Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:43 pm
Posts: 153
Dan Johnson II wrote:
Come on Mudge. You are playing games with it. We're not defining this by the military. We're defining it based on common sense. Certainly you can assault someone with anything.

Personally, I define an assault as being capable of fully automatic fire, as opposed to a bushmaster AR15 available at walmart that is a semi-automatic rifle. Are you saying I'm incorrect?

A rifle that fires 30-100 rounds that quickly is far different then the bolt action deer rifle and definitely a bigger threat to a group of people and more frightening.

Bad comparison, mainly because, a semi-auto rifle and a bolt action rifle are two differant operating systems. But the media tells everyone that an AR rifle is the scariest rifle in the world when all they are is an overpowered .22, compare that to say....30.06 in a bolt action deer rifle that is a lot more powerful. Granted the bolt action has a slower rate of fire but a modestly proficient shooter can throw that bolt pretty quick.

No hunter needs that kind of firepower. Anyone claiming he does, is a really lousy shot.

Eh....

Target shooters don't use ARs with collapsible stocks and 30 round mags.

They dont? Says who? I use both. Can you please explain this statement. I dont get why a collapsible stock and a 30rnd magazine is brought up with target shooting.

I've got a copy of "Black Magic-The Ultra Accurate AR-15". Those are full length, no collapsible stocks and every photo shows at max a 20 round mag and more often then not a 10 round.

Is there a point I'm missing?

No one is grabbing for your guns or mine. You'll have your collection and can pass it on, or sell it. And like the last 'ban' you'll be able to buy a new gun if you want it.

Have you read any of Dianne Feinstein's proposed legislation? The new assault weapons ban would be totally differant from the previous AWB. Seriously, it's a bit scarey....

Ironically my AR-15 that I have left is a 'ban' gun. Shoots just the same.

Agreed, a pre ban and a post ban AR fire the same, one bullet at a time.


The "gun grabber' comment is more of the same too. Said to get those who can't read or do the research to think the big bad black helicopters are coming to get them. Sadly there are way too many folks who buy that garbage.

Why do you own fully auto guns Mudge? Why do you feel the need to be 'really well armed' as you say?

I note you didn't comment on Scalia's Supreme Court ruling's words too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:43 pm
Posts: 153
For me personally, I fully support the second amandment as written. It's hard to draw the line of what civilians should be able to own or not. A fast as you can fire a semi auto, it's not that far from full auto anyways. I dont really care for full auto in a rifle, it's too expensive and far less accurate.

All this "assault weapon" crap in the media just that, crap. ALL firearms are dangerous in the hands of bad people, period.

In the end I say....

The NICS system has serious flaws, fix the flaws.

We already have gun laws, use the existing laws and prosicute the hell out of the offenders. And leave the honest, law abiding citizen alone. I have comitted no crime, go get the guy who did.

A collapsible stock, bayonet lug and a pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun making them an assault weapon is just plain dumb and pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:33 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
Dan...In your diatribe, You state that no hunter NEEDS that kind of firepower.

That sounds curiously like the gun grabbers mantra of telling we law abiding gun owners what we NEED and what we don't.

This is a free country (That's changing before our eyes :evil: ) and all of us are free to obtain pretty much anything we WANT and can afford.

Mudge the free

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:16 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10621
Can I still get a full-auto bayonet with a collapsable stock, or are those illegal too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:38 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
bdk wrote:
Can I still get a full-auto bayonet with a collapsable stock, or are those illegal too?


You want the "assault" bayonet? I've got an extra.

Mudge the generous :shock:

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:39 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10621
Hopefully it is black, that makes it much scarier!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:01 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
bdk wrote:
Hopefully it is black, that makes it much scarier!


OOOPS....sorry...chrome :wink:

Mudge the blingy

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:55 pm
Posts: 28
Interesting points are made for both sides of the issue.
I would like to add that i don’t need a 600 hp engine to commute to work, but i want one. If a gun enthusiast wants a 30 round clip for hunting deer I say... ok. It has nothing to do with the practicality of use. If I live in the desert and I want a 20 foot boat. That’s my business.

