I like guns despite their obvious flaws

Post Reply New Topic

Amusing, considering how much you've been crying about my words to you.



So no one should be allowed to have opinions because some of them are the wrong ones? My beliefs and opinions are the basis for my rationalizations, same as you.



BS. This does not apply to anything that does not involve scientific fact and data analysis (and not even always in those cases).



We've been through this before, but since you have a selective memory, I'll say it again. I don't think that any of the proposed legislation involving registration is ecven remotely realistic or usable. That is what I mean by iterations. But you go ahead and make some more gross assumptions and over-simplifications.



If by over it several times you mean that when I say I support something that already exists you assume I don't know that it exists, then yes, we've been over this several times.



Selective memory again. I have said several times in this thread alone that I would not be opposed to firearm education in the school. I have also stated that I would much rather see it implemented for those who are actually going to be pulling a trigger. Yet another case where the disagreement between us is based on where lines are drawn. But in this case, you are the one who wnats something more far reaching.



I have never said they were dumb. I have many many times said they should be involved because they are knowledgable. The overly paranoid aspect of the organization is just my biggest criticism. I have other criticisms as well. They kow-tow to their most extreme members, they collect huge amounts of money from companies that want to completely destroy the types of habitat that I would much prefer to use for hunting, They absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the majority of gun owners (by which I mean non-members) by saying that they have the interests of all gun owners as their primary concern, and they refuse to speak to anyone who is in favor of any type of regulation, rule, ordinance, or recommendation by anyone other than themselves.

That being said, they do a whole lot of good things. They provide some top notch training (although I would prefer they spent more money promoting that than on buying DC politicians and sending garbage to people who let their membership lapse a decade ago), they are well aware of the fact that our nation will always have firearms and violent crime, they protect those who shoot recreationally or competitively extremely well, they know that firearms can be a vital component of self defense, they provide oversight for current gun registration (although there seems to be no accountability whatsoever in this regard), and they protect the commercial interests of those who manufacture, distrubute, and sell guns.

I just wish people would realize that this is the US and not anywhere else in the world. Guns are too big a part of our culture to be confiscated. Every attempt at confiscation in this country has led to MORE laws that STRENGTHEN gun rights and make confiscation even more unlikely. I just hate that the NRA uses scare tactics as a marketing tool. I think safety should be their primary message (seeing as how it is actually their primary mission).



Assume much. Your condescension provides zero support to your arguments. When have I ever questioned your abilities as an RO? When have I ever called out your range specifically? Your assumptions about my experiences are piss-poor. But I guess your mental picture of me prevents you from believing that I could be a responsible gun owner who is not a carbon copy of you.



I don't go to makeshift ranges, either. They are even worse, in my experience. Why do I have to hang out with other people when I shoot? All I'm doing is sighting in my rifle or actually hunting (for the most part). I don't feel the need to be around anyone else to get the job done.



And dismissing my experiences as invalid because I am not?



More spinning things around and manufacturing offense. Do you ever get tired of touting the same things?



Again, you want changes as well. Your rationale consists of nothing any more concrete. I have never rationalized anything by saying that this is how other places do it. That approach does not work in our unique nation.

And you continue to whine about me "calling you a troll," while insulting me as a response to my opinions.



And yet you continue to whine about it while doing the exact same thing



Yes, more of the for me or against me garbage. So if someone supports any form of background checks, or agrees with any existing legislation, or thinks we should have stricter laws on distribution (considering the massive amount of US made weapons end up in Central America), then they are just out to steal your guns?

Seeing as how there are some regulations that you actually support, does that mean your ultimate goal is also disarmament?



That seems to be where you argue everything from.



You are the one who engaged me this go around and that I have only been responding to your posts and nothing more. As I said toward the beginning of this current exchange, if you want to go through all this again, I'm game.

Me.

Though .22 Long Rifle would be better than Short, as you have a much larger selection of ammunition and very reliable killing power with a head shot (Shorts can be kinda iffy past 75 yards with some deflection; people move their heads a lot). Also, you can quietly take out cameras, computers, disable cars, and other soft materiel (plus police dogs). You can also store a lot of ammunition. Assassination and disruption are the words you want here.

.300 Win Mag is too noisy and with too much muzzle flash, for too little gain. Sure, you can take out a soldier here and there (even from 800 yards+ if you're good), but the odds of you surviving dramatically go down the larger your footprint is.

The point of insurrection is to pick and choose your fights, going with the easiest targets that offer the maximum return with little in the way of risk (comparatively speaking).

Sure, you can have your "fighting" rifle for the times when it's needed, but you aren't going to rely on it against a government. You also don't want to be in a situation where you need to rely on it, as you're probably already lost.

With saying all that, sabotage is the word you should think of. Demolitions. Flooding. Fires. Power outages. IEDs. Car bombs.

By the time it gets conventional, you'll be given all the weapons you want by whichever side you're on.

Both of my AR's are 5.56 and have the traditional DI system. I have no intention of switching them to piston driven because that platform has existed since the 50's in one form or another without a piston so I fail to see the rationale for changing it now. Having said that, I don't have very much experience with that platform in .308 except for shooting other people's rifles which I didnt have to clean. The type of powder used is a factor since ball powders tend to foul more than stick powders. I wouldn't want a belt fed MG that uses direct impingement, given the volume of rounds it would see, but I have no qualms about a semi-auto rifle or carbine that uses that system. I wouldn't mind having a SCAR but can't see myself buying one in the foreseeable future.

5.56 in 16" above does ok, the shorter the barrel gets the worse the gas system gets. the 300 black out i designed for short barrels. as for 308. I have seen too many videos and read to many reviews of jamming and failures to feed on a lot of the cheaper ones. the ar gas system wasn't designed for 308.

if i every win money i'll get a scar, but at 3k i would sooner get a tar21 at 1,800. but if i had the money and was getting a 308 simi auto it would be scar17 ,m14, fal, then g3.

Individual conceptions of what constitutes "tyranny" are wildly divergent and not always rational.

There is a not inconsiderable number of american's who think that things like healthcare reform are sufficient grounds for armed insurrection.

Others, who call themselves libertarian, think that carrying guns into town hall meetings is a responsible tactic of political engagement.

As western societies adopt ever more draconian police state measures, the PR justification for them inevitably comes from people, real or imagined, who try to bring about political change through intimidation and violence.

Listen at 30:00

I was thinking more along the lines of a bear attack, more specifically the grizzly or Alaskan brown bear which tend to be bigger and more aggressive than the black bear. If an attack does occur it's going to be quick and at close range where I'd want big chunks of lead that could be delivered quickly.

? The issues with short barreled AR?s is the reduced distance from the gas port to the muzzle which reduces the gas volume. That can be crutched by an enlarged gas port, a longer gas tube (a ?pig tail? gas tube wraps around the barrel once increasing volume a little), and I believe they have different buffers to compensate for short barreled AR?s. They can and are typically made to work reliably. I don?t care for the idea of an AR barrel much under 16? because of the reduced velocity takes too much of the sting out of the .223 round. Without that high velocity the little 55 or 62 grain bullet doesn't have so much going for it.

? I?d just go with a 7.62X39mm upper and forget that .300 Blackout. Ballistically both are close enough to call it good.

? Actually, the original Armalite AR-10 in the 1950?s was in .308 and it used DGIS. The only thing before that I?m aware of was the WW2 era Swedish AG-42b and that does not blow the gas all the way back into the bolt carrier like the AR does. I haven?t deep dived into it but I?ve never heard anything particularly negative about the AR-10 and they are still being made. Without doing considerable research I wouldn?t sweat it. If I wanted another .308 semi-auto with the intent of scoping it I?d get a recent version of the AR-10.


? The Tavor looks cool but I can?t see myself getting one in the foreseeable future. A friend of mine just bought one and when our schedules both allow it he?s going to let me try it. The thing that keeps me (and others) with the AR platform is all the accessories and modifications that can be done with it.

? If you want to get a .308 semi-auto and scope it the AR-10 seems to be the best since you?ll have a picatinny upper to start with. The FAL has that goofy gas system that could be as much of a pain in the ass (I have one) as an asset. The M14 / M1A is stargin to show it?s age as a design. After all, it?s an updated version of a 1930?s design that still retains a lot of the 1930?s features. As much as I love the M-1 and M-14 I don't think they would be my choice if I could have only one .30 caliber rifle to do everything. The HK-91 (had one) is as sturdy as a fencepost, decent scope mounting (claw mount) and very reliable, but not very ergonomic. The barrel (about 17? I think) is a bit too shor to take advantage of the 308?s full potential.

Just my 2 cents worth?.

For that reason, trappers up in the Yukon and Northwest Territories will sometimes carry pistols. Normally people aren't allowed to carry them here, but they make an exception if you're working in a wilderness area and need protection from wildlife. That's right, contrary to popular belief a civilian CAN carry a pistol in Canada, but only under this circumstance, and with a special license. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-f ... ge-eng.htm

Your problem seems to be you're unable to recognize and discuss REALITY.

I know it's much more comfortable not worrying about those nasty FACTS that make your head hurt so, and so much easier to come up with a stupid idea not founded in FACTS and say it's legitimate because it's just your HOLY OPINION and not necessarily based on FACTS, but defended mightily. Do you begin to see how silly that approach is?

If you insist on pushing your opinion in a discussion (hopefully based on fact) you'll find yourself marginalized. WHY?

BECAUSE if you insist on your opinions having the same weight as facts you're showing you are unable to compromise to reach an understanding of the facts because you have only your UNCHANGING opinion forever. And it seems your rigidity makes you feel successful, but to us you just look rigid. And who wants to debate with a rigid jerk whose only defense to facts is his uninformed opinion?

all that isn't common though in rifles, so a factory 9" ar is going have problems. I'd go piston like others have for that short.

7.62 x39 doesn't feed well in ars due to the case and magazine designs, that is the whole reason the .300 was designed. to feed a similar round reliably . its basically just a 7.62x39 round in a 5.56 case. I like that I can use the same mags and hold 30 rounds. all while shooting a 7.6 round. oh and same bolt. If I am going shoot 7.62x39, then its cz58, ak47 and sks.

I wouldn't have minded getting a defintive arms 5.56 ak, but those are banned from import now.

well the channels i sub to had problems with them, and theres always seems to be people selling ar10 with low round counts shortly after getting them.

yeah but how many people constantly change their ar set up? most keep it as is once set up then buy another. I have tan magpul stock, and grips. I plan to get a redot or acog and it is done. I don't have any desire to change it. as the tar21 comes in FDE I'd be set. its shorter then what I have in a 18", piston, and proven design. the only downside is having to adjust to a bulpup and its weight. my ar weighs lie 7 pounds loaded. I hear the tar weighs 9-10 pounds unloaded. which is weird for a mostly plastic gun.

the scar 17 has a full top rail. it'll probably be the only simauto 308 gun i'll ever get. i'd put a acog or scope on it and call it a day.

Which FACTS were presented, exactly? If you want to go back to my very first post in this thread, it was about FACT. I was merely pointing out that someone's FACT that there was a school shooting every week was technically true but not accurate, as the stat included suicides, accidental discharges, and crimes happening on school property that didn't involve students or staff.

That FACT was what somehow started this latest exchange between us about how anti-gun I apparently am. When I was engaged by some expressing their OPINIONS, I responded with my OPINIONS.

I only pushed my opinions when opinions that I had not even brought up in this thread were denounced. If I get pushed, I push back. That seems fairly normal to me.

Most of the conflict I get into tends to happen when people don't like the fact that my replies to them tend to match their tone and substance (mirroring is something that comes quite naturally to me).

I haven't done anything to change the way my M4 is set up since I finished setting it up BUT I had tons of options to choose from when I was setting it up in '09/'10. That's what I like so much about the AR platform over others. The optic I went with is an Aimpoint Comp ML3 with a Larue LT-150 mount. I bought it as a package deal from Larue tactical in '09. The newer Aimpoint Micro might be better since it is newer. I was going to get one of the Eotech's but after talking to others and reading lots of reviews the Aimpoint (at least then) had a better record of reliability and better battery life so thats' what I went with and haven't looked back. I wanted the carbine only for very close to medium (out to 200y) range at best so I didn't want any magnification on the optic. Mine has the 2 MOA dot and although sometimes I've thought I should have gone with the 4 MOA. If I turn the brightness up, though, it still gives me, in effect, a big dot in bright sunlight conditions so I'm happy with it and have no plans to change. What has really sucked in the past few years is ammo availability and that has included reloading components. It's just recently improved price and availability-wise.
Good luck with your SCAR when you get it.

I know people who are unable to debate only on the facts of an issue; you may be one of them.