" Firearm registration is illegal"
Not registering some weapons is illegal. Try to buy one legally without registering them, and tell us what happens.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#nfa-firearms
We seem to agree on the all points, @bscar. But I am practical to a fault. I have installed the spoilers on cars and bit my tongue to keep myself from laughing at the customer. The current popularity of the assault rifle is a passing fad and the vast majority of new owners must stretch their finances to buy them and if those owner’s wives insisted on buying a Louis Vuitton hand bag they would insist that she was extravagant. And most of the M-16 look alikes that are sold during this apocalyptical rush will flood the market in a year or two at OBO prices.
I dunno, they’ve been pretty popular for awhile now. Glocks and 1911s share a rivalry and both are popular firearms. Try finding a “normal” sized revolver these days, you have the pocket revolvers(2~4" barrel) or the large, macho revolvers(7~10" barrel). Lots of companies are going for the conceal carry sized guns since they’re becoming popular as well.
I like some of the oddball designs as well, just because they’re so different.
The Chiappa Rhino is interesting, but if you have carpal tunnel, it’s not something you’d wanna shoot. It’s a bottom chamber fired revolver designed to push the recoil into the wrist instead of flipping the muzzle up. After 1 box of .357 and 1 box of .38, my wrist was sore for a couple days afterwards.
The FNH PS-90 looks odd, but is pretty comfortable to shoot, atleast if the full auto p90 is any indication. the oddbal sized round, 5.7x28, is made by only 2 companies, so ammo is pretty hard to find. It’s a bullpup design where the magazine rests on top of the barrel and the shells fall out the bottom of the stock. fully ambidextrous design.
The Kel Tec Sub-2000 folds up for easy storage/concealment and usually uses Glock magazines.
The KSG by Kel Tec is a 26.1" long 12 gauge shotgun that holds 15 rounds
The public appears to be somewhat fickle to me, @bscar. I enjoy a good deal when I see it and more often than not make a buck. You seem to trade to your advantage, also. But this is a big country and when I look around the parking lot at the mall and think that some of the men who are obviously one brick short of a load and have a short fuse the thought that they and millions like them have a 15 shot 9mm in their hip pocket keeps my shopping to a minimum. The hick town that I live in contracted with a private anti drug task force 20 years ago and the drug dealers were more sane and reasonable but the Narcs carried their pistols with badges pinned to the holsters in plain view and wore spandex pants and wife beater shirts when they shopped at Kroger. I can’t post what I told the mayor regarding that team after seeing them in the checkout.
And, FWIW, I came home from the Marine Corps in 1970 with a chip on my shoulder and a bitter taste in my mouth. Luckily I never had a weapon with me when someone pushed my buttons. I hope that the vets coming home today will find some support in falling back into life in “the world” while they avoid carrying a weapon until they are acclimated to civilization. Get them all home soon, though.
@Rod Knox,you are right people change.I think with the destructive potential of some of these weapons,either they shouldnt be availible or maybe not permitted till people are mature enough to own them(cant call a bullet back) if there is a superior race watching the Earth,all they have to do is provide a doomsday weapon to a zealous faction and then come in after a bit and sweep up the ashes-Kevin
There are different scales to this debate within exactly the same context. Most if not all would rather an unstable regime like North Korea or Iran not have Nuclear weapons, even though they perceive a need given the threats they live with. In a like manner, we debate whether it is really necessary that even one be armed to the teeth when really, is it that necessary when accidents and miss use with these weapons far out weighs their intended us. The other major similarity is our selfishness. Once we have something, or think we have the capability to own it, we don’t want to give that right up.
I used to belong to a revolutionary re enactment militia company. It was apparent to me that given the technology of the day, the weapons were more dangerous to the user then a perceived threat. They really only functioned well when use in perfect conditions, or as a group. When you hunt, it’s the hunter and not the prey that sets up these conditions or works in a group. That IS the genisis of the second amendment and not a person’s individual right. Individually, you were much better off learning to shoot a bow and arrow or learning how to run and hide.
We have gotten out of hand thinking the technology of today should still be available to anyone. Because in reality, those who argue for free access to any gun by any indivdual are making the same argument for Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons.
Huh. I didn't think most gang members in Chicago or Boston ran around with AK-47s under their coats. Responsible gun owners don't just go outside in a dense populated area and open fire. Sheesh-like when has that happened?
