More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[BIGUN 1,005]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Nothin. Let then eat squirrel!

AWESOME!!!

I'll let my asshole friends know you're OK with it. 

[JoeWeber 1,872]

45 minutes ago, normiss said:

After moving from central FL to the mountains in western NC, my views on varmints has changed considerably.

Trash pandas, feral cats, Texas speed bumps, and recently a 7 ft tall (when standing) bear are pretty regular visitors. A pop with a pellet or BB tends to make them shy away from future visits.

It did take a some rather lengthy discussions with some locals here before I started pinging, but I now have a source for free farm fresh eggs! Still getting Skymama used to not refrigerating or washing the eggs.

All fine and good but the fine fellow was exercising his second amendment rights by shooting birds for shits and giggles not killing varmints like feral cats, which are also sick fuck assholes that like killing birds for fun.

[gowlerk 1,610]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

AWESOME!!!

I'll let my asshole friends know you're OK with it. 

What I am less okay with is ineffective pellets leaving wounded animals to crawl off and lick their wounds. You have to kill them before you can eat them and pellets just don't do the job all that well.

 

[JerryBaumchen 876]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Nothin. Let then eat squirrel!

Hi Ken,

Here is another option:  King Rat (Clavell novel) - Wikipedia

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 1,723]

22 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

Here is another option:  King Rat (Clavell novel) - Wikipedia

Jerry Baumchen

His best book, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, the others were more fun, but this one was tight and gripping in a real way, not a fairy tale.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,005]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

which are also sick fuck assholes that like killing birds for fun.

OK. Now, I'm tracking.

Rule #1 - You kill it. You eat it. 

[Phil1111 693]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Phil.

Not quite sure what you're trying to get to, but the .22 cal air rifle round is actually .177 and does weigh about 10 grain with a 700-900 f.p.s. Conversely, the actual .22 cal round tops at 40 grain, with a 1260 f.p.s. At 25 yards, the air rifle round can go thru a piece of tin.

At fifty yards, not so much given the light weight and drop. If it had been a full .22 cal - different story with a max effective range of 150 yards and a significant drop after that. 

The good news is the child is expected to make a full recovery. 

I assume you're talking about PCP air rifles because a springer1250 fps(muzzle) rated with a 14 grain pellets then loaded with a 40 grain slug won't do over 925 fps. I don't have any personal experience with PCP air rifles.

I'd disagree with the first sentence.Break action springer air rifles are more than 85% of all air rifles sold. There are .177 cal air rifles and .22 cal.  I've had two break action .177 and they use .177 cal pellets. While the .22 use 22 cal pellets. The Weihrauch springer .177 that i currently own is fairly high power and will bury a 12 grain pellet in a solid ash board(1000 fps at muzzle). At 60 yards the same pellet will bounce off that same ash board.

Cabelas air rifle pellets.

Edited May 25 by Phil1111

[JerryBaumchen 876]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

What I am less okay with is ineffective pellets leaving wounded animals to crawl off and lick their wounds. You have to kill them before you can eat them and pellets just don't do the job all that well.

 

Hi Ken,

And, here is one reason for not doing so:  Man shoots bear; a day later, the same bear attacks the man (msn.com)

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 502]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

See. You're catching on. The goal isn't to wound them; it's to kill them. Ya know. To Eat. Not everything comes in saran wrapped packages at your grocery store. And, there's still a lot of folks that need to hunt to feed their families. What do have against poor country folk? 

That is an on-going controversy with Canadian gun laws.

We have a a huge split between city slickers and natives who live off the land.

Few Canadian city slickers have any need to own a gun beyond plinking at the range.

OTOH many natives have always been poor and they live beyond range of a grocery store, so depend upon hunting and fishing to feed their families. Natives tend to not waste ammo since it is expensive. 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.

???????????

Remind me to write a letter to my senator(s).

[JoeWeber 1,872]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

OK. Now, I'm tracking.

Rule #1 - You kill it. You eat it. 

Bingo. There are countries I've traveled where if it creeps, crawls, swims, or flys it goes in the pot regardless of it's age or the time of years. America isn't one of those countries, last I checked. On the other hand, we are a country where we've learned that folks with indifference to animal life need to be closely watched.

[BIGUN 1,005]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

I don't have any personal experience with PCP air rifles.

I'd disagree with the first sentence.Break action springer

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

[BIGUN 1,005]

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

We have a a huge split between city slickers and natives who live off the land.

Same in my state. Lotsa folks still hunt for meat and garden for vegetables.  

[wolfriverjoe 1,096]

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). 

[Phil1111 693]

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.

[SkyDekker 907]

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.

[riggerrob 502]

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.

[timski 70]

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. 

[BIGUN 1,005]

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. 

[JerryBaumchen 876]

23 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

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

Hi Keith,

I fixed it.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,005]

53 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

I fixed it.

Thanks, Jerry. Far More: true statement.

[wolfriverjoe 1,096]

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.

[SkyDekker 907]

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 May 29 by SkyDekker

[BIGUN 1,005]

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. 

[piisfish 131]

Florida man … ‘nuff said

[JerryBaumchen 876]

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