[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In LEFT WING LOONS See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles Title: Trump pushes ban on 'bump stocks' — devices that turn weapons into 'machine guns' (Executive Memorandum to AG Sessions) Source: CNBC URL Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/tru ... weapons-into-machine-guns.html Published: Feb 20, 2018 Author: Dan Mangan Post Date: 2018-02-20 18:37:44 by Hondo68 Ping List: *Bang List*     Subscribe to *Bang List* Keywords: leaves no loopholes, should be illegal, a rule banning Views: 7189 Comments: 62 Bump stocks are devices that render semi-automatic rifles capable of firing hundreds of rounds every minute. Stephen Paddock, the gunman who killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more last October in Las Vegas, had at least 12 rifles outfitted with bump stocks. Trump recommends bump stocks should be illegal from CNBC. President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has recommended that "bump stocks" — devices that let semi-automatic weapons fire hundreds of rounds per minute — be banned. Trump signed a memorandum recommending that Attorney General Jeff Sessions propose regulations that would declare that bump stocks are illegal because they effectively turn legal semi-automatic weapons into outlawed machine guns. Stephen Paddock, the gunman who killed 58 people and wounded hundreds of others in Las Vegas in October had at least 12 rifles fitted with bump stocks, authorities have said. Trump's announcement came six days after a gunman killed 17 people, 14 of them students, at a high school in Parkland, Florida, while armed with an AR-15 assault rifle. "We cannot merely take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make a difference," Trump said at a White House event honoring first responders. "After the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, I directed [Sessions] to clarify whether certain bump stock devices like the one used in Las Vegas are illegal under current law," Trump said. "That process began in December, and just a few moments ago I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns," Trump said. "I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized, Jeff, very soon." The proposed regulators would first have to be published in the Federal Register and be subject to public comment before they could be adopted. Semi-automatic weapons require a shooter to pull the trigger each time to fire a single round. But when those weapons are outfitted with a bump stock, the gun's recoil energy is used to "bump" the trigger into the shooter's finger, making it fire much faster. That makes the weapon more akin to machine guns, which are largely banned in the United States. Read Trump's memo: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 20, 2018 February 20, 2018 MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to "Bump Fire" Stocks and Other Similar Devices After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices. Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machineguns. Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of "machinegun" under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the "Federal Register" on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments. Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns. Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress. You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the "Federal Register". DONALD J. TRUMP ### Poster Comment: Getting a head start on Congressional 2a infringements. Trump has beaten Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinswine to the punch! MAGA till ya puke.Subscribe to *Bang List* Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-22) not displayed.       .       .       . #23. To: misterwhite (#22) How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)? The actual effect of preventing or diminishing mass shootings is marginal if you're talking about a person who is expert in weapons. The largest gains you can make are in reducing the death toll in a massacre, not in preventing it. How do you justify banning bumpstocks but not banning the ability to rapid-fire as shown in your video? What's the difference (besides a piece of plastic)? Bumpstocks are intended to skirt the accepted laws on fully automatic guns. That's how. I understand your position and you're welcome to defend it. I think you'll find that a lonely perch except among the most radical gun rights folk. And I do consider myself pretty pro-gun. But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing. The only appeal of the bumpstock is as a lawful automatic weapon that allows buyers to evade the requirement for the federal full-auto gun license and tracking requirements. No one bought any bumpstocks with anything but the intent to skirt the ban on full-auto weapons (except for those who acquire the full-auto tax stamp, ~$300). Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   13:23:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Tooconservative (#23) But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing. By accident, you made my point. Gun-grabbers will claim that the AR-15 -- a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine -- is "clearly intended to skirt longstanding law" because of the simplicity in "converting" it to full auto as shown in your video. misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   13:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: misterwhite (#24) Gun-grabbers will claim that the AR-15 -- a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine -- is "clearly intended to skirt longstanding law" because of the simplicity in "converting" it to full auto as shown in your video. You're picking the wrong hill to die on. But we both have our own views on the stategery of preserving broader gun rights. The law already correctly distinguishes between full-auto and semi-auto. We should rely on that distinction in law that has prevailed since the Thirties. The bumpstock clearly tries to blur that line to the point of erasing it, at least in the minds of the general public who doesn't know much about guns. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   13:37:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Tooconservative (#25) (Edited) The law already correctly distinguishes between full-auto and se semi-auto. Yes it does. Correctly and clearly. The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part. YOU are the one now blurring that line. If the government can ban a firearm part that allows rapid-fire, why can't they ban the firearm which can be rapid-fired without that part? If you're a victim on the receiving end, can you tell the difference? misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   13:50:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: hondo68 (#0) Ahhh, Trump had to show some token movement about gun control. This doesn't matter. I see how they are parading kids out to show how scared they are. In a month, they'll go back to their play station games. Or trying to find products for acne. no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-21   13:59:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: misterwhite (#26) The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part. And clearly they were wrong. Surprising how incompetent the 0bama regime actually was. It was an instance where they could have taken anti-gun action and didn't, either due to incompetence or an irrational fear of repercussions against Dems similar to those in the Xlinton years. Trump has issued an executive memorandum to Jeff Sessions. This is an order to clearly state the president's intent toward policy. It is not an executive order - a different beast - that directly orders the A.G. to perform a particular action on the authority of the president as the highest executive authority. I'm distinguishing between these types of executive documents to an agency to demonstrate the lines along which Trump is acting lawfully as president. Some people would say the difference is negligible. But it isn't. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:00:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: Tooconservative (#28) (Edited) And clearly they were wrong. Clearly? That was the law for 8 years. Now all of a sudden it's wrong? Gosh. What made it "wrong"? An 8-year scientific study? A scholarly examination? A new constitutional interpretation? Nah. Some asshole shot up Las Vegas and the public demanded that Washington "do something". Banning bumpstocks just four months later is the something. Can you say "knee-jerk reaction"? Sure you could. misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   14:09:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Tooconservative (#28) The BATFE ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation. They allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part. And clearly they were wrong. Okay, you can feel free to say what the law actually stated. It is clear that bump stocks, in and of themselves, are not a weapon. no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-21   14:11:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: no gnu taxes (#30) It is clear that bump stocks, in and of themselves, are not a weapon. Neither is a full-auto shear kit. But they're still illegal. Is this the best argument you can muster? Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:16:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: misterwhite (#29) Gosh. What made it "wrong"? An 8-year scientific study? A scholarly examination? A new constitutional interpretation? It violates the longstanding American standard of banning full-auto weapons for the last 80 years. Look at the intent of the bumpstock. It is not lawful non-full-auto gear. You are part of a very small minority who wants every member of the public to have access to full-auto firepower, whether a bumpstock or a full-auto shear kit. IOW, your position is extreme. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:19:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Tooconservative, y'all (#23) I understand your position and you're welcome to defend it. I think you'll find that a lonely perch except among the most radical gun rights folk. And I do consider myself pretty pro-gun. But selling something that is so clearly intended to skirt longstanding law is another thing. The only appeal of the bumpstock is as a lawful automatic weapon that allows buyers to evade the requirement for the federal full-auto gun license and tracking requirements. No one bought any bumpstocks with anything but the intent to skirt the ban on full-auto weapons (except for those who acquire the full-auto tax stamp, ~$300). It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. By accepting the claim that any level of government can prohibitively tax or outright bann any type of weapon, supporters defy the principle that we all have an inalienable right to defend ourselves with the arms we can bear.. -- Clearly stated in the 2nd amendment. There is no denying that full auto guns are light enough to carry, just as are cans of gasoline, matches, and other types of explosives. -- Small, light weapons of mass destruction are a fact of life and prohibitions DO NOT WORK in reality.. Prohibitions enable socialism, and are a direct assault on our Constitutional Republic. tpaine  posted on  2018-02-21   14:19:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: tpaine (#33) It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. Yes, it is. A constitutional right is not unlimited. Free speech does not extend to the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Yeah, I said it. So there. LOL Anyway, that's where these arguments always end up, along with sinister but oblique references to slippery slopes. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:22:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Tooconservative (#31) Neither is a full-auto shear kit. But they're still illegal. Geez, a knowledgeable person could do that in their garage. Do you want also outlaw knowdledge and information? no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-21   14:31:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: Tooconservative (#34) It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. Yes, it is. A constitutional right is not unlimited. Free speech does not extend to the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Yeah, I said it. So there. LOL Carrying an arm is not a threat, it is a constitutional right not to be infringed.. Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is a criminal act Yep, you said it. Can't come up with anything but the old fire bull? -- LOL tpaine  posted on  2018-02-21   14:36:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Tooconservative (#32) You are part of a very small minority who wants every member of the public to have access to full-auto firepower, whether a bumpstock or a full-auto shear kit. I'm saying that banning the bumpstock could lead to the banning of semi-auto weapons since they can be "converted" to rapid-fire, even without a bumpstock . The arguments for both are the same. misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   14:37:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: no gnu taxes (#35) Geez, a knowledgeable person could do that in their garage. Do you want also outlaw knowdledge and information? There are other full-auto trick trigger devices as well. You can't erase the knowledge of them. And in an era of computer-machined parts and 3d printing, you can't rid yourself of the knowledge or basic ability to construct such parts. But selling such parts commercially does greatly increase their availability. I don't, for instance, think the Vegas shooter was nearly so likely to get a shear kit to convert his gun(s) to full-auto. The bumpstock was his shortcut obviously. Of course, the Vegas shooting was an exceptional event, given the nearby crowd concentrated in a small area next to a tower. But there was already another scare for a similar event that frightened people into thinking it was a copycat attempt. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:38:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Tooconservative (#38) But selling such parts commercially does greatly increase their availability You underestimate those who wish to construct such devices. It will make them less available for the good guys and more available for the bad guys. The Florida boy was recognized as a bad guy for a long time. no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-21   14:44:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: misterwhite (#37) I'm saying that banning the bumpstock could lead to the banning of semi-auto weapons since they can be "converted" to rapid-fire, even without a bumpstock . Yet, that rarely happens. There are plenty of gunsmiths and gunowners with access to the necessary machine tools to produce their own shear kits. And yet, no one making their own full-auto gear has perpetrated a massacre. I'm not saying those people don't exist and that they don't have some full-auto capability. I'm just saying that those are the people who never instigate one of these massacres. There is a difference between responsible gun ownership and a general psychopathic outlook toward murdering large numbers of the public. The responsible gun owners shouldn't be penalized for the acts of some kook and the kooks shouldn't have a constitutional right to acquire deadly arsenals that skirt the legality of restrictions on full-auto weapons. OTOH, for all we know, the Vegas shooter might have qualified to own a full-auto weapon as a collector, paying the federal $300 tax and conforming to the requirements of full-auto ownership. There's a sobering thought. I'm not sure what about him would have disqualified him. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: no gnu taxes (#39) You underestimate those who wish to construct such devices. Wishing for something is not the same thing as being capable of producing such devices. One of the things in common with many of these mass shooters is a general incompetence and a helplessness in many areas of their lives. At least some of them would be too disorganized to produce auto-fire devices or shear kits on their own. It's the simple truth. Most spree killers are fundamentally disorganized failures in life, mentally speaking. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:47:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: tpaine (#36) Carrying an arm is not a threat, it is a constitutional right not to be infringed.. Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is a criminal act Yep, you said it. Can't come up with anything but the old fire bull? -- LOL Let's just save some keystrokes and declare that all as a "given".     : ) I think we've both seen this show before. And more than once. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:50:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Tooconservative (#41) If they can't, they can certainly find those who can. Don't confuse mental illness with incompetence. no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-21   14:51:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: no gnu taxes (#43) Don't confuse mental illness with incompetence. Mental illness does lead, in a large majority of cases, to general incompetence. This is part of the reason why the mentally ill are far more often victimized than victimizing others. For the most part, mentally ill people are dangerous to themselves, not others. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   14:55:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: Tooconservative (#44) I suppose on how you want to define the mentally ill. Was the bastard in Florida mentally ill. Much so, by many standards Was the bastard in Florida aware of what he doing? yes Was the the bastard in Florida capable of learning and compiling information? yes no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-21   15:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: Tooconservative (#42) Let's just save some keystrokes and declare that all as a "given". : ) I think we've both seen this show before. And more than once. Of course we've had these discussions before. -- But when are you going to admit:---- There is no denying that full auto guns are light enough to carry, just as are cans of gasoline, matches, and other types of explosives. -- Small, light weapons of mass destruction are a fact of life and prohibitions DO NOT WORK in reality.. Prohibitions enable socialism, and are a direct assault on our Constitutional Republic. Thus:--- It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. tpaine  posted on  2018-02-21   15:15:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: no gnu taxes (#45) Was the bastard in Florida mentally ill. We're going to see this examined in excruciating detail by his defense attorneys during his trial. Somewhat a replay of the James Holmes trial but without his psychiatrist contributing testimony. FBI, police, school district, and child services all failed to stop this psycho. And each of them failed multiple times. That is still a key fact. The laws did not fail, the enforcement of the existing laws did. This kid had no right to own weapons. He made menacing statements and videos, he shot up the chickens on a neighbor's property (investigated by the cops), gave off all the trouble signals. And people around him kept warning the authorities. There needs to be a thorough investigation of how this little psycho fell through the cracks. He was known to the appropriate agencies and gave off plenty of danger signals. They simply failed to act to stop him. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   15:35:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: tpaine, *Bang List* (#46) Thus:--- It is NOT a radical position to assert that prohibiting full auto weapons is an infringement. Agreed, 100% Hondo68  posted on  2018-02-21   15:36:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: tpaine (#46) There is no denying that full auto guns are light enough to carry, just as are cans of gasoline, matches, and other types of explosives. -- Small, light weapons of mass destruction are a fact of life and prohibitions DO NOT WORK in reality.. In any era in America, there are rights. Then there are how the public and the courts really feel about them. The record is not exactly consistent. Politics and public mood have huge influence on legislatures and courts. You ignore the role of sentiment in how public policy is enacted and modified by the courts. But you probably knew I was going to say that. These kinds of arguments do get a bit tired.     : ) Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-21   15:38:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: Tooconservative (#40) (Edited) There are plenty of gunsmiths and gunowners with access to the ne ne necessary machine tools to produce their own shear kits. NO! When I say "converted" I'm referring to a manual means -- such as a belt loop or simply inserting a thumb -- to rapid-fire. As in your video and mine. Even without a bumpstock, those methods of rapid-fire will still be available to AR- 15 users. And will be just as lethal. Not accurate? How accurate do you have to be in a crowded hallway, classroom or auditorium? By supporting a ban on bumpstocks, you've already agreed rapid-fire is bad. N Now what will you do to stop the manual means of conversion I mentioned? misterwhite  posted on  2018-02-21   17:15:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Tooconservative (#41) Most spree killers are fundamentally disorganized failures in life, mentally speaking. This is not a reason not to protect others from their actions.The truth is you never know when any person has reached a point where their frustrations give way to a violent act. It is undesirable that they should have access to rapid fire weapons. This debate is all about ego paraclete  posted on  2018-02-21   17:47:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: Tooconservative (#49) You ignore the role of sentiment in how public policy is enacted and modified by the courts. But you probably knew I was going to say that. These kinds of arguments do get a bit tired. : ) You ignore the role of our Constitution in how public policy is enacted and modified by the courts. But you probably knew I was going to say that. These kinds of arguments do get a bit tired, when you're taking the sentimental side.. : ) tpaine  posted on  2018-02-21   18:32:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: paraclete (#51) This debate is all about ego Maybe when it comes to you it's about ego,but with most people it is about their genuine,if irrational,fear of getting shot by a "machine gun" on one hand,and more rational people who understand the principle that all governments are greedy bastards when it comes to power,and if you give them an inch they will take a mile. There are even some people who think selective-fire rifles are an "insurance policy to help keep the government in line",and they do have a point because the founding fathers wrote that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that American CITIZENS retain access to military grade weapons in case the time ever comes that they need to take up arms and overthrow an out of control government. There are other people who just love shooting them,and have enough money they can afford to both buy and shoot them. I personally have almost zero interest in owning one. I carried one for years in the army,and even then I almost never fired on full-auto unless it was in an ambush and they were all gathered in a bunch. There is not much I hate more than hearing a hammer fall on an empty chamber when I need that chamber to have a loaded round in it. Also,I was in the infantry,and any ammo I had to shoot I had to carry. All this,plus my seemingly inborn