As for interpretations of the US constitution, I regard the formation of the national guard as a complete gutting of the second amendment. The federal government took all existing state militias and elevated them to federal status. In order to be a member you must have completed boot camp. At that point you have entered federal service and they own you. In order to perform this power grab. the federal government put in place the State defense force. This is what’s left of the state militias that fought in the revolution and civil wars. Some states provide funding for their militias, from what I have read most don’t and are now defunct.

“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.” The amendment doesn’t state anything’s about fire power. As weapons technology advanced so did the weapons of the state militias. I think it’s expected of the militia to keep and bear the most advanced, effective arms available. Even if that means tanks, machine guns, aircraft; In the context of a well regulated state militia. As it is I think every state in the union is defenseless against let’s say the 82 airborne or any tank unit. Don’t say it can’t happen here, it has in the past.

Once this power grab was complete it opened the door to reinterpretation of the second amendment. Over time military grade weapons have been slowly removed from the hands of the people. It’s not unreasonable to think that war birds even those that can never fly will see increased regulation… just in case.

For those who love literal interpretations of the US constitution. I submit that the formation of the air force is unconstitutional.
The constitution provides for an army and navy nothing else. To think that the founding fathers couldn’t imagine flying machines as weapons of war is I think a bit farfetched. Technically unfeasible, but not out of imagination. Subs where used in the revolution. Leonardo Davinci designed a tank as well as gliders and a screw coptor. Washington I expect would love to drop a bomb from above onto the British lines or shipping or just as recon units. Yes it’s the 1700’s, old but not the stone age.

The work around comes in the form of the key west accords and the national security act of 1947. Still no one bothered to look and add a new branch of military encompassing a new technology and way of war, to the constitution. It shouldn’t exist in its current form. what else could be comming down the road, space craft?
thats clearly the airforces area right? nope its space.... federal government shouldnt have it hands all over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:03 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3070
Location: Phoenix, Az
I'll chime in here since I own a fair number of assault weapons, my oldest is from 1875, and if you don't think it is a assault weapon, there were a large number of Indians who would disagree with you.

The 2nd is not about hunting, nor sport shooting, it was always about having the means of defending ones self from criminals and tyrants. The revolutionary war was fought with the same weapons the civilians had at their disposal, including cannon. There are those who say that the 2nd only applies to the arms that were in use at the time the Constitution was written, yet when you try to apply that same logic to the 1st, they scream that the 1st is a living part of the Constitution and covers all forms of speech and press.
so, in the minds of the left, we should only have muzzle loading rifles, yet they can have the internet, TV, Radio, Telephone, and all other forms of speech, I wonder what will happen when the govt tries to limit those forms of speech.........

In the Bill of Rights, the phrase, THE PEOPLE, refers to a individual right, yet the left wants you to believe that in the 2nd, it refers to a collective right. To the left, the Well Regulated Militia refers to the national guard, which did not exist for almost 100yrs AFTER the Constitution was written, The Militia was EVERY man 18yrs and older and Regulated was the requirement that every man have at his disposal, a rifle and bayonet, and given amount of powder, ball, flints, and rations.

I believe in the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers and believe that ANY weapon the foot soldier has access to, should be in the hands of EVERYONE, but, with that responsibility, come great temptation to do wrong, and when that occurs, justice needs to be swift and strong.

There are over 20,000 guns laws that are a contradiction to the Constitution's SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED clause, There is not one gun law that is not all ready covered by some other law. The democrats saying it is time for "sensible" and "reasonable" gun laws, well my question is what is reasonable and sensible and don't we all ready have those. In first 160 year of the country, there were no gun laws, then in the 20s, since they could not outlaw machine guns, they taxed them at a rate so high, the average person could not legally own one, after JFK was assassinated, you could no longer order a gun by mail, but had to go and fill out a form, after all, it was " reasonable", after Reagan was shot, there was a push for more "reasonable" restrictions, since the last "reasonable" restrictions did not work, so, we ended up with a background check, along with a form, and for a while, magazine restrictions and gun bans. When the magazine restrictions and bans expired the left was screaming that streets would run red with blood, which did not happen. Now we are facing more "reasonable" restrictions because of the actions of several mental cases. In my oppinion, these "resaonable" restrictions are no different than someone coming up to you and saying, "I am going to cut your arm off at the shoulder" and you negotiate it to where he cuts it off at the wrist, later, he comes back and again says, " I am going to cut your arm off at the shoulder" you again compromise and he cuts your arm off at the elbow, again he comes back and says " I am going to cut your arm off at the shoulder ".... When do you finally say NO.
The left wants "reasonable" and wants to "Compromise", What do they have to lose ? NOTHING, What do they have to offer in the form of a compromise, NOTHING, other than they will "ALLOW" us to keep a part of our arm. They are taking our rights, and what do were have to lose ? EVERYTHING, because we have all ready given up a hand and lower arm.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
https://www.facebook.com/shoot.the.guns.of.history


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:09 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:10 pm
Posts: 3057
Location: New York
You're making some stuff up Matt. Why limit it to what a "foot soldier" can carry, or to guns? The 2nd just says "arms". I assume you'd say it's okay to have all the live hand grenades you want. Fully armed warplane with guns and sidewinders? Shoulder mounted stinger missile? Tactical nuke? If you think the founding fathers were that prescient, there's no line to draw.

Justice needs to be swift and strong? If you think justice for 20 dead kids is even possible, you've never been a parent.

I'm sorry, but the technology and our society have progressed at least 100 years past the point where your approach can work.

August

_________________
Image
http://aircraft-in-focus.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:54 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6594
I have very little personally to add to this conversation, (OK I lied). but I did find this quote to be interesting.

"I hate ALL weapons, I hate anything that shoots bullets, but since I seem to be at the mercy of those who have a love affair with firearms for what they perceive to be their constitutional right, personal protection and personal enjoyment, I have no other recourse but to put my hate for weapons aside and join the people who feel the need for arming themselves to the teeth with assault weapons. I now need to educate myself as to what weapons are the most powerful and destructive and just how many I can purchase legally in this Country. I need to out-gun my neighbors collection, and my neighbors, neighbors collection. I need to make sure I can kill and destroy far faster and better than my neighbors can. I just hope my last surviving child will not have a bad day at school, come home and find a way to access my new arsenal of weapons and kill me, my neighbors and himself before my neighbors can access their arsenal of weapons to kill him. I should have been smarter before my youngest child was gunned down at school, I should have home schooled her next to my new arsenal of weapons. But hey this is America the home of the free isn't it? ... And I want to feel that freedom in all it's Power and Strength sitting next to my arsenal of new weapons"

_________________
The secret to being a good leader is to first be a good person.


Last edited by Mark Allen M on Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:17 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
Some very interesting points made here. Both pro and anti. Not all of them logical but...
The "pros" will always argue our right (correctly) to "keep and bear" and the "antis" will always argue that the "pros" should be regulated to the point of abrogation.
I have to laugh at the way the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are thrown around.
An "assault rifle" is a firearm that has the capability of automatic fire. Not a firearm that has no more connection to an assault rifle than the fact that it LOOKS like an assault rifle. A pistol grip, collapsible stock and a detachable magazine do NOT make it an assault rifle. It's merely a RIFLE.
Firearms that have a fully automatic capability have been strictly regulated since 1934. Yes, you can still own one of these legally. As long as it was made prior to May 19, 1986. AND...as long a you can pass a very thorough background check AND (here comes the kicker) as long as you can afford the $10,000 to $30,000 pricetag.
Now...an "assault weapon" is an entirely different animal. The operative word here is "WEAPON". The "weapon" can be anything from a knitting needle to a tire iron to a butcher knife. ie. ANYTHING that you can ASSAULT someone with.
And will you "antis" please stop with the over the top arguments about what a militia weapon is. You're using these silly scare tactics about what kind of weapons the militia would use (F-16s, tanks, tactical nukes, etc.) because you have no valid position to argue from.

Mudge the well armed. :-D

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Last edited by Mudge on Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:34 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 6594
Mudge wrote:
The "pros" will always argue our right (correctly) to "keep and bear" and the "antis" will always argue that the "pros" should be regulated to the point of abrogation.

