Unpopular or unconventional opinions thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bolt action rifles are not useless for self defense. A proper Steyr or Ruger scout rifle can be used effectively in that role. No assault weapons needed.

"assault weapon "? Please define. We shouldn't use the language of those who would eviscerate the 2nd amendment.

While I agree a good bolt or lever action is plenty effective, and I personally prefer to run the latter, "assault weapon " is a buzz word to make lawful effective self defense tools sound scary.

It's the same crowd after every incident clamoring to ban those dangerous "AK 16s". They "don't belong on the street, they're weapons of war".

2nd was clear, weapons of war need to belong in the hands of everyday folks. On this freedom rests.
 
Bolt action rifles are not useless for self defense. A proper Steyr or Ruger scout rifle can be used effectively in that role. No assault weapons needed.

I remember reading a thread about an older gentleman on a forum that was worried about break ins and had very very limited money.

He had an Enfield and 2 boxes of ammo and was asking if it could effectively protect his house and his family. He lived in the middle of nowhere, miles from anyone and it was just him and his wife, both were in their 70s and on a fixed income low enough that buying a box of ammo to practice with was something he could do once a month and only the one box at a time.

The popular consensus was to sell the Enfield and get himself a cheap pistol. Hi points were thrown around a lot as his best possible option. One person said this gem :

" That rifle wasn't really made to take on human targets, not really at least"

A battle rifle, from ww2 .........not made for human targets. Suuuuurrrreeee
 
folks should buy and read a couple of reloading manuals before casting about in the sea of disinformation that is the Internet.
Ha,Ha! Read a couple of reloading manuals before "CASTING" about? Pun?:p
For some reloaders (like myself), "casting" bullets is part of it. And I've noticed more than a few new bullet casters right here on THR who obviously never picked up a bullet casting manual before "plunging into" (pun intended) the "sea of disinformation that is the Internet.";)
 
Another one:

"Assault Rifles and Assault Weapons are made up terms from the media to scare the public and help politician ban them." Nope, that is 100% on us. Guns and Ammo magazine had big ol' glossy editions back in the early 1980s announcing the exciting new category of Assault Rifles for the American consumers and devoted a ton of ink of the next decade trying to convince people Assault Rifles were the way of the future (same time they were trumpeting the wonder-9's). It was a big hit with Soldier of Fortune magazine, too. Lots of other publications were out working hard to market these awesome guns. Marketing went against us in the eyes of the public and now they are working hard to rebrand as Modern Sporting Rifles.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210328-100959~2.png
    Screenshot_20210328-100959~2.png
    914.4 KB · Views: 33
To go along with my above post about bullet casting, my unpopular opinion is, "how badly cast lead bullets lead, or don't lead (leave lead in your gun's barrel) is absolutely NOT solely dependent on how hard they are compared to how fast they're going."o_O
 
From 1934 to 1986 there were, like, four deaths with NFA registered machine guns: three suicides and a corrupt cop defending an illegal drug operation.
So, the response of the anti-gun Democrats was the Hughes Amendment freezing the NFA registry on machine guns.
The NIJ Bureau of Justice Statistics has consistently shown since then that a significant percentage of Firearms Using Offenders (who carried or used a firearm in the crime for which they were imprisoned) possessed, carried, or used an illegal unregistered machine gun especially prisoners in the federal prison system.
I say, keep the Hughes Amendment: it shows the real intents of anti-gun Democrats: useless bans that attack gun owners not gun criminals.
 
Very unpopular opinion that will probably get my head bitten off on this forum but I'm past the point of caring - the game commission is often pedantically litigious and intentionally obfuscates or changes rules with the direct intention of busting people on inconsequential stuff for the sake of making money. This organization is primarily funded from fines and sales of licenses.

Ergo, rules are also written to accommodate suburban dwelling wealthy hunters who spend all sorts of money rather than the masses of impoverished folks (like my family) who hunt out of necessity and subsistence. Moreover, most hunters are savagely defensive of these same institutions that constantly screw them over and often mindlessly cling to tradition for its own sake without any consideration or exploration of reason and because they generally fear change.


Since 2003, in my state I have seen:

  • The game commission just straight up stopped offering paper versions of the game manual with your license for like a year because (apparently) everybody has a smart phone and takes it with them into the woods when they go hunting and it never runs out of batteries. I'm sure this has absolutely nothing to do with game commission officers trying to enforce laws they don't understand and then getting called out by people who carry a paper manual on them or the fact that they were then charging money for paper copies of the book. Again, great for rich yuppies who want to spend a few thousand renting a "deer camp" to drink and get away from their wives. Not so great for those of us who grew up needing deer to subsidize our food sources -- many of whom come from families without access to technology, internet, or are largely illiterate. You might think I'm joking, but this is how I grew up.
  • No hunting on Sundays. I've spoken with everyone from congressmen to hunters for years on this. No reason is ever offered. The closest thing I've heard even resembling a reason is that most hunters seem to think the answer is (and I quote) "Well that's god's day!" This is stupid for countless reasons, but the primary one being that the Sabbath is actually Saturday even though Christians traditionally celebrate it on Sunday (any who worship on this day don't even know it, but I encourage you to look it up). This notwithstanding, not everybody follows he same religion anyway so we're literally talking about ignorance upon ignorance here. Oh and by the way, this doesn't count for crows for some reason. Apparently god hates crows or something.
  • Now you can hunt on Sundays, but only on certain Sundays for certain animals. Why? No reason is given. You can hunt on Sundays in basically any state in the country, but my state is just protective of Sundays. For those of us who work for a freaking living, Sunday is sometimes the only day I can get out, or might be the only day where it's not raining. There have been seasons where I spend over $200 on a license with all my tags and get to go hunting 2 days because of rain.
  • License price inflation. General licenses are now $20, and nonresident license are over $100. That doesn't include any of your stamps or special licenses, which can easily put you over $100. Want to do archery? That's $16. Want to do muzzleloader? That's $11. Then they started changing what was covered under the general license. For example, pheasant licenses used to be covered under your general small game license, now it's $26. Nonresidents often pay over $350 to hunt our land.
  • Different horn lengths on different deer get banned and unbanned without apparent reason. Spikes used to be legal, now they're not. Then they became legal depending on how old you are (why). The current rule is "An antlerless deer will remain defined as a deer without antlers, or a deer with antlers, both of which are less than 3 inches in length. Hunters are required to abide by “three up”; three points, including the main beam counted as one of the points, on one side, excluding the brow tine (the point immediately above the antler burr). Mind you, this last point is only for 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 2D. :scrutiny: Not sure about you guys, but the deer never stand around when I go after them with my ruler.
  • Hunters and people in general act like deer is the only thing that's in season. I hunt all year round and eat everything including pheasant, grouse, dove, squirrel, rabbit, waterfowl, and groundhog. I've had several people confront me in the woods "WHAT ARE YOU HUNTING? HUNTING SEASON IS OVER!!"
  • The license expires on a goofy time. If you buy a 2020 license, when does your license expire? You'd think in 2021, but you're wrong! It expires in mid June of that year! This isn't in the manual, but on the third flap of your license in tiny letters. Why is it done this way? Deer season is in the winter? Then why doesn't it expire after deer season and in the middle of the summer? Again, no explanation, but you can expect to pay over $300 if your license expires.
  • On several occasions, I have called the game commission to clarify on rules, only to find they don't know the answers and then they get all huffy that I wasted their time asking. This includes asking about a graph that lists legal hunting hours of water fowl all year round, when on a different page entirely it lists that waterfowl is only legal within a few months out of the year.
  • People extremely resistant to allowing semi-automatics for hunting. The same people moralizing about how "no true sportsman" needs a semi-auto or how "it isn't fair to the animal" are almost inevitably the same ones that are fat as crap, relying on motorized transport to their hunting grounds, and using a perfectly sighted in $300+ optic on some sniper rifle in a $100+ tree fort. They've never hunted wild hog. They've never hunted groundhog. They don't know anything about ballistics or haven't used modern weapons. They just like what they like and anyone who disagrees isn't a real sportsman. Again, most of the states in the country are allowing it, but they're all not true sportsman because they're not using some bolt-action bullcrap to shoot their animal.
  • The amount of power given to the Game Commission is insane. Game commission in my state have the same power as police officers and can make arrests on laws unrelated to conservation. That is, they can come into your house or shed if the door is open without a warrant. They also can go onto private property without a warrant if they "have reason" to believe you're poaching. Again, some of the laws are so draconian that there are people who have gone to county jail for hunting violations.

We still need game commission and my experience is that many of them are hard working, nice folks. But let's not overcomplicate stuff. You don't need a manual the size of a phone book with hundreds of yearly changes. Let people hunt with the weapons they feel most comfortable with and put rules for the most extreme cases. We don't need different seasons, times, dates, rules, antler sizes, and bird sexes for every single WMU. We don't an entire paragraph detailing what kind of bullet ogive can and cannot be used to shoot a groundhog.

You guys have more rules on hillbillies shooting squirrels than the Geneva Conventions had on shooting people.

Take that energy and time to focus on Chronic Wasting Disease, rabies, or blights that actually kill people and wildlife.



People are going to be mad about this, but the reality is the same people crying in their beer about how unappreciated the great and noble game commission are the same ones scratching their heads about why hunting is dying in popularity. The sad truth is that the quicker you lose hunters, the quicker you're going to lose your gun rights.
 
Last edited:

I actually really agree with this. None of my weapons have lights on them and none of our weapons in the military did either. If you really want to see in the dark, invest in a night vision monocular or something. In fact, many rifles have low light optics that are designed precisely for the purpose.

I think a lot of people don't think it looks as cool as the flashlight so they don't opt for it but I've also read about cases of people shooting through their walls because they're trying to hit the light and pull the trigger instead.
 
I actually really agree with this. None of my weapons have lights on them and none of our weapons in the military did either. If you really want to see in the dark, invest in a night vision monocular or something. In fact, many rifles have low light optics that are designed precisely for the purpose.

I think a lot of people don't think it looks as cool as the flashlight so they don't opt for it but I've also read about cases of people shooting through their walls because they're trying to hit the light and pull the trigger instead.

The link goes to a report by the Office of Inspector General County of Los Angeles. It was a pretty big problem for the Sheriff's Department.
 
The link goes to a report by the Office of Inspector General County of Los Angeles. It was a pretty big problem for the Sheriff's Department.

It kind of just doesn't make sense tactically to me. Like, if you have a light on your weapon because you're expecting to use that weapon to defend your life, shining a big bright light in the dark makes you the biggest target in the world.

I know this isn't that type of a forum so I won't go off on some odd hypothetical here but, if I was a bad guy breaking into your house, and someone comes into the hallway with a big bright light -- I'd just shoot towards that light and probably not miss at all because it's immediately now the biggest target in the entire environment.
 
I actually really agree with this. None of my weapons have lights on them and none of our weapons in the military did either. If you really want to see in the dark, invest in a night vision monocular or something. In fact, many rifles have low light optics that are designed precisely for the purpose.

I think a lot of people don't think it looks as cool as the flashlight so they don't opt for it but I've also read about cases of people shooting through their walls because they're trying to hit the light and pull the trigger instead.
During a brief stint as a LEO in the 60’s we were taught to hold out flash light at arms length to one side with the off hand aimed in the same direction as the gun hand. If the light was an aiming point for the adversary he’d likely miss.
Light mounted on the gun seems silly to me.
 
It kind of just doesn't make sense tactically to me. Like, if you have a light on your weapon because you're expecting to use that weapon to defend your life, shining a big bright light in the dark makes you the biggest target in the world.

I know this isn't that type of a forum so I won't go off on some odd hypothetical here but, if I was a bad guy breaking into your house, and someone comes into the hallway with a big bright light -- I'd just shoot towards that light and probably not miss at all because it's immediately now the biggest target in the entire environment.

Yep. Agree with your points. Furthermore, if you want to illuminate something and your light is on your weapon, you’re just violating Rule 1 of firearms handling and safety. I have never understood weapon-mounted lights.
 
During a brief stint as a LEO in the 60’s we were taught to hold out flash light at arms length to one side with the off hand aimed in the same direction as the gun hand. If the light was an aiming point for the adversary he’d likely miss.
Light mounted on the gun seems silly to me.

But what if the bad guy isn't where you're shining the light?

I do concede you agree with the original point and don't want to start a debate here, but just kind of reiterating this does not seem like a good idea.

Honestly if someone breaks into my house or something and I can't see them I'm going to turn on a light from another room. I'm not going to start shining a flashlight around in hopes that I can see them or pointing my rifle at people to determine if it's an intruder or if my mom got drunk and walked to my house on accident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top