Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alias Detective

Guns Guns Guns

Recommended Posts

I kid you not.  I went hunting for spring gobblers yesterday. The gun never shot itself and no one died.

It was a big scary gun holding a capacity of 3 shells each 3.5 inches long and over 1/2 inch in diameter!  In camo too.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, you mean you don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting? Interesting. Wanna tell all the other gun owners that secret?

Share this post


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

Wait, you mean you don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting? Interesting. Wanna tell all the other gun owners that secret?

I do own an AR.  It is not legal to hunt with in PA.  I have it as a collector item as it’s a Colt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

The gun never shot itself

Has your gun been acting suicidal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got mine near Westcliff Colorado a few weeks ago.  Smoked it with hickory last friday.  Still eating off of it.  Turkey burritoes last night.  Will make some soup today.

 

I suspect my shotgun may have been getting a little agitated on the ride down but it remained composed enough to not assault other motorists.  It neither loaded itself nor discharged itself. It just remained in its case with the action locked open.

Share this post


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

Got mine near Westcliff Colorado a few weeks ago.  Smoked it with hickory last friday.  Still eating off of it.  Turkey burritoes last night.  Will make some soup today.

 

I suspect my shotgun may have been getting a little agitated on the ride down but it remained composed enough to not assault other motorists.  It neither loaded itself nor discharged itself. It just remained in its case with the action locked open.

Weird as hell I tell ya. Mine behaved very well on the ride to my cabin too.

Share this post


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

Weird as hell I tell ya. Mine behaved very well on the ride to my cabin too.

I took my Remington 1100.  It was my dad's before me.  Purchased in 1966 though manufactured the year before.  In 57 years it has yet to load or discharge itself.  Sadly I have no sons to bequeath it to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

 It is not legal to hunt with in PA. 

What?  How is this possible?  What kind of dictatorship do you live in?  This is how it starts you know.  By next week you're gonna be in shackles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I do sometimes suspect the temperment of Italian shotguns.  Maybe want to keep an eye on them.

I own several.  They work fine with several types of shot, buck, bird, just keep them away from the sambuca.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Wait, you mean you don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting? Interesting. Wanna tell all the other gun owners that secret?

We already know what an AR-15 is used for. You should go read a history book so you can learn too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I own several.  They work fine with several types of shot, buck, bird, just keep them away from the sambuca.

I use to long for an Italian shotgun, probably a Beretta but maybe a Benelli.  I could afford one now but likely will never indulge that urge.  I am moving towards divesting myself of my guns, not acquiring more.  I did once shoot them side by side, inertia v. gas operated.  I did not develope a preference in my brief exposure.

Share this post


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

I kid you not.  I went hunting for spring gobblers yesterday. The gun never shot itself and no one died.

It was a big scary gun holding a capacity of 3 shells each 3.5 inches long and over 1/2 inch in diameter!  In camo too.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Amen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogcows said:

Wait, you mean you don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting? Interesting. Wanna tell all the other gun owners that secret?

You should write for CNN......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dogcows said:

Wait, you mean you don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting? Interesting. Wanna tell all the other gun owners that secret?

Quote

When looking at the .22LR vs .223, the truth is that the .223 is, in fact, a .22 caliber round. While the media loves to portray this as a ‘huge assault bullet’ and only meant for use in warfare, the truth is that a .223 round is a relatively small and not particularly powerful.

scary bullets info

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Alias Detective said:

I kid you not.  I went hunting for spring gobblers yesterday. The gun never shot itself and no one died.

It was a big scary gun holding a capacity of 3 shells each 3.5 inches long and over 1/2 inch in diameter!  In camo too.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Next time invite D!ck Cheney & Alec Baldwin.

Share this post


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

Next time invite D!ck Cheney & Alec Baldwin.

Hahahaha. Now that’s a good one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group A: Loves guns. Even chants "We love guns".  Doesn't shoot up society.

Group B:  Shoots up schools, shoots up city streets, fills jails with violent criminals, often on the account of using guns for violence.

Group B:  Blames the gun problem on Group A, constantly referencing "Group A and their gun loving folks"



Does any liberal see a problem with this? 

 

Here's something else.  This country is soooo focked up...media is SOOOOO focused on agenda and not the truth.

Geraldo Rivera in a debate with Greg Gutfield, cites that AR-15's (.223) blow deer in half, some random wayyyyy incorrect statement.  Gutfield corrects him, says too small of a caliber in some states to be legal for deer, etc. makes fun of him.


Interviews and appearances AFTER THAT.... Geraldo back to announcing the same thing.... AR-15's blow deer in half, etc.  etc. etc.

Why why why would you do that?  You were proven wrong, and made fun of and looked like a complete retard. ReeeeTard. 

The liberal media's group collaboration goal, is to "push the agenda under any circumstance--even if proven 100% false"

It's not about the truth, its' about the agenda...and thing is...everyone on both sides knows it...but these liberal focks plod forward.  LOL.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

Group A: Loves guns. Even chants "We love guns".  Doesn't shoot up society.

Group B:  Shoots up schools, shoots up city streets, fills jails with violent criminals, often on the account of using guns for violence.

Group B:  Blames the gun problem on Group A, constantly referencing "Group A and their gun loving folks"



Does any liberal see a problem with this? 

 

Here's something else.  This country is soooo focked up...media is SOOOOO focused on agenda and not the truth.

Geraldo Rivera in a debate with Greg Gutfield, cites that AR-15's (.223) blow deer in half, some random wayyyyy incorrect statement.  Gutfield corrects him, says too small of a caliber in some states to be legal for deer, etc. makes fun of him.


Interviews and appearances AFTER THAT.... Geraldo back to announcing the same thing.... AR-15's blow deer in half, etc.  etc. etc.

Why why why would you do that?  You were proven wrong, and made fun of and looked like a complete retard. ReeeeTard. 

The liberal media's group collaboration goal, is to "push the agenda under any circumstance--even if proven 100% false"

It's not about the truth, it’s' about the agenda...and thing is...everyone on both sides knows it...but these liberal focks plod forward.  LOL.

In an age where we have technology at our fingertips we are some of the least educated people I’ve ever seen. Lazy and gullible. 

Share this post


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

Group A: Loves guns. Even chants "We love guns".  Doesn't shoot up society.

Group B:  Shoots up schools, shoots up city streets, fills jails with violent criminals, often on the account of using guns for violence.

Group B:  Blames the gun problem on Group A, constantly referencing "Group A and their gun loving folks"



Does any liberal see a problem with this? 

 

Here's something else.  This country is soooo focked up...media is SOOOOO focused on agenda and not the truth.

Geraldo Rivera in a debate with Greg Gutfield, cites that AR-15's (.223) blow deer in half, some random wayyyyy incorrect statement.  Gutfield corrects him, says too small of a caliber in some states to be legal for deer, etc. makes fun of him.


Interviews and appearances AFTER THAT.... Geraldo back to announcing the same thing.... AR-15's blow deer in half, etc.  etc. etc.

Why why why would you do that?  You were proven wrong, and made fun of and looked like a complete retard. ReeeeTard. 

The liberal media's group collaboration goal, is to "push the agenda under any circumstance--even if proven 100% false"

It's not about the truth, its' about the agenda...and thing is...everyone on both sides knows it...but these liberal focks plod forward.  LOL.

Did I miss it when Geraldo Rivera announced he had transitioned to being a liberal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2023 at 2:56 PM, Fnord said:

Did I miss it when Geraldo Rivera announced he had transitioned to being a liberal?

Dude, Geraldo has been a Liberal his entire career.  Where the hell have you been? 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2023 at 3:34 PM, BudBro said:

 

Yep. I keep trying to tell people that an AR is just a "suped-up" .22

Same diameter round, it just travels a lot faster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 5-Points said:

Yep. I keep trying to tell people that an AR is just a "suped-up" .22

Same diameter round, it just travels a lot faster. 

They still don't get it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

They still don't get it though.

Many never will. They've been beaten over the head with the whole "weapons of war" bs for so long they don't bother to question it anymore. Which was precisely the plan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Many never will. They've been beaten over the head with the whole "weapons of war" bs for so long they don't bother to question it anymore. Which was precisely the plan. 

An AR-15 is the same gun as an M-16 except one thing: it doesn’t have 3-shot burst mode. So yeah, it is a weapon of war. Trying to pretend otherwise based on the caliber of the rifle shows that YOU don’t understand the weapon. Because the muzzle velocity makes a huge difference, and the M-16/AR-15 is 3x the velocity of a standard 9mm. So just stop.

