Please keep our troops in your thoughts and prayers.
Our Premier Sponsors
Hawk's M14 Dummy Kits LRB Arms of Long Island Ra Parts
Our Sponsors HueyGunner's Gunsmithingl Dwight's Gunleather Bill Ricca Machinegun Books
Thanks Thanks:  7
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: National

  1. #1
    Command Sgt Major budster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Rounds Down Range
    Post Thanks / Like


    Cementing the Party of Infringement: Every Democrat presidential hopeful supports a slew of gun controls but eight in particular actually plan to ban certain guns that law-abiding Americans currently possess...

    Cory Booker – Wants to institute a ban on AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic weapons that would include taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens who currently own them...

    Joe Biden – the June 27, 2019, Democrat debates Biden espoused a confiscatory plan very similar to Booker’s...

    Bernie Sanders – Sanders showed strong support for New Zealand’s ban and mandated buyback of certain semiautomatic rifles...

    Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke – O’Rourke supports an all-out ban on AR-15s and other commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles...

    Kamala Harris – Harris supports renewing the 1994 ban on “assault weapons.” She says as president, she would give Congress 100 days to ban the weapons and if they failed she would executive gun control to ban import of AR-15s and other commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles...

    Julian Castro – Axios reports that Castro supports banning “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines.

    Tulsi Gabbard – Gabbard’s campaign website puts her support for an “assault weapons” front and center. The campaign site also states, “Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating by the Hawaii Rifle Association, and a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”

    Marianne Williamson – Williamson’s campaign website notes her support for “eliminating the sale of assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.”


    A Modest Proposal: The Second Amendment is so clear and simple that only liberals, aided by a half-wit liberal law school professor-tariat that is to real lawyering as Jerry Nadler is to Chippendales, could pretend to be confused about its meaning with a straight face... What is the “militia” anyway? It’s not goofy dudes in camo playing army. It’s the American people. It was those farmers, blacksmiths and other assorted non-hipsters who the Brits tried to disarm and who got all shooty in response. Today, it’s us, you and me, regular citizens with military arms so they can cap criminals and tyrants like bosses just as Nature intended... The idea of the militia is that it includes (almost) everybody, but everybody can’t join the military – only a fraction of our citizens can. The militia is different. It is about all of us doing our part personally for our nation, like answering a jury summons or paying taxes. Hey citizens, time to do your duty. Time to get well-regulated. And that starts with owning a weapon. What kind of weapon? Well, the requirement for every citizen should be a firearm suited to combat – an actual assault rifle. The M16/M4 is the classic American military weapon, and every member of the militia should have one or an appropriate analogue. If you want to go with a 7.62 mm battle rifle instead of a 5.56 mm, that’s your prerogative. As a member of the modern militia, you’ll need to provide your own kit, and Kit Item No. 1 is some kind of rifle. You need to be able to defend yourself, your family, your community and your Constitution, whether with an AR, AK, FAL, SIG, HK or some other high-velocity acronym. Oh, you need to have a pistol too. Supplementary shotguns are optional but encouraged. Training? We won’t need a huge amount, other than requiring citizens to maintain proficiency on their firearms. Every citizen can show up for a month at 18 years old and take a break from dope smoking and their crappy Taylor Swift music to learn some basics, including safe weapons-handling procedures. Also, it would be a good time to do some basic lifesaving first aid training – stop the bleeding, treating shock, CPR. That’s not just vital for when the lead flies– what if you come on a car wreck and a fellow citizen has face-dived through the windshield and is spurting from an artery? What do you do? Oh yeah, my militia training! … (This is excerpted from a fairly lengthy essay, “Let’s Call The Liberals’ Second Amendment Militia Bluff.”)


    Smoldering in New Zealand: There are concerns modifications to guns to comply with new firearms laws could be easily reversed. Police are looking into whether kits designed to modify AR-15s from semi-automatic to pump-action would allow owners to keep the rifles, which are used in about half of all mass shootings in the US [sic]. Gun Control NZ co-founder Nik Green says allowing the modification kit would render the new laws pointless. "Any conversion isn't permanent, so you could quite easily switch it back to being a semi-automatic... It doesn't take these dangerous guns off the streets." A police spokesperson said they are still looking into the feasibility of modifying AR15 semi-automatics. "The Police Commissioner will publish the manner and standard required for the safe and permanent modification of these and any other firearms. A process for how modifications can be carried out - and a list of approved gunsmiths to do the modifications - will be published on the police website soon." Green says people need to take the moral high-ground, with conversion kits not in the "spirit of the law". "Our preference is people hand in their guns, take the compensation, and buy a new gun - a gun that is fully compliant, a gun that won't be in the grey area of the law and cause problems in the future." … (My preference would be for people such as Green to admit that they are basically seeking to disarm their neighbors, with limited exceptions for pest control. From what I've seen, I'd expect a subsequent restriction on pump-action rifles.)


    Since I've Got Some Space Here:

    ...So, in the interest of safety, your RevolverGuy team would like to remind you that the only ammunition which should be loaded and fired in a .22 Magnum chamber is the .22 Magnum. It is NOT safe to shoot .22 LR in a .22 Magnum chamber! ...Unlike the relationship between the .38 Special and the original Magnum handgun round – the .357 Magnum – the .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire (WMR) is not simply a stretched version of the earlier .22 LR cartridge. It’s safe to shoot the .38 Special in a .357 Magnum chamber because the two cartridges share nearly identical dimensions, outside of a small variation in rim thickness and a larger difference in overall case length (designed to prevent the .357 from fitting in .38 Special chambers). This is not the case with the .22 LR and WMR. The WMR case is larger in every dimension, compared to the tiny LR case. It’s longer, has a thicker rim, is wider, and has a larger case head. The WMR cartridge was designed to fully enclose a full diameter bullet, rather than merely grip the reduced diameter heel of the bullet, as in the LR. Therefore, if you place a .22 LR in a .22 WMR chamber, it will be a sloppy fit. If the LR cartridge is actually fired in the WMR chamber, the case may rupture and vent high pressure gases and particulates rearward, through the breechface. There is a significant risk of injury if you fire .22 LR ammunition in a .22 WMR chamber! … (One of the secondary rules is to ensure that ammunition is appropriate for the gun in which it is fired. Several years ago, I examined some slightly bulged .32 S&W Long cases. The shooter had gone into a gun store and requested ammo for a “.32 S&W.” At the time, he did not realize that, while the revolver he'd been given was a S&W, it was chambered in .32 WCF/.32-20. That small variation in nominal rim thickness between the .38 Special and the .357 Magnum is all of 0.001 inch, with the typical thickness of a sheet of typing paper being 0.003 inch.

  2. #2
    Squad Leader Old Sarge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Rounds Down Range
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National

    Re: A Modest Proposal:

    I read this article yesterday from townhall. Very good read.
    One thing I would like to point out, or clarify, is the wording in the 2nd Amendment, the "well regulated" part. Back in the day, over 200 years ago, it meant "well equipped" and the local citizens were expected to show up in time of need with their own arms. So many people wrongly interpret the "well regulated" part as giving the gov't the power to regulate our arms, what type they will let us own, etc...

    And the part about being "necessary for a free state" is often wrongly interpreted as granting powers to the states to form their own militias. The usage of the word "state" refers to our nation. Like the usage of our federal government's Sec. of State, and if the Founding Fathers meant it otherwise, as so many liberals wrongly claim, the founders would have like worded it as "the rights of states to arm and form militias shall not be infringed".

    And the Founding Fathers chose their words carefully, and the wording used for recognizing people as having "rights" and the government as having "powers". So what part of "the rights of the people shall not be infringed" don't they get???

  3. Thanks polish29, dave-2 thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Squad Leader GunnyG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Central AZ
    Rounds Down Range
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National

    The rights they are afraid of.
    There were a lot worse places than Phu Bai and they weren't all in Viet Nam.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts