Shootist Jeff

A Constitutional Dilemma - unintended consequences

A Constitutional Dilemma - unintended consequences  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. The 2nd Amendment "enables" gun murders and suicides

    • Agree
      10
    • Disagree
      3
  2. 2. The 4th Amendment "enables" pedophiles and drug criminals

    • Agree
      7
    • Disagree
      6
  3. 3. The 1st Amendment "enables" nazis and other fascists

    • Agree
      9
    • Disagree
      4


Recommended Posts

And by "enable" - I mean that the Constitution gives those people in the poll space to do what they do and makes it more difficult for LEO to stop them from doing what they do before they harm others.

Whether you agree or disagree, please state why you chose that answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, I'll even go first....

I agree with all of the above. 

The 2nd Am enables murder and suicides because in a free society the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Not being able to fly @jocal505's super gun magnet over America sucking up all the gunz is a serious impediment to stopping all gun deaths.  So there will always be those in society who will abuse that privilege.  

The 4th Am absolutely enables pedos and drug dealers and a whole host of people who commit crimes because the right to privacy makes it much more difficult for LEO to detect them and track them down and stop them before they commit their crimes.   Having to get a warrant to spy on someone takes time and resources and many go undetected or continue to commit crimes as a result.  

The 1st Am absolutely enables nazis and other hate groups because the gov't cannot stop all speech unless it rises to the level of advocating for imminent violence.  Without that gov't handcuff on regulating speech - the gov't could very easily stop nazis from marching (freedom of assembly), stop them from spreading their vile hate on social media (freedom of the press), stop them saying hateful things (freedom of speech).  

So yes, the Connie does enable these things that cause harm to others.  And because the gov't is restricted from taking action to potential bad things from happening - it sounds like its up to us citizens to take it in our own hands to solve.  While you guys are advocating punching nazis - why are you also not advocating for punching gun owners, and shady people who might be hiding behind an anonymous name on the internet so they aren't discovered with child porn, or posing as a teen to meet young girls or selling drugs to kids.  Seems to me like ALL of those should regularly be getting punched in the face wherever they go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals, Don't Lose Faith In The First Amendment

Quote

To be sure, conservatives and corporations are invoking the First Amendment, and sometimes winning. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Roberts court deployed the First Amendment to guarantee that corporations can engage in unlimited campaign spending.

To be even more sure, no one and no law ever questioned whether pre$$ corporations can engage in unlimited campaign spending.

But the rest of the article is good and I especially liked this part:

Quote

Nor is the First Amendment outmoded. The need for its protections are as urgent as ever. In just the last year or so, my organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, has invoked the First Amendment to defend high school students disciplined for walking out from school to call for gun control, as well as other students penalized for posting pictures of guns on social media; a student newspaper denied funding after publishing a satire of “safe spaces,” as well as fans of a hip-hop band labeled gang members; Milo Yiannopoulos and the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, both of whom were denied permission to advertise on the subway by the Washington Metro Authority; and anti-Trump as well as pro-Trump demonstrators. We’ve defended flag desecraters, union organizers, and citizens blocked from their representatives’ Facebook sites for their criticism. And that’s just the beginning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shootist Jeff is a boring attention whore:

agree?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff - here is a thought:

None of the amendments has ever been a blanket right to do anything you want.

For most of our history, tits were illegal in printed form. To a 2018 person's sensibility, what would it be like to go to jail for saying "fuck" onstage or mailing someone a titty picture? Seems the 1st has variable meanings as society changes. Right now kiddy-porn is the big thing. Wasn't always. You think Blind Faith could recruit 13 year-olds to pose topless today and stay out of jail?

The USCG has been totally ignoring the 4th since the late 1700s and the Supreme Court has always been OK with that. Also note the bullshit "border zone" 4th does not apply we have now :rolleyes:

By the late 1800s many a western town was sick of drunk cowboys shooting up the place and the 2nd did not stop them from enacting stricter gun control laws than they have now. The Shootout at the OK Corral was gun controllers (the Earps) vs. NRA types ;) In the 1930s likewise tommy gun battles got old and the 2nd didn't stop "no more tommy gun fights" laws.

I am not taking the survey because it is an all time classic of forcing the outcome you want.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

In the 1930s likewise tommy gun battles got old and the 2nd didn't stop "no more tommy gun fights" laws.

That's because there was no such law.

There was a tax. If you were wealthy, you could have a machine gun.

The Fed and inflation happened and after a while, $200 wasn't "new car money" any more and machine guns became affordable to the riff raff.

Saint Ronald fixed that in 1986 by closing the registry, banning new ones. Supply and demand happened and now we're back to the regressive status of the 1930's, when machine guns were reserved only for the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than a tax - at some point a background check was required. It did the trick, criminal use of full-auto guns is hardly a thing anymore.
(trivia fact, I was once offered a tommy gun in lieu of payment for a job. Should have taken it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's because there was no such law.

There was a tax. If you were wealthy, you could have a machine gun.

The Fed and inflation happened and after a while, $200 wasn't "new car money" any more and machine guns became affordable to the riff raff.

Saint Ronald fixed that in 1986 by closing the registry, banning new ones. Supply and demand happened and now we're back to the regressive status of the 1930's, when machine guns were reserved only for the rich.

As it should be. 

Maybe some of them will trickle down, just like wealth is supposed to, but really, who would trust a poor person who was well armed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

More than a tax - at some point a background check was required. It did the trick, criminal use of full-auto guns is hardly a thing anymore.
(trivia fact, I was once offered a tommy gun in lieu of payment for a job. Should have taken it!)

It was hardly a thing when they were taxed into temporary oblivion. It was still hardly a thing when inflation made them more accessible in the 70's and 80's and still wasn't a thing in 1986.

Do you think it's the background check or the five-figure price point that keeps these guns from crime scenes? I think the latter.

13 hours ago, Left Shift said:

As it should be. 

Maybe some of them will trickle down, just like wealth is supposed to, but really, who would trust a poor person who was well armed.

Yes, elitists have always thought that the poor should not have the same rights as the rich and there's something to be said for that point of view. If Gator were still around, he might say it, but I'll have to instead: regressive.

We see it here all the time: just make gun purchasing burdensome and expensive enough and crime will magically fall because those darn poor people (and we know the code, right? They're black) won't be able to afford guns. It's been a gungrabby theme since long before Chicago's Mayor Daley decried all those gun purchases by "non-whites."

Trying to make the exercise of our rights unaffordable is bad. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Jeff - here is a thought:

None of the amendments has ever been a blanket right to do anything you want.

For most of our history, tits were illegal in printed form. To a 2018 person's sensibility, what would it be like to go to jail for saying "fuck" onstage or mailing someone a titty picture? Seems the 1st has variable meanings as society changes. Right now kiddy-porn is the big thing. Wasn't always. You think Blind Faith could recruit 13 year-olds to pose topless today and stay out of jail?