Share this post


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

An AR-15 is the same gun as an M-16 except one thing: it doesn’t have 3-shot burst mode. So yeah, it is a weapon of war. Trying to pretend otherwise based on the caliber of the rifle shows that YOU don’t understand the weapon. Because the muzzle velocity makes a huge difference, and the M-16/AR-15 is 3x the velocity of a standard 9mm. So just stop.

No burst, no auto. You know, the very capabilities that WOULD make it a weapon of war. No US soldier has ever been issued an AR-15. How many AR's have we sent to Ukraine? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1. The AR is NOT a weapon of war. Full stop. 

Now, the .223 round, or more accurately, the 5.56 round is a round used in war. As is the 9mm. 

Want to drop that shovel now or keep digging? 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

No burst, no auto. You know, the very capabilities that WOULD make it a weapon of war. No US soldier has ever been issued an AR-15. How many AR's have we sent to Ukraine? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1. The AR is NOT a weapon of war. Full stop. 

Now, the .223 round, or more accurately, the 5.56 round is a round used in war. As is the 9mm. 

Want to drop that shovel now or keep digging? 

 

An M16 doesn’t have full auto, just 3-round burst. And the Army trained soldiers NOT to use burst mode because it is so inaccurate. It’s far more effective at killing if you fire one round at a time. So it’s being used, on the street, in the same way it was used in the field.

Sure, there are special variants of the M16 with full auto, but they’re rare. The standard issue for your average soldier only has the burst mode, and the use of that mode is highly discouraged. If you outfitted a unit with AR-15s instead of M16’s, you’d have little to no difference in the effectiveness of the unit. Of course, they don’t really use the M16 anymore, but the point is, there was no effective difference between it and the AR-15 in most use cases.

And don’t forget that you seem to be ignoring velocity completely. Perhaps you’re unaware of some laws of physics. Two objects of equal mass, but one is moving 3x faster? It has 3x the momentum.

Share this post


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

An M16 doesn’t have full auto, just 3-round burst. And the Army trained soldiers NOT to use burst mode because it is so inaccurate. It’s far more effective at killing if you fire one round at a time. So it’s being used, on the street, in the same way it was used in the field.

Sure, there are special variants of the M16 with full auto, but they’re rare. The standard issue for your average soldier only has the burst mode, and the use of that mode is highly discouraged. If you outfitted a unit with AR-15s instead of M16’s, you’d have little to no difference in the effectiveness of the unit. Of course, they don’t really use the M16 anymore, but the point is, there was no effective difference between it and the AR-15 in most use cases.

And don’t forget that you seem to be ignoring velocity completely. Perhaps you’re unaware of some laws of physics. Two objects of equal mass, but one is moving 3x faster? It has 3x the momentum.

The A1 was full auto. The A2 adopted 3 rd burst. 

I've already said that the .22  bullet travels faster out of the AR than say a 10/22. So you're wrong there. And yes, speed kills. 

Just because it looks similar to, and fires the same caliber round as, a weapon of war, does not make it a weapon of war. Especially given the fact that when they made it available to the civilian market, they removed all the aspects that made it an actual weapon of war. 

I guess we need to ban 12 gauge shotguns, 9mm & .45 caliber handguns, and any rifle that fires 300 Win Mag too then. Because those are all "weapons of war" by the retarded definition currently in use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Just because it looks similar to, and fires the same caliber round as, a weapon of war, does not make it a weapon of war. Especially given the fact that when they made it available to the civilian market, they removed all the aspects that made it an actual weapon of war. 

 

“All aspects” = burst mode. That’s it. You’re splitting hairs here. Why? Because you think the AR should be street legal even though it’s essentially the same as an M16?

Here’s a tip: nobody gives a crap when you come up with yet another minor distinction about the definition of one type of a weapon or another. The AR is a highly dangerous weapon, should not be on the street, and most people agree on that. Going on and on about semantics isn’t going to win anybody over. It just makes you look like a gun-humping fanatic.

The AR is not good for hunting because it rips the animal up. It’s not practical to carry around regularly for self-defense like a small handgun. Its main strength is gunning down multiple people quickly. And that’s what we see it used for daily in America. It shouldn’t be available for civilian use. Period.

