|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jul 27, 2012 10:31:01 GMT -8
Regular people also don't need cars that go faster than 100 mph, should that also be limited? You've never had explosive diarrhea and been 30 miles from home, have you? |
|
|
|
Post by stopthemadness on Jul 27, 2012 10:57:45 GMT -8
Regular people also don't need cars that go faster than 100 mph, should that also be limited? a) You're right. b) Good question. Okay. I can follow this line of reasoning... so would a car that goes faster than 100 mph be the equivalent of 1) a hand gun 2) a semi-automatic weapon which fires 5 to 10 bullets 3) an automatic weapon 4) a bazooka 5) none of the above?? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 27, 2012 12:17:10 GMT -8
Regular people also don't need cars that go faster than 100 mph, should that also be limited? You've never had explosive diarrhea and been 30 miles from home, have you? Good point, but then again most of us do not eat napa kim chi or Bulldogi (bilbogi).  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 27, 2012 12:21:23 GMT -8
>>>...if guys like Stu and Davesid have an AK-47 or whatever.<<<
Just to be clear, I do not own an AK-47 or any automatic or semi-automatic firearm, and have no intention of acquiring any.
Although I'm familiar with them, and have used them competently and safely (on active duty) in the past, I think there is a bit less margin for error with them.
But that's just me. Others may be perfectly comfortable with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 27, 2012 12:27:21 GMT -8
If there is to be a national dialogue on firearms, as some politicians and pundits have been calling for, there first needs to an agreement on the definition of the terms being used. Semi-automatic rifles (originally called self-loaders) have been in common use for over a century. Among the early models were the Winchester models 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1910. Semi-automatic (self-loading) pistols have been in common use for at least that long, including the famous Colt model 1911 and earlier variants. "Assault Rifles" are capable of fully-automatic fire, and have never been in common use among the general citizenry. The term "Assault Weapon" is a contrived term to describe anything that looks cosmetically like an "Assault Rifle", and has been extended to include even bolt action or single shot rifles of a given caliber that some people want to outlaw. Today the President said something to the effect that "we don't need AK-47s on our streets". I agree with him. AK-47s are fully automatic assault rifles. They have been strictly regulated since the 1930s, were never in "common use", and are not on the streets. But he was deliberately obfuscating, and that kind of obfuscation kills any chance to have an honest dialogue. If his target is the semi-autos that "look" like AK-47s, he should say so. But then there is the task of explaining why certain semi-autos should be outlawed while other models which are functionally the same should not. Or, he should admit what he (probably) wants - to outlaw all semi-autos. That's not going to happen. Another term that needs to be defined is the ubiquitous and opaque "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws (are needed). What exactly does that mean? Aren't the laws we already have "sensible"? Until those terms are defined, there can be no meaningful dialogue. Another obfuscation is the use of the term "powerful" when describing these military-look semi-autos. The fact is, the 5.56 NATO round used by the M-16 and it's semi-auto variants delivers an energy figure of about 900 ft/lbs at 100 yards. The 7.62 Russian used by the AK-47 and its variants delivers an energy figure of about 1100 ft/lbs at 100 yards. I have a friend who hunted Alaska for a number of years. He carried a Browning semi-auto rifle in caliber .338 Winchester Magnum. It does not look anything like a military rifle, rather it is a typical wood stocked looking hunting rifle but it functions the same way as the semi-auto military-look rifles do. The energy of that .338 WM cartridge is about 3300 ft/lbs at 100 yards, or three times that of the 7.62 Russian. Now that's powerful. He justified it by explaining that when he was cleaning a deer or caribou, he didn't want to be interrupted by one of those half-ton Alaskan Brown Bears. As for magazine capacity. I cannot think of any reason to have a detachable magazine for a semi-auto that holds more than ~ 10 rounds. Maybe Stu can chime in on this subject, but when I needed to carry an M-16 in Viet Nam, I was issued 10 round magazines, three or four of them. I don't know what is standard now. Thank you. Good information. Let me ask about the magazine capacity of your friend's rifle. How many did it hold? I believe the manufacturer provides a four round detachable magazine. I don't know if aftermarket extended magazines are available for that particular model, but it would not be too difficult to fabricate one. I don't think it would be a very good idea, though. Rapid firing of such a powerful cartridge would lead to rapid overheating of the barrel. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 27, 2012 12:33:43 GMT -8
Regular people also don't need cars that go faster than 100 mph, should that also be limited? You've never had explosive diarrhea and been 30 miles from home, have you? haha, thankfully no. I try not to eat anything that would even risk that possibility that far from home. I've had assholes cut myself and others off going way faster than the rest of traffic. Pissed me off but maybe that guy had explosive diarrhea and just couldn't wait out the traffic, almost clipped the front of my car though. Just wondering do you drive a blue truck?  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 27, 2012 12:41:57 GMT -8
Regular people also don't need cars that go faster than 100 mph, should that also be limited? You've never had explosive diarrhea and been 30 miles from home, have you? Good one! That's why I always carry a roll of $#!+-paper in my pickup. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 27, 2012 12:42:57 GMT -8
a) You're right. b) Good question. Okay. I can follow this line of reasoning... so would a car that goes faster than 100 mph be the equivalent of 1) a hand gun 2) a semi-automatic weapon which fires 5 to 10 bullets 3) an automatic weapon 4) a bazooka 5) none of the above?? If we're going to use comparisons, my opinion: Up to 100 mph = hand gun and semi auto that fires 5-10 bullets 100+ = automatic weapon 200+ = bazooka |
|
|
|
Post by afan on Jul 27, 2012 14:37:49 GMT -8
So I am curious, really looking for a rational response, why would a regular person need a semi-automatic which fires more than 5 or 10 bullets (would that be a round?) or an automatic gun? Zombies! They travel in packs you know.  |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 27, 2012 14:42:51 GMT -8
So I am curious, really looking for a rational response, why would a regular person need a semi-automatic which fires more than 5 or 10 bullets (would that be a round?) or an automatic gun? Zombies! They travel in packs you know. George? Is that you? ;D |
|
JOCAZTEC
Starter
Aztec for Life!
Posts: 214
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jul 27, 2012 15:38:41 GMT -8
Is that guy on the top, right, Bruce Dern??
HAM Tax
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 27, 2012 16:42:21 GMT -8
Zombies! They travel in packs you know. ? Where was that picture taken? I think it's fake. DNC Headquaters and it is quite real! |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 27, 2012 17:05:19 GMT -8
? Where was that picture taken? I think it's fake. DNC Headquaters and it is quite real! Republicans trying to bug it again, I see. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jul 28, 2012 5:19:49 GMT -8
Seems like you all have a good handle on the subject. I've been busy in the real world the last few days. Bottom line and best point made is that hunting rifles and what some describe as "assault rifles" are hardly indifferent. In fact, many hunting rifles far exceed performance of so-called assault rifles in many factors.
Detachable magazines generally hold up to 20 rounds, typically loaded to 18 to save the springs. There are many that are available that hold up to 30 in the 5.56 nato configuration, again, normally loaded to about 27 or 28. I prefer a small 10 round mag for reliability.
Mentioned above that we should be limited to revolvers. I am not sure the purpose behind that restriction as it makes no reasonable sense. Generally a sidearm is meant for self defense or pig hunting. Semi-autos are best for that although I carry a small 5 round .38 revolver in some cases. No mag spring to worry about so it can stay loaded and ready for long periods of time and still remain functional.
Some of the arguments above are centered on hunting. That is nice but certainly not the intent of the framers. Single shot bolt action rifles are often very sweet weapons to shoot but if you are hunting long range and your quarry survives a first shot, you want the ability to maintain eye contact and squeeze off another so the animal doesn't hide and suffer. Still, if the weapon is for self-defense, then single shot is unacceptable. Again, the 2d amendment and the argument writ large is not solely about hunting so in the basis of the above argument, isn't relevant.
Ref JYPs argument in a couple threads about nuclear weapons being covered in the 2nd amendment, no court ruling nor reading of the arguments made has given me any cause to think that the amendment is about personal weapons. Certainly automatic weapons, weapons of mass effect, and crew-served weapons are not the intent of the 2nd amendment as they aren't considered personal weapons. The lawyers here have made some good technical points of the law that cement my points and interpretation.
Finally, no one still has presented a good argument against conceal-carry laws. We've seen some somewhat hysterical arguments about shooting galleries and other collateral damage but when questioned, none of them have provided me with any evidence that this kind of recklessness has occurred in permissive conceal-carry states. I would be interested in someone disavowing me of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 28, 2012 6:55:24 GMT -8
Seems like you all have a good handle on the subject. I've been busy in the real world the last few days. Bottom line and best point made is that hunting rifles and what some describe as "assault rifles" are hardly indifferent. In fact, many hunting rifles far exceed performance of so-called assault rifles in many factors. Detachable magazines generally hold up to 20 rounds, typically loaded to 18 to save the springs. There are many that are available that hold up to 30 in the 5.56 nato configuration, again, normally loaded to about 27 or 28. I prefer a small 10 round mag for reliability. Mentioned above that we should be limited to revolvers. I am not sure the purpose behind that restriction as it makes no reasonable sense. Generally a sidearm is meant for self defense or pig hunting. Semi-autos are best for that although I carry a small 5 round .38 revolver in some cases. No mag spring to worry about so it can stay loaded and ready for long periods of time and still remain functional. Some of the arguments above are centered on hunting. That is nice but certainly not the intent of the framers. Single shot bolt action rifles are often very sweet weapons to shoot but if you are hunting long range and your quarry survives a first shot, you want the ability to maintain eye contact and squeeze off another so the animal doesn't hide and suffer. Still, if the weapon is for self-defense, then single shot is unacceptable. Again, the 2d amendment and the argument writ large is not solely about hunting so in the basis of the above argument, isn't relevant. Ref JYPs argument in a couple threads about nuclear weapons being covered in the 2nd amendment, no court ruling nor reading of the arguments made has given me any cause to think that the amendment is about personal weapons. Certainly automatic weapons, weapons of mass effect, and crew-served weapons are not the intent of the 2nd amendment as they aren't considered personal weapons. The lawyers here have made some good technical points of the law that cement my points and interpretation. Finally, no one still has presented a good argument against conceal-carry laws. We've seen some somewhat hysterical arguments about shooting galleries and other collateral damage but when questioned, none of them have provided me with any evidence that this kind of recklessness has occurred in permissive conceal-carry states. I would be interested in someone disavowing me of that. Good points Stu. Of course its going to vary by State, but I would think that venues with large audiences would decide weather to allow weapons or not. The liability is just huge once you knowingly allow weapons, in a theater for example. Or how bout Viejas? I would hate to be in a theater right now with half the audience armed and have someone light a fire cracker in the dark for example! How bout let the market decide? Some theaters, or other large venues, can allow weapons and some not. I'll pay my money to go into a venue that does not allow weapons and take my chances there. I'll worry about other things that are 100x more likely that have killed my family and friends like cancer, drunk drivers etc. I still go back to the time I was in a bank robbery and was eating the floor for about 1.5 minutes. It was 3 guys with 2 handguns and one uzi. All I could think about was "get out of the bank and no heroes or idiots". If some untrained yahoo had pulled out a gun that day a lot of people would have died or it would have gone full blown hostage situation. There is a percentage of my fellow humans I don't trust whatsoever to make decisions regarding using a firearm in my immediate vicinity. |
|
JOCAZTEC
Starter
Aztec for Life!
Posts: 214
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jul 28, 2012 7:37:17 GMT -8
Regular people aren't the problem, so it doesn't matter whether they need a semi-automatic that fires more than 5 or 10 bullets. Regular people also don't need cars that go faster than 100 mph, should that also be limited? True that about regular people aren't the problem. Janet Reno could have had the cultist in Waco arrested while he was shopping in town. No. She and her band of bunglers had to attack a compound in a State that has a law that says you are allowed to defend yourself in your residence and shoot back. DUH.  This was a big reason why government needs to downsize and stay out of our lives. They are not regular people. HAM Tax/TH PL DL |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jul 28, 2012 7:39:49 GMT -8
Seems like you all have a good handle on the subject. I've been busy in the real world the last few days. Bottom line and best point made is that hunting rifles and what some describe as "assault rifles" are hardly indifferent. In fact, many hunting rifles far exceed performance of so-called assault rifles in many factors. Detachable magazines generally hold up to 20 rounds, typically loaded to 18 to save the springs. There are many that are available that hold up to 30 in the 5.56 nato configuration, again, normally loaded to about 27 or 28. I prefer a small 10 round mag for reliability. Mentioned above that we should be limited to revolvers. I am not sure the purpose behind that restriction as it makes no reasonable sense. Generally a sidearm is meant for self defense or pig hunting. Semi-autos are best for that although I carry a small 5 round .38 revolver in some cases. No mag spring to worry about so it can stay loaded and ready for long periods of time and still remain functional. Some of the arguments above are centered on hunting. That is nice but certainly not the intent of the framers. Single shot bolt action rifles are often very sweet weapons to shoot but if you are hunting long range and your quarry survives a first shot, you want the ability to maintain eye contact and squeeze off another so the animal doesn't hide and suffer. Still, if the weapon is for self-defense, then single shot is unacceptable. Again, the 2d amendment and the argument writ large is not solely about hunting so in the basis of the above argument, isn't relevant. Ref JYPs argument in a couple threads about nuclear weapons being covered in the 2nd amendment, no court ruling nor reading of the arguments made has given me any cause to think that the amendment is about personal weapons. Certainly automatic weapons, weapons of mass effect, and crew-served weapons are not the intent of the 2nd amendment as they aren't considered personal weapons. The lawyers here have made some good technical points of the law that cement my points and interpretation. Finally, no one still has presented a good argument against conceal-carry laws. We've seen some somewhat hysterical arguments about shooting galleries and other collateral damage but when questioned, none of them have provided me with any evidence that this kind of recklessness has occurred in permissive conceal-carry states. I would be interested in someone disavowing me of that. Good points Stu. Of course its going to vary by State, but I would think that venues with large audiences would decide weather to allow weapons or not. The liability is just huge once you knowingly allow weapons, in a theater for example. Or how bout Viejas? I would hate to be in a theater right now with half the audience armed and have someone light a fire cracker in the dark for example! How bout let the market decide? Some theaters, or other large venues, can allow weapons and some not. I'll pay my money to go into a venue that does not allow weapons and take my chances there. I'll worry about other things that are 100x more likely that have killed my family and friends like cancer, drunk drivers etc. I still go back to the time I was in a bank robbery and was eating the floor for about 1.5 minutes. It was 3 guys with 2 handguns and one uzi. All I could think about was "get out of the bank and no heroes or idiots". If some untrained yahoo had pulled out a gun that day a lot of people would have died or it would have gone full blown hostage situation. There is a percentage of my fellow humans I don't trust whatsoever to make decisions regarding using a firearm in my immediate vicinity. Your points are taken with a general sense of agreement. I do believe that certain venues, such as stadia that serve generous amounts of alcohol are not places for weapons (and generally are banned by state law) have copious amounts of security present to handle issues. Also, your bank robbery experience is a place where guns are banned by law but would be dumb for someone to be a hero since it would also a felony for the prospective hero. Your other point was your best. The drive is significantly more dangerous and most worthy of our worry. I've never worried about being a resident of Virginia where a high percentage of folks carry legally. The folks here are used to carrying and exercise excellent judgement and care. It also seems to suppress whacko's from attacking here as opposed to DC and Maryland, our adjacent tough-gun-law jurisdictions. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 28, 2012 9:03:23 GMT -8
Seems like you all have a good handle on the subject. I've been busy in the real world the last few days. Bottom line and best point made is that hunting rifles and what some describe as "assault rifles" are hardly indifferent. In fact, many hunting rifles far exceed performance of so-called assault rifles in many factors. Detachable magazines generally hold up to 20 rounds, typically loaded to 18 to save the springs. There are many that are available that hold up to 30 in the 5.56 nato configuration, again, normally loaded to about 27 or 28. I prefer a small 10 round mag for reliability. Mentioned above that we should be limited to revolvers. I am not sure the purpose behind that restriction as it makes no reasonable sense. Generally a sidearm is meant for self defense or pig hunting. Semi-autos are best for that although I carry a small 5 round .38 revolver in some cases. No mag spring to worry about so it can stay loaded and ready for long periods of time and still remain functional. Some of the arguments above are centered on hunting. That is nice but certainly not the intent of the framers. Single shot bolt action rifles are often very sweet weapons to shoot but if you are hunting long range and your quarry survives a first shot, you want the ability to maintain eye contact and squeeze off another so the animal doesn't hide and suffer. Still, if the weapon is for self-defense, then single shot is unacceptable. Again, the 2d amendment and the argument writ large is not solely about hunting so in the basis of the above argument, isn't relevant. Ref JYPs argument in a couple threads about nuclear weapons being covered in the 2nd amendment, no court ruling nor reading of the arguments made has given me any cause to think that the amendment is about personal weapons. Certainly automatic weapons, weapons of mass effect, and crew-served weapons are not the intent of the 2nd amendment as they aren't considered personal weapons. The lawyers here have made some good technical points of the law that cement my points and interpretation. Finally, no one still has presented a good argument against conceal-carry laws. We've seen some somewhat hysterical arguments about shooting galleries and other collateral damage but when questioned, none of them have provided me with any evidence that this kind of recklessness has occurred in permissive conceal-carry states. I would be interested in someone disavowing me of that. While a weapon designed to hunt men can kill a deer, and while a weapon designed to hunt deer can kill a man, that does not make them the same. Otherwise why would they be designed different? |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jul 28, 2012 10:46:21 GMT -8
Seems like you all have a good handle on the subject. I've been busy in the real world the last few days. Bottom line and best point made is that hunting rifles and what some describe as "assault rifles" are hardly indifferent. In fact, many hunting rifles far exceed performance of so-called assault rifles in many factors. Detachable magazines generally hold up to 20 rounds, typically loaded to 18 to save the springs. There are many that are available that hold up to 30 in the 5.56 nato configuration, again, normally loaded to about 27 or 28. I prefer a small 10 round mag for reliability. Mentioned above that we should be limited to revolvers. I am not sure the purpose behind that restriction as it makes no reasonable sense. Generally a sidearm is meant for self defense or pig hunting. Semi-autos are best for that although I carry a small 5 round .38 revolver in some cases. No mag spring to worry about so it can stay loaded and ready for long periods of time and still remain functional. Some of the arguments above are centered on hunting. That is nice but certainly not the intent of the framers. Single shot bolt action rifles are often very sweet weapons to shoot but if you are hunting long range and your quarry survives a first shot, you want the ability to maintain eye contact and squeeze off another so the animal doesn't hide and suffer. Still, if the weapon is for self-defense, then single shot is unacceptable. Again, the 2d amendment and the argument writ large is not solely about hunting so in the basis of the above argument, isn't relevant. Ref JYPs argument in a couple threads about nuclear weapons being covered in the 2nd amendment, no court ruling nor reading of the arguments made has given me any cause to think that the amendment is about personal weapons. Certainly automatic weapons, weapons of mass effect, and crew-served weapons are not the intent of the 2nd amendment as they aren't considered personal weapons. The lawyers here have made some good technical points of the law that cement my points and interpretation. Finally, no one still has presented a good argument against conceal-carry laws. We've seen some somewhat hysterical arguments about shooting galleries and other collateral damage but when questioned, none of them have provided me with any evidence that this kind of recklessness has occurred in permissive conceal-carry states. I would be interested in someone disavowing me of that. While a weapon designed to hunt men can kill a deer, and while a weapon designed to hunt deer can kill a man, that does not make them the same. Otherwise why would they be designed different? Other than magazine capacity and a bayonet stud, what is the functional difference between hunting rifles and a SA 5.56? Still irrelevant as the law doesn't only protect hunting rifles. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 28, 2012 11:22:51 GMT -8
While a weapon designed to hunt men can kill a deer, and while a weapon designed to hunt deer can kill a man, that does not make them the same. Otherwise why would they be designed different? Other than magazine capacity and a bayonet stud, what is the functional difference between hunting rifles and a SA 5.56? Still irrelevant as the law doesn't only protect hunting rifles. Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards You deer hunt with that? |
|
