View Full Version : So you think you know the 2nd Amendment
The Storyteller
1-3-13, 1:01pm
I wouldn't know. I am in the UK where, thankfully we have extremely tight gun laws.
Lucky you. And what is gun violence like there compared that in the US?
You don't have to answer. I already know. ;)
Yes, he beat his grandmother to death, but fat chance doing that to four firefighters in the open. And while he could have gotten an assault weapon even if they had been banned, it would have been considerably more difficult.
Which to me is an advantage to gun control law. It doesn't make things like this and Newtown impossible, but it does make them more difficult to accomplish and potentially less deadly.
I agree that there is validity in the access argument. It's logical to assume there are a lot of illegal assault rifles out there that started their lives in a perfectly legal setting, but were stolen. I don't have any numbers for that regarding any specific weapon class, but there is no doubt it does happen. Would it even be constitutional to require purchasers of certain types of guns to also purchase a gun safe or some other way to guarantee criminals can't get to the guns?
Bushmaster is headquartered in the US, but one big problem with a ban is that most of the guns that get all the press aren't made here. They're predominantly from Eastern Europe. A ban here would stop formerly legal shipments and purchases, but would also strengthen the black market. The Mexican cartels and the gangs in the US who work for them won't be too worried about the new laws because their guns are already illegal. All they would have to do to get more would be put in a call to Romania. A ban won’t slow that down.
The Storyteller
1-3-13, 5:06pm
Most of the guns used in these mass shootings were legally obtained. This particular guy who murdered the firefighters did not steal his, but purchased it from an individual who did purchase it legally. Only one that I know of (the Portland mall shooter) stole or borrowed his from an acquaintance. If these weapons were still banned, they would not have been able to so easily obtain their weapons, stolen or otherwise.
The are tactical weapons of war that only belong in the hands of the military or law enforcement. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
Most of the guns used in these mass shootings were legally obtained. This particular guy who murdered the firefighters did not steal his, but purchased it from an individual who did purchase it legally.
Spengler, as a felon, was forbidden firearms ownership, and could not legally purchase a firearm.
The purchaser of the rifle he used, Dawn Nguyen, committed multiple federal and state crimes in her straw-man purchase and conveyance of the firearm to Spengler, and has been charged.
Weird, criminals don't follow laws... Who would have guessed?
BTW, I am impressed above that you somehow deduced the manufacturer of the firearm used from the initial news reports, given that there are hundreds of manufacturers of AR-15 rifles here in the USA, where the AR has been the top-selling platform for years now. I spent some time working with Col. Dr. Martin Fackler at the Army's Wound Ballistics Lab at the Letterman Institute, and it was often quite difficult to determine the projectile used to produce a given wound, much less what firearm launched the projectile, and that was with the evidence sitting on the table right in front of you. My hat is off to your psychic powers!
Most of the guns used in these mass shootings were legally obtained. This particular guy who murdered the firefighters did not steal his, but purchased it from an individual who did purchase it legally. Only one that I know of (the Portland mall shooter) stole or borrowed his from an acquaintance. If these weapons were still banned, they would not have been able to so easily obtain their weapons, stolen or otherwise.
The are tactical weapons of war that only belong in the hands of the military or law enforcement. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
And there's the rub. It's that pesky gun show, or 'private sale' loophole that enables something like 40% of gun sales to go unregistered, without necessary background checks. If gun control laws were standard, across the board and states, and every sale required registration, it may not totally prevent gun violence like this, but it would make it more difficult. Especially for the neighborhood gang banger who gets his gun from a friend of a friend of a friend. Trace that gun used in a crime back to the last legal owner and this is the guy to go after, along with the perp, if caught. If your gun is stolen, file a report, so if that gun is used in a crime, you are absolved of responsibility. Seems pretty simple to me. No one has to give up their guns. They just have to register every one of them, and record it when they are sold or stolen.
And this 'gun is just a tool' argument is getting pretty tiresome. Yes, a hammer is a tool, but a hammer is not designed to beat up grandmas. A spoon is a tool, but it is not designed to make you fat. A car is a tool, but it is not designed to wreck.
A gun is a weapon with one design. To kill, period. That is it's purpose.
A 1/4 inch drill bit is a tool, but if it was found that 40,000 deaths a year were caused by this tool, you bet your butt it would be banned. 3 kids choke on small parts and a toy is banned!
so trying to reduce a gun to merely a harmless 'tool' is lame, at best.
The gun pushers keep talking in circles. A gun is just a tool....guns don't kill, people do....etc...OK, well, then gun control laws are for PEOPLE. A gun, er, tool, can't drive itself to the courthouse and register itself, but the 'tool' who bought it can. The laws are for PEOPLE who want guns. Close the gun show/private sale loophole where PEOPLE are involved, and you can make it more difficult for the bad guys to get the guns.
The Storyteller
1-3-13, 5:55pm
BTW, I am impressed above that you somehow deduced the manufacturer of the firearm used from the initial news reports, given that there are hundreds of manufacturers of AR-15 rifles here in the USA, where the AR has been the top-selling platform for years now.
My apologies. I didn't mean make and model. I meant type. As in military type assault rifle capable of using large clips of ammo, not a particular brand of assault weapon from a particular manufacturer.
I'm smart, but not that smart.
Most of the guns used in these mass shootings were legally obtained. This particular guy who murdered the firefighters did not steal his, but purchased it from an individual who did purchase it legally. Only one that I know of (the Portland mall shooter) stole or borrowed his from an acquaintance.
Yes, there have been mass shootings with legally obtained guns. Nothing in life comes with 100% guarantees. As bae and I both pointed out there are multiple layers of laws already on the books making it illegal for Spengler, the NY shooter, to purchase or own guns. Any additional layers of law would have changed nothing.
Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, also used illegally obtained guns in his crime. Prior to Newtown there have been 58 mass shootings in the US since 1982. The shooters carried a total of 134 guns. More than 75% of them were illegal. Do the other 25% mean we have a problem? You bet, but we're crazy to think that legally obtained guns that are already strictly regulated are the real problem. And the mass shootings are horrific, but in 2012 Chicago alone had 20 murders for every person who died in Newtown. Take a wild stab at which demographic was inordinately affected? Yup, young black and Hispanic men who were most often gunned down in association with gang activity (whether they were in gangs or not). I'm not sure how many of those gang bangers went to the sporting goods store in the mall, filled out their Form 4473, passed the background check and came back a few days later for their gun. My guess is the percentage is low. Any law, no matter how restrictive, will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who care nothing about the law. Coincidentally, that is also the group that does the most shooting!
1084
And there's the rub. It's that pesky gun show, or 'private sale' loophole that enables something like 40% of gun sales to go unregistered, without necessary background checks. If gun control laws were standard, across the board and states, and every sale required registration, it may not totally prevent gun violence like this, but it would make it more difficult. Especially for the neighborhood gang banger who gets his gun from a friend of a friend of a friend. Trace that gun used in a crime back to the last legal owner and this is the guy to go after, along with the perp, if caught. If your gun is stolen, file a report, so if that gun is used in a crime, you are absolved of responsibility. Seems pretty simple to me. No one has to give up their guns. They just have to register every one of them, and record it when they are sold or stolen.
And this 'gun is just a tool' argument is getting pretty tiresome. Yes, a hammer is a tool, but a hammer is not designed to beat up grandmas. A spoon is a tool, but it is not designed to make you fat. A car is a tool, but it is not designed to wreck.
A gun is a weapon with one design. To kill, period. That is it's purpose.
A 1/4 inch drill bit is a tool, but if it was found that 40,000 deaths a year were caused by this tool, you bet your butt it would be banned. 3 kids choke on small parts and a toy is banned!
so trying to reduce a gun to merely a harmless 'tool' is lame, at best.
