It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:50 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next   Page 2 of 3   [ 55 posts ] New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:52 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/27/10
Posts: 2253
Location: Plano, TX
The M-14 was the rifle of choice when I was in the Marines back in the 60s, and it was a fun piece to shoot. I would love to have an AR-15 simply to go out and shoot a couple of hundred rounds through it, simply for the fun of it. I have always loved to shoot guns, whether they were rifles or pistols.


Top
  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:25 pm • # 22 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
I too contact my elected officials a lot as I feel that is is good duty as citizenry to do so, even if you might come to the conclusion it is doing no good.

I think if I were to ever find myself in in some kind of battle at the same ranges that one might use a Colt framed 5.56/223 round, with HCM and say a peep sight or red dot, I would prefer a lever action in 357 magnum. I could put more ammo in my pockets and the round is good well past 200 yards and since I have no intention of ever going into some kind of militant battle, the 357 lever gun would be better suited for fast action use, cheaper to shoot, funner to shoot and packs way more punch, can be loaded with fast expanding bullets or deep penetrating bullets, high speed or slow. Try that with a Assault Rifle.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:22 am • # 23 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
If anything the "establishment of religion" clause is over applied. As indicated, the intent was to prevent the creation of a Church of America. No thought as to graduation prayers, nativity scenes etc.

I was doing some research on the development of the Ar-15 and the adoption of the 223. Apparently the thin jacketed 55 grain bullet had a tendency to break into three pieces as the bullet yawed. This allowed for a more lethal round than the spirit of the Geneva Convention allowed. There was a fairly spirited counter- story that the bullet only made 22 caliber holes, which was sometimes true.

Because a more stable 223 penetrates body armor better, the bullet weight was pushed up to 62 grains, and 77 grains is proving even more popular.

My objection with the AR is the crappy gas impingement system. The piston system in the AK, Sig Sauers, Fal, and HKs is superior. A bolt gun is much better slow fire.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:44 am • # 24 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
I might add that a 12 gauge with buckshot is more lethal at close range. Don't tell anyone.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:28 am • # 25 
User avatar
Jr. Member

Joined: 01/02/12
Posts: 76
I'm completely ignorant about hunting and firearms generally. What does a person do with an AR-15?


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:54 am • # 26 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 06/23/12
Posts: 1141
Location: Songtan, Korea
I don't have an AR, never really wanted one until recently...before the "panic". I'd like to have one just for plinking and varmint hunting...maybe throw in some competitive shooting. Something in the carbine variety, civilian version of the M4, but in tan or sage.

I'll never understand why "those people" are so afraid of those "evil black guns". ::) And why they don't focus their energy on fixing something that actually needs fixing. :rolleyes


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:32 am • # 27 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
Gimper wrote:
You fellas know that the venerable 870 was used heavily in the military, along with several other pump shotguns. If a general ban on military "style" weapons where to be proposed, the old Remington would be on the list. Henny Penny? Probably. But I cringe a little thinking about it.


The Communists in this country will try to take all firearms away, they have readily admitted that. They will try to do it in incremental steps, it's easier that way. The sad thing is though, is that the overall picture is not just about the 2nd amendment and gun ownership in this country, it's about dismantling the constitution a bit at a time, and turning us into a socialist/communist state. Obama has no respect for the constitution and acts as if he wipes his bum with it everyday. Bush was guilty of that too, but Obama is much worse.

Read the writings of our founding fathers, they warned us that what is happening in this country now would happen if we the people became complacent and allowed it to. Fact, if most people have an steady income, cheap beer, and a big screen tv then they don't care what happens outside their little bubble.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:53 am • # 28 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/29/12
Posts: 1835
Location: Rusagonis, New Brunswick, Canada
Well, I've been cautiously watching for that line where we cross over into the banned land of politics, but I kinda think I see it in my rear-view mirror at this point, so I'll ask the following. (and it IS a question, not a position):

Is there any perception/support for the idea that a constitution and amendments that are a couple of centuries old, may need some revision in light of the evolution of politics, culture, science, society, economies and technology?

I note that legislation, regulation and policy are revised constantly, but is there some reason why you must never open the discussion to the fundamental basis for all three?

Again, just curious for others' insights.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:51 am • # 29 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
I usually stay, or try to stay clear of politics, mostly because it seems little good ever comes from such discussions, and also because I am sort of a 'political' mutt, so to speak.

I think there are people from one end of the political spectrum to the other, and every point in between. This is where tempers flare. On one end, there are those who think the constitution is out dated and not applicable to today and there are those who think that to even change punctuation in the document is treason. Unfortunately, it would seem that only those two points of view get the attention, probably because moderation is boring and the medias make money focusing on the extreme....compromise makes for a lousy sales product.

My stance is that back ground checks are not unconstitutional, neither is forbidding certain people (the obvious ones) from owning guns. However, there is really no way to police it without opening up the pandoras box of possible tyranny trying to do so. I do think there must be a line drawn somewhere....obviously, we should not allow private ownership of things like rock launchers, RPG's tanks, land mines, etc. As for small arms, I say if you can pass a back ground check, why not allow private citizens from owning whatever kind of light, hand held arm they wish. To out right ban good law abiding citizens from owning firearms, even high capacity semi autos and handguns is unconstitutional, but to regulate though back ground checks is fine in my eyes. I have had some many back ground checks done on me, I am used to it. I have been going through interviewing processes and back ground checks again for a possible new job for me....it takes time, but it is necessary for a position such as this. I have been finger printed for my CDL and CCW. Many of us have gone through this and we are the good guys, we pay our taxes (even if we grumble about it), we are good citizens. Personally, I think the best approach to this delicate subject, is to make CCW permits mandatory for high capacity semi auto firearms and handguns, let the proven, good citizens maintain those liberties granted by the constitution, and throw the book and strip certain liberties from the criminals and felons. Perhaps it would not be 100% fool proof, or even 50% fool proof, who knows, but it is a good start. OK, I have gone on long.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:15 pm • # 30 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
wheezeburnt wrote:

Is there any perception/support for the idea that a constitution and amendments that are a couple of centuries old, may need some revision in light of the evolution of politics, culture, science, society, economies and technology?



