On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:28:20 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 05/04/2019 02:35, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:58:14 -0700, % wrote:

On 2019-04-04 3:46 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our
murders, at least in the sense you are talking about.

But the murders that most with a clue care about.

The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3
or 4 gang bangers having a turf battle on some urban street
corner. Even with that it still pales in comparison to the single
thug taking one in the ear over some kind of drug beef.

Not just a drug beef, any sort of beef.

The police are even reluctant to attribute as many
murders to the drug war as are happening because
it further points out their dismal failure in that war.

It was never going to be a winnable war.


the drugs war is over already , drugs won

Yeah it is like Vietnam, the war was clearly demonstrated to be a
loser by 1968 but we stayed there losing our people until 1975.

Drug wars will never be won until governments make all illegal drugs
legal and properly regulated, just like alcohol prohibition didn't work.
The problems began when we made cocaine illegal.

1920: Cocaine is banned as an illegal substance in the U.K. under the
Dangerous Drugs Act. This started an illegal importation trade. Some
enterprising traffickers used homing pigeons sent from France to bring
in a gram at a time.

1920s: Evidence of a €˜modern underground drug scene emerging in Soho,
London.

Before these drugs were made illegal there were very few addicts.

Governments never seem to learn from history.

Illicit drug use should not be a crime, says Royal College of Physicians:
The Royal College of Physicians of London has joined calls for an end
to criminal sanctions against people who take drugs such as heroin,
cocaine, and cannabis for non-medical reasons.

The college now endorses the stance of the Faculty of Public Health and
the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH). In a 2016 report1 the RSPH
concluded that the €œwar on drugs€� fails to deter drug misuse but instead
deters people with drug use disorders from seeking treatment and
inhibits harm reduction efforts.

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1832

In the US most drugs became "taxed" after prohibition. It was a way to
maintain that prohibition infrastructure and for the most part only
target minorities that nobody cared about. They really weren't
"illegal" just taxed, like Machine guns. Until Nixon there was a
marijuana tax stamp just like the machine gun tax stamp you need
today. It was a way to get around the constitution about the powers
granted to the federal government. Nixon decided he could simply make
these things illegal at the federal level and the drug war as we know
it started. That was when the tax stamp for pot law was overturned.
You couldn't actually buy that stamp now. (You can get the stamp for a
machine gun). Cocaine is a prescription drug that a doctor could
prescribe today. Again it was Nixon who proposed "schedules" of drugs.
The strange thing is, cocaine and the various opiates are schedule II
and can be prescribed. At the federal level Marijuana is a schedule I
and is simply illegal. OTOH 11 states say you can buy it for
recreational use and 29 say it is medicine. (those numbers may even be
higher now, the law is changing fast). This will someday result in a
showdown in court that might end up tossing all federal drug laws and
that is why the DoJ is ignoring it now.
What they could do is demand that everyone buy that tax stamp and be
totally constitutional. The reason the original tax stamp legislation
was overturned was that they would not sell Timothy Leary a stamp for
pot. If they had, the feds would be getting a taste of the billion
dollar pot market and it is just a simple law from congress that would
reinstate it.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one
example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.
The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3 or 4 gang
bangers having a turf battle on some urban street corner. Even with
that it still pales in comparison to the single thug taking one in the
ear over some kind of drug beef.
The police are even reluctant to attribute as many murders to the drug
war as are happening because it further points out their dismal
failure in that war.

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.

On 4/4/2019 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete
with a government on that count.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.


The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not just to allow us to just shoot
and hunt or protect our person. It was aimed at helping to keep an
oppressive government at bay.

Look at the huge thread here with Jefferson's comment about criminal and
government.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 03:49:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:59:19 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Joe Public does not have a fully auto gun. The permit for that is
extremely expensive.

Criminals are criminals and they don't care about permits.

Joe Public has a semi-auto gun. It fires once every time you pull
the trigger.

Every mass murder I can think of was perpetrated with semi-auto guns.
Even that guy in Las Vegas who used a bump stock to increase his
rate of fire.