The position of gun fanatics is becoming more and more extreme. When the backlash ends up with not just assault weapons like the AR-15 being banned, but far more draconian…. They will only have themselves to blame.

Share this post


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

“All aspects” = burst mode. That’s it. You’re splitting hairs here. Why? Because you think the AR should be street legal even though it’s essentially the same as an M16?

Here’s a tip: nobody gives a crap when you come up with yet another minor distinction about the definition of one type of a weapon or another. The AR is a highly dangerous weapon, should not be on the street, and most people agree on that. Going on and on about semantics isn’t going to win anybody over. It just makes you look like a gun-humping fanatic.

The AR is not good for hunting because it rips the animal up. It’s not practical to carry around regularly for self-defense like a small handgun. Its main strength is gunning down multiple people quickly. And that’s what we see it used for daily in America. It shouldn’t be available for civilian use. Period.

The position of gun fanatics is becoming more and more extreme. When the backlash ends up with not just assault weapons like the AR-15 being banned, but far more draconian…. They will only have themselves to blame.

Translation: I've been told AR's are weapons of war and I believe it because I don't know sh!t. 

The bolded is you showing your ass. The AR is no more dangerous than any other weapon. It's the person holding it that matters. Also, given the millions of AR's in private hands and the millions more being purchased every year, most people do not agree with your hoplophobic view. 

The 2A was written for a reason. And it wasn't hunting or self-defense. So if you want to take them from people, stack up or shut up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Translation: I've been told AR's are weapons of war and I believe it because I don't know sh!t. 

The bolded is you showing your ass. The AR is no more dangerous than any other weapon. It's the person holding it that matters. Also, given the millions of AR's in private hands and the millions more being purchased every year, most people do not agree with your hoplophobic view. 

The 2A was written for a reason. And it wasn't hunting or self-defense. So if you want to take them from people, stack up or shut up. 

I see you didn’t refute the statement that burst mode is the only difference between M16A2 and the AR-15. So, splitting hairs.

As for your statement on the 2A, I agree. It was written to guarantee an armed militia to defend America from Britain (or any other would-be invaders). But the SCOTUS has re-interpreted it to include self-defense now. Because if we want to interpret it in the original way you and I seem to agree on: there is no reason for anybody to have weapons at home. We should have local armories in each community where people can store weapons (incl. weapons of war) and they can have the range there for them to practice in case they are ever needed to defend America. 

Of course, one could also argue that since we have a “standing Army” at all times now, the 2nd amendment no longer applies. Its purpose is national defense. Which is already satisfied by the most powerful military on the planet. Which then leads to the question for SCOTUS. Do they invalidate it, or change its meaning? They chose the latter, making it a self-defense amendment. That’s how I see it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I see you didn’t refute the statement that burst mode is the only difference between M16A2 and the AR-15. So, splitting hairs.

As for your statement on the 2A, I agree. It was written to guarantee an armed militia to defend America from Britain (or any other would-be invaders). But the SCOTUS has re-interpreted it to include self-defense now. Because if we want to interpret it in the original way you and I seem to agree on: there is no reason for anybody to have weapons at home. We should have local armories in each community where people can store weapons (incl. weapons of war) and they can have the range there for them to practice in case they are ever needed to defend America. 

Of course, one could also argue that since we have a “standing Army” at all times now, the 2nd amendment no longer applies. Its purpose is national defense. Which is already satisfied by the most powerful military on the planet. Which then leads to the question for SCOTUS. Do they invalidate it, or change its meaning? They chose the latter, making it a self-defense amendment. That’s how I see it anyway.

I made a statement of fact. When they made the AR-15 available to the civilian market, they removed the aspects that made it a military weapon. That is a fact. 

The 2A was written to ensure Americans could never be denied the weapons with which to defend our liberty. It wasn't solely about foreign invaders. The FF's were not fans of standing armies and I would argue that, in their eyes, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would be just as important today as it was then. If not moreso given the current levels of government overreach. 

SCOTUS' ruling upheld the Constitution. Defense of liberty is self-defense. 

Share this post


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

“All aspects” = burst mode. That’s it. You’re splitting hairs here. Why? Because you think the AR should be street legal even though it’s essentially the same as an M16?

