Here it comes - gun control!!!

[ink the world]

why would u never hunt with a .223? u need something bigger? u must not be such a great shot. lol. j/k mmm. maine. the great state of nothing. lol. also j/k

Lol ahh yeah, hunting advice from a dude that lives in San Diego. Yes, finally someone from the great hunting Mecca gives his advice.

Maine has a huge moose, black bear and deer population. City dwelling douchebags like you pay a premium to hunt here. Some of the best hunting in the continental US. Probably not as good as San Diego though huh?

J/k

 

[Dr Kynes]

That looks sweet, but what you want it for?

That stupid bitch Feinstein needs to get voted out office and replaced with someone who'll get rid of that retarded unconstitutional 10 round mag limit. Yeah we get it, Harvey Milk dying was not cool. But limiting mags to 10 rounds won't bring him back, nor would he be alive today if that law were back then. I also hate assholes like her who say CCW should get banned, yet she fucking has one!

fienstein is a US senator, she likes to throw her weight around in the state legislature but she has no real authority in the state. even if she were not a senator anymore she would still be the grand dame of leftist politics in california.

the bitch will always be the go-to cunt for the assholes who want to erode the constitution by populist demagoguery and appeals to emotion. just remember this all you gunj banners, diane feinstein had herself declared a deputy US marshal so she can carry a concealed weapon on a plane, in a courtroom, next to the president, or in the senate chambers.

she has carried a concealed firearm since she was mayor of SF (permit issued in marin county, where she lived) and even when asked point blank "Do You Have A Concealed Weapon Permit?" she responded by farting out a lie wrapped up in a lawyer's version of truth "I do not, nor have i ever been issued a concealed weapon permit in the city of San Francisco" which was only technically true since the permit was issued one county north, but she carried the weapon and the permit in SF making her statement a lie by any reasonable definition.

when the truth came out, and it was revealed that she was packing a .38 cheif's special she made a big show of turning in her gun and her permit (and moments later had herself declared a US Marshal and strapped on a beretta 9mm)

gun bans are for the plebs, not for the high and mighty.

remember that.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You've obviousely never fired a 223 weapon, had someone shoot 223 rounds at you or actually seen firsthand what a 223 does to the human body.

I own an AR15 currently and was in the service. I couldn't disagree with you more. Those firearms are designed for 1 thing and 1 thing only. No need for a citizen to have that much firepower.

if your definition of "firepower" is how many rounds you can carry, how many rounds fit in a magazine, or how fast you can discharge them, yeas, the 5.56 nato is a lot of "firepower"

if, like me, you count firepower in terms of killing the target with 1 shot regardless of range, firing through cover, and breaking shit, the 5.56 nato is weak sauce.

no responsible game hunter uses the .223 or even it's slightly more powerful twin the 5.56 nato to hunt deer. they dont put venison down reliably.
the 5.56 doesnt do much outside varmint hunting, as it lacks the mass to drop medium or large game, and is too energetic for use on small game (wabbits etc) since ragged chunks dont make for delicious.

the 5.56 is passable for man-killing but often requires multiple shots. as a weapon of military origin it does the job as designed. for suppressive fire, volume of fire and grievous wounding it works well. the doctrine at play emphasizes wounding over killing, since wounded enemies become prisoners easier, and wounded soldiers require 2 guys to haul them away for treatment.

there are much better rounds for serious business, but the description of 'temporary wound channels" and the myth of "hydrostatic shock" gives those who dont know any better the impression that the 5.56 has some magical power that makes it better than old reliable .30's and puts this wimpy round into the "high powered rifle" category.

nobody wants to get shot, and getting shot at isnt fun, but of all the available choices in centerfire rifle cartidges the 5.56 is one of the least dangerous options for the target. light cover, and even household masonry walls defeat it easily. my .30/06 will plow right through bricks even at long range, because it really is serious business.

as aa citizen i find frequent need for the kind of firepower that makes the 5.56 look like a kid's toy. wild boar, elk, moose, and even deer are largely unconcerned by the 5.56 unless you get a perfect heart shot, but since the bullet is defelcted by shrubbery and light breezes thats pretty unlikely unless youre standing toe to toe.

and what of bears? even at point blank range, a .223 will only irritate a bear and make him hungry. mountain lions can stiull do a respecatble job of mauling you eating you and excreting you even if you shoot em with a .223.

your assumptions are based on your preconceptions, not fact.

Citizens need MORE firepower than soldiers, since the citizen rarely has an armed squad, air support and naval bombardment as backup.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Lol ahh yeah, hunting advice from a dude that lives in San Diego. Yes, finally someone from the great hunting Mecca gives his advice.

