- Thread starter JBond
- Start date
ThaBigP
Cheerleader
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
*Disclaimer: I'm not responding entirely to what you posted, or what I think you believe. I'm new here, so I'm kinda doing a data dump on this one (forgive the length) and will respond to what you posted in context, but most of it responds to boiler-plate arguments I've read on the InnerWebTubez.*
Problem is, it's all subjective and often presumptive. In the first place, in regards to the "dangerousness" of a particular firearm and in the second place in regards to the motives anybody might have for wanting/owning one. As for the first part, there is no firearm that isn't dangerous. Plain and simple. So it is illogical to ban *this* gun but not *that* gun on the basis of perceived levels of dangerousness.
Many fallacies abound. For one, the idea that AR15s are "too high caliber" for civilians and non-LEO, but a hunting rifle is OK. Well, an AR shoots a .22 caliber round, whereas most hunting rifles are .270 on up, typically .30 caliber (.308 and .30-06). This of course doesn't count feral hog hunting, in which the preferred rifle is ... well, the AR15. With a 30 round mag. Several, actually. Because there could be 20-40 hogs in an encounter. Which can be dangerous not only to crops but those who try to thin their numbers.
"Well" they say, "but the AR 15 round is too powerful, and can penetrate body armor". First, it's much lower power than any of the aforementioned hunting rounds I mentioned. The 223/5.56 is actually an intermediate power cartridge, developed because the .30-06 and later .308 were deemed not only too heavy, but too powerful when engaging targets at under 100 yards. The recoil was more punishing, slowing down follow-up shots, and the rounds overpenetrate (i.e. shoot through the "bad guy", through the innocent bystander behind them, another 200 yards, through the wall in the house down there and into the person sleeping in their bed). Oddly enough, overpenetration is not as big a deal in combat in a war zone, yet it was enough of an issue for the military to leave the hunting rounds for long-range shots and feeding machine guns like the M134. Using a hunting rifle in a home-defense situation guarantees patching multiple holes in walls, including your neighbors', even if you hit the bad guy(s) and praying nobody else was behind those walls. Live in an apartment? Fuggeduboudit. You are accountable for every round you shoot, even if the shooting is otherwise justified. That brings up the second issue, about penetrating body armor. Well, not all body armor is the same. However, when most folks talk about it, they are referring to soft "armor" inserted in a crossdraw vest or LBE that most police officers use. At best, they'll have a trauma plate behind that. Here's the deal: *any centerfire rifle round penetrates soft body armor*. No exceptions that I'm aware of, save perhaps the most limp-wristed (and probably 100+ years obsolete) low velocity rounds loaded with black powder and soft-point bullets. The velocity is too high for soft protection to stop. That level of protection is meant for pistol rounds only. Even 00 buckshot can on occasion get through.
"But" they'll then say, "all this yak of 'military this', 'combat that' makes my point! These are weapons of war!". So is the knife. And the bow and arrow. And the crossbow and bolt. And the slingshot. And the stick with one end chewed into a point. You cannot ban *this* gun but not *that* gun based on the notion that ... all guns are derived from weapons of war. Most bolt action rifles are variants of the Mauser, not only a weapon of war but a Nazi weapon of war (well, at one point in its service life). Almost all cartridges are military hand-me-downs to the civilian market. It's actually only very recently that cartridges have been developed outside of military contracts, owing to the free market. But their performance is not to be "mis"underestimated based on that. But on that note, the 2nd Amendment does say "the right to keep and bear arms", "arms" being the implements with which to wage war. That may sound scary that your neighbor has a "right" to "keep and bear implements with which to wage war", but the point was that the power to wage war should remain in the hands of the people generally, not monopolized by a professional Pretorian class. "No! The militia! And a well regulated one! Meaning, government needs to regulate them!" Well, the Founders defined the "militia" as all "able-bodied, fighting-age men", and "regulated" back then meant "well practiced", "put in good order". "Militia" did not mean "Soldier of Fortune" types, nor the National Guard, nor a national army. "Regulate" did not mean "government red-tape, permits and hurdles". That's the modern definition of the words. I understand folks like to use the definitions they're familiar with, but that's a bit like saying the Flintstone's theme song advocates homosexuality because of the lyrics "... we'll have a gay, old time!".
