|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 5:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
To an Originalist intellectual such as yourself, the plain language is what should matter and not the writings of a man who did not draft the Constitution. Jefferson's writings do not even constitute legislative history because he was in France at the time. He wrote to Madison, but the two did not see eye-to-eye on many things, including the need for a Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment also smells a lot like the Virginia Constitution of 1776, but Jefferson didn't write that either. Moreover, read up -- the Second Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment. The justices just made up the conclusion that it was a "fundamental right" protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. Jury trials are in the Bill of Rights, but the right to a jury trial is not a "fundamental right" according to the Supreme Court. There is no exhibit or appendix to the 14th Amendment listing "fundamental rights." The Supreme Court can just pick and choose what is a fundamental right. Activist judges! Liberals! COMMUNISTS [unless we like the ruling -- but if it involves women or homosexuals its COMMUNIST]. Non-textual, non-originalist opinions are fine for conservatives so long as they are the "right" opinion. I agree, intellectual consistency is a rarity among conservatives. Not totally absent, mind you - there are some conservative thinkers I really respect - but the rank and file seem to swallow any party line. Tom is an extreme example. If I want to learn Tom's view on any issue at all, I can just tune into Fox or Rush. There's not an independent synapse in his head. And he proves that by repeatedly accusing me of views I don't have or promote. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 7:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:49:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and how silly it is, and how detrimental to society. You are explaining it??? Frank, you have demonstrated over and over that you don't know enough about firearms to explain anything. I'm explaining that the overall configuration of AR style rifles is optimized for man-killing duty. It is light weight and compact for rapid movement during combat. It can accept large magazines, can be quickly reloaded, uses lighter ammunition so more rounds can be carried and shot. It has other features (like pistol grip) that allow quick motion and aiming in cluttered combat situations (as opposed to open field shooting at a distance). I'm saying that few of those features are optimum for what most people claim as their intended use of guns. ARs are not the best gun for hunting anything from deer to mountain goats to squirrels to ducks to chipmunks. They are not the best gun for hitting a bullseye at a target range. They are not the best gun for home defense. They are popular mostly because they look like badass guns, so Walter Mitty buys one to feel manly. And a few whackos like them because they're really good at killing lots of people in schools, churches, night clubs, concerts... Instead of saying "You don't know anything," get specific. Don't sidetrack, don't deflect. Tell me exactly what's wrong in what I wrote. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/30/2020 1:26 AM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:58:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote: During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned tail and ran. So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually pretty typical. Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances of the riots it was necessary to fire many shots. Who fired them, please? The police and the army. Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms? You were? I specifically mentioned a policeman , you replied, "an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was needed to turn away multiple bad guys." and now you tell us that you were talking about civilians. Frank, you just have to stop this changing the target. Your arguments are becoming extremely reminiscent of Tom. You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in a minute. I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of firearm do you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen rounds a minute". There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are one type. But it's certainly possible to design that rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns. It's not rocket science. I thought I posted a reference to a bloke with a break action shotgun firing something like 30 rounds in one minute? But further to your scheme, you plan to outlaw essentially all of the existing cartridge using firearms in the world and substitute some sort of gun that incorporated a clock to prevent the firing of more then X shots in one minute?" And the justification is that you don't think that an AR-15 is a proper firearm? I read that "According to BATF data there have been 17.7 million modern sporting rifles (MSR) made or imported into the US since 1990. That would include other rifles like AK clones, but the majority would be ARs. 54% of all rifles sold in 2017 were MSRs. That number comes from the BATF’s annual reports of firearms manufactured and imported..." https://www.quora.com/How-many-AR-15...merica?share=1 In this corner we have Frank and in the other some 17.7 million owners of a "modern sporting rifle".... and the vote is? I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and how silly it is, and how detrimental to society. In a similar way, I don't deny that there are many other stupid fashions, everything from "rolling coal" to Kardashians. "It's popular, so it must be good!" is an intellectually empty, vapid argument. Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go back to muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the Napoleonic wars, was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained volley firing. And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had in mind when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I think that they'd have phrased it much differently if they knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts. There you go again. The 2nd Amendment is quite specific that the intent is for the state to have a "A well regulated Militia" and I'm fairly sure that had automatic forearms been available in 1791 they would have been welcomed by the embryo U.S. :-) You're fairly sure? I'm fairly sure that the reason the 2nd amendment mentions "well regulated militia" is because they intended weapons to be used by a well regulated militia. There can be no other reason for inclusion of that phrase. It took the likes of the grifter LaPierre to con gun nuts into demanding our current state of gun chaos. But even rational gun users are calling for more controls. https://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/ What you're pretty sure of is meaningless since you have never bothered to read the Federalist Papers nor to actually read the Constitution. Tom, you have no idea what I've read. And you so consistently guess wrong! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 6:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 4:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Here are some highly rated hunting rifles: https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/ https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/ I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat. Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't target shooters considered sportsmen? Come on, John. You said you shot competitively, right? If so, you know about target shooting competitions. Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a high level competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the wrong tool for the job. https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/ https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because lots of guys think ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion thing, as senseless as most other fashion things. Well, once again you hit the target.... well except that the target is evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/ They are very commonly used in matches that specify "service rifle" and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/ You're talking about matches that restrict the choice of guns, so as to disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was talking about "given a free choice of gun type." Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to the best of my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns. That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free choice of gun type." Do you not understand conditional clauses? IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a shooting match, you would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more accurate. Don't dance around that fact. The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly tough-guy fashion. Given a free choice of vehicle type, racers would almost always choose jet aircraft. They're much faster than bicycles. Don't dance around the fact. You're right! In a long distance race where there was a free choice of vehicle, no rational person would choose a bicycle. It's just not as fast as the better choices. In a target shooting match where there was a free choice of gun, no rational person would choose an AR style rifle. They are just not as accurate. The only exception would be a type of match where things like pop-up targets simulated armed assailants. An AR might be better there, because the AR design is optimized for killing people. Frank you have absolutely no idea. You made that up. https://www.brownells.com/search/index.htm?k=Ar+15+Match+Grade+Barrels&avs|Make_3=A R-15 There's an entire industry devoted to match grade AR.0 (there are manufacturers who cut every corner for the lowest price package. High volume = excellent market segmentation.) My own is a midprice all-USA-made model, good at 50 yard targets with steel sights and I am the lowest of rank amateurs. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 6:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 3:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:39:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/30/2020 10:51 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 6:48:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: On 9/29/2020 9:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote: During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned tail and ran. So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually pretty typical. Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances of the riots it was necessary to fire many shots. Who fired them, please? Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms? You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in a minute. I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of firearm do you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen rounds a minute". There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are one type. But it's certainly possible to design that rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns. It's not rocket science. Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go back to muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the Napoleonic wars, was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained volley firing. And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had in mind when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I think that they'd have phrased it much differently if they knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts. That makes no sense at all. American schoolchildren once learned about Lexington and Paul Revere but you were apparently out that day. Our beloved 2d is directly drawn from that engagement, in which the British garrison left Boston in the dead of night to destroy the rifle works at Lexington. At the time, these were among the longest range most accurate firearms on the planet, significantly superior to the regular issue 'Brown Bess' musket. Every man in Philadelphia was very much acquainted with our recent history. The Second Amendment was a limitation on federal power and intended to preserve the right to own and bear arms in service of a well regulated militia. It has to be viewed in the context of existing state or colonial constitutions, many of which required gun ownership as part of compulsory service in the militia, typically to fight off natives, slave rebellions, non-British Europeans, etc. A true "originalist" would read the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as