Maine has a huge moose, black bear and deer population. City dwelling douchebags like you pay a premium to hunt here. Some of the best hunting in the continental US. Probably not as good as San Diego though huh?

J/k

San Diego features mule deer,, black tail deer, a small population of whitetails, plenty of quail, javelinas, wild boar, black bear, pheasants migatory ducks and geese as well as wild turkeys.

generally San Diego hunters have to take longer shots than those who hunt the forests in the north to take a deer,, but for boar and javelina it's the same shit.

you may not be aware, of this, but sometimes people will TRAVEL to a location other than their home county to hunt particular game as well. one of my cousins guides elk hunts every year and most of his clients come from the southland.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I got that, but why the accuracy from such a distance?

theres many reasons to desire pinpoint accuracy, particulalry if youre looking for one gun that fits the bill instead of many
when hunting some critters (dall's sheep, bighorns, mule deer, etc.) sometimes the long shot is your only shot.

for defense, when protecting your redoubt from the zombie hordes, accurate hits take domes off, but misses simply waste ammunition.

thats why i got a .22lr tack driver bolt action rifle. every round is a hole in a dome inside 200 yards, and i got about 15k rounds for my .22's, but i got the big guns for grievous bodily injury for the human raiders who might want to take my chosen fortress, my spam stockpile, or my harem of chicks.

seriously though, for small game a .22lr pots wabbits in the pot cheap and easy, and it's shockingly quiet as well. i can exterminate bothersome racoons irritating squirrels and pesky opossums without getting cops knocking on my door. if needed i can even drop a turkey or two with a .22.

big guns for big game, small guns for small game, scatterguns for everything in between and for birds, pistols for two legged problems, but uin bear country or mountain lion habitat i keep my enfeild handy at all times as well as my .357 magnum , 40 S&W or .45 depending on my mood.

even when fishing in the SF delta i always keep a pistol handy, as did my grandpappy. every now and then youll land a shark instead of a striper, and well,, shark's good eating if you can get em to stop thrashing.

 

[ink the world]

if your definition of "firepower" is how many rounds you can carry, how many rounds fit in a magazine, or how fast you can discharge them, yeas, the 5.56 nato is a lot of "firepower"

Thats a good part of my definition, i would also include lethality of the round into the equation

if, like me, you count firepower in terms of killing the target with 1 shot regardless of range, firing through cover, and breaking shit, the 5.56 nato is weak sauce.

The people in Conneticut and Colorado would most likely disagree

no responsible game hunter uses the .223 or even it's slightly more powerful twin the 5.56 nato to hunt deer. they dont put venison down reliably.
the 5.56 doesnt do much outside varmint hunting, as it lacks the mass to drop medium or large game, and is too energetic for use on small game (wabbits etc) since ragged chunks dont make for delicious.



the 5.56 is passable for man-killing but often requires multiple shots. as a weapon of military origin it does the job as designed. for suppressive fire, volume of fire and grievous wounding it works well. the doctrine at play emphasizes wounding over killing, since wounded enemies become prisoners easier, and wounded soldiers require 2 guys to haul them away for treatment.

there are much better rounds for serious business, but the description of 'temporary wound channels" and the myth of "hydrostatic shock" gives those who dont know any better the impression that the 5.56 has some magical power that makes it better than old reliable .30's and puts this wimpy round into the "high powered rifle" category.

nobody wants to get shot, and getting shot at isnt fun, but of all the available choices in centerfire rifle cartidges the 5.56 is one of the least dangerous options for the target. light cover, and even household masonry walls defeat it easily. my .30/06 will plow right through bricks even at long range, because it really is serious business.

I hunt w/ my .30 06 as well. Wouldnt go into the woods with a 5.56, too small for big game. I dont hunt squirrels, my kids do. And hell, for tree rats a freaking air gun does the job

as aa citizen i find frequent need for the kind of firepower that makes the 5.56 look like a kid's toy. wild boar, elk, moose, and even deer are largely unconcerned by the 5.56 unless you get a perfect heart shot, but since the bullet is defelcted by shrubbery and light breezes thats pretty unlikely unless youre standing toe to toe.

and what of bears? even at point blank range, a .223 will only irritate a bear and make him hungry. mountain lions can stiull do a respecatble job of mauling you eating you and excreting you even if you shoot em with a .223.

your assumptions are based on your preconceptions, not fact.

My "preconceptions" are pretty damn close to yours.

Citizens need MORE firepower than soldiers, since the citizen rarely has an armed squad, air support and naval bombardment as backup.

The citizens are rarely confronted by an armed squad, air support or naval bombardment either, are they?

Its time for us to get past the bullshit about gun control. Theres a difference between gun control and the evil govt. coming to take our guns. Thats isnt happening and is never gonna happen.

Im not into banning guns. I do think we need to tighten up the laws though. Id be happy w/ background checks on ALL gun purchases. Like I said earlier, I own guns. We belong to a range, my wife 6 year old and 8 year old all shoot. Shooting is a family thing for us. Dont try to paint me as a gun banning leftist, im hardly that.

 

[kpmarine]

You've obviousely never fired a 223 weapon, had someone shoot 223 rounds at you or actually seen firsthand what a 223 does to the human body.

I own an AR15 currently and was in the service. I couldn't disagree with you more. Those firearms are designed for 1 thing and 1 thing only. No need for a citizen to have that much firepower.

How do you figure that no citizen should have that much "power"? What makes it any more powerful than any other purchasable rifle?

 

[kpmarine]

The citizens are rarely confronted by an armed squad, air support or naval bombardment either, are they?

Its time for us to get past the bullshit about gun control. Theres a difference between gun control and the evil govt. coming to take our guns. Thats isnt happening and is never gonna happen.

Im not into banning guns. I do think we need to tighten up the laws though. Id be happy w/ background checks on ALL gun purchases. Like I said earlier, I own guns. We belong to a range, my wife 6 year old and 8 year old all shoot. Shooting is a family thing for us. Dont try to paint me as a gun banning leftist, im hardly that.

The most likely reason that an AR was used in the shootings lately was not how deadly it was, it was simple availability of that particular firearm. They can be purchased at many gun stores right off the rack. If the popular and available gun lately had been something else semiauto with decent firepower, reasonably,that would have been the mass-shooting weapon of choice.

 

[kpmarine]

theres many reasons to desire pinpoint accuracy, particulalry if youre looking for one gun that fits the bill instead of many
when hunting some critters (dall's sheep, bighorns, mule deer, etc.) sometimes the long shot is your only shot.

for defense, when protecting your redoubt from the zombie hordes, accurate hits take domes off, but misses simply waste ammunition.

thats why i got a .22lr tack driver bolt action rifle. every round is a hole in a dome inside 200 yards, and i got about 15k rounds for my .22's, but i got the big guns for grievous bodily injury for the human raiders who might want to take my chosen fortress, my spam stockpile, or my harem of chicks.

seriously though, for small game a .22lr pots wabbits in the pot cheap and easy, and it's shockingly quiet as well. i can exterminate bothersome racoons irritating squirrels and pesky opossums without getting cops knocking on my door. if needed i can even drop a turkey or two with a .22.

big guns for big game, small guns for small game, scatterguns for everything in between and for birds, pistols for two legged problems, but uin bear country or mountain lion habitat i keep my enfeild handy at all times as well as my .357 magnum , 40 S&W or .45 depending on my mood.

even when fishing in the SF delta i always keep a pistol handy, as did my grandpappy. every now and then youll land a shark instead of a striper, and well,, shark's good eating if you can get em to stop thrashing.

I remember you mentioning your Enfield before; what variant did you start with and what, if anything, have you done to it? If you don't mind me asking.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The citizens are rarely confronted by an armed squad, air support or naval bombardment either, are they?

Its time for us to get past the bullshit about gun control. Theres a difference between gun control and the evil govt. coming to take our guns. Thats isnt happening and is never gonna happen.

Im not into banning guns. I do think we need to tighten up the laws though. Id be happy w/ background checks on ALL gun purchases. Like I said earlier, I own guns. We belong to a range, my wife 6 year old and 8 year old all shoot. Shooting is a family thing for us. Dont try to paint me as a gun banning leftist, im hardly that.

if you must ask permission to buy a gun then you do not anymore have a RIGHT you have a privilege, and those can be revoked with little or no cause.

as of now, to lose your RIGHT to own firearms you have to commit a felony and be convicted, and even then it's not necessarily permanent. when the feds simply end the privilege of gun ownership, it will be gone forever, and we will be RULED.

citizens are conronted by armed gangs of home invaders, looters, rioters, street thugs, and armed robbers.
a gun which will put them on their butts is essential, since suppressive fire from your squad while you withdraw is not an option.
limiting the 'firepower" of the citizen is infringing on the right to bear arms. shooting is not a hobby, and the second amendment is not about hunting.

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." ~Tench Coxe Pennsylvanian delegate to the continental congress

 

[UncleBuck]

Citizens need MORE firepower than soldiers, since the citizen rarely has an armed squad, air support and naval bombardment as backup.

so, who gets the chemical weapons and who gets to hold onto the nukes?

 

[ink the world]

How do you figure that no citizen should have that much "power"? What makes it any more powerful than any other purchasable rifle?

If you read the post above you'll see what I said more specifically.

While I said I dont see the need. I own one Why? because I can.

You'll also see Im not into banning any guns, at all. Let me repeat it again: I dont want to ban guns.

Id like something I think we should all be able to agree upon. Background checks for all gun purchases.

 

[UncleBuck]

Im not into banning guns. I do think we need to tighten up the laws though. Id be happy w/ background checks on ALL gun purchases.

as would 95% of americans. way too non-controversial. start saying off the wall things like kynes. the citizens need to be permitted a bigger ready militia than the standing army.

do we let the hippies or the birchers have the nukes? i'm soooooo torn on that one.

 

[UncleBuck]

Let me repeat it again: I dont want to ban guns.

now we're talking. a little over 50% of americans want to ban certain guns.

just saying.

 

[ink the world]

if you must ask permission to buy a gun then you do not anymore have a RIGHT you have a privilege, and those can be revoked with little or no cause.

as of now, to lose your RIGHT to own firearms you have to commit a felony and be convicted, and even then it's not necessarily permanent. when the feds simply end the privilege of gun ownership, it will be gone forever, and we will be RULED.
Youre being paranoid, the majority want gun CONTROLS like background checks for all gun sales; not outright bans on guns. Your POV is why some people label ALL of us gun owners as tinfoil hat wearing militia idiots.
citizens are conronted by armed gangs of home invaders, looters, rioters, street thugs, and armed robbers.
a gun which will put them on their butts is essential, since suppressive fire from your squad while you withdraw is not an option.
limiting the 'firepower" of the citizen is infringing on the right to bear arms. shooting is not a hobby, and the second amendment is not about hunting.

Who the fuck are you to tell me that shooting isnt a hobby? Youre bullshit about armed gangs of home invaders, looters and rioters is straight up Glen Beck hyperbole craziness. Get back into your survival bunker, you need to finish prepping my delusional friend

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." ~Tench Coxe Pennsylvanian delegate to the continental congress

I worry more about the tyranny of you right wing folks than the tyranny of my government.

 

[ink the world]

as would 95% of americans. way too non-controversial. start saying off the wall things like kynes. the citizens need to be permitted a bigger ready militia than the standing army.

Therein lies my problem here in the politics forum. Im a moderate. The lefties think im too far right and want every person to have access to an Abrams tank.

The righties assume because I say anything at all about gun control that I wanna ban guns.

Typical.

 

[kpmarine]

If you read the post above you'll see what I said more specifically.

While I said I dont see the need. I own one Why? because I can.

You'll also see Im not into banning any guns, at all. Let me repeat it again: I dont want to ban guns.

Id like something I think we should all be able to agree upon. Background checks for all gun purchases.

I read your previous posts about the 5.56. I spent 4 years in the Marines, I never heard anyone speak highly of the M16. Sure, it got the job done just fine but it's not really special. I didn't accuse you of being into banning guns. You seemed to indicate that you were a gun owner yourself. I agree that the current situation has problems, I was just saying that I think you give the AR15 too much credit.

 

[kpmarine]

now we're talking. a little over 50% of americans want to ban certain guns.

just saying.

What guns?

 

[Dr Kynes]

I worry more about the tyranny of you right wing folks than the tyranny of my government.

so, we can have guns, but only ones YOU approve of.

what happens when your favorite guns become disapproved by some clown even leftier than thou?

my "tin foil hat" is irrelevant, particularly since aluminium is the approved material for headwear, due to it's power to diffuse and disperse CIA mind control rays.

the second amendment does not exist to protect your hobby shooting,, or even hunting. it exists because the army is NOT SUPPOSED TO.

the army is an affront to the constitution, as is the coast guard and the air force. they are NOT authorized and the army is specifically prohibited in favour of a militia. the pretense that the army is a militia is silly.
you may wish to check your OWN aluminium foil hat, as it seems to have become dislodged during your insertion of your head between your buttocks.

 

[kpmarine]

as would 95% of americans. way too non-controversial. start saying off the wall things like kynes. the citizens need to be permitted a bigger ready militia than the standing army.

do we let the hippies or the birchers have the nukes? i'm soooooo torn on that one.

A nuke is a bomb, not a firearm. I already can't buy C4 as an average joe with a clean background, much less a nuke. This conversation seems like it might have some potential, let's not kill it further, eh?