second amendment threatened!

AR sales have literally skyrocketed. Most distributors are out of stock and backordering just about everything, uppers, lowers, LPK's, etc... If you know the right people you can still find what you need directly from the manufacturers, as they are not feeding the frenzy like the dealers have been. I personally have been a big fan of AR's, and own several different configurations, mostly 5.56, but also a couple of 6.8SPC's. AK's reliability and 7.62 knockdown power became useful in certain situations in certain areas which helped gain my repect for that weapon. That and the availability of ammunition from the people around you that are likely to be shooting that weapon is also an advantage. Krebs built us some cool configurations that I was able to Class 3 back in the States. They are still fun to shoot at the range, but the 5.56 is easier on the pocketbook and easier to shoot when you're going mag after mag.

I always thought the bullpups were awkward to shoot, don't know why. FHN makes a hell of a weapon however. Have used the MK's before, SCAR. They are great CQB weapons, but again, sometimes the 5.56 is not enough power. About the ammo, I think you are right. That round is not the cheapest out there and with the possibility of an ammo tax, it would make it far too expensive to shoot. Right now 5.56 is relatively cheap, and if you reload, stock up on brass and bullets.

BTW, good choice with the Kimber. Can't ever go wrong with the classic 1911.

 

well around here the 7.62 and the 5.56 are about the same cost. 500 Rnds for about 200.00. Also the more i thought about it the 5.7 is on par with the .45 acp, right now anyway. which makes them all about the same price no matter which I buy.
I did go ahead and get the Ps90, just in case. The Ps90 is a nicely balanced piece. I am thinking about making it an SBR just for the looks and the barrels are relatively cheap considering the fact that it not exactly a "common" gun.

 

Personal or operational if you don't mind me asking?

 

are you guys done jerking each other off? We were talking about the 2nd amendment...

 

I'm not done. If you have a point to make then do it, and see if anyone responds. Otherwise, if you have a problem with the discussion, see ya! :seeya:

 

alrighty then, enjoy.

 

Personal

 

It's getting steamy in here!

 

Well Well now
Why dont you practice your 1st amendment and state your point about the 2nd amendment.

You have stated you are against people owning "assault weapons".
First what are YOU calling an assault weapon? as far as I can see you previous definition is "specifically designed for killing people" paraphrased of course.
So what makes these weapons "specifically designed for killing people"? is it the caliber? or the barrel length? rate of fire? barrel twist? mag capacity? flash suppressor? silencer? type of stock or grips? bayonet lugs?
What makes one weapon designed to kill people, and another not?

 

Welcome back to the topic. Please, wash your hands.

You are the gun expert. Why don't you tell me what types of designs are meant for combat. Where do you draw the line between weapons that anyone should be allowed to own, weapons only the licensed should be able to own, weapons only the government should own, and weapons that should not be on this planet.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to ban pocket knives, and I'm also pretty sure we need to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. Help me out with what goes in between, will ya?

 

I dont consider myself to be an expert by any means. However I would consider a gun meant for "combat" would be any gun that is accurate, powerful, durable, and easily field stripped. I dont see how any of these make a firearm bad for civilian ownership. I guess one could also list a combat weapon as a select fire, or fully automatic. These weapons are already regulated by the NFA as class III weapons. They are also VERY expensive.

Lets see weapons that should not be available to the general public? Indiscriminate weapons that the user cannot completely control. These would include such things as explosive or fragmentation type weapons. The outcome of these cannot be completely controlled and can cause unforeseen damage and injury. However these are ALREADY controlled by the BATF.

I think I have explained briefly what I think and tried to answer your question. Can you answer mine?
What do YOU consider an assault weapon?
What makes a weapon "specifically designed for killing people"?

 

Hmmm...

I think I would base my definition partly on whether a weapon's design has a sporting purpose. I think a firearm that holds more than 3 rounds should require a special license, background check, and that the owner should be required to store that weapon at a licensed shooting facility unless they can acquire an even harder to get license.

I think a weapon that can be modified to make it automatic should be kept at a registered and regulated facility, and that a special short term license should be required to move them.

I also believe that firearms small enough to be concealed should be regulated very strictly, and that the 3 shots rule should still apply.

 

AR-15's make a good target weapon. In fact here there is a competition on the last Saturday of each month which is restricted to AR's, AK's, SKS's style weapons. Would competitive shooting qualify as a "sporting purpose" to you?
3 round maximum would pretty much include all types of guns would it not? (well I guess derringers, double barrel shotguns or single shot) I mean shotguns can be de-plugged to hold more than 3 rounds. Any gun that is semi-automatic can hold more than 3 rounds. Heck even revolvers would be included.
All weapons sold by an FFL holder is requires a background check, its called the NICS.

So the already existing laws concerning the conversion of weapons is not good enough? A person would be breaking federal laws by converting a weapon to fully automatic. Any conversion of this type is required to be registered with the BATF and have a class III tax stamp. So if a person is willing to break federal law not to convert a gun, what makes you think they will follow your suggestion that they be kept at a registered facility?

Small enough to be concealed = Handgun. Pistol grip short barreled riffles are already NFA weapons, as are short barreled shotguns. They are called SBR's and SBS's and must be registered with the government. How many handguns do you know of that holds no more than 3 rounds?
Concealing a gun is illegal in most every state without an CCW. Regulations for getting a CCW is very detailed and strict. Including in most all cased a detailed background check, fingerprints sent to the FBI excreta. They must also be renewed regularly which includes another FBI background check. Again anyone carrying concealed without complying with the above is Already breaking the law. Why would they comply with any more restrictions?

I am not arguing with you I just want to understand exactly what you are looking for and the Pro's and Con's associated with them, along with their effectiveness.

 

I am looking to disarm the country, while preserving the tradition and sporting aspects of shooting, such as hunting and target shooting, or the biathlon for that matter. We just don't need all these weapons. A shotgun is fine for defending your home. A rifle may be needed for hunting, but you don't need to be taking more than 3 shots at once.

 

I assume competitive shooting (other than biathlon) is not a legitimate sport in your opinion.
Like someone else said, we dont need motorcycles that go 200 MPH either.
A shotgun is a very good choice for home defense.
A riffle may be need for hunting, true. However you do realize most hunting riffles use more powerful ammo and larger projectiles than the oft hated AR-15?
I noticed you didn't answer or comment on any of my answers/questions to your suggestions. You were wanting discussion, right?
Well Ill leave it to you and wacky to sort out.

 

like I said, I'm no expert. but someone who knows could come up with some kind of common sense regulation that preserves both public interest and the 2nd amendment.

 

"common Sense Regulation" is a phrase that is bantered about quite regularly. Though Common Sense regulation does not automatically equate to Feasible, practical, or workable.

 

Potential Obama appointees quizzed on gun ownership
11/20/2008
Excerpts:

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team is asking potential appointees detailed questions about gun ownership, and firearms advocates aren't happy about it.

Obama's transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws.

But even some Democrats and transition experts are baffled by the inclusion of the question.

Complete article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15835.html

 

this is a scare tactic to increase gun sales.. Metal has to go somewhere if it aint going into cars.
use your heads hippies.

 

Although I believe that everbody should have the right to own/operate a gun(s), I don't think that there is really such a thing as common sense. Every single person is different and therefore common sense cannot exist.

If you use that gun on another person is up to you, but when you interfere with another persons rights, you must face the discipline for invading their rights.