Gun Control

Democratic Gun Control - Remove the capability to purchase assault type weapons and multi capacity weapons from law abiding Americans restricting the 2nd Amendment to hunting guns and single shot weapons, if that.

Republican Gun Control - AIM Well and HIT what you are Aiming at!

Now with that said I will offer up an opinion regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment was important enough that the founders made it second only to free speech and freedom of religion.  The founders were intent on giving citizens and citizen militias weapons capable of allowing citizens to take over their Government from one that had been taken over and run contrary to what the Constitution stated.  That means military type weapons or the same weapons as the Government itself would possess or have at it's means.  So I believe that means military type weapons available to all legal, law abiding citizens covered by the 2nd amendment. 

That said there are many things that the founders didn't foresee or couldn't have known such as weapons that were of the nature the one man could alone hold off many others or kill so many alone.  Still if you go with the intent of allowing citizens and citizen militias of taking back a Government stolen and run amuck then you have to conclude that whatever the Government can possess then the Citizens should have the ability to possess and obtain.  Background checks and some sanity in defining just who can obtain a weapon under the 2nd Amendment freedoms is rational and within the scope of what the founders would want but removing the ability to purchase certain type weapons and purchase ammunition I believe is not warranted. 

Many liberals want to remove American's 2nd Amendment rights either through the courts, judicially, or legislatively or by executive order.  Such a move, in my own opinion, would warrant just the insurrection and bring about just the citizen action that the 2nd Amendment was conceived for.  Mind you that' my own opinion.

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )
Original Post

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.                                                                            The average person does not need an assault rifle or 30 round magazines of any caliber.                                                                                                                                   The government can not take your guns without a constitutional amendment either. That ain't gonna happen.

As to scenarios of government seizing firearms, there are several that apply.  The recent show Turn about George Washington's spy ring.  The location of Washington's encampment betrayed, the didn't just relocate, they attacked the Tory militia's fort, when the Tories were marching on the former camp, seizing cannon and field pieces. 

First, would the military obey an unconstitutional order -- some have indicated their duty would be to protect the citizens,  Consider the size if the military.  The army is down to about 470,000 with many overseas vs a population of 330 million.  I doubt the government would do anything as unconstitutional and unenforceable.

jtdavis posted:

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.                                                                            The average person does not need an assault rifle or 30 round magazines of any caliber.                                                                                                                                   The government can not take your guns without a constitutional amendment either. That ain't gonna happen.

The savages in the sand box sadly seem too.  I would argue much of it is because of our inept leadership in the White House.  This is America and thankfully I can and do own many of the rifles and mags you see no use for me to have.  I do not have any true "assault" rifles as my ARs are semi auto only.  Also, you have to live it,  just like I have to live with scum bags burning the American flag both are protected by the Constitution.  

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.---Jt

RIAN archive 58833 Withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.jpg

A bunch of ragtag tribesmen sure ran off the forces of the evil empire. At first they used bolt action rifles made in small Kyber Pass gun shops, but the Mujahideen picked up the weapons dropped by their enemy and the gun shops learned how to stamp steel for AK receivers.

Khyber Pass rifles - Pictures - Page 7

jtdavis posted:

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.                                                                            The average person does not need an assault rifle or 30 round magazines of any caliber.                                                                                                                                   The government can not take your guns without a constitutional amendment either. That ain't gonna happen.

Didn't realize they changed the name to "Bill of Needs". 

An "assault rifle" has select fire capability.  I do not know one single person who posesses an "assault rifle" and neither do you.

jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

 

The 5.56 NATO is based on a cartridge intended for groundhogs. The .30 Soviet shorty has a little less power than a 30-30. No, they ain't maximum damage cartridges.

jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

That statement is concrete proof that you don't understand anything whatsoever about guns.  The 223 Rem/5.56 NATO is an intermediate power cartridge.  In many states, it's not powerful enough to hunt deer legally.  It produces a little over 1000 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.  In comparison, most deer hunting calibers produce well over 2500 ft-lbs muzzle energy. 

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Stanky posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

 

The 5.56 NATO is based on a cartridge intended for groundhogs. The .30 Soviet shorty has a little less power than a 30-30. No, they ain't maximum damage cartridges.