The gun pushers keep talking in circles. A gun is just a tool....guns don't kill, people do....etc...OK, well, then gun control laws are for PEOPLE. A gun, er, tool, can't drive itself to the courthouse and register itself, but the 'tool' who bought it can. The laws are for PEOPLE who want guns. Close the gun show/private sale loophole where PEOPLE are involved, and you can make it more difficult for the bad guys to get the guns.
As far as the "tool" argument goes, so are explosives - and they are heavily regulated. Why is that?
Any law, no matter how restrictive, will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who care nothing about the law.
I have to think the easiest way to smuggle *real* assault weapons into the USA would be to conceal them inside bales of cocaine, because nobody ever thinks to look there.
Or you could make them *legally* in your own shop. I made a Sterling submachinegun about 2 years ago, a classic British weapon from WWII. It took me a good part of a weekend, because it was the first one I'd made, and I was making it to be semi-automatic and fire from a closed bolt, not selective-fire, which took a little more work. If I were not interested in complying with the law, it would have been simpler by far to make the more historically-accurate *real* submachinegun. And I bet I could set up a shop to churn these puppies out for a production cost of < $150 or so.
If I were An Evil Criminal Type, I'd surely have some of my minions doing something similar, except for the fact that it is nearly impossible to compete with the former Soviet-bloc nations on production costs, and they have warehouses full of *real* AK47s and AK74s to unload. They'd probably throw in a crate of RPGs if you buy in volume. I can never find RPGs at gun shows for some reason...
I think the thing about this entire conversation that I find so dispiriting is that the people in favor of the status quo are so certain that no solution will have any impact in reducing these senseless deaths that they continually argue that there's no point in even bothering to try and find a solution to this problem. And by extension since it's unsolvable no problem even exists.
And by extension since it's unsolvable no problem even exists.
I think it is unlikely we can get DUI deaths down to zero. A few will always abuse the freedom given to the many. But the solution to DUI isn't to limit container size to airline bottles. That doesn't mean you can't look for better ways to limit the deaths.
I think the thing about this entire conversation that I find so dispiriting is that the people in favor of the status quo are so certain that no solution will have any impact in reducing these senseless deaths that they continually argue that there's no point in even bothering to try and find a solution to this problem. And by extension since it's unsolvable no problem even exists.
No one here is saying we don't have a problem or advocating doing nothing. We have a very serious problem and our elected leadership needs to publicly identify it and then implement swift and wide ranging actions to correct it. One of the road blocks to doing that is public perception. The general public does not identify specific problems, they live on sound bites. This month's sound bite is brought to you by Bushmaster... It doesn't matter that an overwhelming percentage of gun crime in this country is committed not with any specific class of weapon, but with a specific method of procurement; illegal guns. Mass shootings, as opposed to your run-of-the-mill homicide, are made even more horrific by the media over-coverage and fill the public ears with countless more sound bites. Mass shootings are carried out by people who have serious mental issues, but in the whirlwind of coverage anyone who owns a AK-47 is perceived as being capable of such an act.
Politicians will go after assault rifles because they are perceived as being the root of the problem. They are the low hanging fruit. A big wave of public outcry, a bold stroke of a pen and the problem goes away. What really happens is the problem gets buried rather than solved. Chicago will still have its 500 homicides a year. Crazy people will still occasionally appear in malls and kill others. Hardly anything would change because the real problem wasn't addressed.
Going after illegal guns is not a popular political move because it is a) expensive, and b) difficult. There is no quick bump in the poll numbers to be had. It means hiring and training more police and more ATF agents when budgets are already tight. Being proactive also brings up several constitutional issues. What, for example, is cause for reasonable search and seizure? On the mass shooter side, do we take away someone's right to own a gun because we THINK they might be capable of doing harm? There aren't many easy answers which is why politicians and media alike don't go there, but in every logical problem solving / trouble shooting technique you start by fixing what you KNOW is broken. We know illegal guns account for almost all the shootings in the US. If we get that under control and find we still have a problem we can keep going, but until we address illegal guns we're just spitting in the ocean to appease public sentiment while sweeping the real problem under the rug.
I think it is unlikely we can get DUI deaths down to zero. A few will always abuse the freedom given to the many. But the solution to DUI isn't to limit container size to airline bottles. That doesn't mean you can't look for better ways to limit the deaths.
Your comparison of the problem of mass murderers to DUI gives me hope. Just as society has moved from considering drunk driving as a routine part of life (I'm old enough to remember comedians making jokes about it) to most people finding it to be an unacceptable behavior with corresponding changes in how it's treated legally, hopefully one day we'll move from an attitude of "guns don't kill people so there's really nothing we can or should do to try and stop this problem" to one where even responsible gun owners will be interested in finding a solution.
...hopefully one day we'll move from an attitude of "guns don't kill people so there's really nothing we can or should do to try and stop this problem" to one where even responsible gun owners will be interested in finding a solution.
But I fear we may never move past the point where most people only hear what they want to hear. Sigh...
Your comparison of the problem of mass murderers to DUI gives me hope. Just as society has moved from considering drunk driving as a routine part of life (I'm old enough to remember comedians making jokes about it) to most people finding it to be an unacceptable behavior with corresponding changes in how it's treated legally, hopefully one day we'll move from an attitude of "guns don't kill people so there's really nothing we can or should do to try and stop this problem" to one where even responsible gun owners will be interested in finding a solution.
Wrell, not exactly. First, gun owners are interested in finding a solution now and it's really kind of silly to say otherwise. What we don't want is stupid rules that infringe on a right without any appreciable benefit. Not everyone thinks the solution to obesity is to make it illegal to buy a Big Gulp. Second, the cultural change you are looking for may be quite dissimilar to the shift on DUI. The response to DUI was to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable and enforcing strict penalties. I would say the response to gun crimes needs to be split as well, but in addition to penalty enforcement society may need to be more permissive or attentive to the conditions that lead to the bad acts and not just ostracize those that are at risk of committing the crimes.
Wrell, not exactly. First, gun owners are interested in finding a solution now and it's really kind of silly to say otherwise. What we don't want is stupid rules that infringe on a right without any appreciable benefit. Not everyone thinks the solution to obesity is to make it illegal to buy a Big Gulp. Second, the cultural change you are looking for may be quite dissimilar to the shift on DUI. The response to DUI was to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable and enforcing strict penalties. I would say the response to gun crimes needs to be split as well, but in addition to penalty enforcement society may need to be more permissive or attentive to the conditions that lead to the bad acts and not just ostracize those that are at risk of committing the crimes.
I totally agree (love the big gulp/obsesity analogy too). Gun owners ARE very interested in finding solutions to these kinds of problems - be it crime or mass shootings or accidental shootings, etc... Just as drivers want to find solutions for deaths and accidents caused by drunk or distracted drivers, and others want to find solutions to obsesity or drug abuse or alcoholism. This is what I see in these kinds of threads - sort of brain storming to identify the problems and causes, and to find solutions. The differemce is that many people who support the right to own firearms, don't view ownership of them as the cause of these sorts of problems anymore then car ownership is the cause of drunk or distracted driving or a Big Gulp is the cause of being overweight. So rather then ban something, we are trying to look for other causes, and other solutions. to change things.
Tongiht I heard this statistic on NPR:
In the 1960's 1 of 2 households had a gun in the house
Now 1 of 3 households have a gun in the house
I am guessing that the population shift to urban/suburban changed this? or ?
So if we move 99.9% of the population (force march them?) to suburbia then they won't feel the need for a gun and the libs progressives will get their wish plus I will like it, win win. No laws that ban guns necessary, the end. Just a theory.:laff:
I am guessing that the population shift to urban/suburban changed this? or ?