Yes in fact there is, and it's almost always from the left wing side of the political spectrum, although you will find some from the extreme right too. I for one believe that it is treasonous to revise it. The Bill of Rights in our constitution is there to protect the people from tyranny, plain and simple. In the true sense of the word (liberal), our constitution is a very liberal document compared to what the rest of the world has to deal with. I don't need government to dictate to me how I should live, or have them intrude in all aspects of my daily life. We have enough of that now, and I don't want any more of it.

For the record, I am letting this thread run even though it's pretty much against the rules. The 2nd Amendment is near and dear to my heart, and yes, I am a 2nd amendment activist, and proud of it. As along as this thread stays civil I will let it run.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:00 pm • # 31 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
I think when it comes to guns, most gun enthusiasts, though perhaps from all over the political grid (it is a grid, not a straight line, left or right) seem to jump mostly onto the same plate in defense of the 2A.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:28 pm • # 32 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 113
Location: Boardman Ohio
It is all just a .....

sleight of hand - manual dexterity in the execution of tricks
prestidigitation
conjuring trick, legerdemain, magic trick, thaumaturgy, magic, deception, conjuration, illusion, trick - an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers

Just figure out what they are really doing, and it has nothing to do with 'guns'. Then 'we the people' will be much better off.

What else is up their sleeve ?


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:49 pm • # 33 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
I am probably going to bow out of the thread, even if it has been really/surprisingly civil (I have seen many more fishing threads go critical mass over dumber stuff), it is just that all good things usually end, or blow up, or go BOOM in some form.....

I think we have covered the basics. Us gun enthusiasts like guns and in my opinion, they represent freedom, of course in different aspects of the term, but I usually pack a firearm on my fishing trips. A firearm at my side is the great equalizer to as close as possible, make me as tough as the critter, or thug, or drug dealer, gang member I might run into....God forbid. My wonderful wife feels the same, though her side arm is bigger than mine.....she loves her 41 Magnum.

Nuff said. Carry on and I will watch. I have spoken my piece.


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:49 pm • # 34 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Our Constitution embodies founding principles. And like most foundations, you aren't allowed to shift it around. You can try, but things start to tumble.

Reminds me of the new teacher in math class class that solves the equation by saying "let's jut change this plus to a minus". You can do it, but.....

The Heller decision was an eye opener for me. 5-4, really?


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:31 pm • # 35 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Forgot to answer the question about the AR. After WWII there were some massive studies to determine what wins infantry battles. The final conclusion was he who puts the most bullets into the air wins. The idea was to build the lightest rifle possible with the greatest possible combat load of ammo.

The thin FMJ 223 varmit round had good terminal ballistics because it fragmented on impact and created a wound multiplier. Poly tips are even more dramatic, but contravene the Geneva Convention. The military never let on that the bullets were fragmenting. Stories that the bullets were tumbling, not fragmenting, were encouraged.

A spike in the pressure curve due to a substitution of powders caused early rims to be pulled from the case which was too tightly bound in the chamber. Chamber pressures need to drop enough before the extractor does it's job. This failure cannot be cured unless a rod is used to knock the cartridge out from the muzzle. The bolt assist does not help this malfunction.

Chroming the chambers helped, but the powder was also changed. The army never admitted there was a screw-up, which tells you a lot about trusting the govt to get anything right.


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:14 am • # 36 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 09/06/11
Posts: 565
On a slightly related note and fun read.

http://freebeacon.com/mayors-gone-wild/


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:12 pm • # 37 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 2238
Location: 208
shall not be infringed...


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:05 pm • # 38 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
Sasha wrote:
shall not be infringed...


Very plain and simple language. Funny how Government, the Courts, and liberals want to try and interpret such plain, and to the point words to justify their agenda.


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:36 pm • # 39 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 2238
Location: 208
jkurtz7 wrote:
Sasha wrote:
shall not be infringed...


Very plain and simple language. Funny how Government, the Courts, and liberals want to try and interpret such plain, and to the point words to justify their agenda.




Exactly!!!


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:45 pm • # 40 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 04/29/11
Posts: 234
Location: Central Ohio
Sasha wrote:
jkurtz7 wrote:
Sasha wrote:
shall not be infringed...


Very plain and simple language. Funny how Government, the Courts, and liberals want to try and interpret such plain, and to the point words to justify their agenda.




Exactly!!!


May I say Exactly!!! x 2? What we need to understand is when the left takes a little, they then take a little more, and a little more, and a little more...until it is all gone. Just like with the budget that the dems were holding hostage because they were so hell-bent on raising taxes on the rich - and they said doing so would be soooo advantageous for the economy. That was just the stepping stone. They couldn't raise the middle class tax % rates higher than the rich, so they had to raise the rich, and by raising the bar, now they can focus on raising in on the middle by saying, "you can give a little more....the rich pay more than you still, you see?" And everyone's favorite president has already been saying, "you need to give a little more so somebody with less can have more." Can you say Communism? No wonder they want to take our guns

Ok, I'm stepping down now.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next   Page 2 of 3   [ 55 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


- OurBoard Support -