5 5
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

...The latest version of Bill C.21 (currently under review by the Senate) proposes prohibiting a variety of military rifles. I agree that most of those rifles serve little sporting purpose. The prat that I do not understand is their proposal to ban SKS carbines (ballistically equivalent to an AR-15 or AK-47) because those SKs are preferred by native hunters. At less than $500 Canadian, a native hunter can purchase an SKS (7.62 x 39mm Commblock) for half or 1/3 the price of a .303 (equal to NATO 7.62 X 51mm). Natives need to modify (trap door) magazines to limit them to 5 rounds ... to conform to the old version of Canadian laws.

 

A bit pedantic, but the 5.56 NATO is NOT the equivalent of the 7.62x39 Soviet.  
The 5.45x39 Soviet (used in the AK-74) is. 
The 7.62 Soviet is roughly equivalent to the .30-30. A fair amount more powerful than the smaller ones.

All of the 'turn of the 20th century' military .30 cal (.303 Brit, .30-06 US, 7.5 French, 7.62x54 Russian, 8mm Mauser) are pretty similar. The .308 (7.62x51 NATO) was a evolution of the .30-06 from the 50s, when powder technology and understanding of the physics improved.

I find it interesting that an SKS is cheaper than an old .303 Enfield. Maybe 10 or 12 years ago, one of the local 'large discount sporting goods' chains would get large lots of old military bolt action rifles. Enfields, Mosin-Nagants (popular today in Ukraine), Mausers. Fair to poor condition, but not expensive. 

11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I was trying to do a comparison between the pellet gun and the actual 22 lr and obviously missed the mark. 

Yup.

As noted, airguns that shoot .22 pellets shoot .22s, not .177. Same basic design of both gun and pellet, but the .22 is a bit bigger, slightly heavier and a bit more powerful.

.22LR, however is a 'genuine firearm'. Gunpowder propelling a bullet (typically 40 gr). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

A bit pedantic, but the 5.56 NATO is NOT the equivalent of the 7.62x39 Soviet.  
The 5.45x39 Soviet (used in the AK-74) is. 
The 7.62 Soviet is roughly equivalent to the .30-30. A fair amount more powerful than the smaller ones....
 

Yes. A native Indian tried to sell me a SKS for $80 once and when i hesitated because I thought it was suspiciously low. He quickly reduced the price to $60. Needless to say I didn't buy it.

In Canada native Indians like the .303 WW 2 rifles because they have rimmed cartridges and strong ejectors. These are very useful because keeping them clean isn't a priority and they sometimes put too much oil on them. Which doesn't work so well in the winter. The Canadian Rangers recently got new Tikka rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, riggerrob said:

The latest version of Bill C.21 (currently under review by the Senate) proposes prohibiting a variety of military rifles.

The latest version doesn't propose banning anything. What is does is re-establish a committee that can recommend any firearm to be prohibited which the government then can do through Order In Counsel. This has allowed the liberals to claim how they are not banning anything at this point...other than the sale or transfer of handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2023 at 9:18 AM, SkyDekker said:

The latest version doesn't propose banning anything. What is does is re-establish a committee that can recommend any firearm to be prohibited which the government then can do through Order In Counsel. This has allowed the liberals to claim how they are not banning anything at this point...other than the sale or transfer of handguns.

Okay Dear SkyDekker,

But I am deeply suspicious of "Orders In Council" because they side-step the entire democratic process. Unless you read the Hansard, you may suddenly find yourself a criminal because you were not aware of the most recent change in gun laws.

Back in 1992 I wrote a newspaper article about this abusive process and it seems that the process has not changed. We also know that Canadian professional politicians fear an open public debate on gun laws. They fear an open debate because they know that voters are polarized on the subject and will oust a few professional politicians from office because some voters will be offended, no matter which way the politicians vote.

We saw similar political cowardess the last time abortion laws changed. Members of Parliament cowardly foisted the problem on the Supreme Court of Canada. Eventually judges decided that abortion was legal in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2023 at 11:14 AM, BIGUN said:

 

Have you looked at post #2945 or any of the other posts I've made?

Make. Them. A. Controlled. Item. It's as simple as that.  No harm to the 2nd. No one getting their legal weapons confiscated. A safer U.S.

Why are you making this hard?  

Because "the people" holding those 300 million will NEVER agree to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, timski said:

Because "the people" holding those 300 million will NEVER agree to it. 

There are more moderates calling for well-balanced firearm responsibility than there are survivalist Billy Joe Bobs. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

There are more moderates calling for well-balanced firearm responsibility than there are survivalist Billy Joe Bobs. 

2 things.

#1 - Despite the majority calling for new regulations, it's not likely to happen.
The Ds hold onto a slim majority in the Senate, and they don't have one in the House.
Do you really think the 'Freedom (from reality) Caucus' wouldn't do anything and everything to prevent any new gun laws?

And many of the elections that the Ds won were by slim margins. Trump lost GA by around 20k votes. Wisconsin wasn't much different (I'm not super up to speed on the margins in other states, but IIRC, many were pretty close.  
The Ds know full well that they'd lose a fair amount of 'on the fence' voters if they passed new gun laws. 

#2 - You propose mirroring the NFA with military style semi-autos.
Look up the 1939 Miller decision by the SC. It pretty much overturned the NFA. It was never fully put into precedent (or actually got rid of the NFA) because the new trial that was ordered for Miller never happened. It's a really odd set of circumstances, but the decision is there.

Do you REALLY think the current SC would allow any significant new gun restrictions to stand?
I simply cannot see them allowing an expansion of the NFA to include semi-auto rifles to stay in effect.

I'm not discussing the need for new laws, or the merits of them.

Just the reality that it isn't going to happen soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 5/27/2023 at 6:19 PM, riggerrob said:

But I am deeply suspicious of "Orders In Council" because they side-step the entire democratic process. Unless you read the Hansard, you may suddenly find yourself a criminal because you were not aware of the most recent change in gun laws.

Oh, don't get me wrong, it is indeed outrageous.

Edited by SkyDekker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2023 at 6:18 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

#1 - Despite the majority calling for new regulations, it's not likely to happen.
The Ds hold onto a slim majority in the Senate, and they don't have one in the House.

They only need 9 R's to convert. It won't happen if they don't try.

On 5/28/2023 at 6:18 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

You propose mirroring the NFA with military style semi-autos.

Nope. I proposed that all weapons be subject to the NFA.

On 5/28/2023 at 6:18 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Look up the 1939 Miller decision by the SC. It pretty much overturned the NFA. It was never fully put into precedent (or actually got rid of the NFA)

Now tell everyone more about it and the reasons.

On 5/28/2023 at 6:18 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm not discussing the need for new laws, or the merits of them.

Sometimes you wear me out, Joe. You really don't offer any solutions, but you're very critical of what everyone else puts up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

They only need 9 R's to convert. It won't happen if they don't try.

Nope. I proposed that all weapons be subject to the NFA.

Now tell everyone more about it and the reasons.

Sometimes you wear me out, Joe. You really don't offer any solutions, but you're very critical of what everyone else puts up. 

Hi Keith,

Re:  It won't happen if they don't try.

This, always this.

The line 'It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all' comes from Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem In Memoriam:27, 1850:

 I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

If we do not try, we cannot accomplish anything.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest mass murderer is singing a familiar song.

His social media posts supported Trump and the Second Amendment, and regularly posted mocking memes and videos about Biden.  He claimed Biden was trying to "take our arms."  He posted anti-LGBT memes as well, and said he was planning to "clean up the neighborhood."

Other quotes from his social media site:

"So often we accept the loss of freedoms in the name of safety. But we never feel any safer and we never get the freedoms back.”

“During community patrols I have notice a big shame. So many of our 50 + 60 + 70 year old elders are influencing the youth negatively. They are without a doubt promoting and participating in robbing, prostitution, scamming, and murder.”

He then went out and shot a total of seven people, ages between 2 and 59.  Five died.

I really wonder what it will take before the republicans stop protecting people like this.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billvon said:

I really wonder what it will take before the republicans stop protecting people like this.

I think it’s more that prevention is only for things that people you don’t identify with do (e.g. the border wall, transgender anything), while for things that you can imagine doing (using a gun to “protect” yourself in a situation you started and having it go wrong, domestic violence) should be handled after the event, because preventing it might impact someone like you

Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

They won't. But how many innocent people have died since the last potentially justifiable civilian shooting, and why is it OK to kill 10 (or whatever) innocents to justify the means to kill 2 miscreants?

Wendy P.

". . . . and saw two people approach him who he believed were trying to rob him. The man then shot and killed the two men."

 

So summary execution is acceptable if you believe someone is trying to rob you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

They won't. But how many innocent people have died since the last potentially justifiable civilian shooting, and why is it OK to kill 10 (or whatever) innocents to justify the means to kill 2 miscreants?

Wendy P.

During the Vietnam war a US major had a famous quote about the battle of Bến Tre: "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' Today republicans have adopted the same idea about protecting ones family and children. The US is violent and guns are necessary to save ones children.

Think of all the children's lives saved because guns were ready and loaded.

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

They won't. But how many innocent people have died since the last potentially justifiable civilian shooting, and why is it OK to kill 10 (or whatever) innocents to justify the means to kill 2 miscreants?

Wendy P.

Good morning Wendy. I know you are much smarter than this statement.

First, yes they will. Those two won't rob again. My statement was merely to point out that if those two were the ones doing that specific crime then there would be a drop in that crime ... until someone else starts doing it.

Comparing two incidents, 10 vs. 2, has no validity. 

The media is not the place to find accurate stats/info on the various ways that guns are misused or used as intended. It's impossible to find good data on the correct use of firearms. This is one article that makes many statements about the lack of clarity on gun data. https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-022-00384-8

This one discusses the phrase,“a good guy with a gun” is the only thing that can stop “a bad guy with a gun.”  There is little clarity on the issue of legitimate gun use. https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/#:~:text=According to the survey%2C firearms,average of 36%2C660 per year.

None of that matters. What is important is that the mass shootings are terrible. Some think that guns are the problem, others think not.

We agree on so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Good morning Wendy. I know you are much smarter than this statement.

Let's see.  She asked if it was really OK to kill 5 times as many innocent people in order to kill a few guilty people.  You said that the question itself had no validity.  You then posted a study that - you claimed - demonstrated that there were far more good gun uses than she suggested.

However, the study talked about ALL defensive gun uses, including brandishing.  If you include that, you of course have to include all the instances of brandishing being used in muggings, robberies, rape etc.  The study indicated that there were 70,000 defensive uses of a gun a year, compared to 484,000 criminal uses of guns per year.

So if you just go with defensive vs criminal use of guns, guns are used SEVEN times more often for crime than they are used for defense.  So going back to what Wendy said, she is not understating the defensive use of guns.  She is overstating them - per your own data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5