Unfortunately, most will believe anything said to them by the news, true or false.

2nd Amendment "freedoms" are what Democrats keep trying to Chip Away. Next thing Democrats want to do, is Taxing Firearm and Ammunition to high level as Tobacco Taxes.. Hopefully, republican senate & House majority will prevent such a taxation on Firearm related items.

Kinda like Obama Care, If You Like Your Health Insurance, You Can Keep It.....Only you want be able to afford your old plan due to obamacare needing more of your money to support his dumbA** idea of healthcare....

jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

HIFLYER2 posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.

direstraits posted:
HIFLYER2 posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.

There are several American companies who manufacture semi-auto hunting rifles.  Hollow and soft point bullets are the only ones legal for hunting.  And they sell lots of them.  Favorite semi among hunt club members is the BAR .270.   Favorite [target] load for my M1A is a Sierra .308 168 grain HPBT.

Good firearm coupled with a good ammo = good results & no complaints.

Jes sayin'.

 

Might add back in the early '80's I had a Remington 742 Woodsmaster in .30-06 that digested anything fed it but it would not zero without a CCB between shots.  I understand some of the old BAR's had the same problem.

But then, when hunters take their first shot, it's with a ccb.  Or ought to be.

Personally, I hunt with a bolt action.

 

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Why are the victims tore up so bad?  The M16 tumbles when it hits something, from looking on the I-net, the Ar's are designed from the 16. The school kids were torn up from the bullets, doctors in Orlando commented that the injuries were much worse than standard bullets.

Any of you want to give a civil answer or do you just want to post stuff about gun ignorant lefties. BTW, it would be interesting to have a marksmanship contest with most of you. I might not be as ignorant on shooting as you think.

direstraits posted:
HIFLYER2 posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.

My 30.06 and 30.30 would disagree as to a class 3 weapon I do not know.

 

HIFLYER2 posted:
direstraits posted:
HIFLYER2 posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.

My 30.06 and 30.30 would disagree as to a class 3 weapon I do not know.

 

I've spent time on full auto but it was all FMJ rounds.

jtdavis posted:

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Why are the victims tore up so bad?  The M16 tumbles when it hits something, from looking on the I-net, the Ar's are designed from the 16. The school kids were torn up from the bullets, doctors in Orlando commented that the injuries were much worse than standard bullets.

Any of you want to give a civil answer or do you just want to post stuff about gun ignorant lefties. BTW, it would be interesting to have a marksmanship contest with most of you. I might not be as ignorant on shooting as you think.

Short answer, JT.  When a projectile strikes an object, depending on its design, it's energy will be dissipated various ways such as expanding as in the case of soft or hollow points.  Those projectiles that tumble are usually full metal jacket whose flight path has been disrupted.

Far as a marksmanship contest, I'm your huckleberry.

 

budsfarm posted:
jtdavis posted:

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Why are the victims tore up so bad?  The M16 tumbles when it hits something, from looking on the I-net, the Ar's are designed from the 16. The school kids were torn up from the bullets, doctors in Orlando commented that the injuries were much worse than standard bullets.

Any of you want to give a civil answer or do you just want to post stuff about gun ignorant lefties. BTW, it would be interesting to have a marksmanship contest with most of you. I might not be as ignorant on shooting as you think.

Short answer, JT.  When a projectile strikes an object, depending on its design, it's energy will be dissipated various ways such as expanding as in the case of soft or hollow points.  Those projectiles that tumble are usually full metal jacket whose flight path has been disrupted.

Far as a marksmanship contest, I'm your huckleberry.

 

The object a .223/5.56 hits that makes the bullet tumble is usually bone.

jtdavis posted:

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Why are the victims tore up so bad?  The M16 tumbles when it hits something, from looking on the I-net, the Ar's are designed from the 16. The school kids were torn up from the bullets, doctors in Orlando commented that the injuries were much worse than standard bullets.

Any of you want to give a civil answer or do you just want to post stuff about gun ignorant lefties. BTW, it would be interesting to have a marksmanship contest with most of you. I might not be as ignorant on shooting as you think.

