Recent Gun Purchases (Page 2)

Funny, a lot of guns rights people seem to have no problem with having a database of the mentally ill. Which, as I mentioned, is a pretty broad group. Many of whom pose no threat to anyone at any time, and based on diagnosis, at least, never would.

Why are guns rights people so concerned about this, but have no problem with registering their cars, or having to alert the TSA whenever they get in an airplane? Those are also ways in which the government tracks you, and can restrict your ability to get away from TEOTWAWKI? What makes them think if the government was going to start to round up the guns, that (a) the cops or troops would enforce this, or (b) if they DID, that individuals or even small groups of people would be able to stop them?

And frankly (to conflate the two issues of MH and guns), I would be MORE concerned that some "government shrink" would declare me paranoid and therefore ineligible to own guns if I went around making this view known. After all, the soviet psychiatrists had a diagnosis "sluggish schizophrenia" to assign to dissidents and get them locked up (not a real condition, it referred to the"delusion"/belief that one could change or overthrow the soviet system). If you believe the government wants lists of who has guns because they want to take the guns, it is not a stretch to think they will want a database of the mentally ill so they can incarcerate people without all that pesky due process and time-limited sentence nonsense. Personally, I think in the US in the 21st century, both are a big stretch.

The problem with the crowd that really pushes ammo or gun-control in any measure is that most of them don't have a clue what they are talking about with regard to firearms or ammo.  I think we are stuck with that ignorance.

The people pushing are probably not gun owners at all.  I enjoy reading these threads as I live in Australia - it's nice to see other view points rather than our media shaking their heads at those gun crazy Americans!  Then in the next bulletin three people stabbed to death in Australia and no comment made about knives....

I just got another spare ten round magazine for my .22LR High Standard Supermatic this week.  It's an older gun and I had the magazine on back order for a while.  That makes three magazines; it just saves some time when I go to the range.

I've been window-shopping for an AR-15 for the last couple of years.  I've even thought about getting chambered for .22LR which would be more economical to shoot.  Every time I get close to buying one I always seem to find something else I'd rather spend the money on.       

Mark 

Only if you are unwilling to provide information to correct common misperceptions. I am not the only person who believes that certain ammo should be banned. If all of it penetrates a vest, then why do vests exist? Why do cops wear them? Why would a person need the kind of firepower that penetrates vests if they are hunting (I cannot imagine it is needed to shoot at paper targets or clay pigeons)? Maybe if you can document the need for a higher degree of penetration (e.g. I am hunting elephants; or the fence failed and the raptors have gotten loose in the park), you can obtain a waiver for "legitimate use" rather than just having the firepower to take down the Chicago PD because you just want to have it.

The time does not bother me. I'm in no hurry. This store is huge and the inventory waiting for checks is a HUGE pile.

I have never wanted an arsenal.. and the AR will probably do the same thing my other one does... collect dust 99% of the time... but if I am only going to have one, then .308 is more versatile. Obviously the platform is a little more problematic being non standardized like .223. Bit more expensive, bit less parts... but more versatile caliber if I only have one. So that is why I went that way. Of my friends that have ARs... they are all 15s. I like to be different. The market is smaller, but obviously, 7.62 NATO is just as plentiful.

Exactly.It's a 10. I would rather have a Springfield M1A. I don't need a "black rifle with a pistol grip". But the Springfield takes a lot more work to get as accurate as you can an AR platform out of the box these days. And obviously, you don't build those and what not. So for .308, the AR is a good platform. Not that the M1A isn't good.. just more money and at that point you could just buy a good .30-06. Another friend has a Garand from the there and they are good fun.

Wiki

Definition

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler^[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,^{[nb 1]} subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:^[4][5][6]

• It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
• It must be capable of selective fire;
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
• And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."^[7]

Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

In United States politics and law, an assault weapon is a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

• a folding or telescoping stock
• a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
• a bayonet mount
• a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
• a grenade launcher

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.^[8]

The only person responsible for your ignorance on a subject you brought up and asking for laws that make no sense is YOU.

It's really not that hard before you start regurgitating something you heard on MSNBC or a movie or from a politician who know probably less than you do or wherever you heard this, is to go to Google and do just a rudimentary search.

No need to point fingers at those who just gave you a basic explanation that they need to do more to educate you.

I just bought 2 AR-15's. Zeroed them today too! Going out to get scopes after Christmas. Gotta get 'em while the getting is good!

This is exactly right!!  And, unfortunately, the reason gun owners are absolutely unwilling to compromise.  The amount of ignorance with regard to guns and ammunition, coupled with the outright lying about anything firearm related, and what do you  have? ...... Gun owners just laughing at the other side because it's so blatantly ridiculous.  

I wish it wasn't so, but you better go ahead and arm yourself if you want to be able to protect yourself from your perceived danger.....I can't see gun owners giving way to this nonsense.

Then I guess there is nothing to say, if there is no willingness to compromise.

HA!!!!

Do you always do that?  We won't compromise because you (the collective you, because your style is nothing new) are ridiculous in your assertions and your lack of knowledge.  Every time you spew a "fact" about guns or ammo we laugh.....because you virtually never have it right.  How are we to compromise with an idea/assertion that is wrong?

Here, what the heck, I'll play along......THAT'S why we won't compromise with you....but you got that the first time.

Statistically, children in schools are safe, far safer than they are at home.

I keep hearing the Anti Gun Mob claiming that more guns means more gun violence. I would think if there was any truth to this that gun shows would be fraught with shootings, mass murders and all sorts of gun accidents. Far more people are killed with firearms in Gun Free Zones than there are at gun shows.