prejudice towards accuracy means I just don't have any personal interest in owning,shooting,or possessing one other than historic weapons,like the old M-3 Grease gun or the 1918 BAR. I would LOVE to have a BAR. They are the exception to the rule. They fire slow,and they are accurate. I guess if I could afford to buy one these days I could also afford to shoot it occasionally,but I would be just as happy to look up and see it sitting in a rifle rack even if I never fired it. I would kinda like to have a grease gun because I had a suppressed on for POW snatch operations in Asia. Unlike the 9mm sub guns,you didn't have to download the 45 ACP ammunition and rework the springs in a grease gun to keep the round subsonic. It is subsonic to start with,and if you shoot someone in the knee with one,he ain't running anywhere. There is no way I can justify the expense of buying a suppressed grease gun anymore,though. Before Clinton you could buy a good one for 400-600 bucks. Last I heard a few years ago they were going for over 3 grand,and the suppressor added to that expense. No way in hell do I want one that bad. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2018-02-21   19:14:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: sneakypete, Y'ALL (#53) I just don't have any personal interest in owning,shooting,or possessing one other than historic weapons,like the old M-3 Grease gun or the 1918 BAR. I would LOVE to have a BAR. Me too, none of the modern auto or semi auto stuff is much interesting. The BAR is an exception, as I carried one for nearly a year, and even had to jump with it, - one time. I currently have access to a single shot .50 BMG rifle. A wife objected to having it around the house, so I lucked out to keep it up here, where we can shoot the beast.. Fun, - once in a while.. Your point that, -- "the founding fathers wrote that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that American CITIZENS retain access to military grade weapons in case the time ever comes that they need to take up arms and overthrow an out of control government." - - needs repeating, as it is much ignored... tpaine  posted on  2018-02-21   19:51:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: tpaine (#54) I want to get up and do a little "happy dance" every time I even THINK about a BAR. I used to know a MSG that had been on a team in the Delta,and he called his BAR his "varmit gun" because he could "reach out and touch" VC with it that thought they were out of range. I never met anyone that liked carrying a BAR,but I have also never met someone who did that didn't love BAR's. In fact,it is the only military shoulder weapon I have EVER heard anybody say they loved. It's even more popular than the 1911A1 with people that have shot one. I do have to admit the the FN-FAL is a sweet piece,though. The US Military is now wasting millions of dollars looking for a replacement for the M-16 now that all the battles are in the open mountainous ranges in Shitstainistan,and they need heavier bullets to buck the wind and take down targets at longer distances. ALL they had to do was pick up the phone,call FN in Belgium,and say something like "We would like to place an initial order for 10,000 FN-FAL's in 7x57 mm,please",and the next day the first shipment would be on the boat heading for the US. The FN-FAL even has an adjustable gas system so you can tune the rifle to the ammo you are shooting to maximize function and minimize recoil. Flat out,there is no reason to re-invent the modern battle rifle as long as you can buy a FN-FAL. Yeah,the dainty little metrosexuals might want something lighter and cuter in pink,but they have no business being in the military anyhow,unless it would be to serve as mine detectors. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2018-02-22   9:48:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: tpaine (#54) " "the founding fathers wrote that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that American CITIZENS retain access to military grade weapons in case the time ever comes that they need to take up arms and overthrow an out of control government." - - needs repeating, as it is much ignored... " EXACTLY !!! Many ignore that,because it conflicts with their political views. A great many do not even know that was the original intent. I have met many that when explaining that to them, they look at you like a deer in the headlights. A good friend of my Dad's carried a BAR through Europe. He was a small guy. Said when they gave it to him, everyone laughed at him, because it was so heavy & he was a small guy. He said at first he cursed it continuously. But he said after the first firefight, only God could have taken it from him. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers) Stoner  posted on  2018-02-22   9:57:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: sneakypete, stoner, Y'ALL (#55) " "the founding fathers wrote that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that American CITIZENS retain access to military grade weapons in case the time ever comes that they need to take up arms and overthrow an out of control government." - - sneakypete EXACTLY !!! Many ignore that,because it conflicts with their political views. A great many do not even know that was the original intent. I have met many that when explaining that to them, they look at you like a deer in the headlights. A good friend of my Dad's carried a BAR through Europe. He was a small guy. Said when they gave it to him, everyone laughed at him, because it was so heavy & he was a small guy. He said at first he cursed it continuously. But he said after the first firefight, only God could have taken it from him. ---- Stoner I was lucky enough to have served in 1955/58 so never fired the BAR in combat, but after a full field jump with one, I grabbed at being the co's radio operator. -- Great gun, but it's length & weight made it a bitch to handle.. Wish I had one... tpaine  posted on  2018-02-22   11:30:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: tpaine (#57) I grabbed at being the co's radio operator. - Angry-9? Can't be much fun jumping with that thing,either. My first jump out of jump school was a night jump over Ste Mère Eglise drop zone at Bragg. It was also a night time equipment jump,and I got stuck with jumping with the spare 50 cal machine gun barrel. That taught me everything I needed to know about becoming a heavy weapons specialist. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2018-02-22   20:09:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: sneakypete (#58) I grabbed at being the co's radio operator. Pete -- Angry-9? Can't be much fun jumping with that thing,either. My first jump out of jump school was a night jump over Ste Mère Eglise drop zone at Bragg. It was also a night time equipment jump,and I got stuck with jumping with the spare 50 cal machine gun barrel. That taught me everything I needed to know about becoming a heavy weapons specialist. PRC-10 radio? -- if memory serves, -- which wasn't that bad to handle while jumping, and I was usually allowed to pack a carbine, which helped. Thanks to be that I never had a full field night jump... Although, during the Hungarian flap, they had the 503rd out at Furstenfeldbruk airfield for a few days & nights, geared up to jump on Budapest.. -- Turned out to be just a bluff by Eisenhower, tho... tpaine  posted on  2018-02-22   20:39:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: tpaine (#59) PRC-10 radio? They weren't bad at all. Would fit inside a rucksack. They ran off of batteries and didn't have much range. If you operated one of them and were serious about survival,you quickly because an authority on how to build antennas and how to climb trees. There were replaced by the PRC-25,which had better range,but not enough to get excited about. The old Angry-9 had range to spare,but I THINK it was Morse code only. If it could send and receive voice,I never saw anyone doing that. It was as reliable as a rock and when the atmospherics were right it had a range the other radios could only dream of. It was a base camp radio,though. Nobody carried one on patrol because it took a couple of men or a mule to carry it. It was the base radio with the seat with bicycle pedals where the assistant operator pumped away on the pedals to produce the electricity to power it,which means besides the folding seat there was a heavy-ass generator somebody had to carry,as well as antennas,antenna wire,code books,and spare parts. Mostly vacuum tubes. The PRC-10 and PRC-25 were newer radios portable by one man and would fit inside a rucksack. While their range was limited,it beat the hell of the range of the walkie-talkies they replaced,and it really beat the hell out of nothing. Sometimes it was a real nightmare trying to establish contact in the mountains while using a whip antenna. Generally,each team would have scheduled times during the day when aircraft would fly over/near their position to pick up their sitreps. If your team got hit between those times,you were just screwed. You had to break contact and practice your escape and evade tools until the next scheduled flyover. Sometimes you would get lucky and some aircraft would be flying nearby going to or coming from a bombing/straffing mission somewhere,and pick up and forward your distress signals to your home base so they could get some airlift and gunships out to you. The really good news about the PRC-10 and PRC-25's were they were voice as well as code radios. If you think it's tough to compose a message and articulate it while under fire,imagine trying to do that using a morse code key. There was also the URC-10 pilot survival radio that we carried,but it was not army issue. It was issued to aircrews as an emergency radio if they were shot down. All you had to do to get them working was pull the antenna out,and it would automatically send out a homing ping to any aircraft within range. The flyboys would hear it,and think it was the aircrew that had been shot down. It was amazing how quickly air cover would show up once you got one of those things broadcasting their homing beacon. IIRC,some of our guys stole a case of them off a pallet waiting to be shipped on a C-130. They weighed practically nothing,and would fit in a canteen cover or side pocket on jungle fatigues. I have seen what the military was using on combat operations in the mid-90's,and they were about as related to the radios of my time as modern man is to the cave man. I can't even guess what their capabilities are today. And this ain't even talking about the satellite phones of today. I remember reading a story about an infantry platoon pinned down under fire in the 1st Gulf War,and their radio had taken a hit. So one of the guys used his sat phone to call his wife and have her call his home unit to tell them what was going on,and to have them call him on his sat phone so he could direct fire on the enemy. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2018-02-23   0:29:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: sneakypete (#60) PRC-10 radio? They weren't bad at all. Would fit inside a rucksack. They ran off of batteries and didn't have much range. If you operated one of them and were serious about survival,you quickly because an authority on how to build antennas and how to climb trees --- My capt never had me climbing trees, but we sure had trouble with those batteries... --- Actually, that job didn't last long, because the whole. damn Army went "Pentomic" (crazy) and the 503rd PIR became the 502 ABG.. -- And everybody was reassigned to new Companies... Total clusterfuck... tpaine  posted on  2018-02-23   11:16:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: tpaine (#61) My capt never had me climbing trees, but we sure had trouble with those batteries... Even with the battery problems there were a huge leap forward over walkie talkies. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2018-02-23   15:58:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com