I think it's because I've been buying them all, in my one-man quest for gun-control.
The 2nd amendment is out of date.
The 2nd amendment is out of date.
I think it has rarely been more important than it is today.
http://www.warriortalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=27966&d=1357319990
The 2nd amendment is out of date.
That is just stupid. But I guess I can take away from your comment that you DO think it protects Joe Average's right to keep and hold guns and plenty of them.
Right now in IL, in a *lame duck* session of the state General Assembly, the Chicago/Cook County Dems are doing their darndest to pass a semi-automatic gun ban. Not just "assault weapons" but anything else that is semi-auto, including handguns. They tried to get it through the IL Senate yesterday, but there wasn't enough support to get it out of committee. We pro-gun folks went to work. Now they're trying through the IL House - On Sunday. Thank goodness both my state rep and senator are pro-2nd Amendment. We're going back to work. Both my rep and senator actually responded to my emails and calls.
That is just stupid. But I guess I can take away from your comment that you DO think it protects Joe Average's right to keep and hold guns and plenty of them.
We should be able have any type of firearms in our home. The cops have machine guns so we need the same type of weapon to protect our homes and property. You must keep in mind when the 2nd amendment was written they only had flint locks. We have advanced way past the flint lock. We have even made it illegal to have slaves worst of all in the early 20th century we gave women the right to vote. The world and the US have changed in the last 200 years.
Edited to add: Mississippi was the last state to ratify the 19th amendment on March 22, 1984. Enough states had ratified it in 1919 so it became law in 1919. I fond that interesting when I looked it up. Who says southern states are backwards.
You must keep in mind when the 2nd amendment was written they only had flint locks. We have advanced way past the flint lock.
When the first amendment was written we had only quill pens and parchment paper. Just sayin'...
When the first amendment was written we had only quill pens and parchment paper. Just sayin'...
Technology does make it necessary to define "gun". Why is a machine gun a "gun" but things like grenade launchers and bazookas or other artillery not? They are all "arms", why can't I just go out and buy one? Are my 2nd amendment rights being violated because I can't get my own grenade launcher and ammo?
When the first amendment was written we had only quill pens and parchment paper. Just sayin'...
The printing press did exist... ;-)
When the first amendment was written we had only quill pens and parchment paper. Just sayin'...
I have ever heard of any body being shot with quill.
I think it's because I've been buying them all, in my one-man quest for gun-control.And I see you've bought out all the ammo too. I went to several Walmarts and gun stores to buy ammo for my twice monthly target practice and everything was gone. Almost completely bare shelves at all places (although the cool Zombie - and rat zombie, my favorite - targets were still there :-)!). I think that is because starting today, Calif (or maybe it's Fed) institutes a limit on buying ammo and the need to register to buy it.
I have ever heard of any body being shot with quill.
Let's narrow the field to just the five formal declarations of war by the US, five strokes of the pen...
The War of 1812. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_the_United_K ingdom_(1812)) ~20,000 Deaths
The Mexican-American War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War) 13,283 Deaths.
The Spanish-American War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War) 2,446 Deaths.
WWI (Declaration of War on Germany) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_Germany_(191 7)) 116,516 Deaths.
WWII (Officially Declarations of War on Japan, Germany, Italy, Romania, Blugaria and Hungary) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States) 405,399 Deaths.
Those figures are US casualties only, they don't include the other side. By my count just our official declarations of war led to ~557,644 American deaths. A pen, in the wrong hands, is far more dangerous than a rifle.
Technology does make it necessary to define "gun". Why is a machine gun a "gun" but things like grenade launchers and bazookas or other artillery not? They are all "arms", why can't I just go out and buy one? Are my 2nd amendment rights being violated because I can't get my own grenade launcher and ammo?