"But why do you neeeeeed an AK ... or an AR ... or anything else like that!?" Nobody does. Until they do. And that's the problem. You don't know if/when you ever will. And even if you do find yourself needing one, there's no telling that the circumstances will find it handy even if you own one or a hundred. Locked up in your safe at home as you're getting overrun by a violent rioting mob who will, in about 5 minutes, kill you and your family. But you weren't at home, you were on the road or at a friend's house when fate came a'knockin'. Maybe you have a 5 shot revolver. Good luck. Them's the breaks. That's life. However. On the bright side, the gun grabbers are right in one aspect: the odds of something like that are very low. Just as low as my apartment burning down. Yet I still have insurance. Just as low as me getting in a head-on collision. Probably lower, to be honest. Yet I still have insurance and air bags, and wear my seatbelt. Yet nobody gives me grief over taking care to do what I can for those contingencies. Maybe it's because nobody accuses me of wanting to feel macho by putting my seatbelt on as I fantasize about getting in a head-on collision. Or paying my insurance premium as I silently joy in imagining someone leaving a greasy pan unattended on a hot stove in the apartment next door. Which brings up motive...
I live in Texas, a border state. And I've had a few run-ins-by-proxy with cartel activity that is encroaching here. My bro-in-law worked for ICE a while back, and told me that where I live is a concentrated hotbed of cartel skin-running operations. They smuggle folks in across the border, and keep them hostage in rented homes here as they extort relatives and friends in the states for more money, usually while torturing the poor soul over the phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfm8TgBL69Y
And it's spreading. A few months later a coworker told me that his wife was evacuated from her work, about a mile from where I live, as the office next door was raided by Dallas SWAT. Turns out it was a cartel drop-house where (mostly) young girls smuggled across were likewise held hostage at the muzzle of AK47s (the full-auto, Eastern European kind) until they either extorted more money or sold them into the sex slave trade. This was in Addison (for those familiar with the area). On the surface a pseudo-hip trendy douche-bag clubbing Mecca, under the surface ... well, what I just described. It's little bits here and there. But they're becoming more frequent. Fortunately not as frequent as in AZ, but nonetheless...
There's an old saying, "the right tool for the right job". For a single burgler busting in your home in the middle of the night, an AR is not the optimal response. Compared to a handgun, for instance, it's big, heavy, long ... all of which can become factors in the confines of a home or apartment. However, it's shorter, lighter, and easier to deploy than a bolt-action hunting rifle, and doesn't shoot a round that will go clean through 2 houses or 3 apartment units, plus all the people who might be in the path. But it is easier to aim than a handgun, especially under stress. A shotgun would be a bit better, in that buckshot isn't going to go on a never-ending journey through building and bodies. But it's still heavy and long. And the recoil - ouch. However, many home invasions involve more than one person. In that case, the bolt-action is out, and the shotgun is demoted (if pump action or semi-auto. If break-action, it's fired. As in Trump fired, not pull-the-trigger fired). When the assailants exceed one, an AR/AK/whatever-kinda-like-it comes to the top. Double that if the assailants are members of the Zeta cartel, wearing body armor and raiding a neighborhood. Yes. It happens. Yes. In 'Murica.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3MdjnY9-VA
I'll wind it down here ... if (whatever I have that looks scary to people) comes out for anything other than a day at the range or cleaning ... trust me. I neeeeeeed it. Because there'll be a war going on near me. Odds? Very. VERY. Low. But not zero.
Last edited:
ThaBigP
Cheerleader
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
iceberg
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 0
fired?
no idea what you're even watching man. one person was sent back from tanana cause he couldn't hack it. he never fired a gun. another came up from another village and the wolverine was in the village and still trapped. still taken out w/respect.
you won't find a video cause it didn't happen.
iceberg
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah people that use semi automatic weapons to hunt are losers, same as anyone who hunts with bait and use dogs to hunt.
people who stereotype are losers.
ScipioCowboy
Practice Squad
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 0
Comes with the territory of being awesome. As you well know.
Last edited:
Hoofbite
Draft Pick
- Messages
- 4,231
- Reaction score
- 0
Weren't there some other laws that went into effect in 1994 as well.
I know the 10 year assault rifle ban was there but moving forward didn't they start with doing the background checks and some other things as well?
ThaBigP
Cheerleader
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Ouch, my head hurts from the whiplash of switching the argument from "need" to "benefit" on a dime. Ugh.... hang on ... damnit.... But as my headache subsides, on a side note, I doubt anybody here owns an assault rifle. Those are full-auto. And require approval from the DOJ, registration, and a $200 tax for the transfer. Oh, and none made after '86 are legally transferable to civilians and non-LEO. But that's what I like about you, SP. Your attention to detail.
Last edited:
ThaBigP
Cheerleader
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Who is this "Noone"? I haven't seen a single post from him/her. Is it pronounced like "noon", as in "high noon"? Or is it more like "Noon...ie"?
ThaBigP
Cheerleader
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Odd. The surplus M1 Garands were quite popular hunting rifles after WWII. As were M1As (civilian M14s in semi-only). But stick a black stock and a pistol grip on it (and a Mini-Me caliber to boot!) and all hellz breakz loooooooz. :0/
ThaBigP
Cheerleader
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
Obvious ... ship guns to the Mexican Cartels, wait for the body count to pile up, then trace the serial #s to the guns they ordered to be sold and then run Soros-funded PSAs showing the names of the Mexicans gunned down in the crossfire and blame our "easy access to guns" and "demand a plan". Un.....fortunately ... they got caught. But along came Lanza.... agenda back on track like no international illegal gun-running scandal and accessory to murder/insurrection ever happened. Eazy Cheazy!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_1...furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHn1zogeyO4
- Messages
- 4,211
- Reaction score
- 370
I don't care what anyone thinks,this thread is pure gold.
FWIW,you can't mandate people to not be batshit crazy and/or fanatical.
If I had to defend my home or loved ones from some kind of attack,say a home invasion,I'd rather have an M-4 or an SKS than a Stevens single shot .22 rifle.
FWIW,you can't mandate people to not be batshit crazy and/or fanatical.
If I had to defend my home or loved ones from some kind of attack,say a home invasion,I'd rather have an M-4 or an SKS than a Stevens single shot .22 rifle.
Minimalist
Practice Squad
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 0
Why not?
Minimalist
Practice Squad
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 0
Pretty sure he used a remington 700 in .300 win and toward the end of his career he used the same rifle but in .338 lapua (the best for long range)
2233boys
2
- Messages
- 2,450
- Reaction score
- 0
You don't hunt said you never did. What informed opinion could you even have on the topic. As aside that was tongue in cheek hence the emoticon.
2233boys
2
- Messages
- 2,450
- Reaction score
- 0
I wasn't talking about the Charlie guy getting fired. It was some kid who worked for one of the regulars on the show. The kid who worked with one guys dogs. He let one get away the one time and spent all night looking for it. The episode I saw Charlie fire a number of rounds with his Ar15 at an animal was around that show. I can't find videos because when I goggled it there weren't many videos period available. Anyway There is your point of reference.
2233boys
2
- Messages
- 2,450
- Reaction score
- 0
You can't use a semi automatic weapon in PA to hunt. I don't find using semi automatic weapons to hunt ethical.
I have no idea if the Pa Game commission had any laws like that after WWII. They were there in the 80's when I started hunting. They very likely didn't but your response really has nothing to do with what I said. Thanks for contributing though.
2233boys
2
- Messages
- 2,450
- Reaction score
- 0
TheBigP
I appreciate your long post I didn't know some of the things you were talking about happening in your area. I don't think I ever called for banning a gun, but I did mention limiting magazine capacity and a waiting period for purchase. You made some good points for your reasoning to prefer one gun over the other in different situations. You hedged all your bets. Even though you went to the hone protection angle like everyone else did; you explained why you felt it was needed in certain situations. It was an excellent response, not that I agree with you, but it was an excellent response not one that can be easily dismissed.
I appreciate your long post I didn't know some of the things you were talking about happening in your area. I don't think I ever called for banning a gun, but I did mention limiting magazine capacity and a waiting period for purchase. You made some good points for your reasoning to prefer one gun over the other in different situations. You hedged all your bets. Even though you went to the hone protection angle like everyone else did; you explained why you felt it was needed in certain situations. It was an excellent response, not that I agree with you, but it was an excellent response not one that can be easily dismissed.
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 0
jeebus
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction score
- 0
You're welcome.
Why do you get to take credit?