Assualt weapons

[_ldsfaqs]

And of course there is not many guns funner to shoot than a nice ar15

This is very similar to my competition ar15 with a very spendy steel target barrel

Once again all of you cry babies that are willing to give up your freedoms for a false sense of security are fools.

I like you a lot, Rock, but do you really need them? I'm sure that you have no plans to do evil things with them, but there seems to be a lot of people that do these days. I think it would be better if those people had a very hard time securing those types of weapons.

It might also be fun to be able to throw a grenade at a harmless target, but fortunately those have been banned from private ownership.

And that's the problem with liberal judgment..... "Feelings" are the same things as fact and reality.

Gun violence is far lower and has been mostly going down since 1993, while at the same time, more guns are out there VASTLY more since that time.
Perception and liberal media making things seem worse than they are is not the same thing as truth.

[_Lemmie]

This is a good overview of various things.
Pay attention to the woman who spoke. The exact things liberals today say about gun control, is exactly what Fascists of the past have said which many times resulted in Genocides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcQemQ2bGg

Nope. Not going to watch the trash you post. Your reputation precedes you. But since you're online still, any hope of getting to those missing references and plagiarized citations?

Typical response of the brainwashed and ignorant.... You'll NEVER hear a conservative say that.
We study ALL sides and facts to find the actual truth of things.

You 'study' nothing, fuqqs. You've established yourself as the village idiot here, and have a firm reputation as an uneducated, thoughtless, racist bigot.

[Guest]

I don't hunt, its just not in me to kill things (I help spiders escape from the bath tube). I love shooting and have done a lot of it in my time.

I'm not certain, but I assume France has very strict gun laws. Did that prevent disaster? Do they feel any safer today with those laws? On a larger scale Afghanistan resisted Russian attack Helicopters and their army for years, and how many of your children have been, are, or soon will be, again going like my son? Guess what, they are poor bastards who with no money and guerrilla warfare tactics have keep the largest forces in the world at a standstill.

So make a big scare, get people to jump on the band wagon and ban the likes of armor piercing bullets. And those scary semi-automatic rifles that look like they belong in a war. Hell as I factually pointed out in the other thread, you best ban your kids plinker 10-22 rifle, cause it will kill a cop hit in the chest with personal body armor on. i.e. you have done nothing but take away my right to load test/fun rounds and see how much steel I could punch.

sidenote: I know nothing about physics, but a had a several of those triangular hooked weights you counter weight a small tracker with. They were each about 3/8" thick. I also had the one chunk of 2" plate, of which a graphite lubricated titanium military AP 30 cal, seems 179 grain pushed with a +p 300win mag load made it about 3/4" of the way through, in a very unusual spiral stair case type fashion (it ended up about 2" higher then the entry point).

But what was interesting was trying to stack the 3/8" plates to see exactly how many, it would only make it through 3 plates with a nice bump in the 4th. I assume multiple surface tensions or some such was the cause (the metal actually seemed softer that the thick plate).

Back on track: So I showed two guns which are actually military based weapons and yet don't have that scary ar/ak look and feel and so most will give them a pass. Well let me tell you about the one that scares you, that ar (or cheap ass ak47's). The ak's can't hit the broad side of a barn, and if you don't have the spendy high quality spray cans of cleaner/lube always on hand, doing constant maintenance, that damn ar is going to jam on you every time. Now someone recently mentioned a mini-14. I don't own own of these, but for non comp shooting, I'd take that mini in a heartbeat over any ar/ak type of rifle.

image too big
Mini-14

Notice it has basically the same breach/action as the M1Garand and the M1a that I have shown and even the kids ruger 10-22 ... you know, not the scary "assault rifle" stocks, barrel guards, flash suppressors etc that look mean but mean nothing to a domestic shooter.

image too big
ruger 10-22

You can take any of these guns with these actions and throw them in the mud, throw the clips in the mud, brush them off, plug em in and shoot away. Hell I'd prefer to walk into a large group of people I wanted to kill with that 10-22 and four of these taped together reversed for two pairs, 100 rounds total in a super light, super accurate killing machine that is just not going to stop shooting via jam. Likely can get the exact setup from you local pawn shop for under 50 bucks!



But hell, its marginal if it would pierce that body armor, so I'd take that non-scary mini-14, same double reverse taped high capacity clips ... any day I'd take this over your scary "assault rifles".

So once again, ban those AP bullets (will not do diddly crap, as there is no advantage for the killer to use them anyway), and ban those scary looking war type rifles, even though you don't understand that will do diddly crap, because there are more deadly, and much cheaper alternatives (which I personally would choose in the first place)!

Actually, bell tower with 500 yard busy open areas, yea where's my Elk hunting Winchester model 70 300 win mag?

I know I've gone overboard here ... but people DO NOT give up freedoms for a FALSE sense of security. It will not, can not illuminate the threat and you will be no safer, only more restricted.

multi thread/multi post rant over ... hopefully it might have been educational to you. I'm not bullshitting here ... that ruger 10-22, one bad ass assault weapon - half of the kids in America own one, dual banana clips and all (loading no fun, shooting way fun).

[_Kevin Graham]

Once again all of you cry babies that are willing to give up your freedoms for a false sense of security are fools.

Seriously?

Go ahead and list all the so-called "freedoms" we would be forfeiting by making assault weapons illegal. This statement is pretty stupid.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Q!

A very interesting thread topic!

In an effort to be transparent, I am very ignorant when it comes to the broad topic of guns. I have never owned any guns and I have only shot a gun a few times in my life.

Having said that - and to be entirely honest with you - I really don't know how I feel about this topic and that is precisely why I rarely engage about this topic. (I almost always just read and remain silent)

So - now that I have said so little, I will return to just reading this thread.

I hope that this thread continues to move - in my opinion this board is littered with a lot of very bright people (some are brilliant) - thus, it could become an extremely interesting discussion.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_RockSlider]

Seriously?

I've watch you post for a very long time on your political pet peeves. I know I'm wasting my breath saying anything to you and so have avoided it for the most part. Wild hair up the ass tonight and could not take it anymore.

You seem to know jack crap about guns but are keen to save the world with your proposed bans on this and that even with a total lack on any actual knowledge/facts.

What rights are you trying to take from me? ... well I've listed several thousand dollars worth and a lifetime of experience and memories with my children, you want to make me an outlaw for owning everything that you have proposed a ban on. You want to kill these family heirlooms from my posterity.

All to make you feel safer. And yet as I have pointed out, you will be no safer and in fact will drive people to more dangerous (and cheaper) solutions yet.

I'm asking you to review the pictures of the various guns in this thread, and identify which of these are the rifles you want banned. I'm assuming my ar15 is the only one you will list right off. And yet I crap you not, that would be that last gun of mine that I would take to shooting. And I crap you not, that ruger 10-22 would be high on my list ... the first gun most any child in America that has a family that shoots already owns.

Did you follow any of the ammo shortage problems over recent years where the feds actually bought all/as much ammo as the manufactures could produce. Guess which was one of the hardest/scarcest ammo that you just could not find on shelves, order on line, anything ... just could not get it .... good old, cheap ass ruger 10-22 cartridges.

Why do you suppose that is Kevin, when NO governmental agencies use 22cal guns? Let me clue you, its the most dangerous gun in America for what you are talking about.

Basically a kids first/safest gun/toy (from a target shooting perspective).

Be afraid, be very afraid ... but jumping on banning bandwagons is not the answer.

[_Jersey Girl]

Haven't read all the posts and I might not be right about this, but I think the weapons and ammo used in the San Bernadino mass shootings were already banned and/or restricted. To my knowledge, CA has one of the (if not the) strictest gun laws in the country.

Criminals don't obey gun restrictions or bans.

[_Quasimodo]

Hey Q!

A very interesting thread topic!

In an effort to be transparent, I am very ignorant when it comes to the broad topic of guns. I have never owned any guns and I have only shot a gun a few times in my life.

Having said that - and to be entirely honest with you - I really don't know how I feel about this topic and that is precisely why I rarely engage about this topic. (I almost always just read and remain silent)

So - now that I have said so little, I will return to just reading this thread.

I hope that this thread continues to move - in my opinion this board is littered with a lot of very bright people (some are brilliant) - thus, it could become an extremely interesting discussion.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hi Pal!

I used to hunt a lot when I was much younger. Going pheasant hunting with my dad was a very big deal for me. The day I gave up hunting was my first time deer hunting. Bragging, of course, but I was a pretty good shot in those days. I had one shot and killed one deer. When I got to it, it broke my heart. It was such a beautiful animal and I watched it die from my own actions.

Never again. I gave up killing things from that moment. If I ever went fishing after that it was catch and release.

Now we are talking about how easy it is to buy weapons that are designed to kill people. Maybe we all can come to some agreement that this is not such a good idea.

[_Kevin Graham]

I've watch you post for a very long time on your political pet peeves. I know I'm wasting my breath saying anything to you and so have avoided it for the most part. Wild hair up the ass tonight and could not take it anymore.

Jesus H. Christ why can't you just answer the damned question. What is it lately with everyone avoiding the issue and opting to give me some run down on their long held negative perceptions of me? And why do you guys confuse me with someone who actually gives a damn?

You seem to know jack s*** about guns but are keen to save the world with your proposed bans on this and that even with a total lack on any actual knowledge/facts.

I've already stated that I don't own any guns and I don't know much about them, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the fact that assault weapons serve no purpose to the gun enthusiast other than to let him or her know that if ever wanted, a bunch of people could be killed in a short amount of time if he so desired. Maybe it is a psychological power trip thing, I don't know because I just don't get the infatuation with killing devices.

What rights are you trying to take from me?

No, that wasn't the question. Read it again. You claimed we were "cry babies" who were willing to give up OUR freedoms. Now you're reversing your claim and saying I'm trying to take away YOUR freedom, which amounts, humorously enough, to this:

... well I've listed several thousand dollars worth and a lifetime of experience and memories with my children, you want to make me an outlaw for owning everything that you have proposed a ban on. You want to kill these family heirlooms from my posterity.

Seriously? What the “F” does this have to do with your original claim that we were just a bunch of pansies who were giving up OUR freedoms? From what you're saying here I am giving up the freedom to have an assault rifle for a family heirloom. WTF? If you put such a value on assault weapons for posterity's sake, then that's pretty screwed up. I hope you're not dark skinned, otherwise people on your side of the political fence may confuse you with being a terrorist.

In any event, your fear is misguided. In Great Britain, for example, people have been grandfathered into their modern gun laws and actually have guns that have sentimental value and such hanging on their walls, so I wouldn't see why such exceptions couldn't be made here as well.

All to make you feel safer. And yet as I have pointed out, you will be no safer and in fact will drive people to more dangerous (and cheaper) solutions yet.

This is the NRA talking point of course, all designed to keep them making money, and to keep people dying and to keep people like you living in fear. And contrary to your silly claim, this isn't about my "feeling of safety." It is about reducing the number of weapons that have only ONE PURPOSE. And that purpose is to kill many people in a short amount of time. That's it. And that is what they have been used for time and time again.

I'm asking you to review the pictures of the various guns in this thread, and identify which of these are the rifles you want banned. I'm assuming my ar15 is the only one you will list right off. And yet I s*** you not, that would be that last gun of mine that I would take to shooting. And I s*** you not, that ruger 10-22 would be high on my list ... the first gun most any child in America that has a family that shoots already owns.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I don't really care what gun you prefer to shoot out in the woods or hunting or whatever it is you're doing with them. All I care about is that high capacity rapid fire assault weapons are out of the hands of criminals, and the only way to ensure that is to dramatically reduce supply and make owning them illegal. I'm sorry you feel that life won't go on as you know it without your precious killing machines decorating your home and reminding you of your ancestors or what not, but I feel even more sorry for the orphaned children whose parents were killed because some emotionally twisted asshole decided he's going to get back at society by killing as many people as he can.

Did you follow any of the ammo shortage problems over recent years where the feds actually bought all/as much ammo as the manufactures could produce. Guess which was one of the hardest/scarcest ammo that you just could not find on shelves, order on line, anything ... just could not get it .... good old, cheap ass ruger 10-22 cartridges. Why do you suppose that is Kevin, when NO governmental agencies use 22cal guns? Let me clue you, its the most dangerous gun in America for what you are talking about.

Where the “F” did this conspiracy theory come from?

National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF, public affairs director Mike Bazinet noted last year that "there are a lot of wild stories" about the ammunition shortage, with some people even blaming the U.S. government for "buying up all the ammo." But according to Bazinet, that's simply not the case. In fact, "government purchases have gone down over [the] last three years."

He may be right. In 2014, the National Rifle Association, or NRA, helped to debunk the "government conspiracy" thesis for America's .22 ammo shortage. Laying out the facts and figures in a multi-page spread in American Rifleman, the "official journal of the NRA," the NRA described how:

1. The dollar value of ammunition sales in America doubled between 2007 and 2012. Highlighting the obvious, the NRA noted that sales really "started to climb fast as gun sales began surging" in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election.

2. Federal Premium Ammunition -- now a subsidiary of Vista Outdoor (NYSE:VSTO), according to S&P Capital IQ -- attributed ammo shortages to "high demand for our products," and said flat out that the biggest increases in ammunition purchases are coming from "the civilian market." (This means you.)

3. Olin Corp's (NYSE:OLN) Winchester Ammunition agreed that it is "experiencing an extremely high demand."

4. And privately held Freedom Group, which manufactures Remington cartridges, said, "it's clear to us that any lack of supply in the marketplace has been from consumer demand."

And then there was the interview with privately held Hornady Manufacturing. There, President Steve Hornady explained to the NRA, "People walk into the store, they don't see as much as they want so they take everything they can get. The next guy who comes in can't get anything, so he panics."

This is Glenn Beck material.

Be afraid, be very afraid ... but jumping on banning bandwagons is not the answer.

If you've paid any amount of attention to what I've said, I am only talking about banning firearms that are specifically designed to commit terrorist acts. Why is this so unreasonable? Neither you nor anyone else can explain why it is so important that these guns exist.

So when all is said and done, those who own assault weapons have no real argument as to why they should exist, other than something lame that reminds me of this.

[_MeDotOrg]

You know the term "that rings a bell", well that comes from the WW trenches with US troops shooting the M1G's and the enemy waiting to hear the bell ring before poking their heads up and attacking. It is a gas operated (kind of amazing tech for the era) semi-auto, with a unique 8 round clip that rings like a bell when the last bullet is fired and the clip auto-ejects.

Great story (I love the history of idioms), but I'm not sure it's true. Most websites say 'That rings a bell' comes from Pavlov, and its use predates WWII. Could be the troops of WWII were ironically using the expression...