Also, changing clips takes about 6 seconds if it's well planned. Hence, a person has a better chance of tackling and disarming a shooter win 10x10 shot clips versus 1x100 round clip. Daniel: I know we're on opposite signs of the spectrum. I am happy and proud that we have made the decision to start somewhere.pitt83 - 2013-04-04 6:42 PM However, no law CT has passed has even talked about "exact military rifles" and has not decreased the ability to fire 154 rounds. So what did the law actually DO? scorpio516 - 2013-04-04 10:23 AM I'm completely happy our legislature and governor have worked and are continuing to work to make guns as regulated as pseudo ephedrine. No one has the right to bear an exact military rifle nor the ability to fire 154 rounds killing 26 victims in 5 minutes. Thankfully, we now make it more sensible for hunters and homeowners to own sensible guns for sensible purposes.No peep about CT's new (probable) law? Mostly useless, except that now its even harder to buy a gun in CT. But it does add some mental health funding and stuff. You are proud and happy that legislators have gone against their sworn oath of office and passed laws that are unconstitutional. Yet you see no problem with violating the terms of service of BT with you sig line. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. People with semi-automatics and hollow points kill FAR more people" - Me |
| 2013-04-04 8:00 PM in reply to: #4687334 |
Expert 1002 Wind Lake WI | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-04 6:19 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-04 7:08 PM In my opinion, a M16 is an exact copy, save full auto which is easily substituted, of an AR-16. (Do I have the models correct? Working from memory). Also, changing clips takes about 6 seconds if it's well planned. Hence, a person has a better chance of tackling and disarming a shooter win 10x10 shot clips versus 1x100 round clip. Daniel: I know we're on opposite signs of the spectrum. I am happy and proud that we have made the decision to start somewhere. I can't wait until that law, or most of it anyway, is thrown out. There is no, zero, not a speck, of mechanical difference between an AR15 (semi-auto version) and a Remington 7400 (probably the definition of a hunting rifle.) None. Both are gas operated, magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles. 6 seconds for a magazine change? No matter what side of any spectrum you're on, PLEASE at least do a minimum of research on a topic before having strong opinions on it. I don't care if you end up on the "ban everything" side, just be informed about the topic before you have really strong opinions. Here, this answers a bunch of common questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXASeriously, I don't care if you end up still wanting to ban everything. All I ask is people know what the heck they're talking about. Especially the legislators but I'm finding that's asking way too much. But the AR is scary, black, and shoots real fast in the movies so it must be more dangerous than the 7400 which actually shoots a much larger bullet. I'd also like to see a 6 second mag change under pressure. I'm still confused as to why people will give up their rights without even a protest. |
| 2013-04-04 8:01 PM in reply to: #4687276 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread crusevegas - 2013-04-04 5:11 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 2:25 AMOff the top of my head, I think that if people are licensed to carry guns, they ought to be able to carry them wherever they'd like, barring courthouses, airports, etc. Are you asking me because of something specific where I said I thought they were a good idea, or are you just assuming that because I don't have any guns that I must automatically be in favor of them? I take it that you think making schools "gun free zones" is more of a negative than a positive based on what you said here, correct me if I'm wrong. You had said something a couple of pages back to the affect of arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that. I had replied to that post but didn't see a response regarding that. No, I'd add schools to the list that includes "courthouses,airports, etc." I don't have a problem with there being armed security or law enforcement in schools, but I don't want anyone having a gun around that many kids who isn't well-trained to use that weapon in a tactical situation. ETA: i guess i found the post youre referring to, but i didn't say anything about "arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that". For what has to be the gazillionth time:I Am Not In Favor of Banning Guns or Repealing the 2A. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-04-04 8:27 PM |
| 2013-04-04 8:44 PM in reply to: #4687403 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 6:01 PM crusevegas - 2013-04-04 5:11 PM No, I'd add schools to the list that includes "courthouses,airports, etc." I don't have a problem with there being armed security or law enforcement in schools, but I don't want anyone having a gun around that many kids who isn't well-trained to use that weapon in a tactical situation. ETA: i guess i found the post youre referring to, but i didn't say anything about "arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that". For what has to be the gazillionth time:I Am Not In Favor of Banning Guns or Repealing the 2A. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 2:25 AMOff the top of my head, I think that if people are licensed to carry guns, they ought to be able to carry them wherever they'd like, barring courthouses, airports, etc. Are you asking me because of something specific where I said I thought they were a good idea, or are you just assuming that because I don't have any guns that I must automatically be in favor of them? I take it that you think making schools "gun free zones" is more of a negative than a positive based on what you said here, correct me if I'm wrong. You had said something a couple of pages back to the affect of arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that. I had replied to that post but didn't see a response regarding that.