That's actually a pretty interesting question creaker. I didn't immediately find any SCOTUS cases where someone was claiming 2nd Amendment violations because they couldn't buy a M198 Howitzer or other larger scale weapon. I'm also curious as to the exact limits and/or definitions.
That's actually a pretty interesting question creaker. I didn't immediately find any SCOTUS cases where someone was claiming 2nd Amendment violations because they couldn't buy a M198 Howitzer or other larger scale weapon. I'm also curious as to the exact limits and/or definitions.
I think it's an important point - are we arguing over the right to bear arms? Or over what arms we have the right to bear? Two very different questions because the first says the government has no right to interfere, but the second says the government does, and we're just arguing over the details.
I think it's an important point - are we arguing over the right to bear arms? Or over what arms we have the right to bear? Two very different questions because the first says the government has no right to interfere, but the second says the government does, and we're just arguing over the details. I see that there are three threads in these disscussions: The right to bear arms. What kinds of arms can we own. And Why do you need arms or specific types of arms anyways? It always gets confusing exactly what specific topic we are talking about when it comes to firearms.
As to the "what kinds" of firearms we have the right to bear, my understanding is that each state determines what type of firearms, ammo, and magazine capacity are allowed in that state, while the Feds overall can ban certain types of firearms for everyone (full auto and certain military arms like bombs and missiles, etc...) and the states must adhere to that. Certain states, like Calif, do not have an ammendment in their state consitution for the :right to bear arms" and there has been many law suits that have tried to use that lack of a state ammendment to ban ALL firearms (including hunting rifles and shotguns) from the private citizen. All failed as unconsitutional because Fed Cont. laws superseceeds state law.
And I see you've bought out all the ammo too. I went to several Walmarts and gun stores to buy ammo for my twice monthly target practice and everything was gone. Almost completely bare shelves at all places (although the cool Zombie - and rat zombie, my favorite - targets were still there :-)!). I think that is because starting today, Calif (or maybe it's Fed) institutes a limit on buying ammo and the need to register to buy it.
Welcome to my world! ;-) It has to be a CA law, since I've not heard about it otherwise. In IL, you have to have a FOID card to buy ammo, let alone buy a gun or rent a gun at a range.
As to the "what kinds" of firearms we have the right to bear, my understanding is that each state determines what type of firearms, ammo, and magazine capacity are allowed in that state, while the Feds overall can ban certain types of firearms for everyone (full auto and certain military arms like bombs and missiles, etc...)....
Be aware that ownership of full auto weapons and "destructive devices" has been *regulated* since 1934, but civilian ownership is *quite legal* and not too terribly troublesome. There have been approximately 0 crimes committed with these legally owned weapons since 1934, and there are *lots* of them out there.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-appendix-a.pdf
I own several very nice belt-fed weapons, and a 20mm cannon, for instance, and everyone all the way up the food chain is just OK with that.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-gM4PDPmNkYw/SjbwymEkx_I/AAAAAAAAALY/p2qlGIruT0I/s576/Browning1919.jpg
The Federal government even shipped me directly, at a great price, pallets of armor-piercing ammunition for that Browning M1919.
So, might be worth looking into the actual laws, and statistics of ownership, before looking into "solutions". These typically aren't the sort of thing normal civilian owners use to knock over the corner liquor store.
OK now you're just trying to make me jealous :-)! I still miss firing my full autos (M-16 and M60 and .50 cal) but the gosh dern feds wouldn't let me have them :-). Of course I needed my little gunner boy to fed the rounds and change out my barrel when it got overheated but they wouldn't let me keep him either!!
Thanks for the info and I'll read that article later but do know that people who previously owned some firearms before the various fed bans on both full and semi-autos were allowed to retain their firearms but wasn't aware of the rest. I just assumed they were all highly regulated and allowed only to certain people. I agree that most (none) of those kinds of arms are used in the commission of crimes in the USA. Especially not bombs - legally made and owned that is. Illegal or home made like in Ok. City and Atlanta are a different matter. Although when I lived in Europe I saw lots of bombed out places (many train, bus and subway storage facilities were permanently closed to prevent bombings and places to store bombs ) but those were from various seperatist groups not criminals for the most parts.
OK now you're just trying to make me jealous :-)! I still miss firing my full autos (M-16 and M60 and .50 cal) but the gosh dern feds wouldn't let me have them :-).
I really like my M2HB, but it is too silly-expensive to feed, and Uncle Sam never sold off huge amounts of inexpensive ammo for it. Still, if the Canadians ever invade and attempt to force us to consume poutine, well, I stand ready to do my duty.
I really like my M2HB, but it is too silly-expensive to feed, and Uncle Sam never sold off huge amounts of inexpensive ammo for it. Still, if the Canadians ever invade and attempt to force us to consume poutine, well, I stand ready to do my duty.I'm not ure what poutine is but I am a closeted curling fan (go Canada National Curling Team!!) but I'd never admit that out loud :-)!
We had Browning M2's I think and then switched to something else but they are fun to shoot - as long as someone else is paying for the ammo! I can barely handle the cost of ammo on my current firearms (for example: 100 rounds of .357 for $50 at Walmart - shot off in a few minutes - YIKES) so anything full auto would be out of the question. But I pay the money (and whine about it) as I do feel as a firearms owner the need to practice at least once or twice a month on everything I own. But like Tradd pointed out, with greater restrictions on everything I imagine those costs will go up and availability will go down. Back in the day DH and I re-loaded our own but he got the reloading equipment in the divorce :-)!
Welcome to my world! ;-) It has to be a CA law, since I've not heard about it otherwise. In IL, you have to have a FOID card to buy ammo, let alone buy a gun or rent a gun at a range. Yeah Calif has some of the strictist gun laws in the nation but has been pretty laid back about ammo - with some restrictions as to type and amount but nothing prohibitive. Not sure what (or even if) this new law came into effect yet, or what it will require when in effect as it's been bantered around in various forms in court for a long time now. I personally don't mind some restrictions on large ammo purchases and tracking the amount purchased of those who buy or requirering them to register before making purchases, I just don't want to see any outright bans for the most part. In other words - Big Brother can watch but can't restrict without due cause.
OK now you're just trying to make me jealous :-)! I still miss firing my full autos (M-16 and M60 and .50 cal) but the gosh dern feds wouldn't let me have them :-). Of course I needed my little gunner boy to fed the rounds and change out my barrel when it got overheated but they wouldn't let me keep him either!!
Good luck finding a volunteer! I've still got a visible burn scar on my left forearm, the result of a too quick barrel change on an M60 back in the early 70's.
Good luck finding a volunteer! I've still got a visible burn scar on my left forearm, the result of a too quick barrel change on an M60 back in the early 70's.
OUCH!!
Ha Ha! Yeah that would be a problem!! Anyone wanna sign up? You get the added "fun" of clearing jammed rounds as well as carrying the extra ammo, barrel, and tripod while getting a a bunch of red hot expended cartigages in the face at 1000/minute. Oh... and then you get to clean it afterwards :-)!
Anyone wanna sign up?
This is the great advantage of:
a) water-cooling jackets
b) cloth belts instead of disintegrating links
c) teenagers
This is the great advantage of:
c) teenagers
I knew there was a reason I should have had kids :-)!
The CG doesn't use M60's anymore - changed over about the time I got out to something else (can't remember what) but some units still use both .50's and M60's together - or one or the other as part of their small arms weapons. I liked the M60's though - lighter and easier to use then the .50s. Even the little boats get them. Bigger ships get them plus more!
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1086&d=1357849375 http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1087&d=1357849746
Oops! Guess I'm hijacking this thread as this is more for hobby forum. Back to the 2nd amendment now!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.