M
- Status
T
tmelosi
Guest
This should explain it
B
Brendan
Guest
The point that I was addressing was your questioning the use of semi-auto’s on the practice range. I am sure we can agree that the repition involved in all those sports mentioned comes about by performing the desired action in a way where the muscles can develop muscle memory.
It is not uncommon to fire more than one shot at an animal, in much the same way that it is not uncommon for a solider to fire more than one shot at an enemy, or a policeman to fire more than one shot an at perpetrator. The advantage of a semi-auto in hunting is that you can get followup shots very quickly WHILE the missed animal is attempting to run away. The time taken to work a bolt or lever action is substantial compared to the cycling of a semi-auto. Two or even three shots can be taken at a running deer with a semi-auto.
In addition, when hunting small game and fowl, it is very common to fire more than one shot and successive animals. One squirrel does not feed a family, while several might. It is not uncommon to take several squirrel with successive shots, or two birds in a flight, while the time taken to work a bolt or a pump would mean the loss of the prey.
C
captainrick
Guest
Well said! You’ve heard of “The shot heard ‘round the world?” It was the first battle of the American Revolution. The reason? British regular army troops were marching on Concord, Massachusetts, with orders to capture and destroy guns and ammunition that were stored there. The British colonials stopped them.
Do you know what kind of government the U.S. will have in 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? I don’t either. But I sure want EVERYONE’S right to own ANY kind of weapon, offensive and defensive, preserved, so that if some day it becomes necessary to shake off the yoke of oppressive government (fascist, communist, whatever), we will be prepared to do so.
Someone said "but we have a military for that… " HA! I’m part of that military, and that’s fine for today, but some day that military may take orders from a tyrannical government.
B
Brendan
Guest
What you were using was either a military M-4 or M-16. For a civilian to have one of those is both expensive and requires special Federal approval. To own one, you have to get Federal BATF approval, approval from your local Chief of Police or Sherriff and then spend about $2000 just for the permit to purchase it (which does not include the actual price of the firearm).
An AR, like all semi-auto fires once, and only once for each pull of the trigger. What you described is a selective fire option on either a military or Federal Class-III licensed firearm
No, either the recoil of the round, or gas from the round is used to chamber a new round and cock the firearm. At that point the firearm will fire if the trigger is released and pulled again.
this might help, it’s about a 10 min video done by a police officer
youtube.com/watch?v=Tn3YLYqR17U
C
Crossbones
Guest
Since the idea of the 2nd amendment comes up as a defense against the tyranny of the government, let me ask out loud, does anyone really think the armed citizenry of the US could really do anything to stop the military at this point? Call me crazy, but that train left the station long ago (WW2 or so).
It seems a better defense against government tyranny is the good will of well-educated soldiers.
It seems a better defense against government tyranny is the good will of well-educated soldiers.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Thank you very much for that!
M
Mumbles140
Guest
So what happens when your neighbors with the huge stockpile of ANY kind of weapon side with the government? Becomes a certain kind of theoretical ‘match’ at that point, I’d say…
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Thank you very much for the insight. Between you and TMelosi, I’ve gotten quite the quick education on semi-automatic weapons.
C
captainrick
Guest
Of course you’re right! Same thing that happened during the Revolution - many colonists sided with the British government. Many were killed on both sides. War is deadly and messy - but unfortunately in the future it might again be necessary. Hope not but we don’t want to be disarmed if it happens! (remember, I’m thinking of the distant future, we never know what’s down the road.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
So basically a militia is only legal if it is sanctioned by the government. Right?
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Yes, so if the government tried to unilaterally shut them all down, wouldn’t that be the signal that the militias should go to work defending the citizens? If a government order is released immediately ceasing all militia activities, do you think they’d melt their weapons and make modern art from them because the government said so?
Also, it appears that at least Texas has state-regulated militias, so now you would need the federal government to be in cahoots with all 50 states (or at least all states that maintain their own military forces, such as a state national guard or independent militia groups) for militias to be made moot. And, again, this is assuming that the militias don’t battle back if a unilateral shutdown occurs.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Once upon a time, a rag tag army made up of untrained citizens, carrying mostly privately-owned guns, took on and defeated the most powerful military empire in the entire world of the day. Maybe you’ve heard of this little footnote in history. It was called the American Revolutionary War.
And thirty years later the sons and grandsons of these same citizen soldiers did it all over again in the War of 1812.
And don’t forget the time the big bad United States of America got its butt handed to it by a bunch of peasant rice farmers in a little place called Viet Nam.
The point is, military might does not guarantee a victory.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
I think there is a difference between saying “You can’t have an anti-tank gun” and saying “You can’t have any sort of firearm”. The whole point I’ve been trying to make is let’s admit there is a difference and start sorting out what is what, and yes, I am all about erring on the side of caution (in this sense, more in favor of keeping things legal and regulated rather than banned) for weapons that aren’t evident which bucket they fall into.Of course you’re right! Same thing that happened during the Revolution - many colonists sided with the British government. Many were killed on both sides. War is deadly and messy - but unfortunately in the future it might again be necessary. Hope not but we don’t want to be disarmed if it happens! (remember, I’m thinking of the distant future, we never know what’s down the road.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Home field advantage perhaps?
I also don’t remember tactical missile strikes and drones during Vietnam…
B
Brendan
Guest
Both the A-1 Skyraider and the Huey had missile pods, by definition they would have been tactical in nature.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Sorry, again, my words have betrayed me. I don’t believe they had the same technology in Vietnam that we have now in terms of laser guided missiles, drone strikes, and other advanced war machines the current US government has access to.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Well, two of those were long before WW2 and even then, I’d say that the American Revolution was not winnable by Britain because of the transportation issues that do not exist today. The War of 1812 was more a draw and the military was sanctioned by the US government, so it isn’t a great comparison.
For Viet Nam, I would think that the US didn’t lose on the ground as much as lost the political will to fight. And that was almost 50 years ago now. I wonder how the US would fight that war now (for example, I don’t think anyone would be going into caves or spider holes to find enemy soldiers; it’d be drones). And this wasn’t a war fought on home turf by a tyrannical government but half-way across the world.
I think it’s a fantasy that any group of armed citizenry could last more than a few minutes against the US military today.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Both England and The United States had the very best military technology of the day. And they still got beat.
And what is to say ordinary citizens can build a drone or a missile? After all, it was ordinary citizens that designed and built them in the first place; the government only bought them. And what is the US military made up of? AMERICAN CITIZENS!!! I think it is unrealistic to expect every military person in the country to remain blindly loyal to the “government”.
As far as “home field advantage” if a war is fought in my home town I’ll have HFA over an army from across the state or across the nation.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
My point on home-field was that is what the colonies, the young USA, and Vietnam all had over foreign invading forces that were thousands of miles from their homes. That means both an intimate knowledge of the lay of the land and shorter access to supplies gave a major leg up in those conflicts.
And yes, ordinary citizens built them, but those same type of ordinary citizens are also working for the government, doing R&D on advanced weaponry and tactical technology. So if you are going to pin your hopes to ordinary citizens to build advanced fighting machines against the government, I’d hope that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk want to lead the rebellion together!
- Status