To be clear, you think advertising to criminals and the mental unstable that schools without police are defenseless is a good thing. Could you tell me why you feel this way or what the upside is? IMO, if a place is going to advertise itself as a "Gun Free Zone" they should be obligated to provide armed security. |
| 2013-04-04 9:17 PM in reply to: #4687436 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread crusevegas - 2013-04-04 8:44 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 6:01 PM crusevegas - 2013-04-04 5:11 PM No, I'd add schools to the list that includes "courthouses,airports, etc." I don't have a problem with there being armed security or law enforcement in schools, but I don't want anyone having a gun around that many kids who isn't well-trained to use that weapon in a tactical situation. ETA: i guess i found the post youre referring to, but i didn't say anything about "arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that". For what has to be the gazillionth time:I Am Not In Favor of Banning Guns or Repealing the 2A. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 2:25 AMOff the top of my head, I think that if people are licensed to carry guns, they ought to be able to carry them wherever they'd like, barring courthouses, airports, etc. Are you asking me because of something specific where I said I thought they were a good idea, or are you just assuming that because I don't have any guns that I must automatically be in favor of them? I take it that you think making schools "gun free zones" is more of a negative than a positive based on what you said here, correct me if I'm wrong. You had said something a couple of pages back to the affect of arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that. I had replied to that post but didn't see a response regarding that.
To be clear, you think advertising to criminals and the mental unstable that schools without police are defenseless is a good thing. Could you tell me why you feel this way or what the upside is? IMO, if a place is going to advertise itself as a "Gun Free Zone" they should be obligated to provide armed security. I've already answered why I don't think having armed teachers is a good idea. In fact, I've answered you personally on this topic in more than one thread. I'm not going to do it again. I'm fine with armed security in schools. |
| 2013-04-04 10:21 PM in reply to: #4687460 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 9:17 PM crusevegas - 2013-04-04 8:44 PM I've already answered why I don't think having armed teachers is a good idea. In fact, I've answered you personally on this topic in more than one thread. I'm not going to do it again. I'm fine with armed security in schools. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 6:01 PM crusevegas - 2013-04-04 5:11 PM No, I'd add schools to the list that includes "courthouses,airports, etc." I don't have a problem with there being armed security or law enforcement in schools, but I don't want anyone having a gun around that many kids who isn't well-trained to use that weapon in a tactical situation. ETA: i guess i found the post youre referring to, but i didn't say anything about "arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that". For what has to be the gazillionth time:I Am Not In Favor of Banning Guns or Repealing the 2A. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-04-04 2:25 AMOff the top of my head, I think that if people are licensed to carry guns, they ought to be able to carry them wherever they'd like, barring courthouses, airports, etc. Are you asking me because of something specific where I said I thought they were a good idea, or are you just assuming that because I don't have any guns that I must automatically be in favor of them? I take it that you think making schools "gun free zones" is more of a negative than a positive based on what you said here, correct me if I'm wrong. You had said something a couple of pages back to the affect of arming everyone as one option and the other option being 180 degrees opposite of that. I had replied to that post but didn't see a response regarding that.