I don’t think ANYONE said anything about gang members with AK-47’s. And I agree most responsible people who own fire arms would NEVER go into the streets in a city and open fire a AK-47.
But there are some people who THINK an AK-47 is a good weapon for home defense (i know a few). And in a city like Boston when someone breaks into your home and you decide to defend yourself with an AK-47 (INSIDE YOUR HOME) - those bullets will NOT BE CONFIDED to inside your house. There’s very good chance of those bullets going through the walls/windows and into the street or other nearby homes.
And CCA is the one who made this statement which made me respond about the AK-47’s.
In Boston, the city is basically on lock-down and people are are asked to stay in their homes. I would hope that the folks have weapons in their homes, lots of big ones.
That is NOT the kind of weapons you defend your home with in a densely populated city. At least not without take a great chance of KILLING/MAIMING innocent people. Any weapon that can launch a projectile well beyond the borders of your house and property in a city like Boston or Watertown is just being a irresponsible gun owner.
A pistol is no different than an M16 when fired inside a home. A 9mm can go through walls and windows the same way. A .22 can also pierce a wall and window and can travel a mile. So by that logic nothing other than a shot gun should be in a city home? Just saying once you start drawing these lines, it gets very difficult to not go down the slippery slope of banning everything like in the UK. First rules of responsible firearm use: a gun is always loaded, and never fire without a clear target and back drop.
A pistol is no different than an M16 when fired inside a home. A 9mm can go through walls and windows the same way.
Except the M16 has a much longer effective range.
So by that logic nothing other than a shot gun should be in a city home?
Now you’re getting it. Why do you want to use a weapon that has the potential of killing/maiming innocent people when you’re trying to shoot/kill an intruder?
Re-read my posts…I NEVER EVER SAID banning. I have no problem with people owning a AR-15 in Boston. They want to use it for sport then GREAT…go at it. The problem I have is when they choose to use it for defense WITHOUT taking ANY RESPONSIBILITY for where those bullets may fly. Someone uses a AR-15 for defense and then kills the 13yo outside riding their bike…that person should go to jail for MURDER. Yes he didn’t mean to shoot the 13yo…But it’s still murder. It’s no different then the DRUNK who kills someone while driving. Sure they didn’t mean to kill someone…but they PURPOSELY got drunk.
What a coincidence. The History channel had a documentary on the M-16 this morning and I caught most of it. There was some criticism of the weapon but for the most part it was fluff but seeing the program prompted me to look further into the history of the weapon and ran across this
http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html
When you read critically, it becomes apparent that the M-16’s development and procurement by the military was the result of manufacturing problems with the M-14 and a sales coup by Colt who recognized the potential profit from the weapon in light of its ease of manufacture using alloys and plastic. And, incidentally, the AK-47 and its variants are always acknowledged as superior weapons.
"A pistol is no different then an m16 when fired inside the home"
Bing…With all due respect that is another falsehood that keeps being repeated. One is a rifle cartridge capable of a muzzle velocity of well over 3000 ft per second and muzzle enrgy of over 1500 ft lbs. if the other is a 9mm pistol bullet it is traveling at 1/3 the velocity with 1/4 the muzzle energy. If the two cartridges were equally capable, long range marksmen would be using pistols…
The jacketed .223 bullet when fired from an m16 is capable of defeating soft body armor used by police. Most pistol cartridges are not. As a general rule, center fire rifle cartridges will defeat level one and two body armor. As soon as people become fearful of these facts, a plethora of made up tests rigged to show otherwise hits the gun books illustrating how magically the .223 round tumbles and comes to a screeching hilt when hitting sheet rock.
.the idea that a “.22 can pierce a wall AND window AND travel a mile”, as most glass is double pane and exterior walls have insulation and interior are at least double sheathed stuns the imagination. Anyone who knows ballistics would be shocked to hear that it had much energy left after penetrating any of the above.
IF this were true, in short order, the .22 rimfire would be the defense round of choice and the preferred defense weapon of everyone, everywhere. You may have intended to use the word “or” but the statement as it stands misrepresents the facts and throws the whole debate about the Assault rifle into an emotional in stead of a factual discourse.
I believe from what I have read and seen demonstrated personally, the ak47 is a machine gun first and a rifle second. The M16 was designed to be a rifle first with closer tolerances and a machine gun second. That makes th ak47 more reliable to fire but less accurate in the hands of trained personally. So generally, in close quarters, the AK47 has it’s advantages.
I’m afraid I give up. I think we agree. Neither an M16, 9mm, .22 etc. is suitable for spraying the inside of a house in an attempt at an intruder. Although I do believe a pistol is better suited to the home protection provided you can see and hit the target. And definately not outside in a populated area. No issues with any of that. I don’t have either one although it would be fun to have a pistol but guess if I ever need it, the shotgun will have to do.
Interestingly in Minneapolis and I believe most other large cities, the deaths and injuries have been from kids firing pistols from outside indiscriminately with the rounds going through the wall and killing someone. Those are the folks I think we all are focused on, plus the lunatics that just want to kill people regardless of the weapon.
In 1970 when I went in the Reserves, we qualified on both the M14 and M16A1 must have been. We still were scared to death of the thing blowing up in your face if not kept perfectly clean. I know they had problems with them. I’m sure people made a lot of money on them but they were light weight and seemingly adaptable to what the military was looking for. I much prefered the M16 to the M14. Units were just changing over at that time. I really don’t care to have one either except it would be fun to spend an afternoon on the range with one.
My condolences @rodknox and my thanks for your time as a Marine. Those were tough tough years. Looking at the stats, a lot of guys only made it a couple to six months, never came back, and for many of the others were never the same again.
Thank you Bing. I am very grateful that I returned home in one piece and was able to get my life in order before finding myself in jail or worse. A great concern of mine is the current generation of veterans who return home and even though they are met with some flag waving and band music when the cheering ends they will find it difficult to find a job that will support them and a great many people are waiting for the opportunity to rip off their veteran’s benefits. It is often difficult to keep your hands in your pockets when you are facing someone who has or is ripping you off while your mouth is full of bitter bile. When a I hear a news report of a veteran hurting his wife or assaulting someone I don’t wish to rationalize and excuse them but I do wish that the military had done more to “repatriate” them.
ak vs ar video:
As far as returning vets, I agree they tend to be treated badly after the parade is over. No one defending the country should have trouble finding a job when they return. And the phrase I’ve read before; “Someone defending a ball shouldn’t make more than a person defending the country”
Since I completely agree that returning vets get treated poorly, I should point out the best solution to the problem: DON"T SEND THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! Sending people to invade other countries for personal and political gain is not “defending” our country, it’s just immoral.
Absolutely, @David L. What a shame that so many young men spend some of the best years of their lives learning to kill and teaching the Arab world to hate us more, pushing the country deeper and deeper into debt while a few corporations rake in $billions.
And for the record, this is the weapon most often found in the area of Vietnam where I served;
http://jakesgunreviews.weebly.com/sks1.html
We compared it to a Timex watch. It would take a licking and keep on ticking.
As far as returning vets, I agree they tend to be treated badly after the parade is over
At least the men/women returning these days have a parade. When I returned form Nam in 72 we not only didn’t get a parade…but it wasn’t pleasant wearing your uniform around in public. More then once I heard the term baby-killer thrown my way. I rarely wore my uniform.
I should point out the best solution to the problem: DON"T SEND THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! Sending people to invade other countries for personal and political gain is not "defending" our country, it's just immoral.
I couldn’t agree more. Some people have a problem with separating the support for the war and support for the troops. Some think that if you DON’T support the war you’re NOT supporting the troops…which is BULL. Many of the chicken-hawks like Rush Limbaugh have a hard time separating the two. I was NEVER for the war in Nam or the Iraq war. But I ALWAYS supported and will ALWAYS support the troops.
Myself and other recently discharged vets were ostracized by both students and faculty at a state university. A 22 year old freshman with short hair wearing dated fashions was quite out of place in 1970. A great many instructors were graduate assistants who were our age but had avoided the draft. They found dealing with us difficult. And freshman dorms were a particularly difficult situation for the recently discharged.
A 22 year old freshman with short hair wearing dated fashions was quite out of place in 1970.
I got out in June…so by the time I started college in Aug I had time to grow my hair back a little. I didn’t let ANYONE know I had been in the Army and served in Nam. There were still anti-war protests on campus. My close friends in college new I was in the Army…but that was about it.