Your right with your summation below ...
Mudge wrote:
Some very interesting points made here. Both pro and anti. Not all of them logical but...

_________________
The secret to being a good leader is to first be a good person.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:24 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3070
Location: Phoenix, Az
k5083 wrote:

Justice needs to be swift and strong? If you think justice for 20 dead kids is even possible, you've never been a parent.

I'm sorry, but the technology and our society have progressed at least 100 years past the point where your approach can work.

August

it worked for 100+ years here and still works in Switzerland, Where every home has a machine gun in the home, yet there are no mass shooting there............
If things have not changed because of liberals, there would not have been 20 dead kids, there would have have only been a dead maniac, Liberals took guns out of schools. Students used to bring their guns to school in their cars, so after school they could hunt or target shoot, and there were no mass shootings. Liberals created "gun free zones" aka target rich environment and "zero tolerance" where a kid can get expelled for biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun. There is a reason you never heard about mass shootings before the last 30 years, BECAUSE there were armed people everywhere. These sickos are cowards, they want their targets to be unarmed, they don't want to face a armed citizen, what they do want is to cause the maximum amount of damage and get their name into the history books, compliments of the press.
Every time one of these sickos has face a armed citizen or the police, they shoot themselves or shrivel up like the cowards they truly are. Every mass shooting has had 2 things in common, they all took place at a location where the people there were not armed and able to defend themselves, and the shooters have been democrats, or if they were too young, the children of democrats.
When I say strong justice, I mean that, make prison somewhere they don't want to be, no air conditioning, no tvs, no radios, lots of work turning boulders into pebbles. There is a reason Sheriff Joe is popular here in Maricopa County, the inmates hate him, they hate living in tents, and they had pink underwear. Someone who is sentenced to die for their crimes, and there is no doubt of their guilt, should not be on death row longer than some of their victims had been alive.

I am not parent, but, if I had been, I would have been like the Father who shot the vermin that had molested his son. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE.

I believe in Freedom and the Constitution as it was written, but seeing how you are from new york, a state that does not believe in either of those, I would not expect you to understand those concepts.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
https://www.facebook.com/shoot.the.guns.of.history


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:10 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
Matt Gunsch wrote:
k5083 wrote:

Justice needs to be swift and strong? If you think justice for 20 dead kids is even possible, you've never been a parent.

I'm sorry, but the technology and our society have progressed at least 100 years past the point where your approach can work.

August

it worked for 100+ years here and still works in Switzerland, Where every home has a machine gun in the home, yet there are no mass shooting there............
If things have not changed because of liberals, there would not have been 20 dead kids, there would have have only been a dead maniac, Liberals took guns out of schools. Students used to bring their guns to school in their cars, so after school they could hunt or target shoot, and there were no mass shootings. Liberals created "gun free zones" aka target rich environment and "zero tolerance" where a kid can get expelled for biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun. There is a reason you never heard about mass shootings before the last 30 years, BECAUSE there were armed people everywhere. These sickos are cowards, they want their targets to be unarmed, they don't want to face a armed citizen, what they do want is to cause the maximum amount of damage and get their name into the history books, compliments of the press.
Every time one of these sickos has face a armed citizen or the police, they shoot themselves or shrivel up like the cowards they truly are. Every mass shooting has had 2 things in common, they all took place at a location where the people there were not armed and able to defend themselves, and the shooters have been democrats, or if they were too young, the children of democrats.
When I say strong justice, I mean that, make prison somewhere they don't want to be, no air conditioning, no tvs, no radios, lots of work turning boulders into pebbles. There is a reason Sheriff Joe is popular here in Maricopa County, the inmates hate him, they hate living in tents, and they had pink underwear. Someone who is sentenced to die for their crimes, and there is no doubt of their guilt, should not be on death row longer than some of their victims had been alive.

I am not parent, but, if I had been, I would have been like the Father who shot the vermin that had molested his son. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE.

I believe in Freedom and the Constitution as it was written, but seeing how you are from new york, a state that does not believe in either of those, I would not expect you to understand those concepts.


What he said!!!

Mudge

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group