The USCG has been totally ignoring the 4th since the late 1700s and the Supreme Court has always been OK with that. Also note the bullshit "border zone" 4th does not apply we have now :rolleyes:

By the late 1800s many a western town was sick of drunk cowboys shooting up the place and the 2nd did not stop them from enacting stricter gun control laws than they have now. The Shootout at the OK Corral was gun controllers (the Earps) vs. NRA types ;) In the 1930s likewise tommy gun battles got old and the 2nd didn't stop "no more tommy gun fights" laws.

I am not taking the survey because it is an all time classic of forcing the outcome you want.

 

 Here’s an even better thought, you are missing the entire point of what I’m trying to do. Im not trying to force an outcome, the outcome is obvious. I’m talking about the application of the amendments as they today. I’ve never once said that the big C is a blanket right to do anything we want. Including a second.  But what I’m trying to say is that no matter how much you restrict any of those rights,  unless  you completely abolished him, is that they will default always been able undesirable behavior. It’s just a fact of life.  You guys cannot claim but the second amendment enables murder and suicide (which it does btw),  without also knowledge Ing that the First Amendment enables Nazis, the fourth amendment enables pedophiles and drug dealers, and the fifth amendment allows some people to literally get away with Reason you and others won’t answer the survey is because he would have to actually knowledge that that is correct. And that defeats your entire gun grabbing ethos.murder. Reason you and others won’t answer the survey is because he would have to actually knowledge that that is correct. And that defeats your entire gun grabbing ethos.   We accept those other bad outcomes as the price of freedom. Nazis marching in the street with tiki torches is the price of freedom, whether you like it or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The First Amendment Enables Obnoxious Guys

Catcalling.jpg?h=399&w=622

(The ACLU apparently did recall that little detail and quickly deleted the Tweet.)

catcalling as the twit calls it is sometimes called sexual harassment or verbal abuse...should this be illegal?

The background

A man in Paris verbally abused a woman (complete stranger) , she stood her ground..so he punched her.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/sexual-harassment-outlawed-streets-france-viral-video-recent/story?id=56986287

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

catcalling as the twit calls it is sometimes called sexual harassment or verbal abuse...should this be illegal?

The background

A man in Paris verbally abused a woman (complete stranger) , she stood her ground..so he punched her.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/sexual-harassment-outlawed-streets-france-viral-video-recent/story?id=56986287

Depends which "this" you're talking about and how it's defined.

The punch should be, and is, illegal. If I walk up to you and say, "Meli, I'm going to punch you!" that's a different matter, especially if you reasonably believe it's true.

If there's a power relationship, as with a chief executive and an intern for example, that's sometimes a problem.

Obnoxious guys hitting on anyone and everyone because they're so horny they'd fuck the crack of dawn? We're kind of built that way, though some of us rein it in more than others. I'm glad a law like the French one would face first amendment problems here because they'll end up with the "most easily offended" standard for what constitutes sexual herassmeant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Depends which "this" you're talking about and how it's defined.

The punch should be, and is, illegal. If I walk up to you and say, "Meli, I'm going to punch you!" that's a different matter, especially if you reasonably believe it's true.

If there's a power relationship, as with a chief executive and an intern for example, that's sometimes a problem.

Obnoxious guys hitting on anyone and everyone because they're so horny they'd fuck the crack of dawn? We're kind of built that way, though some of us rein it in more than others. I'm glad a law like the French one would face first amendment problems here because they'll end up with the "most easily offended" standard for what constitutes sexual herassmeant.

 

Really Tom, you don't think some of the frightening things men say to women on the street constitute the same sort of threat as "I'm going to punch you"?

Got it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Really Tom, you don't think some of the frightening things men say to women on the street constitute the same sort of threat as "I'm going to punch you"?

Got it

Well, OK, let's ban "some of the frightening things men say to women" then. I think we'll end up with the "most easily offended" standard for what constitutes sexual herassmeant or a real threat. In the US, we'd also end up with a successful first amendment challenge, I'd expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic...... So I'm curious.  All but one of you said the 2nd Am "enables" murder and suicide but some number less (as I expected) that said the 2nd enables murder did not think that the 1st enables nazis or the 4th enables pedophiles.  

Honest question because I can't wrap my head around that reasoning..... can you please explain why you disagreed with those other two "enablers"?  Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Honest question because I can't wrap my head around that reasoning..... can you please explain why you disagreed with those other two "enablers"?  Thanks in advance.

I'm probably your only source for an honest answer, so here it is:

Because TeamD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Back on topic... some number less (as I expected) that said the 2nd enables murder did not think that the 1st enables nazis

Would you say that Nazi's are obnoxious guys?

I thought the first amendment protecting obnoxious guys was on topic, which is why I posted in this thread instead of starting a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Back on topic...... So I'm curious.  All but one of you said the 2nd Am "enables" murder and suicide but some number less (as I expected) that said the 2nd enables murder did not think that the 1st enables nazis or the 4th enables pedophiles.  

Honest question because I can't wrap my head around that reasoning..... can you please explain why you disagreed with those other two "enablers"?  Thanks in advance.

Dead easy. Many people don't like having to confront the contradictions in their beloved beliefs.

I didn't tick any boxes because, frankly, I don't give a damn - it's not my society. I do agree with the logic, though and have pointed out in the past that effective enforcement of a repeal of the 2nd is going to see the 1st, 4th and 5th go down the tubes as well - evidence to point being the screams about 3D printed gun data files (not actual functional guns, just code) being published.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Dead easy. Many people don't like having to confront the contradictions in their beloved beliefs.

I didn't tick any boxes because, frankly, I don't give a damn - it's not my society. I do agree with the logic, though and have pointed out in the past that effective enforcement of a repeal of the 2nd is going to see the 1st, 4th and 5th go down the tubes as well - evidence to point being the screams about 3D printed gun data files (not actual functional guns, just code) being published.

FKT

Thank you.  I appreciate that honest answer. 

I am still hoping that those who don't agree with the logic would take the time to explain why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this, Jeff.

If a court case said you have first amendment rights inside your home, would the TeamD types here tolerate interpreting that to mean the first applies ONLY inside your home? I think not. Ask them and see if one answers.

If a court case said something about technology "in common use at the time," would the TeamD types here tolerate interpreting that to mean that the fourth amendment applies to technology that existed in 1789 but nothing since? I think not. Ask them and see if one answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff - the logic YOU are missing is every amendment we have comes with restrictions. No one has the right to publish kiddie porn, no one gets to tell the Coast Guard to come back with a search warrant, and no one gets to give free machine guns to 10 year-olds.

Gun control does no violate the 2nd any more or less so than any of the numerous laws involving the rest of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Gun control does no violate the 2nd any more or less so than any of the numerous laws involving the rest of them

That would be an interesting fact if I EVER argued that gun control violated the 2nd Amendment.  IMAGINE if I ever suggested that.  

