Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have an arsenal of Catholics here šŸ™‚
I feel MUCH safer now - here - I thinkā€¦
 
Gun control doesnā€™t work. What works is the homogenous culture.
 
I love the AK, simple, always works. At the type of range that I would be using a rifle in self-defense, Iā€™d take it any day of the week and twice on Sunday do to reliability and throw weight. However, being in town, the AK is a bit much in penetration.

Boomboom - Umm, I routinely conceal carry. I have no ā€œCall of Dutyā€ fantasies. However, I do have people occasionally vocalize an interest in killing me; and you know the line about if you see one cockroach, there are however many that you donā€™t see.

Pup - hehe Ruger Mini-14 (eeew), some kitted out AR-15 (eeew). Also ā€¦ umā€¦ errmmmā€¦ That M1 wonā€™t chamber 7.62x51 roundsā€¦ thatā€™s in 30-06 Springfield. What we needed was an M1 Garand chambered in 7.62x54R šŸ™‚

Brendan - depending on the configuration, the bolt gun will produce higher muzzle velocities and better accuracy due to barrel length and lack of monkey-motion due to the auto-loading feature of the AR. I did notice, sadly, that you canā€™t get a Sako in .223Rem with a 1:8 twist in the US it seems.

All of this talk seems to forget the ā€œMad Minuteā€ of firing a set number of rounds (15, I think) out of a Lee-Enfield bolt-gun in a minute. Itā€™s not super impressive ROF wise, but will certainly do a number.
 
Boomboom - Umm, I routinely conceal carry. I have no ā€œCall of Dutyā€ fantasies. However, I do have people occasionally vocalize an interest in killing me; and you know the line about if you see one cockroach, there are however many that you donā€™t see.
Thatā€™s more than okay, SA. You donā€™t have to listen to that sad American lefty gobbly-gook commentary.
 
All of this anti-gun B.S. has gotten me thinking that it may be time to buy a few things.
 
Do any of the firearm owners in here compete in 3 gun?
 
Last edited:
Border enforcement is carried out by FEDERAL agencies and is under the purvey of Federal law. Not the laws of the sovereign states. It is a Federal right, not a domestic (i.e., state) one.
Thatā€™s fine, but apparently the Posse Comitatis Act does not allow federal troops to do law enforcement work that could involve citizens, which obviously border enforcement could do.
The point is that this is not a simple case where National Guard troops acting under the authority of the President can do all the same things as the same troops called up by the governor of their state. They cannot. Therefore, it does make a difference whether National Guard troops from Oregon go to California with the consent of the governor of Oregon and at the invitation of the Governor of California than if the President sends federal troops to the border. The governor of Oregon does her share of grandstanding, but this time her consentā€“if it were even asked for, which as far as I know it has not beenā€“would make a difference.
I have this feeling she is not going to be asked, which makes the whole question a moot point.
 
Last edited:
David Hogg and CNN have been the biggest fundraisers for the NRA in my lifetime.
 
They would not fall under that when called up by the President for this. They would answer to the US DOD and would be ā€œactivatedā€ Guard - and be active duty military. Just like Afghanistan. Just like now.

The US military ALREADY augments the Border Patrol. When the Guard is activated under Presidential ruling they are the ACTIVE DUTY COMPONENT. They have regular active duty orders, full active pay, and full benefits. There are about seven or eight different kinds of Guardsmen, all funded different, all titled different. When the President (and of course with Congress) conscripts the Guard, they are active duty service members for however long is on their orders.

We do this all the time. Literally. All the time.
 
Last edited:
We do this all the time. Literally. All the time.
Yes, I understand that the military, including the National Guard, do lots of things on our border. When active duty military sent their by the President (rather than by a governor or by Congress), direct law enforcement isnā€™t supposed to be one of those things, that is all I am saying.
Many govenors previously signed a memorandum of agreement to allow guardsmen to volunteer for tours on the border. I am only saying there is a difference between how the same people can be used depending on whose authority they are deployed. Guardsmen sent by their governors could do things that DOD troops cannot legally do.
Otherwise, why would the federal government even bother to ask governors for permission? What would be the point?
 
David Hogg and CNN have been the biggest fundraisers for the NRA in my lifetime.
I know people bent on outlawing ā€œassault styleā€ weapons (however that is defined) have emptied the shelves at gun stores several times since Iā€™ve been watching. The market is going to be utterly glutted before long, if it isnā€™t getting there already.
 
Because they have to ask permission of the governor because they are not a direct Federal asset and are funded separately from the DOD.

I think you and I have been speaking in parallels, with neither of us completely coming across clearly to the other. I will own my end of the discord, and apologize for my part in it! šŸ˜‰

What I originally said was - the President can conscript the National Guard over the permission of the governor, and that once Federally activated as active duty troops, PC doesnā€™t apply.
 
Last edited:
40.png
SuperLuigi:
David Hogg and CNN have been the biggest fundraisers for the NRA in my lifetime.
I know people bent on outlawing ā€œassault styleā€ weapons (however that is defined) have emptied the shelves at gun stores several times since Iā€™ve been watching. The market is going to be utterly glutted before long, if it isnā€™t getting there already.
That kind of thing happens every time people think theyā€™re going to be banned, though. And prices skyrocket, then they drop again.
 
Personal experience.

Itā€™s a fine rifle for cheap mass production when your strategy is drowning the enemy in your own peoples blood.

But itā€™s ā€œreliabilityā€ is grossly overstated. The m4/m16 is just as reliable, more accurate, and more ergonomic.

I have a few AKā€™s. I think theyā€™re neat. But they wouldnā€™t ever be my first choice.
 
Because they have to ask permission of the governor because they are not a direct Federal asset and are funded separately from the DOD.

I think you and I have been speaking in parallels, with neither of us completely coming across clearly to the other. I will own my end of the discord, and apologize for my part in it! šŸ˜‰

What I originally said was - the President can conscript the National Guard over the permission of the governor, and that once Federally activated as active duty troops, PC doesnā€™t apply.
Yes. There is no question that the President can call up the Oregon National Guard and can use them on our own border in some capacities, whether Gov. Brown wants him to or not. The only question is whether there would be functions they may be able to fulfill with her consent that they could not fulfill without either her consent or an act of Congress.
 
Last edited:
Um? I would have no reason to shoot more than 100 yards in self-defense.

They shoot 7.62x39mm, which has far better penetration than 5.56x45mm. Have either 123grain Hornady SST or 12xgrain Corbon DPX loaded in mags for it.

I have an SKS and an AR-15 still parted out after cleaning, so many projects elsewhere.

Right now, my ā€œfirst choiceā€ with rifle is the IWI Tavor: 16" barrel, bullpup compactness, perfectly accurate for the ranges I care about. Just remembered that I had forgotten to clean it after last range trip. Erghā€¦ Ammo of preference for it is Black Hills 5.56x45mm in Sierra Tipped Match King, the Black Hills 5.56x45mm Barnes 50grain is too blasted hard to find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top