Sure I still practice my skills I learned at FLETC but it has to against the clock, count rounds, change mags and from the 3 meter to 9 meter line.  Pretty much anyone can shoot but all is different in a tactical situation. 

direstraits posted:
budsfarm posted:
jtdavis posted:

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Why are the victims tore up so bad?  The M16 tumbles when it hits something, from looking on the I-net, the Ar's are designed from the 16. The school kids were torn up from the bullets, doctors in Orlando commented that the injuries were much worse than standard bullets.

Any of you want to give a civil answer or do you just want to post stuff about gun ignorant lefties. BTW, it would be interesting to have a marksmanship contest with most of you. I might not be as ignorant on shooting as you think.

Short answer, JT.  When a projectile strikes an object, depending on its design, it's energy will be dissipated various ways such as expanding as in the case of soft or hollow points.  Those projectiles that tumble are usually full metal jacket whose flight path has been disrupted.

Far as a marksmanship contest, I'm your huckleberry.

 

The object a .223/5.56 hits that makes the bullet tumble is usually bone.

Prior to that, glass, metal, wood.  Even a shot-out bore.

During WWII, the Brits used a .303 round designed to tumble.  Encased in a copper jacket was a hard metal [steel?] base topped with an aluminum tip.  Wasn't at all uncommon to recover fired projectiles bent to a right angle.  AP it was not.

Far as I recall, it satisfied the Geneva Convention requirements against "dumdum" bullets though I'm sure Jerry didn't approve.

 

jtdavis posted:

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Why are the victims tore up so bad?  The M16 tumbles when it hits something, from looking on the I-net, the Ar's are designed from the 16. The school kids were torn up from the bullets, doctors in Orlando commented that the injuries were much worse than standard bullets.

Any of you want to give a civil answer or do you just want to post stuff about gun ignorant lefties. BTW, it would be interesting to have a marksmanship contest with most of you. I might not be as ignorant on shooting as you think.

To answer your question per the specific .223 AR it has to do with it being a FMJ and the twist of the barrel. One of the best explanations is here.

http://www.futurefirepower.com...e-nato-556-cartridge

 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.  ~ Dire

My 30.06 and 30.30 would disagree as to a class 3 weapon I do not know. ~ Hiflyer2

Hi, my curiosity is killing me.  You have a semi-auto 30.30 [.30-30]?

 

 

HIFLYER2 posted:
jtdavis posted:

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Why are the victims tore up so bad?  The M16 tumbles when it hits something, from looking on the I-net, the Ar's are designed from the 16. The school kids were torn up from the bullets, doctors in Orlando commented that the injuries were much worse than standard bullets.

Any of you want to give a civil answer or do you just want to post stuff about gun ignorant lefties. BTW, it would be interesting to have a marksmanship contest with most of you. I might not be as ignorant on shooting as you think.

Sure I still practice my skills I learned at FLETC but it has to against the clock, count rounds, change mags and from the 3 meter to 9 meter line.  Pretty much anyone can shoot but all is different in a tactical situation. 

JT, don't listen to Hi.  He's just setting you up.  No matter the firearm, no matter the course of fire, before you could transition from "clips" to "mags," - from assault / full auto to civilian semi-auto only, he would have run the course!

Don't embarrass yourself like that.

Play with me instead.

 

budsfarm posted:

 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.  ~ Dire

My 30.06 and 30.30 would disagree as to a class 3 weapon I do not know. ~ Hiflyer2

Hi, my curiosity is killing me.  You have a semi-auto 30.30 [.30-30]?

 

 

I remember a picture of a modified Winchester 1894 used by a Cuban revolutionary in the !950's. I might note that John Browning converted an 1873 Winchester to gas operation in designing his 1895 Colt Machine gun. I believe Hiram Maxim converted 1866 Winchesters to a blow back operation in his experimentation to design the Maxim machine gun.

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Jt, all bullets can tumble.  A 300 win mag will blow your head off.  Don't believe the hyperbole in regards to the 223 rem.  Your chances of surviving a 223 wound are greater than most other hunting rounds.  Try to imagine what buck shot would do at close quarters.

Without a doubt.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×