Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[Vonsalza]

We’ve been compromising on gun legislation for 84 years. I’m done.

Gently and respectfully, Guns have gotten a lot more deadly in the last 84 years. The AR-15 and AK-47 didn’t exist 84 years ago, friend.

I will oppose any and all further legislation or regulation and fight for the repeal of existing ones.

And I’ll respectfully fight you on every single step. A man has no real need for an automatic or semiautomatic action, anecdotes aside. A pump 12ga or levergun will do just fine defending your home.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The bump stock works by putting the receiver extension (which houses a recoil buffer and spring) into a slot in the stock. The recoil of the rifle pushes the entire rifle to the rear of that slot, the user then uses the support hand to pull the rifle forward. Every time the a round is fired the whole trigger mechanism is pulled, reset, and released just like normal semi-auto operation. The only difference is since we’re using the recoil of the rifle it’s able to happen much quicker than human fingers can pull it. But the actual mechanical operation is no different.

 

[anon10271182]

"I would say you should consider being armed to at least the extent of potential attackers in your area.’
Very well stated, and logical. Mostly ex-cons and tweakers in my area. I’m confident in a snubbie, at 5-7 yards anyway.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Gently and respectfully, Guns have gotten a lot more deadly in the last 84 years. The AR-15 and AK-47 didn’t exist 84 years ago, friend.

The ak was invented in 1947. The AR in 1956.

Both of these fire an intermediate cartridge, meaning it was less powerful than previous cartridges. The 5.56 shot by an AR is far smaller and slower than the 30-06 round (adopted by US military in 1906). The browning automatic rifle was invented in 1918, it shot the 30-06 and was perfectly legal for citizens to own until 1934 when the national firearms act was passed and made ownership subject to a tax and some other regulations including approval by the local sheriff.

So saying guns are way more powerful now than then is ridiculous. Gun technology has pretty much reached it’s peak in the mid 20th century. The biggest improvements since the 50s has been in accessories like optics and mounting methods.

For reference

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[anon10271182]

Lever guns and wheel guns work for me. My home defense is a Colt clone, soon to be a Ruger Vaquero in .45 ACP, loaded with JHPs.
For zombies, a Henry Big Boy in .357 or .44 Magnum would be my choice.

 

[Escabrosa]

I like levers and revolvers. There’s more of a learning curve, but they’ll do the job in a pinch. I like watching cowboy action shooters show the limits of these guns. I’m a fan of the Marlin 336 30-30 for hunting as well.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Gently and respectfully, Guns have gotten a lot more deadly in the last 84 years. The AR-15 and AK-47 didn’t exist 84 years ago, friend.

The ak was invented in 1947. The AR in 1956.

Yes. So less than 84 years ago.

Both of these fire an intermediate cartridge, meaning it was less powerful than previous cartridges.

“Power” isn’t a particularly useful term. I think Biggie and Tupac were done in with .380s and 9mms which would be even less “powerful”. So you don’t have a very strong premise here.

The 5.56 shot by an AR is far smaller and slower than the 30-06 round (adopted by US military in 1906).

No, but the 5.56 has a greater muzzle velocity than the .308 it was largely replacing (30-06 was rare in the US military even by WW2).

It was practically as deadly and used less lead, brass and powder. Why WOULDN’T the military move to intermediate rounds? Full rifle rounds were overkill…

So saying guns are way more powerful now than then is ridiculous.

84 years ago the standard issue American military rifle was the Springfield. A 5 round capacity bolt action rifle.

You don’t think 30 round capacity semi-autos are more destructive (and thus, more “powerful”) rifles?

What kind of cheeba you smoking?

Gun technology has pretty much reached it’s peak in the mid 20th century.

I’ll agree development has slowed down. But the newer SCAR rifles we’re moving to weren’t around in Korea, sir. As a system, they’re much, much newer.

For reference:

Yeah…

The keyboard jockey that put that pic up labeled a .308 as 30-06. So that pic has at least one glaring error on it.

---

Civilians should be limited to weapons that do not auto-load with the discharge of the weapon. Too much destructive potential to put in the hands of one man - especially if you let him have a 30 round magazine with it.

 

[Lemuel]

I firmly believe in my second amendment right

There’s no such thing. Your rights come from God, not a piece of paper. The second amendment only attempts to protect that right.

 

[anon10271182]

I haven’t gotten into CAS yet, but I admire those guys and gals. My Ruger isn’t exactly Old West, what with the transfer bar, stainless steel finish and pistol caliber, but–at least it’s a birdshead!

 

[anon10271182]

One shot per second or so is achievable with a single action revolver or a lever action rifle.
I carry a double action but at the range, shoot it mostly in single action. Just shoot a cylinder of double action at the end, “rapid” fire. Haven’t gotten yelled at over the PA yet…

 

[Vonsalza]

One shot per second or so is achievable with a single action revolver or a lever action rifle.
I carry a double action but at the range, shoot it mostly in single action. Just shoot a cylinder of double action at the end, “rapid” fire. Haven’t gotten yelled at over the PA yet…

Yeah, they’re plenty deadly.

And a civil militia of men armed with bolts and levers are to be just as feared as a similar gang with ARs.

Maybe MORE feared. They’ll likely aim better

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Yes. So less than 84 years ago.

Barely. And didn’t use any technology that wasn’t available in 34.

“Power” isn’t a particularly useful term. I think Biggie and Tupac were done in with .380s and 9mms which would be even less “powerful”. So you don’t have a very strong premise here.

Power is an ambiguous term, I’ll give you that. And yes, humans are fragile creatures, pistol rounds are more than capable of killing one of us, and are by and large the most frequently used in murders. But velocity isn’t the only measure. The 5.56/.223 is faster (I goofed on that earlier, mia culpa) than a .308 but does not have as good of range, or hit with the same or even close as much ft/lbs of energy, etc. .308 is a demonstrably more lethal round, which is why it’s more popular to shoot deer with than a .223.

I’ll agree development has slowed down. But the newer SCAR rifles we’re moving to weren’t around in Korea, sir. As a system, they’re much, much newer.

The SCAR is just a piston driven rifle with fancy furniture. It’s not anything ground breaking or revolutionary compared to an AK.

And no, that was most definitely a 30-06 round. .308 is shorter and in any event, the .308 was made to be ballistically similar to a 30-06 but in a shorter package so that rifles could be made lighter and with less material.

You don’t think 30 round capacity semi-autos are more destructive (and thus, more “powerful”) rifles?

I think they have a faster fire rate. I don’t think they’re capable of the same distance or soft tissue damage.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Civilians should be limited to weapons that do not auto-load with the discharge of the weapon.

Well thankfully the supreme court disagrees with you.

 

[Vonsalza]

Barely. And didn’t use any technology that wasn’t available in 34.

Now you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Assault rifles didn’t exist until the close of WW2. Of course they use tech that wasn’t available in 34. THEY ARE tech that wasn’t available in 34.

which is why it’s more popular to shoot deer with than a .223.

Totally separate issue, but I’ll cuss a man that hunts deer with a .223. There are a few states that will confiscate your rifle if they catch someone doing that.

Inhumane. They need to use a bigger round suitable to the animal so the animal doesn’t run for 15 minutes trying to figure out what keeps biting it on the inside…

I think they have a faster fire rate. I don’t think they’re capable of the same distance or soft tissue damage.

Intermediates recognize the fact that most gun combat occurs within a few hundred meters. No need for a heavy, stable bullet at those ranges.

As far as soft tissue damage, the boys at the DoD think it does just as good a job. The bigger rounds often pin-holed. A lighter 5.56 can use the differing densities in your body to “dance” around.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Didn’t you mean to say Republic?

 

[Vonsalza]

And no, that was most definitely a 30-06 round.

I might be thinking of a 30-30 there

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Assault rifles didn’t exist until the close of WW2. Of course they use tech that wasn’t available in 34. THEY ARE tech that wasn’t available in 34.

Dude all they did was take the concept of a machine gun/submachine gun and develop a different cartridge. It wasn’t exactly ground breaking. Tell me what the functional difference is between an MP38 and an AK in general terms (not specific mechanisms) other than caliber?

but I’ll cuss a man that hunts deer with a .223.

Go ahead and cuss me, a .223 in a deers ear is more than enough to drop a doe inside 100 yards.

Intermediates recognize the fact that most gun combat occurs within a few hundred meters. No need for a heavy, stable bullet at those ranges.

As far as soft tissue damage, the boys at the DoD think it does just as good a job. The bigger rounds often pin-holed. A lighter 5.56 can use the differing densities in your body to “dance” around.

I don’t dispute any of this. I also still acknowledge that in terms of ft/lbs of impact they are less. That was the point. You wouldn’t argue that a .22lr is just as useful as .223 just because someone can be killed with both.

Part of the doctrine in adopting the smaller caliber was also the recognition that wars aren’t won with small arms. Artillery, tanks, and strategic bombings did. You don’t have to kill every soldier, you just have to get them out of the fight which a smaller round was plenty capable of doing if a vital organ isn’t hit.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

Will it prevent someone law abiding from owning a gun? No.

Will it prevent someone not law abiding from getting a gun? Also no.

Certainly, they are left to pursue any other means they can find to get one, but the more barriers put in their way the better. Deterrence is a key element in any effort at gun control that protects 2A rights. That line between lawful and unlawful must be made sharper!

 

[Vonsalza]

Dude all they did was take the concept of a machine gun/submachine gun and develop a different cartridge. It wasn’t exactly ground breaking.

Sure, and to go to the moon, all we did was take explosions and control their direction and duration. No big deal.

Go ahead and cuss me, a .223 in a deers ear is more than enough to drop a doe inside 100 yards.

Maybe on the range.
If you’re firing that .223 out of an AR like most of the irresponsible fools who deer hunt with it then you have about a 2 inch group at 100 yards. That’s not reliable deer-ear precision. And if you can afford the AR that groups substantially tighter than that, then you can definitely afford an actual deer rifle that can reliably do what you foolishly try to get an AR to do - and with a proper round!

For all the animals you maimed, I hope you wander into the wrong state to hunt and Fish and Wildlife confiscates your “deer rifle”.

I don’t dispute any of this.

Excellent. Then you’ve agreed that an intermediate round is practically as lethal as a rifle round at the common ranges in which they are used. To the original point - this makes rifles that shoot them quicker and hold a greater capacity more lethal. Or, crudely, “more powerful”.

Civvies should be limited to weapons that aren’t auto or semi-auto.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

If you’re firing that .223 out of an AR like most of the irresponsible fools who deer hunt with it then you have about a 2 inch group at 100 yards. That’s not reliable deer-ear precision. And if you can afford the AR that groups substantially tighter than that, then you can definitely afford an actual deer rifle that can reliably do what you foolishly try to get an AR to do.

With all due respect, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Go do some actual shooting with people who know what they’re doing. AR’s a extremely accurate rifles, and are just as capable as any “real” hunting rifle.

I’ve dropped 3 deer with three shots at roughly 75 yards (legal, there’s no limit on does in my state). It’s not that hard.They’re dead when they hit the ground.

I’m not going to engage you anymore because I don’t think I can do it respectfully. You need to get some real world experience with shooting before pontificating online.