Here’s a tip: nobody gives a crap when you come up with yet another minor distinction about the definition of one type of a weapon or another. The AR is a highly dangerous weapon, should not be on the street, and most people agree on that. Going on and on about semantics isn’t going to win anybody over. It just makes you look like a gun-humping fanatic.

The AR is not good for hunting because it rips the animal up. It’s not practical to carry around regularly for self-defense like a small handgun. Its main strength is gunning down multiple people quickly. And that’s what we see it used for daily in America. It shouldn’t be available for civilian use. Period.

The position of gun fanatics is becoming more and more extreme. When the backlash ends up with not just assault weapons like the AR-15 being banned, but far more draconian…. They will only have themselves to blame.

Yeah, not so much.  In fact in some states there are laws preventing hunting even white tail with .223 as it does not "rip them up" enough.  My 30.06 rips them up pretty good as does my .270, my .300, my .338 lapua and my 45-120.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Yeah, not so much.  In fact in some states there are laws preventing hunting even white tail with .223 as it does not "rip them up" enough.  My 30.06 rips them up pretty good as does my .270, my .300, my .338 lapua and my 45-120.

I was going to point that out but decided against it. Hell, I know a guy, who has forgotten more about guns than I'll probably ever know, that built an AR specifically for squirrel hunting. Because they shoot flat and won't destroy the squirrel. 

That reminds me. I need to call him this weekend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

The 2A was written to ensure Americans could never be denied the weapons with which to defend our liberty. It wasn't solely about foreign invaders. The FF's were not fans of standing armies and I would argue that, in their eyes, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would be just as important today as it was then. If not moreso given the current levels of government overreach. 

SCOTUS' ruling upheld the Constitution. Defense of liberty is self-defense. 

This is certainly one interpretation, but not really supported by the text of the amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You have to stretch REALLY far to get to the interpretation you’re suggesting. Today’s SCOTUS interpretation doesn’t involve a militia, and it eschews any notion of anything being well-regulated, As I said before, the plainly stated purpose of the amendment is served by our military and police today. Which leaves the 2nd clause as a vestige. The court has decided to leave that vestige intact and create new and unsupported (at least by the plain text) reasons for keeping it intact. Because if they admit the reality, that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, then they can no longer justify the right to keep and bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogcows said:

This is certainly one interpretation, but not really supported by the text of the amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You have to stretch REALLY far to get to the interpretation you’re suggesting. Today’s SCOTUS interpretation doesn’t involve a militia, and it eschews any notion of anything being well-regulated, As I said before, the plainly stated purpose of the amendment is served by our military and police today. Which leaves the 2nd clause as a vestige. The court has decided to leave that vestige intact and create new and unsupported (at least by the plain text) reasons for keeping it intact. Because if they admit the reality, that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, then they can no longer justify the right to keep and bear arms.

Then why doesn't it read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

Because it wasn't about The State. It was about A state  A state of freedom. Therefore the PEOPLE were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms to secure their state of freedom. Be it from foreign invaders or a tyrannical government. 

The entire BoR is about guaranteeing the rights of PEOPLE and restricting government authority. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2023 at 12:09 PM, dogcows said:

This is certainly one interpretation, but not really supported by the text of the amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You have to stretch REALLY far to get to the interpretation you’re suggesting. Today’s SCOTUS interpretation doesn’t involve a militia, and it eschews any notion of anything being well-regulated, As I said before, the plainly stated purpose of the amendment is served by our military and police today. Which leaves the 2nd clause as a vestige. The court has decided to leave that vestige intact and create new and unsupported (at least by the plain text) reasons for keeping it intact. Because if they admit the reality, that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, then they can no longer justify the right to keep and bear arms.

Our founders overthrew the legitimate government.  They wanted the people to retain the right and power to do so.  They wanted government to respect if not fear the power retained by the people.  They thought that respect would restrain tyranny.  It was all about a peoples militia being able to effectively rise up and oppose the standing army and navy of the legitimate government.  Is that insane in this day and age.  Of course.  Yet that is what it meant.  If we find it insane we need to amend it, not ignore it or try to interpret it away, but amend it.  Anything less or more clearly ignores the constitution.

BTW, The founders did not only authorize individual arms.  The authoirzed private ship of war.  They authorized marques of reprisal essentially allowing private ship captains to capture ship of war. To do so those privater ships had to also have cannon and fighting men.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×