What I AM arguing is that NO amount of control will ever stop the unintended behavior it is trying to stop and that there will be bad things that happen as a result.  And furthermore we all gladly accept some of those bad outcomes as a result of the ability to enjoy our freedoms.  In other words - dead kids are the price of our Freedom to RKBA.  Nazis marching in the streets is the price of our free speech, press and right to assemble.  Pedophiles and drug dealers who murder children is the price of our right to privacy.  

My central point is that you all are selective in the rights you choose to accept as important and which ones you don't.  Our rights are important...... but only sometimes and only when it suits you.  Go out and punch a nazi or crack a pedo's skull in and you'll see what I mean.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Gun control does no violate the 2nd any more or less so than any of the numerous laws involving the rest of them

Some gun control laws are compatible with the second amendment.

I've never seen anything quite like the two examples in post 21 involving any other amendment. I don't think that kind of nonsense would be tolerated if it involved any other part of the Bill of Rights. But TeamD trumps Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually a good point, I think the USA would be better served to abolish the 2nd. Let the states have at it, I suspect what makes sense in Wyoming makes little sense in Baltimore.

Meanwhile, we have lawmakers on record advocating arming 6 year-olds :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Actually a good point, I think the USA would be better served to abolish the 2nd. Let the states have at it, I suspect what makes sense in Wyoming makes little sense in Baltimore.

Meanwhile, we have lawmakers on record advocating arming 6 year-olds :rolleyes:

Great first point sir. The second is an national embarrassment, proving we've lost control of our representatives with no apparent way to get it back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Actually a good point, I think the USA would be better served to abolish the 2nd. Let the states have at it, I suspect what makes sense in Wyoming makes little sense in Baltimore.

Since we agree that some gun control is compatible with the second, why should we need to abolish it? The only laws that have been overturned were complete bans.

Have you contributed to badlat's campaign to exterminate the second amendment?

What do you think about rich guys who think they can exterminate parts of the Bill of Rights because they're rich but don't want to engage in any disclosure of that $pending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Since we agree that some gun control is compatible with the second, why should we need to abolish it? The only laws that have been overturned were complete bans.

Have you contributed to badlat's campaign to exterminate the second amendment?

What do you think about rich guys who think they can exterminate parts of the Bill of Rights because they're rich but don't want to engage in any disclosure of that $pending?

When states pass laws preventing a single shooter from killing or wounding 470 people in ten minutes from 490 yards distance, then maybe the 2nd can stay. In your Borg philosophy, Tom, you have already stated that the Las Vegas shooting is not a problem that needs a legal remedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lasal said:

In your Borg philosophy, Tom, you have already stated that the Las Vegas shooting is not a problem that needs a legal remedy.

When I quote what someone has said, I take their words and link back for context.

When less honest people, such as yourself, "quote" what someone else said, they do what you just did: make up something and provide no link for context. Oh, and complain about the way I do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

When I quote what someone has said, I take their words and link back for context.

When less honest people, such as yourself, "quote" what someone else said, they do what you just did: make up something and provide no link for context. Oh, and complain about the way I do it.

Nice way to avoid the fact that you think the Las Vegas shooting needs no legal remedy vis a vis guns. Your context is Borg mentality: ARM THE CHILDREN, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

You and Larry Pratt deserve each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to ban and confiscate all guns, lasal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Why do you want to ban and confiscate all guns, lasal?

Tom, I know you're still reeling from Larry's lunacy made public, and I know you don't like to have your position made clear when applied to reality, so your rhetorical point is another low caliber effort to regurgitate the agitprop the Borg have uploaded to you. If we were to go shoot claybirds you would quickly be eating crow as you know. I can't even image you freezing your ass off duck hunting on the NE plains of Colorado, you probably couldn't survive it. But, to placate your sadness, which is both real and imagined, here is where you make your position known:

"What a moron. The epidemic of one dead guy with bump stocks is over because the guy is dead. If another nutjob who thinks spraying bullets is more effective than aiming emerges, I'd hope he can get bump stocks if he's going to be shooting at me because I think aimed shots are more effective." -Tom

Now why don't you explain how a single person can fire 1100 rounds and hit 480 people in ten minutes from a distance of 490 yards and how a standard semi-automatic rifle would be more effective than one with a bump stock. Please discuss caliber, rate of fire, barrel covers, magazines, etc. What has the Borg told you that has allowed you to abandon the laws of thermodynamics?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 4:09 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

More than a tax - at some point a background check was required. It did the trick, criminal use of full-auto guns is hardly a thing anymore.
(trivia fact, I was once offered a tommy gun in lieu of payment for a job. Should have taken it!)

They're fun, when they work, but are jam-prone, and as they're .45 cal?  Not cheap to shoot.  Mighta been a neat conversation piece, but, you're better off shotting someone else's than having to own the thing yourself. Kinda like boats... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2018 at 1:57 PM, lasal said:

When states pass laws preventing a single shooter from killing or wounding 470 people in ten minutes from 490 yards distance, then maybe the 2nd can stay. In your Borg philosophy, Tom, you have already stated that the Las Vegas shooting is not a problem that needs a legal remedy.

Those laws already exist.....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2018 at 3:57 AM, lasal said:

When states pass laws preventing a single shooter from killing or wounding 470 people in ten minutes from 490 yards distance, then maybe the 2nd can stay. In your Borg philosophy, Tom, you have already stated that the Las Vegas shooting is not a problem that needs a legal remedy.

Ummm, point of interest.

Are you actually asserting that a State can pass a law *preventing* something from happening?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

They're fun, when they work, but are jam-prone, and as they're .45 cal?  Not cheap to shoot.  Mighta been a neat conversation piece, but, you're better off shotting someone else's than having to own the thing yourself. Kinda like boats... 

But it would have been so fun to go around with it saying "You dirty rats" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
On 8/5/2018 at 11:57 AM, lasal said:

When states pass laws preventing a single shooter from killing or wounding 470 people in ten minutes from 490 yards distance, then maybe the 2nd can stay. In your Borg philosophy, Tom, you have already stated that the Las Vegas shooting is not a problem that needs a legal remedy.

Ummm, point of interest.

Are you actually asserting that a State can pass a law *preventing* something from happening?

FKT

Well, your honor, they can try to prevent mass murder. I hereby assert it. Is there a law preventing you from making a point, or are you limited to semantics by some force of nature?

Poll the still living persons who got shot if the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to allow the sale of weapons capable of shooting 480 people from 490 yards distance in a 10 minute period by ONE person. And do that root cause analysis thing you do on this, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.

 

This is the Onion, but sadly pretty much true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lasal said:

Well, your honor, they can try to prevent mass murder. I hereby assert it. Is there a law preventing you from making a point, or are you limited to semantics by some force of nature?

Poll the still living persons who got shot if the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to allow the sale of weapons capable of shooting 480 people from 490 yards distance in a 10 minute period by ONE person. And do that root cause analysis thing you do on this, please.

So, to summarise, you are resiling from your claim. Fine. I thought you would even if you can't bring yourself to do so in so many words.

Look, I have no time for bump stocks or any other device that converts a firearm into what's essentially indistinguishable from a fully automatic one. I think bump stocks should be banned and should never have been legal in the first place.

There are a number of ways to convert an AR-15 type action to full auto though, as there is for the Ruger Mini-14 type actions. However doing so is illegal and requires a modicum of metalworking expertise. Those bump stocks required nothing except cash & willingness to purchase. I've said before that I'd restrict semiauto centrefire rifles regardless of calibre or appearance to a 5 round fixed magazine. That'd at least make illegal an attempt to build the sort of firearm used in that massacre. It wouldn't necessarily *prevent* it, however. Which was my point....

Funnily enough someone here in NSW has just been prosecuted & convicted for printing plastic non-working guns. One of the charges was possession of the blueprints.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/silly-naive-fanboy-faces-jail-over-3d-printed-guns-20180806-p4zvu2.html

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

sensible judgement though

Yeah probably - it was a stupidity offence IMO. He should have known better. I really don't like the 'digital blueprint' part however. That'll teach him not to download stuff. Next offender would be well advised to just store the files on a cloud server somewhere remote.

The point is, as I was alluding to up-thread, is - there were *LAWS* against this sort of thing. That's a quite different thing from the laws *PREVENTING* it from happening. I just wish people would keep the difference clearly in mind.

The digital genie is out. There's as much hope of stopping 3D printing of stuff as there is of stuffing PGP and other encryption tech back into a Govt approved black hole.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah probably - it was a stupidity offence IMO. He should have known better. I really don't like the 'digital blueprint' part however. That'll teach him not to download stuff. Next offender would be well advised to just store the files on a cloud server somewhere remote.

The point is, as I was alluding to up-thread, is - there were *LAWS* against this sort of thing. That's a quite different thing from the laws *PREVENTING* it from happening. I just wish people would keep the difference clearly in mind.

The digital genie is out. There's as much hope of stopping 3D printing of stuff as there is of stuffing PGP and other encryption tech back into a Govt approved black hole.

FKT

Personally I think this home 3D printer thing will pass.

Kids like my son (and the guy in the artical) buy them because..A) they're cool and B ) because the prices of accessories for their gaming/Cosplay hobbies is outrageous.

When the prices drop, possibly because of the 3D printer copies, Most of the interest will probably disappear...other than for those with criminal intent..and detection of these is pretty easy...just look for the meth lab with the constant Hum B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

Personally I think this home 3D printer thing will pass.

Kids like my son (and the guy in the artical) buy them because..A) they're cool and B ) because the prices of accessories for their gaming/Cosplay hobbies is outrageous.

When the prices drop, possibly because of the 3D printer copies, Most of the interest will probably disappear...other than for those with criminal intent..and detection of these is pretty easy...just look for the meth lab with the constant Hum B)

 I think you're wrong if you think 3D printing is just a fad. I'm a pretty active member on a major metalworking industry forum.

The things are actually a slow-moving (so far) revolution. We tend to think of them as additive manufacturing as opposed to traditional techniques which were/are subtractive manufacturing - take a block of something and whittle away all the bits you don't need.

You can make stuff with 3D printing that's literally impossible to make with any other tech.

One of the current drawbacks is - it's slow and doesn't scale at all. Not an issue for prototypes & one-offs, big issue for mass manufacturing.

I don't have one yet because I have no current need, but I will own one within 2-3 years. I'm just waiting on another couple of generations of improvement as the resolution isn't good enough for me ATM. I do have access to one now; we used it to produce the patterns that went to the iron foundry for a run of castings I'd designed for sale as part of one of my hobbies.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

 I think you're wrong if you think 3D printing is just a fad. I'm a pretty active member on a major metalworking industry forum.

The things are actually a slow-moving (so far) revolution. We tend to think of them as additive manufacturing as opposed to traditional techniques which were/are subtractive manufacturing - take a block of something and whittle away all the bits you don't need.

You can make stuff with 3D printing that's literally impossible to make with any other tech.

32 years in and 3D printing is still searching for a market. A market bigger than "impossible" balls inside of cubes. Guns might be it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daddle said:

32 years in and 3D printing is still searching for a market. A market bigger than "impossible" balls inside of cubes. Guns might be it!

Given the pressures involved it's probably one of the last effective uses absent some truly amazing breakthroughs in materials science.....

Anyway, believe what you want WRT 3D printing. I don't care. Your belief & mine make no difference to what's happening. I'm a lot more interested in the code driving the things personally. 30+ years ago the general public didn't have access to programs like Fusion 360 to help with the design side and the layer slicing/generation. Even 10 years ago 3D parametric modeling programs like Solidworks cost over 5 figures per seat.

Same tech is in wide use for driving 3, 4 & 5 axis CNC milling machines and lathes. That's more where my interest lies than 3D printers which I consider a marginally useful toy good for producing one-offs and patterns for castings.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said home printing prolly a bit of a fad for kids,

Hell, they're making bits of skull bone for Road trauma victims...

I agree it's fabulous tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I said home printing prolly a bit of a fad for kids,

Hell, they're making bits of skull bone for Road trauma victims...

I agree it's fabulous tech.

It could be a passing fad - I've never dipped into thingiverse (or however it's spelt) but apparently there's a metric shitload of 3D files out there for all sorts of things. Lots of printers for sale on eBay so I don't think the market is near saturated yet.

Which is kind of the point of this - once a print file exists and is uploaded, it's there effectively forever. Doesn't matter if it's for an accessory for your favourite Barbie doll or the hand grip for a Glock, it's a file that can be downloaded and sent to a machine. *WE* can prosecute for possession of the files (if we can figure out what it produces - that's an interesting question) because we don't have a 1st Amendment. For the USA - don't know. Obviously there are accepted limits to their 1st Amendment because kiddie porn and the like is illegal. But the US Govt lost over trying to ban the source code for PGP being released into the public domain even though they classed it (or attempted to) as a munition. Now Apple and a lot of other companies have implemented strong encryption that even they can't bypass.

My interest is in custom boat bits - I'm set up to machine plastics, aluminium & stainless steel (and other metals) but lathes predominantly work to make things cylindrical/conical. Milling machines are basically rectilinear; doing curves, ovals and blended stuff is a PITA without CNC. Do-able but a PITA usually involving 2 or 3 different setups, each with tolerance stacking and setup times. 3D printers offer the possibility of making one-off complex shapes without a ton of machining operations - *if* the material strength is there. Currently it really isn't, any more than it can be used to build a firearm with any real utility - but this is subject to change and one thing is for sure - it *will* change.

The tech is one of my hobby-horses; I have books on the history & development of machine tools going back to the early developers of precision instruments just post the hand-built steam engine period and the seminal developers of industrial mass production in the 19th Century. 3D printing is the first *new* thing in a long time; even CNC machining was just a refinement of prior art.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Which is kind of the point of this - once a print file exists and is uploaded, it's there effectively forever. Doesn't matter if it's for an accessory for your favourite Barbie doll or the hand grip for a Glock, it's a file that can be downloaded and sent to a machine. *WE* can prosecute for possession of the files (if we can figure out what it produces - that's an interesting question) because we don't have a 1st Amendment. For the USA - don't know. Obviously there are accepted limits to their 1st Amendment because kiddie porn and the like is illegal. But the US Govt lost over trying to ban the source code for PGP being released into the public domain even though they classed it (or attempted to) as a munition. Now Apple and a lot of other companies have implemented strong encryption that even they can't bypass.

I never heard of any first amendment challenge to the ban on exporting PGP. The US government lost the political battle mostly because we figured out that no one outside America (and probably some inside America) would be interested in purchasing a computer with a "Clipper Chip" back door that the US government could use any time it wanted.

Apple claimed they could not break their own code but "outside parties" (possibly with 24 inch purple mohawks and a reek of weed) managed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So, to summarise, you are resiling from your claim. Fine. I thought you would even if you can't bring yourself to do so in so many words.

Look, I have no time for bump stocks or any other device that converts a firearm into what's essentially indistinguishable from a fully automatic one. I think bump stocks should be banned and should never have been legal in the first place.

There are a number of ways to convert an AR-15 type action to full auto though, as there is for the Ruger Mini-14 type actions. However doing so is illegal and requires a modicum of metalworking expertise. Those bump stocks required nothing except cash & willingness to purchase. I've said before that I'd restrict semiauto centrefire rifles regardless of calibre or appearance to a 5 round fixed magazine. That'd at least make illegal an attempt to build the sort of firearm used in that massacre. It wouldn't necessarily *prevent* it, however. Which was my point....

Funnily enough someone here in NSW has just been prosecuted & convicted for printing plastic non-working guns. One of the charges was possession of the blueprints.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/silly-naive-fanboy-faces-jail-over-3d-printed-guns-20180806-p4zvu2.html

FKT

No, now you've gone all pedantic. You may prefer a different word, that's fine, but common usage for "preventing" is hindering or interposing an obstacle.

Bump stocks should be illegal, to prevent their use of course. But bump stocks are a device that is ripe for 3D printing or fairly simple FRP construction with instructions. The critical piece of tech is the spring or springs, which the engineering has already been perfected on. Like bombs, I don't think the information should be banned necessarily, but if you manufacture springs of the correct size and spring rates for bump stocks, those could be a problem, just like if you manufacture ammonium nitrate.

The fact is, like Australia, the US needs an assault weapons ban and buy back, with perhaps an exception for "militias" and strict rules for them. The .223 and similar in a semi-auto round is just too deadly and the owners of these guns, who occasionally snap without warning and shoot 480 people in ten minutes from 490 yards, know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lasal said:

No, now you've gone all pedantic. You may prefer a different word, that's fine, but common usage for "preventing" is hindering or interposing an obstacle.

Bump stocks should be illegal, to prevent their use of course. But bump stocks are a device that is ripe for 3D printing or fairly simple FRP construction with instructions. The critical piece of tech is the spring or springs, which the engineering has already been perfected on. Like bombs, I don't think the information should be banned necessarily, but if you manufacture springs of the correct size and spring rates for bump stocks, those could be a problem, just like if you manufacture ammonium nitrate.

The fact is, like Australia, the US needs an assault weapons ban and buy back, with perhaps an exception for "militias" and strict rules for them. The .223 and similar in a semi-auto round is just too deadly and the owners of these guns, who occasionally snap without warning and shoot 480 people in ten minutes from 490 yards, know it.

You say stupid things like this, and still expect to be taken seriously?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
1 hour ago, lasal said:

No, now you've gone all pedantic. You may prefer a different word, that's fine, but common usage for "preventing" is hindering or interposing an obstacle.

Bump stocks should be illegal, to prevent their use of course. But bump stocks are a device that is ripe for 3D printing or fairly simple FRP construction with instructions. The critical piece of tech is the spring or springs, which the engineering has already been perfected on. Like bombs, I don't think the information should be banned necessarily, but if you manufacture springs of the correct size and spring rates for bump stocks, those could be a problem, just like if you manufacture ammonium nitrate.

The fact is, like Australia, the US needs an assault weapons ban and buy back, with perhaps an exception for "militias" and strict rules for them. The .223 and similar in a semi-auto round is just too deadly and the owners of these guns, who occasionally snap without warning and shoot 480 people in ten minutes from 490 yards, know it.

You say stupid things like this, and still expect to be taken seriously?  

So, you think they're not too deadly? You got an opinion on bump stocks? Any opinion on one person shooting 480 people from 490 yards in ten minutes?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lasal said:

So, you think they're not too deadly? You got an opinion on bump stocks? Any opinion on one person shooting 480 people from 490 yards in ten minutes?

 

The .223 is the second or third weakest round you can buy for a rifle that I know of. I think only the .22LR and Hornaday .17 have less energy. IIRC some states do not allow deer hunting with a .223 because it is too likely for the deer not to die right away.

It isn't the cartridge, it is the rate of fire ;) I don't want anyone shooting at me, but I would take a .50 bolt action rifle vs. a small caliber machine gun. At least if the guy misses the first time with the .50 I will be running away full speed before he reloads !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lasal said:

So, you think they're not too deadly? You got an opinion on bump stocks? Any opinion on one person shooting 480 people from 490 yards in ten minutes?

 

Please - tell us how the .223 is "just too deadly". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
9 minutes ago, lasal said:

So, you think they're not too deadly? You got an opinion on bump stocks? Any opinion on one person shooting 480 people from 490 yards in ten minutes?

 

Please - tell us how the .223 is "just too deadly".  

Ask the 422 people who can still talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Please - tell us how the .223 is "just too deadly". 

 

Like I said, rate of fire is the issue unless you want to ban anything that could be used for hunting game bigger than squirrels.

Bullet-Caliber-comparisom-chart.jpg

wm_1549248.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lasal said:

Ask the 422 people who can still talk.

Well if the shooter had been raining .306 or .50 or pretty much anything you hunt deer with there would have been even MORE dead people.

OTOH if he had a bolt action rifle he would have got about 3 or 4 before they all had run away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lasal said:

Ask the 422 people who can still talk.

Oh snap - I guess you just told us all.....but, what you told us is that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.  That's OK - being informed is not prerequisite to forming an opinion.  It'll be an incorrect opinion, but, it will be yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The .223 is the second or third weakest round you can buy for a rifle that I know of. I think only the .22LR and Hornaday .17 have less energy. IIRC some states do not allow deer hunting with a .223 because it is too likely for the deer not to die right away.

It isn't the cartridge, it is the rate of fire ;) I don't want anyone shooting at me, but I would take a .50 bolt action rifle vs. a dogballs machine gun. At least if the guy misses the first time with the .50 I will be running away full speed before he reloads !

It's also the insane accuracy. The .223 is a varmint round but any idiot can kill troublesome wild animals or country music fans at 400+ yards. The rate of fire for a Bass Pro Shop AR15 helps with both country music fans and unruly first graders. But, and this is important, we shouldn't do anything about this or the gungrabbers win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Oh snap - I guess you just told us all.....but, what you told us is that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.  That's OK - being informed is not prerequisite to forming an opinion.  It'll be an incorrect opinion, but, it will be yours. 

OTOH if the NRA keeps up with the scorched earth system, these are exactly the people that will end up writing the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

It's also the insane accuracy. The .223 is a varmint round but any idiot can kill troublesome wild animals or country music fans at 400+ yards. The rate of fire helps with  both country music fans and unruly first graders. But, and this is important, we shouldn't do anything about this or the gungrabbers win.

The concert guy was not using aimed fire, just letting loose into the crowd. He really couldn't miss :o

BTW - 400 yards isn't trivial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
8 minutes ago, lasal said:

Ask the 422 people who can still talk.

Well if the shooter had been raining .306 or .50 or pretty much anything you hunt deer with there would have been even MORE dead people.

OTOH if he had a bolt action rifle he would have got about 3 or 4 before they all had run away.

Yea, if. have you fired a .306 or .50 machine gun?

.223 Remington

History

By the end of the Second World War, the effectiveness of the German MP43 assault rifle (see 7.62x39) had become well known. The major breakthrough in the MP43 design was the use of a scaled down version of the full powered 7.92 (8x57) German infantry cartridge. The resulting 7.92x33 Kurz cartridge enabled a trained soldier to maintain reasonable control of the MP43 rifle set to fully automatic fire. Ammunition for the MP43 was light to carry and the soldier could therefore carry more into combat. These factors combined made the MP43 an effective assault weapon.

Following the war, the major military powers of the world began experimenting with scaled down cartridges and prototype assault rifles. With the formation of the NATO pact alliance, members agreed to work towards a universal rifle and cartridge design for all allied infantry. After several design proposals allied powers found themselves divided into two camps. The countries of the commonwealth were very much in favor of a 7mm cartridge which would have duplicated today’s 7mm08 while the U.S, the super power of the allied world, insisted on a .30 caliber cartridge, preferably a scaled down version of the .30-06.

Ultimately, the U.S ordnance department convinced all NATO pact members to adopt the T44 cartridge, now known as the 7.62 NATO or in its commercial guise, the .308 Winchester. Yet for all of the pushing for a .30 caliber cartridge, a sub committee of the U.S Ordnance department (project SALVO), continued to experiment with small caliber cartridges, leaning towards the .224 caliber. 

After promising reports from project SALVO during the mid 1950's, the US Ordnance Department invited cartridge designers to develop a military round based on the .224 caliber with a prerequisite that the projectile must stay above the speed of sound at 500 yards. In 1957, Robert Hutton, technical editor of  Guns and Ammo magazine designed a potentially suitable cartridge. Hutton’s cartridge was based on a lengthened version of the .222 Remington, loaded with a 55 grain prototype bullet made for Hutton by Sierra Bullets.

By the later 1950’s, firearms designer Eugene Stoner had achieved partial success with his AR 10 rifle.  The  Armalite AR 10 was radically different from other rifles of the day using a combination of alloys and polymers to create a light and compact assault rifle. Unfortunately for Stoner, the lightweight AR 10 chambered in 7.62 NATO produced too much recoil for controlled automatic fire however, the excellent rifle design was noted by various parties. After receiving the invitation to design a .224 caliber rifle, Stoner re-chambered the AR 10 to Hutton’s .224 caliber cartridge and submitted the combination for testing during 1958. The combination was well received however the final decision would have to come from the upper echelons of the U.S government. By this time Armalite had lost a great deal of money through investing in Stoners AR 10 and AR 15 and decided to sell the rights to his designs. Colt firearms purchased these rights and continued to pursue marketing the AR 15.

In 1963, the communist conflict in Vietnam grew with rapid momentum. The U.S had so far committed a small force to Vietnam to inhibit the socialist movement however the Ordnance department did not have enough manufacturing resources to arm the full force that would soon be required. To this end U.S secretary of defense Robert McNamara made several major decisions that would dramatically alter U.S Ordnance permanently. The Springfield Armory and production of the M14 rifle was dissolved and rifle production turned over to the private sector. Colt was given the contract to supply the AR 15 rifle to U.S forces without further ado.
 
The AR 15 rifle and cartridge were formally adopted in 1964, designated the XM16E1 (common name M16) rifle and 5.56 Ball M193 cartridge. Velocity for the 55 grain bullet from the 20” barrel of the M16 was rated at a true 3200fps. The rifle was used in small numbers up until 1965 when both the war and production of the M16 rose dramatically.

From the very outset of its adoption the M16 was plagued with troubles. Stoner had designed the original AR 15 with a very slow barrel twist rate of 1:14 which was literally a doubled edged sword. By using a slow twist barrel the 55 grain bullet was only just stable in flight, producing a small degree of yaw. On impact the bullet would immediately tumble and render a wide, incapacitating wound. This was initially considered a brilliant design premise but some rifles produced too much yaw and were very inaccurate at longer ranges. McNamara ordered that the twist rate be changed to 1:12 before final adoption of the rifle in 1964. This cured longer range accuracy problems but completely destroyed the stopping power of the 55 grain bullet which now poked needle holes through its victims. Nobody questioned the potential consequences of this move and ignorant of the facts, Ordnance brass continued to believe and promote the M193 as a highly effective cartridge.

Major troubles next appeared in 1965 when the M16 rifle was adopted en masse by the thousands of U.S soldiers entering Vietnam. Up to 50% of the rifles were jamming in the field and hundreds of U.S troops were killed while desperately trying to clear jammed chambers. Troops were further demoralized when neither the military brass or Colt would look into the problem seriously. Instead, troops were accused of not cleaning their rifles properly which had lead to powder fouling. The powder fouling was cited as the reason why cases were not being extracted from the rifle’s chamber.

After continued complaints, both the Ordnance department and Colt representatives eventually began to look at the problem although still with a measure of apathy. The M16 then underwent some design alterations however, the cause of the jamming problem had still not been identified. A new model M16A1 now featured a chrome lined chamber and bore in an effort to produce smoother feeding. Other alterations were made to the M16, but without any true knowledge of the underlying problem, these added unnecessary weight to the rifle which was now only a shade lighter than the M14.

It was several years before the underlying cause of the M16’s jamming problem was properly identified.  Ordnance staff discovered that Stoner and ammunition manufacturers had initially tested the AR 15 using extruded (stick) powder but when the Vietnam conflict exploded, ammunition manufacturers adopted the more readily available ball powder. The ball powder produced a longer peak chamber pressure with dire effects. Normally upon firing, the cartridge should expand to seal the chamber (obturation), then contract and then be extracted. With ball powder, the case was still obturated due to the longer peak pressure. The ejector would then fail to extract the case, tearing through the case rim, leaving the obturated case behind. 

In 1970, the U.S government announced its standardization of the M16A1 rifle and cartridge to NATO allies. The news was received with a degree of resentment, especially for those countries who had committed precious resources to the T44 cartridge and rifles. Nevertheless, as finances allowed, all NATO pact members eventually adopted the 5.56mm cartridge. Most countries adopted the M16A1 rifle while a few worked with their own rifle designs.

During the 1980’s, the 5.56mm cartridge was officially standardized as a NATO cartridge. A remaining weakness of the M193 load was its extremely poor penetration through heavy clothing at ranges of 500 yards and beyond. The Belgium military provided a solution with their 62 grain bullet design. The Belgium load became the standard NATO ball, designated the 5.56 NATO. Muzzle velocity is 3025fps from a 20” barrel. The M16 rifle then underwent a further upgrade to a 1:7 barrel twist rate to utilize the new load. The new model rifle was designated the M16A2.

Today, the M16 rifle design remains in service world wide. The current model is designated the M16A4 and features a Picatinny scope rail with most M16 rifles now wearing a scope. Several countries have however moved away from the M16 rifle, some towards more radical designs, notably Great Britain who utilize the SA80 along with Australia and New Zealand who currently use the Steyr AUG rifle.

The 62 grain load is still used by all NATO members however its shortcomings are a continual source of frustration to soldiers engaged in combat. Nevertheless, current allied military strategy does not require a great deal from infantry weapons. The standard operating procedure (SOP) used in the war against terrorism is somewhat simple and predictable. Allies are required to locate terrorists, surround the target and provide suppressive fire while awaiting either an air strike or artillery support. The 5.56 NATO is adequate for this role and also excels during house to house combat, at point blank ranges.
 
In 2002 the US military and Remington began experimenting with cartridges to deliver more effective power for special operations command (SOCOM) soldiers. Eventually the .270 caliber (.277" or 6.8 mm) was settled on, using a case based on the 30 Remington. In 2004 the new cartridge was announced as the 6.8 Remington. The 6.8 fires a 115 grain bullet at 2800fps, in 24" test barrels, and has a similar trajectory to the 7.62 (.308) with a substantial increase in energy at all ranges over the 5.56. The 115 grain bullet of the 6.8 has a ballistic coefficient of about .340 and is loaded to 55,000psi. This cartridge is still in an experimental stage of use (2009). Velocity from a 20” military barrel is probably much closer to 2650fps.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

OTOH if the NRA keeps up with the scorched earth system, these are exactly the people that will end up writing the rules.

No kidding....  We need rational folks to share that no law is going to be 100% effective, and for the grabbers to recognize that 99.999something % of the firearms in the country are owned and used safely and legally.  Everyone needs to climb out of entrenched positions and start looking at the major socio-economic factors that have resulted in an inreased propensity to use violence to express one's dissatisfaction.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You know the AR-15 comes in .308, right?  That could have happened.

 

There's a .50 cal version called a Beowulf, too - http://www.alexanderarms.com/products/50-beowulf

It's actually a decent deer rifle for the thick brush in the mountains around here. It's not as sexy as an old .45/70 lever action, but, similar in ballistics.   My favorite is my old Winchester 30-30, but, it's not been outta the gun case in about 4 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The .223 is the second or third weakest round you can buy for a rifle that I know of. I think only the .22LR and Hornaday .17 have less energy. IIRC some states do not allow deer hunting with a .223 because it is too likely for the deer not to die right away.

 

I have a .303 deer rifle. Of course .223 is too small for deer. But killing as many people as possible while running through a school is not deer hunting is it? And I've never even tried a nearly 500 yard shot with my .303.

What makes the .223 deadlier than the dogballs is its velocity. When the .223 exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The dogballs, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the dogballs. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the dogballs carries 70 foot-pounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IASAL, I have indeed fired a .50 caliber & a .308 caliber machine gun.  ( the M60 shoots a 7.62X51 round, not exaclty a .308 Winchester but close)

Lots of times.  It was fun - and I'm glad that you fine folks were paying for the ammo - .that stuff gets expensive quick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, lasal said:

I have a .303 deer rifle. Of course .223 is too small for deer. But killing as many people as possible while running through a school is not deer hunting is it? And I've never even tried a nearly 500 yard shot with my .303.

What makes the .223 deadlier than the dogballs is its velocity. When the .223 exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The dogballs, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the dogballs. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the dogballs carries 70 foot-pounds.

I *know* why a .223 is deadlier than a dogballs :rolleyes:

What you seem to be missing is if you ban the .223 for "being too deadly", you are ALSO banning any rifle that could possibly be used to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. The .17 and .22LR would be about all that would be left. No politician wants to campaign on banning deer hunting.

Why not think on "rate of fire" issues, that might get you somewhere. For one example, my single-shot 12 gauge is useless for mass mayhem ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 start looking at the major socio-economic factors that have resulted in an inreased propensity to use violence to express one's dissatisfaction.   

Here you go again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I *know* why a .223 is deadlier than a dogballs :rolleyes:

What you seem to be missing is if you ban the .223 for "being too deadly", you are ALSO banning any rifle that could possibly be used to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. The .17 and .22LR would be about all that would be left. No politician wants to campaign on banning deer hunting.

Why not think on "rate of fire" issues, that might get you somewhere. For one example, my single-shot 12 gauge is useless for mass mayhem ;)

I didn't say ban .223. I said .223 and similar semi-auto's. Of course it's rate of fire, velocity, and portability. That was my whole point. I'll say again, semi auto weapons of .223 and similar are just too deadly. With bump stocks one person can lay down 1049 rounds in 10 minutes and hit 480 people at 490 yards.

I said the following and I knew I would draw in the caliber kooks who don't want to deal with the laws of physics. That's why I point out the deadly reality. The word "round" ended up as a typo but it doesn't change the sentence enough to matter as I immediately say "these guns." Note that Tom or any other gun lobby Borg drone has not addressed the capability of an AR-15 with or without a bump stock. You can, and people have, shoot a lot of people through doors or whatever while running around through a school for example. It's happened.

"The fact is, like Australia, the US needs an assault weapons ban and buy back, with perhaps an exception for "militias" and strict rules for them. The .223 and similar in a semi-auto round is just too deadly and the owners of these guns, who occasionally snap without warning and shoot 480 people in ten minutes from 490 yards, know it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - I give up. What exactly do you want to ban?

Say in your ideal world I was really hungry for some venison BBQ. What guns could I buy to bag a deer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

OK - I give up. What exactly do you want to ban?

semi auto rifles, like I said, with perhaps a bone to throw to militia freaks. if you own a semi auto shotgun you're a tool, so keep it. Three shots at a duck, that's full-on cornball.

What's your idea? Think anything should be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Here you go again....

Yup - I'm right.  You cant slap bondo on the rust, while ignoring how the rust started in the first place, if you want to really fix the rust and keep the car. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - I'm right.  You cant slap bondo on the rust, while ignoring how the rust started in the first place, if you want to really fix the rust and keep the car. 

But, you're wrong. I've cited study after study of the decline of violence in America. And yet, you come back and whinge about the turn to violence. Either you're just looking for a fight, or you just can't handle the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lasal said:

semi auto rifles, like I said, with perhaps a bone to throw to militia freaks. if you own a semi auto shotgun you're a tool, so keep it. Three shots at a duck, that's full-on cornball.

What's your idea? Think anything should be done?

In other words, you don't really want to address violence at its root, you simply want to feel like we "did something" that will make it harded for someone to hurt lots of people with a scary semi-automatic gun.  Tell me something - how many of the shootings that happen in this country are committed with the weapons you want to restrict? 

3 shots at a bird is cornball?  You don't do any bird hunting at all, do ya?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

But, you're wrong. I've cited study after study of the decline of violence in America. And yet, you come back and whinge about the turn to violence. Either you're just looking for a fight, or you just can't handle the truth.

I simply disagree with your estimation of "the truth", and am not willing to acquiesce to an infringement on any of our enumerated rights in pursuit of what I think is a myopic and ultimately ineffective solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I simply disagree with your estimation of "the truth", and am not willing to acquiesce to an infringement on any of our enumerated rights in pursuit of what I think is a myopic and ultimately ineffective solution. 

Stop projecting. I’ve got no dog in the hunt here. I’ve no idea how to stop nutcases from getting their hands on extremely lethal devices.

I’m just pointing out that your “deal with societal ills” bs is just that. Bullshit. 

There are no new societal ills. The issue is that the nutcases, who’ve been with us since we climbed down from the trees, now have very effective tools to effect mass slaughter.

We can deal with the Nutz, the tools, or access to crowds. Or we can whine about how we used to be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
11 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

But, you're wrong. I've cited study after study of the decline of violence in America. And yet, you come back and whinge about the turn to violence. Either you're just looking for a fight, or you just can't handle the truth.

I simply disagree with your estimation of "the truth", and am not willing to acquiesce to an infringement on any of our enumerated rights in pursuit of what I think is a myopic and ultimately ineffective solution. 

Correct

Because if somebody whom YOU think is a libby-rull says it, then it's wrong.

Also, please explain how conspiracy to commit murder (including transportation across state lines) and also incitement to violently overthrow the US gov't is "free speech," then tell us how your enumerated rights will fare if this kind of "free speech" succeeds in the marketplace of ideas

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

In other words, you don't really want to address violence at its root, you simply want to feel like we "did something" that will make it harded for someone to hurt lots of people with a scary semi-automatic gun.  Tell me something - how many of the shootings that happen in this country are committed with the weapons you want to restrict? 

3 shots at a bird is cornball?  You don't do any bird hunting at all, do ya?   

You have a semi auto shotgun, don't you? Tool! Hey, cornball tool, go address violence at its root.

A couple of guys I duck and goose hunt with now hunt with Browning over unders because they recognized how superior my gun was to their gas bullshit in every way but one, an additional load. So we call three shots cornball. Cornball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 1:34 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

And by "enable" - I mean that the Constitution gives those people in the poll space to do what they do and makes it more difficult for LEO to stop them from doing what they do before they harm others.

Whether you agree or disagree, please state why you chose that answer.

By definition, those are enablers.  Just like a boxhead wrench of the correct size lets you fasten down a hex head bolt (may or may not be correct size).

But that doesn't mean that make you do those things either.  I'd rather have the freedom to use a gun, to speak freely, and to not have people fish through my stuff looking for something I might have done wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Stop projecting. I’ve got no dog in the hunt here. I’ve no idea how to stop nutcases from getting their hands on extremely lethal devices.

I’m just pointing out that your “deal with societal ills” bs is just that. Bullshit. 

There are no new societal ills. The issue is that the nutcases, who’ve been with us since we climbed down from the trees, now have very effective tools to effect mass slaughter.

We can deal with the Nutz, the tools, or access to crowds. Or we can whine about how we used to be better.

You need to do some research.  Many of the people doing the killing are far from crazy.  They simply have a lack of morals instilled in them (which isn't something you can fix by throwing them in prison, btw).  I wouldn't call it a "new" societal ill.  It is defiinitely a problem with our culture though.  And not a "gun culture".  A lack of personal values culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

You need to do some research.  Many of the people doing the killing are far from crazy.  They simply have a lack of morals instilled in them (which isn't something you can fix by throwing them in prison, btw).  I wouldn't call it a "new" societal ill.  It is defiinitely a problem with our culture though.  And not a "gun culture".  A lack of personal values culture.

Then I'm sure you have a cite showing that the mass killers are something new, and that the cause is "culture"

cause there's shit tons of data showing that the incidence of violence is down, but the lethality is up.  I've posted that many, many times, and frankly, since you all ignore it, can't be bothered to post it again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Stop projecting. I’ve got no dog in the hunt here. I’ve no idea how to stop nutcases from getting their hands on extremely lethal devices.

I’m just pointing out that your “deal with societal ills” bs is just that. Bullshit. 

There are no new societal ills. The issue is that the nutcases, who’ve been with us since we climbed down from the trees, now have very effective tools to effect mass slaughter.

We can deal with the Nutz, the tools, or access to crowds. Or we can whine about how we used to be better.

It's BS because you say it is? No new societal ills?   Perhaps - perhaps not.  The generational compounding of the societal ills builds upon itself - and the effect of that is seen in more than the # of shootings we have today.   So no, I don't think that adressing root causes is bullshit. 

I worry that if we're at a point in which we can't control the crazy enough that we *will* have to implement several infringements on law abiding citizens as a means to curb the epidemic of violence.   

I'll also say that if we collectively decide that we're at that point?  That it's not going to be just the 2nd that's infringed upon - that we're looking at a drastic shift in the basic premise of respect for individual liberties. If we infringe on one enumerated right?  All of 'em are on the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites