|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 23, 2008 15:43:06 GMT -5
So in the interest of advancing the discussion, since we are having a good one, can anyone on the anti-firearm side of the question tell me the difference between this:  and this....  |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 23, 2008 15:46:32 GMT -5
One has a knife on the end of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 23, 2008 15:48:12 GMT -5
Tons of cool factor in the bottom one. That is all I will say on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 23, 2008 15:55:31 GMT -5
Ok, here's a pathetic guess... The top picture is a rifle/shotgun thingy LOL It almost looks like a BB gun. The second is the semi-automatic/bayonet rifle?  |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 23, 2008 16:13:55 GMT -5
Where do criminals obtain their guns? I would think the majority originate from gun shops, gun shows, or are purchased on the internet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but very few illegal guns are shipped from overseas. Therefore, if we ban semi-automatic weapons, and only allow guns that force the shooter to reload after a few shots, we will eventually see a decrease in automatic/Semi-automatic weapons on our streets. Imagine a gangster trying to use a pistol in a drive by, it wouldn't happen. Saunterelle, please educate yourself before weighing in on this topic. No, criminals don't get their guns from gun shops, gun shows or on the Internet. They buy stolen guns from other criminals. In order to buy any handgun now in Calif, you have to go thru a licensed dealer, who runs a record check on you. You must also have a Handgun Safety Certificate, which requires passing a test. Check the recent news reports - the majority of drive-bys are either handgns or shotguns. Very few criminals use long guns because they're difficult to hide. A well-cared for gun will last a hundred years, easily. I'm working a deal right now to buy a rifle that was used in WW1, and it's still in good shape. If you were to somehow cease production right now on all semiautomatic weapons, the ones in circulation would still last a long, long time. The key is not to control the weapons, it is to control the criminals. An apt analogy says: If handguns cause crime
Then spoons cause obesity.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 23, 2008 18:23:51 GMT -5
+1 on Gaffney's point regarding the ability for weapons to remain in good working order indefinitely.
I have my grandfather's deer rifle, a Savage Model 1899 that was manufactured in 1911. Shoots as good today as the day it was made. I also have my dad's rifle, a Model of 1917 military rifle, made in 1918 and later converted into a "sporter". It also is just as capable as the day it was first issued. I have an 80 year old .22 pistol in the safe that is just fine, thanks.
Point is, like any piece of machinery, if properly maintained a firearm will last indefinitely.
Now to let the gun haters off the hook to my question with photos above..... other than the cosmetic features of a larger magazine, a different stock and the provision of a bayonet those are essentialy the same weapon. Both of them are gas operated, semi-automatic, .308 caliber rifles. They shoot the exact same cartridge with equal effectivity. The top one is a Remington Model 750 Woodsmaster, very common hunting rifle based on a design that has been around for over 50 years. The bottom is a Springfield Armory M1A, patterned after the M14 US military rifle.
If I buy (outside of California of course) an aftermarket 20 round magazine for the Remington, there is essentially no difference between the two rifles. You could use either one to hunt with, target shoot or defend you home. They are about equal in size and weight and neither is conducive to being easily concealed or used in a car, such as in a drive by.
The Clinton gun ban of 1994 considered the one on the bottom an "assault weapon", while the one on the top was not. No reason, other than how it looks.
Barack wants to ban both of them. Outright. That's his previously stated position.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 23, 2008 20:18:30 GMT -5
Sheesh! Soooo, my guess was close. Huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 23, 2008 20:42:24 GMT -5
Sheesh! Soooo, my guess was close. Huh. Kinda, yeah. They are both rifles, and the one at the bottom has a bayonet attached to it, which can be removed of course. Perhaps the difference in scale between the two photos throws it off a bit, but that was the best I could do quickly. My point was and is that some of you folks that are interested in "getting rid of the guns" are driven, in part, by ignorance... and I mean that in the true meaning of the word, not as an insult. You just don't know. There's no harm in that, of course, unless that ignorance seeps into the agenda or worse, drives it. First California and some other states, and then the federal government, banned so called "assault weapons" based solely on how they look. As demonstrated above, the two rifles are mechically the same in operation, firing the same cartridge. But one "a rifle/shotgun thingy LOL It almost looks like a BB gun" while the other is a "semi-automatic/bayonet rifle", and no doubt somehow evil to the eye of someone who doesn't know better. You proved my point JMO, without even trying hard. The federal ban sunsetted, and some of us are trying mightily to get California's ridiculously written, and largely unenforceable, laws overturned. So Barack's idea, he has said so on the public record is to simply ban them all. Prohibition in the 1920's and 1930's was crafted and moved forward by the progressives who were in power then at the real height of the progressive movement's power, up until now anyway. Now having access to history books, how did Prohibition work out? Declaring them illegal and outright banning them isn't going to solve the "problem", nor will trying to demonize certain firearms because of how they look. All it will do is punish law abiding citizens who choose to own firearms for self defense, sport or collecting. And violent crime will go up. Just like it has in the UK, Canada, Australia and everywhere else guns are totally banned that aren't hyper police states... like Japan. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 23, 2008 21:01:57 GMT -5
I am not against gun ownership in totality. I was raised with a gun in the house like I've said before without incident.
Times are different today, even since my earlier days. Have you been to Chicago's worst neighborhoods by the way? Cabrini-Green? It used to be thought that some people never make out alive once in, and nobody seemed to care. Scary looking place. It is now bring redeveloped. Some cities are infested with people who should not own guns especially those rapid fire types, and since guns are not an area of my expertise, I pose the question to you and others how do we keep guns away from dangerous people? Logic tells me adding more to the population will increase the likelihood that criminal will get their hands on one (by stealing yours for example).
I don't think we can revert back to everyone packing pistols, there's a reason why we'd changed that in the first place., you know, being civilized and all.
I won't tell you where, how, etc. but I did get to fire a Tec-9 (at a target), it was sort of fun I have to admit, but I definitely see the potential for killing several people at once with rapid fire and other than law enforcement, and military I don't see the need to own one.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 23, 2008 21:20:15 GMT -5
Take a gander at this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_YSo, should revolvers be banned? Remember, no matter what restrictions you place on honest citizens the thugs will get and use what they want. Example the N. Hollywood shoot out. Two thugs who could not legally own fire arms with CA illegal full auto weapons. How many more restrictions on me or Big Dog, Gaff, or New Guy would you put in place even though none of them would do anything to prevent incidents like that? "I don't think we can revert back to everyone packing pistols, there's a reason why we'd changed that in the first place., you know, being civilized and all." No such days existed. Hollywood, and anti-civil rights lobby myth. And the reasons we got away from it were: society became realtively safe so many people stopped. We got away from the land, a gun can be a pain to carry in an office situation. And, last but most important, the social engineers started to demonize firearms and those who own them. And, if you think we are "civilized" you are deluding yourself. Mob rule and anarchy is just below the surface. Look at the riots that regularly break out at the various anti-war or anti-big business protests (always thrown by peaceful, tolerant leftists). How do we keep the thugs from getting guns? How about discouraging the use of them in crimes. Look up Project Exile. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 23, 2008 21:21:53 GMT -5
I've been to a lot of places as bad or worse than Cabrini Green. California, along with many other states, has a safe storage law. Did you know that? With criminal sanctions for the gun owner if their piece is obtained by someone who shouldn't have it. Before I can take delivery of a firearm from a dealer I have to have a lock for it, and it has to be purchased within the past 30 days, can't recycle an old lock. And I have to keep my goods in a state approved storage container. I have a pretty nice safe bolted to the slab so it's going to be pretty hard to steal mine. That puts your argument on the increased likelihood of a criminal stealing mine on it's butt. As to who should and should not own guns.... well I think that we should consider gang bangers illegally carrying firearms in public should not have them, eh? Think we can agree on that? So what do you do to stop them, but leave me with my rights to own a firearm if I so choose? There is an answer, and the NRA helped sponsor it starting in Richmond Virginia with Project Exile. Supported by both the Brady Campaign and the NRA... guess what, it works. So let's play another game.... here is a Tec 9 (a notorious POS by the way)  and here is a Glock 17, utterly reliable and used by law enforcement all over the country.  Tell me what the difference is........... |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 23, 2008 21:34:55 GMT -5
You are less likely to have a N/D with the Tec 9. <G> The Tec 9 beats the G-Lock on cool factor. The G-Lock is a lot less likely to have a failure to feed or other problem than the Tec.
|
|