meaning what it says, viz., that the individual right to bear arms is guaranteed against federal interference when it is in service of a state militia. Moreover, nothing in the Bill of Rights prevented the states from regulating weapons, which they did, prohibiting ownership by free blacks, Catholics, those who didn't swear loyalty oaths, slaves, indentured servants among others. The Second Amendment was not clearly extended to the states until 2010 -- under the 14th Amendment. A true conservative would see this as federal over-reach and interference with state's rights. We need to return to the era before 1868 and the Fourteenth Amendment, back when states were free! Activist judges have extended the Second Amendment to the free states. Well said. -- - Frank Krygowski Well, said somewhat sarcastically, too, since the conservatives are fine if SCOTUS makes sh** up that they like. I just got four shooting cases at work -- all in strip clubs or strip club parking lots and all with handguns. Three deaths and one critical. This is not typical Portland. I represent an insurer that insures strip clubs. The clubs are open now, but no lap dancing due to social distancing. I think the frustration may be causing violence. I'm waiting for Trump to issue an executive order requiring the states to allow lap dancing to reduce homicides and suicides. I quoted the Federalist Papers to Stupid Frank since they actually describe by the founders themselves what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. So why are you pretending that anyone is making up anything? “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 Yep. "When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Anti-immigrant insult regarding Tsnaryev? Probably racist too. If outlaws didn't break laws wouldn't they suffer some kind of existential angst over that? What the hell _was_ your point anyway? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 6:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 7:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:49:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and how silly it is, and how detrimental to society. You are explaining it??? Frank, you have demonstrated over and over that you don't know enough about firearms to explain anything. I'm explaining that the overall configuration of AR style rifles is optimized for man-killing duty. It is light weight and compact for rapid movement during combat. It can accept large magazines, can be quickly reloaded, uses lighter ammunition so more rounds can be carried and shot. It has other features (like pistol grip) that allow quick motion and aiming in cluttered combat situations (as opposed to open field shooting at a distance). I'm saying that few of those features are optimum for what most people claim as their intended use of guns. ARs are not the best gun for hunting anything from deer to mountain goats to squirrels to ducks to chipmunks. They are not the best gun for hitting a bullseye at a target range. They are not the best gun for home defense. They are popular mostly because they look like badass guns, so Walter Mitty buys one to feel manly. And a few whackos like them because they're really good at killing lots of people in schools, churches, night clubs, concerts... Instead of saying "You don't know anything," get specific. Don't sidetrack, don't deflect. Tell me exactly what's wrong in what I wrote. AR platforms are chambered in just about every rifle cartridge you can quickly name so, yes, for whichever game animal you seek, an AR platform is out there, even rimfire. (The only guys I know who go to Wyoming for elk and mountain sheep use AR10 chambered .308 which is a different platform altogether). AR-15 are very well represented in target competitions and have been for years. Because they win, or at least do not impede skilled shooters. Yes, we agree that, although people do discuss pistol vs shotgun for home defense, almost no experienced person would suggest an AR-15 carbine for that. Still and all, if that's all there was at hand I'd prefer it to crying, or a rock. And listing, then decrying modern firearm features generally (which are also common to other modern platforms such as AR-74, AR-10) is just plain dumb. It's as if I noted your QR wheels and than called you a racer wannabe; 'What's up tough guy can't use a wrench?'. Geez as if light weight equipment is a nod to the devil. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:06:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 9/29/2020 11:35 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:46:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 9:18 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:01:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: No, sorry, you're remembering wrong. Or perhaps still confused. You were fixating on instantaneous firing rate - like a guy with a six shot revolver who can pull the trigger six times in three seconds. You were saying "See? That would be 120 rounds per minute!" My response was that it would NOT be 120 rounds _in_ one minute. For anyone who hadn't practiced like crazy, reloading would consume most of the minute. So who _does_ really need to fire more than a couple shots within a minute? Who _does_ really need to fire more than five to ten shots in a minute? By the way, you might want to look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ it shows a chap with a flintlock Brown Bess musket that went into service in the English army in 1722 firing 3 shots in 46 seconds. I've seen that sort of demonstration live. So is that your answer? "The person who needs to shoot lots of shots in one minute is a soldier trying to kill other soldiers." If so, I agree! But Walter "Rambo" Mitty who plays combat games on his mom's computer doesn't need that capability in real life. And providing it is detrimental to society. Frank, you really should stop replying as time after time your responses demonstrate that you know nothing about the subject. Most, I'd almost say all, modern firearms today will fire more then your mythical 10 - 15 rounds in one minute and I've posted references to them. some even with moving pictures. And I've said _repeatedly_ that I know that! Read upthread and see. But to add to the pot here is an example of a bloke firing a revolver: https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-record-video/ Using the Smith and Wesson 929 Miculek Series Revolver, he fired off 16 rounds with a reload in 4.01 seconds. And I already knew that similar things have long been done. You're not adding information, John. You're harping on that point indicates you're not grasping what I'm saying. Now, of course, you move the goal posts again and say "need to..." and I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or skeet you need to be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to shoot one clay then shoot another maybe a second later. Then there's a pause, because the next competitor gets to shoot. I mean, come on John! Those guns don't come with drum magazines! Quite obviously you don't know what you are talking about as at "doubles" they throw two birds at the same time, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BoNq9LM1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4 Thanks, John! Your videos confirmed what I said. Shoot twice, then wait. The only difference is that the world record holders shoot twice more quickly. But nobody shoots more than about four rounds in a minute. And hey, look at those guns! No AR style, and the shooters break them open and load the shells by hand! Golly, if you say ARs are so wonderful, why aren't those guys using them? And yet again you grasp frantically at something that might just possibly justify your assertions. But the reality is that no one uses an AR in trap or skeet shooting because they are contests for shotguns and an AR is a rifle. And, if you ask politely I will explain the difference between a "shotgun" and a rifle to you since you obviously don't know the difference. You know Frank, it requires a certain level of arrogance to argue so fervently about a subject that you know so little about. -- Cheers, John B. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 8:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2020 6:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/30/2020 4:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Here are some highly rated hunting rifles: https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/ https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/ I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat. Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't target shooters considered sportsmen? Come on, John. You said you shot competitively, right? If so, you know about target shooting competitions. Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a high level competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the wrong tool for the job. https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/ https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because lots of guys think ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion thing, as senseless as most other fashion things. Well, once again you hit the target.... well except that the target is evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/ They are very commonly used in matches that specify "service rifle" and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/ You're talking about matches that restrict the choice of guns, so as to disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was talking about "given a free choice of gun type." Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to the best of my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns. That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free choice of gun type." Do you not understand conditional clauses? IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a shooting match, you would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more accurate. Don't dance around that fact. The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly tough-guy fashion. Given a free choice of vehicle type, racers would almost always choose jet aircraft.* They're much faster than bicycles.* Don't dance around the fact. You're right! In a long distance race where there was a free choice of vehicle, no rational person would choose a bicycle. It's just not as fast as the better choices. In a target shooting match where there was a free choice of gun, no rational person would choose an AR style rifle. They are just not as accurate. The only exception would be a type of match where things like pop-up targets simulated armed assailants. An AR might be better there, because the AR design is optimized for killing people. Frank you have absolutely no idea. You made that up. https://www.brownells.com/search/index.htm?k=Ar+15+Match+Grade+Barrels&avs|Make_3=A R-15 There's an entire industry devoted to match grade AR.0 I'm not saying nobody ever uses an AR for target competition. I'm saying it's not the best tool. It fundamentally lacks the features that give best accuracy, because it's design is optimized for other priorities. Look at the world championships. Look at the olympics. AFAIK there is no rule against using an AR style rifle in those target competitions, but nobody does! This is not an AR! https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...12/anshutz.jpg Where are the ARs in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq2u...e=emb_err_woyt Similarly, you could try to race a Chinese Huffy in a pro level road race. You could modify it to make it way better than stock. But nobody does that. It's not the best tool for the job. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:58:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 9/30/2020 7:24 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:49:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and how silly it is, and how detrimental to society. You are explaining it??? Frank, you have demonstrated over and over that you don't know enough about firearms to explain anything. I'm explaining that the overall configuration of AR style rifles is optimized for man-killing duty. It is light weight and compact for rapid movement during combat. It can accept large magazines, can be quickly reloaded, uses lighter ammunition so more rounds can be carried and shot. It has other features (like pistol grip) that allow quick motion and aiming in cluttered combat situations (as opposed to open field shooting at a distance). I'm saying that few of those features are optimum for what most people claim as their intended use of guns. ARs are not the best gun for hunting anything from deer