Cindy Hamilton

It depends on how you define mass murder and how good your memory is.
Charles whitman killed 14 and wounded 31 in an hour and a half with a
bolt action Remington 700.

On 4/4/2019 9:52 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/04/2019 06:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

* Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?


I prefer just a six shot revolver.* It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

Unless you're Jerry Miculek there is a bit of a pause between bang 6 and
bang 7.* Unless you've got one of those fancy Smith 627s of course. The
first time I saw someone shooting one of those there was a WTF? moment
at bang 7.

I always assumed I was slow to reload because I'm left handed but then I
realized right handed people do a juggling act too.



I prefer my revolver to my semi as I reload and it is a pain to pickup
ejected brass.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:36:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.

You say that like it's a good thing. It mostly just shows that we
have an unacceptably high murder rate from guns period that lowers
the percent that are mass shootings.

In other words, we don't give a **** how many die, we only care about
white kids.

On 4/4/2019 9:51 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/4/2019 7:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Â*Â* Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?

I prefer just a six shot revolver.Â* It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

My choice barks over her and bites over yonder. This is mean hand gun
I got.

Â* I bet it ain't any meaner than a TC Contender with a 14" bull barrel
chambered in .30 Herrett . And wearing a 4X TC RP scope ... With the
right load that one grouped under 1/2" at 50 yards . And a 125 gr soft
point leaving the muzzle at 2100+ FPS had more energy at 50 yards than a
.44 mag w/240 gr has at the muzzle .

One of my sons has a 500 S&W. He thinks its just neat to have. I've
been trying to get him to the range to shoot it. He also has a Desert
Eagle 50AE. I have shot it and recoil is very manageable because the
gun is so heavy. I would only shoot it once though as the ejected case
hit me in the forehead.

On 4/4/2019 9:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/04/2019 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

Â* 25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

Semi-auto, I think you'll find.

Cindy Hamilton


That point is lost on Bod. When you don't know **** about firearms you
make it up as you go along, like Joe Scarborough's theory that an AR-15
is much deadlier than a M-16.


Recall the old cop killer bullets. The left makes up **** that fools
their sycophants.

On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 05:29:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Back during the cold war the Russians were very concerned that if they
invaded us that most of us were armed.

There was never any possibility of russia invading the USA like that.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal 85-year-old senile asshole?
LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 2:37:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 03:49:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:59:19 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Joe Public does not have a fully auto gun. The permit for that is
extremely expensive.

Criminals are criminals and they don't care about permits.

Joe Public has a semi-auto gun. It fires once every time you pull
the trigger.

Every mass murder I can think of was perpetrated with semi-auto guns.
Even that guy in Las Vegas who used a bump stock to increase his
rate of fire.

Cindy Hamilton

It depends on how you define mass murder and how good your memory is.
Charles whitman killed 14 and wounded 31 in an hour and a half with a
bolt action Remington 700.

Ah. I wrote sloppily. My distinction was between auto and
semi-auto.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:30:38 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.

Not with a semi-auto or even an auto rifle. A double barrel or
pump action shotgun would be more adequate. Unless you're a really bad
shot.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

Frank "frank writes:
On 4/4/2019 8:28 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank to kill one of
"theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching the "enemy" in
groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus the fact that at
least a percentage of current military will be sympathetic to the cause
... and will either refuse to fight or defect - with their gear and as
much armament as they can carry off . I don't own an AR type rifle ,
don't feel the need . But I support the rights of those who do .


Back during the cold war the Russians were very concerned that if they
invaded us that most of us were armed.

I'm sure you must have a citation to a source which confirms that
the Russians were so concerned. Note that _Red Dawn_ isn't a citation
that I would accept.

writes:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.

So, use a shotgun. And please, snip unnecessary text in your responses.

Frank "frank writes:
On 4/4/2019 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Terry Coombs writes:


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.


The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not just to allow us to just shoot
and hunt or protect our person. It was aimed at helping to keep an
oppressive government at bay.

You can't back that assertion up with any citations to, you know, actual
writings from the founders or other historical research, can you?


Look at the huge thread here with Jefferson's comment about criminal and
government.

A thread on this newsgroup is hardly citable. In fact the whole thread was
predicated on a falsehood (TJ never said that).

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 14:32:43 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not just to allow us to just shoot
and hunt or protect our person. It was aimed at helping to keep an
oppressive government at bay.


More importantly; to form the Union, James Madison needed the Colonies
to unite. Each Colony had its respective 2nd Amendment.

Look at the huge thread here with Jefferson's comment about criminal and
government.

Madison Rising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cQ7ldhD05E
--
"Sir, We’re Surrounded. Good, we can attack in any direction" -- Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 16:59:41 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:30:38 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.

Not with a semi-auto or even an auto rifle. A double barrel or
pump action shotgun would be more adequate. Unless you're a really bad
shot.
[]'s

I shot plenty of skeet in a league with about 100 other shooters. The
most popular gun by far was a semi auto (usually a Remington 1100) and
only a few people had doubles, even fewer with pumps.
Recoil is a big part of it. After a few boxes of shells that solid
action will start getting to you. If you shoot 100 rounds in an
evening you might really start to appreciate that SA if you are a
small guy or a woman.
I still liked my O/U Daly tho.

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.

So, use a shotgun. And please, snip unnecessary text in your responses.

That is still going to be one bird at a time unless you believe that
bull**** that a shotgun fills the air with a cloud of pellets and you
can't miss.
I can take you out to a skeet range and dispell that in about 30
seconds.

On 4/5/2019 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?
Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.
In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.
So, use a shotgun. And please, snip unnecessary text in your responses.
That is still going to be one bird at a time unless you believe that
bull**** that a shotgun fills the air with a cloud of pellets and you
can't miss.
I can take you out to a skeet range and dispell that in about 30
seconds.

Â* It'd take less time for me ... I've never been any good with a
shotgun . The bolt action 20 ga I got for my 14th birthday has had less
than 5 boxes of shells fired thru it in over 50 years . Probably closer
to 3 .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...
On 4/4/2019 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will
have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

 What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and
criminals.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one
example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution
was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not just to allow us to just shoot
and hunt or protect our person. It was aimed at helping to keep an
oppressive government at bay.

And then the world moved on and anyone stupid enough
to try that like the Black Panthers, Simbionese Liberation
Army, Koresh and Ruby Ridge ended up dead.

Look at the huge thread here with Jefferson's comment about criminal and
government.

From the fool that had slaves.

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:36:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and
has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right
birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

 What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training
and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans
too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most
murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000
murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.

You say that like it's a good thing. It mostly just shows that we
have an unacceptably high murder rate from guns period that lowers
the percent that are mass shootings.

In other words, we don't give a **** how many die,

Particularly when its gang goons, they are better
off dead so they can't shoot anyone else.

we only care about white kids.

We care about any flavor of kids shot in their schools.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:04:49 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?
Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.
In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.
So, use a shotgun. And please, snip unnecessary text in your responses.
That is still going to be one bird at a time unless you believe that
bull**** that a shotgun fills the air with a cloud of pellets and you
can't miss.
I can take you out to a skeet range and dispell that in about 30
seconds.

Â* It'd take less time for me ... I've never been any good with a
shotgun . The bolt action 20 ga I got for my 14th birthday has had less
than 5 boxes of shells fired thru it in over 50 years . Probably closer
to 3 .

For some reason it was always easy for me. I can hit stuff moving
easier than things sitting still it seems.
Maybe I don't have the patience to aim but quick pointing comes
naturally.

On 4/5/2019 6:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 16:59:41 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:30:38 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.

Not with a semi-auto or even an auto rifle. A double barrel or
pump action shotgun would be more adequate. Unless you're a really bad
shot.
[]'s

I shot plenty of skeet in a league with about 100 other shooters. The
most popular gun by far was a semi auto (usually a Remington 1100) and
only a few people had doubles, even fewer with pumps.
Recoil is a big part of it. After a few boxes of shells that solid
action will start getting to you. If you shoot 100 rounds in an
evening you might really start to appreciate that SA if you are a
small guy or a woman.
I still liked my O/U Daly tho.


I have a Remington 1100 and have shot many feather and furred critters
with it. Most recently just used mostly on deer and I have doubled many
times. Shot trap and skeet with it but got a Remington 870 for trap as
if shell at my club hit the ground you were not allowed to keep it and I
reloaded them.

On 4/5/2019 4:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Frank "frank writes:
On 4/4/2019 8:28 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.ÂÂ* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank to kill one of
"theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching the "enemy" in
groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus the fact that at
least a percentage of current military will be sympathetic to the cause
... and will either refuse to fight or defect - with their gear and as
much armament as they can carry off . I don't own an AR type rifle ,
don't feel the need . But I support the rights of those who do .


Back during the cold war the Russians were very concerned that if they
invaded us that most of us were armed.

I'm sure you must have a citation to a source which confirms that
the Russians were so concerned. Note that _Red Dawn_ isn't a citation
that I would accept.

I have it somewhere in my library. Think it was from a soviet military
defector. Try to find it yourself.

On 4/5/2019 4:10 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Frank "frank writes:
On 4/4/2019 10:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Terry Coombs writes:


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.


The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not just to allow us to just shoot
and hunt or protect our person. It was aimed at helping to keep an
oppressive government at bay.

You can't back that assertion up with any citations to, you know, actual
writings from the founders or other historical research, can you?


Look at the huge thread here with Jefferson's comment about criminal and
government.

A thread on this newsgroup is hardly citable. In fact the whole thread was
predicated on a falsehood (TJ never said that).


Not quite that way:

https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...ious-quotation

On 04/05/2019 07:44 AM, Shadow wrote:
And a bolt action is sufficient for hunting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute

When I was doing Appleseed I would sometimes use a bolt action .22 for
variety. I became fairly proficient with it. Appleseed was scaled down
to take advantage of inexpensive ammo so you're shooting what amounts to
a 1" square target at 25 meters.

It isn't a mad minute but it is 10 rounds in 50 seconds with a mandatory
mag change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appleseed_Project

They are fun weekends. You get experience with position shooting and a
bit of history on the side as the story of April 19, 1775 is told.

On 04/05/2019 07:58 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19:59:08 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/04/2019 11:05 AM, Shadow wrote:
Over a hundred thousand Americans were rounded up by the
government and put in concentration camps.
Trumpologists: But they used chopsticks !!!

Thousands of Americans were jailed and persecuted by the
government because of their political beliefs.
Trumpologists: But they were communists and anarchists !!!

Thousands of Americans ....


Best argument I can think of for being heavily armed... The Japs didn't
have much but chopsticks and the IWW members they rounded up at Bisbee
and sent to New Mexico were also without much weaponry. Only one deputy
was shot.

And how many Japanese would have died if they ALL had pistols
and hunting rifles ?
ALL of them. The right wing would have called it a "war" and
poured napalm and nerve gas over them
"Best argument" ever pulled out of an arse I've ever seen.
[]'s


Ever been to Manzanar? No, of course not. The best part was when they
got back from summer camp if they had a home or business it now belonged
to an Anglo.

I do believe you know a lot about things pulled out of arses.

On 04/05/2019 08:41 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19:42:41 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/04/2019 03:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.

You have a lot of criminals with full auto firearms, do you?

Yes. They're called the "president and his men" now.
Bolsonaro doesn't trust the military, so he goes around with a
crowd of criminals as bodyguards.
[]'s


Free election, wasn't it? 55% of the vote, wasn't it?

On 04/05/2019 12:28 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/4/2019 8:28 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank
to kill one of "theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching
the "enemy" in groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus
the fact that at least a percentage of current military will be
sympathetic to the cause ... and will either refuse to fight or defect
- with their gear and as much armament as they can carry off . I don't
own an AR type rifle , don't feel the need . But I support the rights
of those who do .


Back during the cold war the Russians were very concerned that if they
invaded us that most of us were armed.

The Russians know a lot about being invaded and overcoming a technically
superior foe with an endless supply of Ivans.

On 04/05/2019 02:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Frank "frank writes:
On 4/4/2019 8:28 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

 What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank to kill one of
"theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching the "enemy" in
groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus the fact that at
least a percentage of current military will be sympathetic to the cause
... and will either refuse to fight or defect - with their gear and as
much armament as they can carry off . I don't own an AR type rifle ,
don't feel the need . But I support the rights of those who do .


Back during the cold war the Russians were very concerned that if they
invaded us that most of us were armed.

I'm sure you must have a citation to a source which confirms that
the Russians were so concerned. Note that _Red Dawn_ isn't a citation
that I would accept.


There isn't a citation in the universe you would accept so why bother?

On 04/05/2019 04:10 PM, wrote:
I shot plenty of skeet in a league with about 100 other shooters. The
most popular gun by far was a semi auto (usually a Remington 1100) and
only a few people had doubles, even fewer with pumps.
Recoil is a big part of it. After a few boxes of shells that solid
action will start getting to you. If you shoot 100 rounds in an
evening you might really start to appreciate that SA if you are a
small guy or a woman.
I still liked my O/U Daly tho.

Do skeet shooters use light loads? Not many Cowboy Action or 3-gun
shooters use full on 12 gauge.

On 04/05/2019 05:04 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/5/2019 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?
Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.
In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.
So, use a shotgun. And please, snip unnecessary text in your
responses.
That is still going to be one bird at a time unless you believe that
bull**** that a shotgun fills the air with a cloud of pellets and you
can't miss.
I can take you out to a skeet range and dispell that in about 30
seconds.

It'd take less time for me ... I've never been any good with a shotgun
. The bolt action 20 ga I got for my 14th birthday has had less than 5
boxes of shells fired thru it in over 50 years . Probably closer to 3 .


I had a Mossberg bolt action 12 ga that disappeared back in the '70s.
Never saw a reason to replace it. I enjoy target shooting and a shotgun
isn't exactly a precision firearm.

On 04/05/2019 05:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:04:49 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?
Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.
In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.
So, use a shotgun. And please, snip unnecessary text in your responses.
That is still going to be one bird at a time unless you believe that
bull**** that a shotgun fills the air with a cloud of pellets and you
can't miss.
I can take you out to a skeet range and dispell that in about 30
seconds.

It'd take less time for me ... I've never been any good with a
shotgun . The bolt action 20 ga I got for my 14th birthday has had less
than 5 boxes of shells fired thru it in over 50 years . Probably closer
to 3 .

For some reason it was always easy for me. I can hit stuff moving
easier than things sitting still it seems.
Maybe I don't have the patience to aim but quick pointing comes
naturally.


'Principles of a Quick Kill' was an Army training manual where they used
BB guns with no sights. The idea was with the right lighting you can see
the BB in flight and develop instinctive skills. Airsoft works too.

I got somewhat proficient at it but it is a skill that fades, at least
for me. I also suck at video games that require good hand to eye
coordination.

On 04/05/2019 12:37 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/4/2019 9:52 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/04/2019 06:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I
prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?


I prefer just a six shot revolver. It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

Unless you're Jerry Miculek there is a bit of a pause between bang 6
and bang 7. Unless you've got one of those fancy Smith 627s of
course. The first time I saw someone shooting one of those there was a
WTF? moment at bang 7.

I always assumed I was slow to reload because I'm left handed but then
I realized right handed people do a juggling act too.



I prefer my revolver to my semi as I reload and it is a pain to pickup
ejected brass.

Winter and mud season makes revolvers and .22's very attractive.

https://www.natchezss.com/caldwell-brass-retriever.html

A guy at the pistol club had one of those. It didn't work very well on a
pistol bay with grass, rocks, and so on. It certainly doesn't work when
the brass melts its way into 2' of snow. I've used a tarp to catch most
of the cases and went back in the spring for the rest if someone else
didn't get there first.

On 04/05/2019 12:43 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/4/2019 9:51 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/4/2019 7:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I
prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?

I prefer just a six shot revolver. It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

My choice barks over her and bites over yonder. This is mean hand gun
I got.

I bet it ain't any meaner than a TC Contender with a 14" bull
barrel chambered in .30 Herrett . And wearing a 4X TC RP scope ...
With the right load that one grouped under 1/2" at 50 yards . And a
125 gr soft point leaving the muzzle at 2100+ FPS had more energy at
50 yards than a .44 mag w/240 gr has at the muzzle .

One of my sons has a 500 S&W. He thinks its just neat to have. I've
been trying to get him to the range to shoot it. He also has a Desert
Eagle 50AE. I have shot it and recoil is very manageable because the
gun is so heavy. I would only shoot it once though as the ejected case
hit me in the forehead.

I have a .50 AE case that I found on my desk. I amuse myself by dropping
a .45 ACP round into it. I don't think I really want to shoot one. But
then, I'm a wuss. I load down .357 to lukewarm .38 Special performance.
I don't need any flinch inducing stuff until I seriously need it.

On 04/05/2019 12:45 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/4/2019 9:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/04/2019 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

 What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that
can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

Semi-auto, I think you'll find.

Cindy Hamilton


That point is lost on Bod. When you don't know **** about firearms you
make it up as you go along, like Joe Scarborough's theory that an
AR-15 is much deadlier than a M-16.


Recall the old cop killer bullets. The left makes up **** that fools
their sycophants.

The Black Talon was reborn as the Golden Sabre. They're not black so
they don't give the lefties damp panties.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:24:39 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 4/5/2019 6:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 16:59:41 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:30:38 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.

Not with a semi-auto or even an auto rifle. A double barrel or
pump action shotgun would be more adequate. Unless you're a really bad
shot.
[]'s

I shot plenty of skeet in a league with about 100 other shooters. The
most popular gun by far was a semi auto (usually a Remington 1100) and
only a few people had doubles, even fewer with pumps.
Recoil is a big part of it. After a few boxes of shells that solid
action will start getting to you. If you shoot 100 rounds in an
evening you might really start to appreciate that SA if you are a
small guy or a woman.
I still liked my O/U Daly tho.


I have a Remington 1100 and have shot many feather and furred critters
with it. Most recently just used mostly on deer and I have doubled many
times. Shot trap and skeet with it but got a Remington 870 for trap as
if shell at my club hit the ground you were not allowed to keep it and I
reloaded them.

They used to say that at our club too but if you were only picking up
your own nobody complained. I never got into reloading shotgun. I was
buying Winchester AAs for a little more than it cost to reload them
but I was buying them a pallet at a time. It took two 1/2 ton trucks
to haul them away. I was buying for the whole league, at least those
who didn't reload and could front up $50 a case (20 boxes in those
days) for them. The reloaders were always clamoring for my once fired
AA hulls tho. With an O/U it was easy to just hand them to them.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 19:49:17 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/05/2019 04:10 PM, wrote:
I shot plenty of skeet in a league with about 100 other shooters. The
most popular gun by far was a semi auto (usually a Remington 1100) and
only a few people had doubles, even fewer with pumps.
Recoil is a big part of it. After a few boxes of shells that solid
action will start getting to you. If you shoot 100 rounds in an
evening you might really start to appreciate that SA if you are a
small guy or a woman.
I still liked my O/U Daly tho.

Do skeet shooters use light loads? Not many Cowboy Action or 3-gun
shooters use full on 12 gauge.


The typical load is 1 1/8 oz of #9 over 2 3/4 or 3 dram equivalent
powder.
I usually bought the 2 3/4 because my wife's 1100 eat them fine and
they were a little easier on both of us. Some of the guys with
Winchester autos wanted the 3 dram because they thought the gun cycled
better. The M11 Remington or it's Browning brother was OK with the
lighter load. I would get the guy to swap out with some 3 dram cases
if I had an order for them. The price was the same.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 19:58:08 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/05/2019 05:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:04:49 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?
Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.
In the case of birds, you may want to shoot more than one.
So, use a shotgun. And please, snip unnecessary text in your responses.
That is still going to be one bird at a time unless you believe that
bull**** that a shotgun fills the air with a cloud of pellets and you
can't miss.
I can take you out to a skeet range and dispell that in about 30
seconds.

It'd take less time for me ... I've never been any good with a
shotgun . The bolt action 20 ga I got for my 14th birthday has had less
than 5 boxes of shells fired thru it in over 50 years . Probably closer
to 3 .

For some reason it was always easy for me. I can hit stuff moving
easier than things sitting still it seems.
Maybe I don't have the patience to aim but quick pointing comes
naturally.


'Principles of a Quick Kill' was an Army training manual where they used
BB guns with no sights. The idea was with the right lighting you can see
the BB in flight and develop instinctive skills. Airsoft works too.

I got somewhat proficient at it but it is a skill that fades, at least
for me. I also suck at video games that require good hand to eye
coordination.

I think it is muscle memory as much as anything combined with being
able to point where you are looking without thinking about it.
At the 7 yard line I can shoot my KP90 from high retention with my
eyes closed and stay in the center of mass after I get centered.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:06:00 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/05/2019 12:37 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/4/2019 9:52 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/04/2019 06:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I
prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?


I prefer just a six shot revolver. It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

Unless you're Jerry Miculek there is a bit of a pause between bang 6
and bang 7. Unless you've got one of those fancy Smith 627s of
course. The first time I saw someone shooting one of those there was a
WTF? moment at bang 7.

I always assumed I was slow to reload because I'm left handed but then
I realized right handed people do a juggling act too.



I prefer my revolver to my semi as I reload and it is a pain to pickup
ejected brass.

Winter and mud season makes revolvers and .22's very attractive.

https://www.natchezss.com/caldwell-brass-retriever.html

A guy at the pistol club had one of those. It didn't work very well on a
pistol bay with grass, rocks, and so on. It certainly doesn't work when
the brass melts its way into 2' of snow. I've used a tarp to catch most
of the cases and went back in the spring for the rest if someone else
didn't get there first.

The only thing I ever reloaded in any quantity was .38/.357 and being
revolvers, the brass was easy to keep track of. One of my IBM
coworkers used to cast bullets and he was always on the hunt for lead.
My roomie was a cable splicer for Ma Bell. He would give me old cable
sleeves (lead), by work buddy would swap them for cast bullets. I had
thousands. I was reloading .38 wad cutters cheaper than I could buy
..22rf and I had a range in the basement (my ex still has it). I was
shooting almost every day. My game was rapid fire, 6 shots at 6
targets timed at 5-7 yards. I was getting pretty good. I still never
got good at slow fire, 25 yards.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:15:01 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/05/2019 12:45 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/4/2019 9:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/04/2019 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

 What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that
can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

Semi-auto, I think you'll find.

Cindy Hamilton


That point is lost on Bod. When you don't know **** about firearms you
make it up as you go along, like Joe Scarborough's theory that an
AR-15 is much deadlier than a M-16.


Recall the old cop killer bullets. The left makes up **** that fools
their sycophants.

The Black Talon was reborn as the Golden Sabre. They're not black so
they don't give the lefties damp panties.


"Cop killer" was a whole nother breed of cat, the opposite of a talon.
It was a pointy teflon bullet that would go through some lower grade
vests, even out of a mediocre .38 or 9mm.
These days Hornady and some others have bullets that put that talon to
shame. It is mostly about retaining expansion capability after
penetrating windshields and drywall tho. (the FBI protocol)