Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Homerboy, Mar 25, 2018.
So I get to keep my 300 Blackout if I promise to only shoot subsonic ammo in it?
I think they do. They’re being intentionally ignorant to appeal to the general public. Like that retired Colonel who was interviewed by CNN advocating for banning AR15’s. He used the term “full semi auto”. Desk jockey or not, I don’t see how you could do a career in the military and not know that was wrong.
A very good rifle, and not an unduly alarming one. Winchester did a recall of them in the 1990s, for a fault I very vaguely remember was about a fault which caused some of them to fire unlocked. I knew it wasn't a compensate and scrap recall, or "please accept this post-64 Model 70, which our marketing research people swear is good enough for anybody normal." They fixed them, or supplied a new part maybe, and the owners kept them. I would suspect that it was the kind of fault where if you've got a good one, you've got a good one. But it sounds worth checking out.
Of course there isn't much about almost any mass shooting that couldn't be done with a 10ga pump-gun and buckshot. I think it is possible that the assault rifle image has encouraged psychos to compete for numbers. A while back in the UK Ford introduced a sports fuel injection of their standard small hatchback car. It wasn't all that much faster, and most accidents don't happen at maximum speed or under maximum acceleration. But insurance premiums, particularly for young drivers, were very much higher. What surprised people was the revelation that the insurers charged more for the colour red. Now, insurance companies are supremely good at crunching numbers. It would be a mistake to ask whether a red car or a black rifle is of itself dangerous. But they bring a light to the eyes and a faster pulse in people who are dangerous.
Yes sir, I can barely remember that. It seems to me that the problem had something to do with the firing pin, but I'm not sure.
At any rate, I contacted Winchester, and they gave me the name and address of some outfit to send my Model 100 to. I did, and it came back after a few weeks - no charge. I just haven't used it that much since then because I prefer bolt actions - an old, tang safety Ruger 77, 30-06, and of course my custom built Montana Rifle Company 308 Norma Magnum.
Dad's been gone awhile, and I don't know whatever happened to either of his Model 100s. I suspect he never did send them in for repairs though.
Yep. Most people won't be swayed with semantics. They will be thinking, "So it doesn't have the fully automatic capability? Well, it can still kill dozens of people. Who cares what you call it?"
And if naming conventions are brought up in a debate the other side may take it as avoiding the issue.
People calling for a ban don't care. They're ALL scary.
The health care provider in me can’t help but laugh at this idea. Mental health issues are real issues. These are diseases of the brain and these people need treatment to lead normal lives. We need to remove the taboo and encourage treatment. Creating a database to use to take away rights of these people doesn’t encourage them to seek treatment. It only drives them away and makes the problem worse.
Its like my father in law. He is diabetic and for years he wouldn't go on insulin because he thought they would take away his CDL, even though he didn't even have a job that required it. Well he progressed to the point that his pancreas wasn't even functioning before he finally got on insulin, and then found out it had no affect on his CDL anyway. I was with him on several occasions where I thought he was going to pass out and I'd have to drag him to the hospital because his blood sugar was so out of wack.
Point being if I thought getting treatment for something would enable the government to come empty my gun safe, chances are 100 in 100 I'm not getting treatment. We can't let peoples rights be taken away without due process.
I wouldn’t either. Few people would and that’s a problem. Mental health issues are already wrapped with stigma. That’s bad enough. Using it to takes rights away only worsens the problem.
I do understand the argument. That someone who isn’t capable of responsible gun ownership probably shouldn’t be a gun owner. But there needs to be due process and we need to encourage treatment not drive people from it.
Consider how many recently detached service members entered the worst job economy in decades. With few prospects and overwhelming encouragement to sign up for disability via PTSD to give them a boost in income, you can be assured that by standards set by antis, this qualifies as a diagnosed mental illness. VA not fixed yet to provide treatment? Round ‘em up and turn ‘em in. Temporarily sad? Confiscated. And everyone’s new favorite, “on the spectrum”, can’t ever own.
Psychology has realized there is no money in cured patients so, like AA, everyone is ill for a lifetime and subject to continuing care. Politicians provide patients (income), “therapists” provide votes
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. There probably isn’t a true cure for a lot of mental health conditions. But that doesn’t mean that these people can’t live normal and healthy lives and therefore should be entitled to normal rights.
Treatment for these people is the solution to this problem. Not taking freedoms away. The problem is the anti groups see treatment as an avenue to take their guns. This both inhibits their rights as Americans AND worsens their quality of life because it gives them one more reason to avoid necessary medical care.
The antis are using mental health as an excuse to execute their agenda. It’s not an effort to help those in need of care.
"So, just how long have you had this fear of inanimate objects suddenly developing volition and pursuing you?"
"Just how long have you had this aversion to common logic?"
"Why do you not believe in mathematics?"
I agree. But when it comes to gun control (which we know isn't about guns in the first place - it's about control) the antis have been "on thin ice" or shaky ground, or whatever you want to call it as far back as I can remember Capn. It hasn't stopped them, or even slowed them down from spewing their nonsense. At least not as far as I can tell.
Looks like an M-4 to me. No doubt that's what made it so popular. Tactical right down to the muzzle break.
It's just like way back when they screamed about "cheap" "Saturday Night Specials" that were "only good for killing" and then wrote the bill so it would include expensive and superb quality S&Ws and Colts.
SOS, different decade. Can't trust them, can't compromise with them. All they do is take.
Don't waiver, don't quit saying no.
I am a very strong advocate of protecting the rights of citizens with mental health illnesses. I would add that most mental health disorders can be successfully treated.
The demonization of mental illness is straight out of the Government playbook on how marijuana has become dangerous to use and causes other illegal activity.
Yes, as long as it isn't a semi-auto rife.
The Parkland students probably did more research on this than Feinstein did on "assault rifles". They don't want to ban rifles that look like M4's, they want to ban semi-auto rifles......period. I keep hearing from the left that nobody *needs* a semi-auto rifle. I think that's going to be the next AG battle cry. Actually, I think it already is, thanks to a bunch of kids that thought this thru and went directly to what they believed to be at the heart of the issue. When you want to ban electric cars you don't say everything that looks like a Tesla, you say cars who's primary drive is derived from electricity, not combustion.
Thinking you are going to end run this thing with a Mini 14 is like thinking an FRS-15 grip is going to solve your AR problems. Even my M1 carbine is suspect but I'm hoping that because it's 75 years old (mags are also) that I can skate. It's a revolver cartridge, I can prove it.
All modern rifle cartridges are bottlenecks. Everyone knows that, I think.
Separate names with a comma.