To be clear, you think advertising to criminals and the mental unstable that schools without police are defenseless is a good thing. Could you tell me why you feel this way or what the upside is? IMO, if a place is going to advertise itself as a "Gun Free Zone" they should be obligated to provide armed security. I've said on more than one occasion that I bet every teacher/administrator at Sandy Hook would have given anything to have a gun at the moment that idiot was shooting through the door to get into their school or classroom. I also think that the collateral damage of a teacher or teachers trying to defend the school trained or untrained with guns would have been far less than what actually happened. We're all on the same side of this issue in that we never want it to happen EVER again, but unfortunately it IS going to happen again, no matter what we do so IMHO the primary focus needs to be on how to make schools less of a target for these cowards. Allowing teachers/administrators/parents who have a valid CCW permit to carry in school if they choose to does that very thing and it costs the taxpayers nothing. |
| 2013-04-04 10:39 PM in reply to: #4687400 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread firstnet911 - 2013-04-04 8:00 PM DanielG - 2013-04-04 6:19 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-04 7:08 PM In my opinion, a M16 is an exact copy, save full auto which is easily substituted, of an AR-16. (Do I have the models correct? Working from memory). Also, changing clips takes about 6 seconds if it's well planned. Hence, a person has a better chance of tackling and disarming a shooter win 10x10 shot clips versus 1x100 round clip. Daniel: I know we're on opposite signs of the spectrum. I am happy and proud that we have made the decision to start somewhere. I can't wait until that law, or most of it anyway, is thrown out. There is no, zero, not a speck, of mechanical difference between an AR15 (semi-auto version) and a Remington 7400 (probably the definition of a hunting rifle.) None. Both are gas operated, magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles. 6 seconds for a magazine change? No matter what side of any spectrum you're on, PLEASE at least do a minimum of research on a topic before having strong opinions on it. I don't care if you end up on the "ban everything" side, just be informed about the topic before you have really strong opinions. Here, this answers a bunch of common questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXASeriously, I don't care if you end up still wanting to ban everything. All I ask is people know what the heck they're talking about. Especially the legislators but I'm finding that's asking way too much. But the AR is scary, black, and shoots real fast in the movies so it must be more dangerous than the 7400 which actually shoots a much larger bullet. I'd also like to see a 6 second mag change under pressure. I'm still confused as to why people will give up their rights without even a protest. You all know what side of this I'm on, but in fairness, 6 seconds is a fairly long time for a reload. We train at 3 seconds and nearly everyone can do it easily. Granted, it takes a bit of practice, but not as much as you might think. It's an easy skill to master. Yeah, know you mentioned pressure, but there's not much if everyone is running and nobody is shooting back....which is another reason to not have gun-free zones. Carry on.
Edited by Left Brain 2013-04-04 10:41 PM |
| 2013-04-05 2:38 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-leg... |
| 2013-04-05 6:11 AM in reply to: #4687400 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread firstnet911 - 2013-04-04 9:00 PM But the AR is scary, black, and shoots real fast in the movies so it must be more dangerous than the 7400 which actually shoots a much larger bullet. I'd also like to see a 6 second mag change under pressure. I'm still confused as to why people will give up their rights without even a protest. Actually I honestly believe that there are only two reasons for someone trying to ban ARs. 1) They really don't know what the heck they're talking about or 2) They're misogynists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F0icW2-ovk AR-15s shoot a much lower power round than most hunting rifles. The AR platform reduces the recoil even further. The adjustable shoulder stock allows for smaller people to buy standard rifles and just adjust it to their arm length. Not allowing an adjustable stock is like saying a 5'0" female must only be able to buy a 56cm bike and suck it up. |
| 2013-04-05 6:17 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Hollow points. This one's been bugging me since I read it. Why on Earth would someone want MORE people shot accidentally? That makes no sense at all to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z9hv5dY_Ws So, anyone who wants to ban hollow points not only wants to ban hunting in Wisconsin (it's illegal to hunt with anything else) but they want the bullets shot in self defense to penetrate four to five times as many walls with the overpenetration and endanger everyone behind the bad guy. Even on the street, through and through penetration is not odd, so all the innocent people behind the bad guy are now in danger of being hit. Hollow points don't ricochet near as much and become a non-factor way earlier than full metal jacket as well, so apparently there are those who want innocent people to be in more danger from that too. I really don't get it. Again, only two possible explanations: 1) They don't know much about the topic at hand other than anti-rights reports or 2) They want more innocent people injured by overpenetration and ricochets. There really is no other reason possible. |
| 2013-04-05 7:46 AM in reply to: #4687659 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-04-05 6:17 AM Hollow points. This one's been bugging me since I read it. Why on Earth would someone want MORE people shot accidentally? That makes no sense at all to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z9hv5dY_WsSo, anyone who wants to ban hollow points not only wants to ban hunting in Wisconsin (it's illegal to hunt with anything else) but they want the bullets shot in self defense to penetrate four to five times as many walls with the overpenetration and endanger everyone behind the bad guy. Even on the street, through and through penetration is not odd, so all the innocent people behind the bad guy are now in danger of being hit. Hollow points don't ricochet near as much and become a non-factor way earlier than full metal jacket as well, so apparently there are those who want innocent people to be in more danger from that too. I really don't get it. Again, only two possible explanations: 1) They don't know much about the topic at hand other than anti-rights reports or 2) They want more innocent people injured by overpenetration and ricochets. There really is no other reason possible. I could probably make a list of 100 laws (or more) that were to "make us safer" that do exactly the opposite. Check that, I guess a law like this would make it safer for the bad guy. |
| 2013-04-05 7:55 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK