The AR-15

[BotanyBoy]

I've shot 5.7, and I can see why a real version of the p90 would be a great car defense weapon.

I wish it would catch on a little bit more, because I think it's a great caliber.

Yea, it's great for anything where you want compact and simple but a bit more of a punch than an SMG.

It's a great compromise between pistol compactness and rifle firepower.

Good shit

I think I'd rather own a hi point than a tec 9.

Yea.....yea.

 

[richard_daily]

It's just trading material to me. I know a guy that wants a 9mm and is fascinated by "banned" firearms. He has a really early Ruger Mark I bull barrel that he's looking to trade. The TEC is worth maybe $250 fair market value and the Mark I is in the $400-$500 range. So if I can make a trade, I will. Then I'll use the Mark I to make another trade.

I've been looking for a Mk4 on the secondary market (because I'm a cheap ass) for a bit now. While you're definitely getting the better end of the deal, I wouldn't want to deal with the earlier Ruger's takedown headaches...

Mk 4 is a single button to dissemble for cleaning.

 

[mdbigdee]

A shotgun slug is 25mm.

Pretty common stuff.

A 12 gauge slug is 18.5 mm NOT 25 mm.

 

[bellisarius]

I've been looking for a Mk4 on the secondary market (because I'm a cheap ass) for a bit now. While you're definitely getting the better end of the deal, I wouldn't want to deal with the earlier Ruger's takedown headaches...

Mk 4 is a single button to dissemble for cleaning.

Yes, technology moves on. But the Mark I is just another trading item to me.

I will point out to you though that that ease of take down comes at a price.......accuracy. Bullseye pistol shooting is no longer "in" so no one critiques on that basis anymore. But the old Mark I's, S&W 41's, and Hi-Standards are considerably more accurate than today's current crop of small bore, affordable, pistols.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The only people playing with semantics are those who have NO understanding of the technical.



Can you name any of these laws?

I'm going to assume that you're not playing dumb and didn't understand that I was referring to legislation which could be written

 

[bellisarius]

I'm going to assume that you're not playing dumb and didn't understand that I was referring to legislation which could be written

And we're left assuming that you don't have a fucking clue.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm going to assume that you're not playing dumb and didn't understand that I was referring to legislation which could be written

Now you're confusing me.


Do you or do you not think that ....

the reality is that congress can enact laws concerning civilian owned firearms which will make all Americans far more safe than we are now.

And if so what laws do you think would make all Americans far more safe than we are now?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

I'm going to assume that you're not playing dumb and didn't understand that I was referring to legislation which could be written

What could be written that doesn't step on the 2nd? More background checks, longer waiting period. What else you gonna do? The dumbass assault weapons ban is pointless. Just makes people feel good even tho it does absolutely nothing.

 

[Rotadom]

the great alfred e. newman once said that the definition of stupidity is doin the same shit over and over and expecting different results. we've tried it this way for quite a long time and it's not working time to try something else.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

the great alfred e. newman once said that the definition of stupidity is doin the same shit over and over and expecting different results. we've tried it this way for quite a long time and it's not working time to try something else.

Feel free to try and change the Constitution. It can be done but it's not going to in this case. Nobody is touching the Bill of Rights.

 

[BotanyBoy]

we've tried it this way for quite a long time and it's not working time to try something else.

"it's not working"?

What does that mean?

What do you suggest we try?

Feel free to try and change the Constitution. It can be done but it's not going to in this case. Nobody is touching the Bill of Rights.

Even if they wanted that they would have to shit can the whole thing and do a ground up rebuild.

2A is self protecting.

 

[bellisarius]

What could be written that doesn't step on the 2nd? More background checks, longer waiting period. What else you gonna do? The dumbass assault weapons ban is pointless. Just makes people feel good even tho it does absolutely nothing.

What good are background checks if the local, state, federal, military, and/or the courts don't enter the data?

How many of these shooters went to the local gun store, bought a gun, several magazines, a bunch of ammo, and went to their local school/government building/Post Office, or whatever and started shooting the place up? Extended waiting periods might save one or two lives a year in the cases of crimes of passion, but they don't do shit in the case of the potential victim when the person that is threatening already has a firearm.

You are right about the 2nd not going away, at least not without a wholesale civil insurrection.

 

[richard_daily]

the great alfred e. newman once said that the definition of stupidity is doin the same shit over and over and expecting different results. we've tried it this way for quite a long time and it's not working time to try something else.

You're right, we've tried "gun free zones" and they show over and over and over again that they are targets for people who have issues, and want to kill people.

 

[Hypoxia]

Feel free to try and change the Constitution. It can be done but it's not going to in this case. Nobody is touching the Bill of Rights.

And again, the Constitution need not be amended, merely enforced with its original language. SCOTUS can rule that arms-bearing requires membership in a well-regulated militia organized under court guidelines. Likely? Probably not. Possible? Indeed.

Constitutional language has already been fucked with much more than such a ruling will entail. Expressions of speech and faith are infringed. Warrantless searches abound. Grand juries impose self-incrimination. Arms-bearing is limited. Trials aren't speedy and public. Treaties aren't honored. Shall I go on?

What happens next? Stay tuned.

 

[HisArpy]

And again, the Constitution need not be amended, merely enforced with its original language. SCOTUS can rule that arms-bearing requires membership in a well-regulated militia organized under court guidelines. Likely? Probably not. Possible? Indeed.

Constitutional language has already been fucked with much more than such a ruling will entail. Expressions of speech and faith are infringed. Warrantless searches abound. Grand juries impose self-incrimination. Arms-bearing is limited. Trials aren't speedy and public. Treaties aren't honored. Shall I go on?

What happens next? Stay tuned.

Are you an idiot? Seriously, are you?

You keep harping on this subject even after SEVERAL people have tried to tell you that you're wrong, it doesn't work that way, and that SCOTUS has already decided that it doesn't work that way.

Yet you still keep on singing this song thinking it's the be all end all of a solution.

It's not.

Prohibition didn't work. Neither did "separate but equal". Hell, even the recent trans bathroom laws didn't work. There are more examples the worst one resulting in civil war.

You know why?

Because at the root of our Constitution is the idea that the GOV can't "tell" us anything.

That's the beauty of America. WE get to be free from Government interference. It's not that way in other countries, but that's the way it works here when it comes to our Rights.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Now you're confusing me.


Do you or do you not think that ....





And if so what laws do you think would make all Americans far more safe than we are now?

Maybe an illustration would help.

Above the line, will be examples of weapons deemed by the majority of citizens to be too dangerous and unnecessary for ownership by private citizens: Elected representatives of the people can enact a legislation reflecting the will of the majority.

Surface to air missiles, bazookas, tanks, flame throwers, mortars, auto and semi-auto handguns and rifles.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Single shot hand guns and rifles.

 

[richard_daily]

And again, the Constitution need not be amended, merely enforced with its original language. SCOTUS can rule that arms-bearing requires membership in a well-regulated militia organized under court guidelines. Likely? Probably not. Possible? Indeed.

Constitutional language has already been fucked with much more than such a ruling will entail. Expressions of speech and faith are infringed. Warrantless searches abound. Grand juries impose self-incrimination. Arms-bearing is limited. Trials aren't speedy and public. Treaties aren't honored. Shall I go on?

What happens next? Stay tuned.

The supreme court has ruled on this several times and disagrees with you. As such, it's nice that you have that opinion, but the law of the land is far different than what you want it to be.

 

[richard_daily]

Maybe an illustration would help.

Above the line, will be examples of weapons deemed by the majority of citizens to be too dangerous and unnecessary for ownership by private citizens: Elected representatives of the people can enact a legislation reflecting the will of the majority.

Surface to air missiles, bazookas, tanks, flame throwers, mortars, auto and semi-auto handguns and rifles.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Single shot hand guns and rifles.

So the most common and widely-used guns should be outlaws... because feelings?

Are you going to personally pay for the cost of those semi-autos to be bought back from people that have invested in them?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Maybe an illustration would help.

Above the line, will be examples of weapons deemed by the majority of citizens to be too dangerous and unnecessary for ownership by private citizens: Elected representatives of the people can enact a legislation reflecting the will of the majority.

Surface to air missiles, bazookas, tanks, flame throwers, mortars, auto and semi-auto handguns and rifles.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Single shot hand guns and rifles.

Why do you think a majority of people would want to get rid of the most popular guns in the country? You obviously don't even understand guns very well. Do you often call for bans on things you don't understand?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

So the most common and widely-used guns should be outlaws... because feelings?

Are you going to personally pay for the cost of those semi-autos to be bought back from people that have invested in them?

yes and yes, I'm fucking loaded.


who said anything about feelings?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

So the most common and widely-used guns should be outlaws... because feelings?

Are you going to personally pay for the cost of those semi-autos to be bought back from people that have invested in them?

And he totally left out shotguns which can do infinitely more damage. And single shot handguns? All we get are Derringers?
Dude is an idiot who doesn't understand guns at all so wants them banned because...well they're scary damnit!

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Why is it that some of you want to live in a combat zone? American kids at school trying to get an education while under fire is essentially no different that a Syrian kid in the middle of a combat zone.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

And he totally left out shotguns which can do infinitely more damage. And single shot handguns? All we get are Derringers?
Dude is an idiot who doesn't understand guns at all so wants them banned because...well they're scary damnit!

Not scary, stupid.

I have guns but none are auto or semi.

If I was stupid and afraid enough to by an AR, I would be happy to give it up along with everyone else.

 

[richard_daily]

yes and yes, I'm fucking loaded.


who said anything about feelings?

Ok. How much are you personally willing to pay for these buybacks?

 

[richard_daily]

Why is it that some of you want to live in a combat zone? American kids at school trying to get an education while under fire is essentially no different that a Syrian kid in the middle of a combat zone.

No, it's a lot different. In Syria, civilians are being bombed in hospitals. Trying to equate the two is pandering at best.

What a fucked up analogy.

This is Syria:

Take your nonsense somewhere else.

No one in the US lives in a "combat zone", not even in our worst neighborhoods. That's not to say that there shouldn't be more jobs, more mental health care, and more chances for people to get the same opportunities that the rich in this country do, but please don't try to pretend like anything is as bad as Syria. That's the worst humanitarian disaster of our lifetimes, and trying to say that 17 children even comes close to the suffering that the Syrian people are going through is fucked up on your part.