to mountain goats to squirrels to ducks to chipmunks. They are not the best gun for hitting a bullseye at a target range. They are not the best gun for home defense. They are popular mostly because they look like badass guns, so Walter Mitty buys one to feel manly. And a few whackos like them because they're really good at killing lots of people in schools, churches, night clubs, concerts... Instead of saying "You don't know anything," get specific. Don't sidetrack, don't deflect. Tell me exactly what's wrong in what I wrote. Well Frank, since you insist. "They aren't the best hunting rifle..." Actually the AR-15 weighs about 6.5 lbs and I can assure you that carrying a 6 lb rifle all day is significantly less tiring then carrying a 9 lb rifle. The .223 Remingtonj, or 5.5645mm NATO if you prefer is considered adequate for up to deer size creatures - wound cavities age generally larger then those of the 30-30 Winchester. "They are not the best gun for hitting a bulls eye at a target range...." I've already shown you some pictures but here are even mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5XPV-8db0Q https://tinyurl.com/y76xmcfa Note the predominance of the AR/M-16 type. "And a few whackos like them" https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...uction-is.aspx The AR-style rifle is the most popular firearm in the country, with about 16 million Americans owning them. In short Frank, your ignorance is amazing. -- Cheers, John B. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/30/2020 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:06:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 11:35 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:46:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/29/2020 9:18 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:01:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: No, sorry, you're remembering wrong. Or perhaps still confused. You were fixating on instantaneous firing rate - like a guy with a six shot revolver who can pull the trigger six times in three seconds. You were saying "See? That would be 120 rounds per minute!" My response was that it would NOT be 120 rounds _in_ one minute. For anyone who hadn't practiced like crazy, reloading would consume most of the minute. So who _does_ really need to fire more than a couple shots within a minute? Who _does_ really need to fire more than five to ten shots in a minute? By the way, you might want to look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ it shows a chap with a flintlock Brown Bess musket that went into service in the English army in 1722 firing 3 shots in 46 seconds. I've seen that sort of demonstration live. So is that your answer? "The person who needs to shoot lots of shots in one minute is a soldier trying to kill other soldiers." If so, I agree! But Walter "Rambo" Mitty who plays combat games on his mom's computer doesn't need that capability in real life. And providing it is detrimental to society. Frank, you really should stop replying as time after time your responses demonstrate that you know nothing about the subject. Most, I'd almost say all, modern firearms today will fire more then your mythical 10 - 15 rounds in one minute and I've posted references to them. some even with moving pictures. And I've said _repeatedly_ that I know that! Read upthread and see. But to add to the pot here is an example of a bloke firing a revolver: https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-record-video/ Using the Smith and Wesson 929 Miculek Series Revolver, he fired off 16 rounds with a reload in 4.01 seconds. And I already knew that similar things have long been done. You're not adding information, John. You're harping on that point indicates you're not grasping what I'm saying. Now, of course, you move the goal posts again and say "need to..." and I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or skeet you need to be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to shoot one clay then shoot another maybe a second later. Then there's a pause, because the next competitor gets to shoot. I mean, come on John! Those guns don't come with drum magazines! Quite obviously you don't know what you are talking about as at "doubles" they throw two birds at the same time, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BoNq9LM1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4 Thanks, John! Your videos confirmed what I said. Shoot twice, then wait. The only difference is that the world record holders shoot twice more quickly. But nobody shoots more than about four rounds in a minute. And hey, look at those guns! No AR style, and the shooters break them open and load the shells by hand! Golly, if you say ARs are so wonderful, why aren't those guys using them? And yet again you grasp frantically at something that might just possibly justify your assertions. But the reality is that no one uses an AR in trap or skeet shooting because they are contests for shotguns and an AR is a rifle. You're losing track of the discussion, John. Re-read above! You posted those videos to counter my assertion that nobody (outside of man-killing combat) really needs to fire lots of rounds in a minute. (Note, I never said anything about the time interval between individual shots.) You repeated your mischaracterization of my point, by saying "I can assure you that shooting doubles at trap or skeet you need to be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger." That's almost true - but only For precisely two trigger pulls. If they needed to shoot more than (say) ten rounds as fast as they could pull a trigger, they might be using something with AR features. They don't use those features. They don't need to. They shoot twice then wait. Your own examples argue against you. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thousands of miles of cycling lanes and bikes on NHS all part ofJohnson's cycling revolution | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 7 | July 30th 20 01:09 AM |
Cycling along, crash into grass = hospital, maybe death. Cycling is good for health. | MrCheerful | UK | 2 | March 4th 20 03:13 PM |
Hincapie, tactical genius | Fred K. Gringioni | Racing | 5 | March 30th 10 06:12 PM |
Novice Looking for Tactical Advice | Frank Taco | Racing | 17 | June 8th 07 07:28 AM |
Lance keeps it tactical | Bill C | Racing | 45 | July 22nd 05 09:14 PM |