- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Did you? Guessing not...7.62...Did you serve in our military?
7.62x51 is not .30 cal.
.30 cal is .30-06.
Did you? Guessing not...7.62...Did you serve in our military?
I'll ask you...There are at least 25 people on this forum who believe that. Ask them.
Did you? Guessing not...
7.62x51 is not .30 cal.
.30 cal is .30-06.
Must be terrible going through life taking yourself so seriously all the time.:cuckoo:
Did you? Guessing not...
7.62x51 is not .30 cal.
.30 cal is .30-06.
Well that's good then since.....None of us take you seriously either!:lol:I don't, so it's not.
Well that's good then since.....None of us take you seriously either!:lol:
(just kidding......To wide an opening there for me to drive around it)
True, true.
One of the things I excell at is leaving massive openings for people to jump into with jokes at my expense.
Which is not .30 cal, the round in the belts around your hypothetical teacher's neck. As I said, it is useless in the M60.I was pointing out 7.62 .......the standard NATO round.
I wonder when D505 will respond to this post...In the same manner as 1st amendment rights are regulated, yes.
However, the poll choices you offer indicate you have no understanding of how this concept would apply.
I wonder when D505 will respond to this post...My exercise of my 2nd amendment rights do not endanger you, and so you have nothing to protect yourself from.
I wonder when D505 will respond to this post...You can not want me to own them all you want -- if they fall under the definition of "arms" as it is used in the amendment, your desire is trumped by the constitution, and carries no more weight than someone not wanting you to express your political opinion by burning the flag.
The confusion here is the non-interchangability of the terms "caliber" and "round".Technically speaking any 7.62mm regardless of casing is .30Cal. Even a Russian 7.62x39 is a .30Cal weapon.
7.62x51 is a .308 which is exactly the same caliber as a .30.06.
The confusion here is the non-interchangability of the terms "caliber" and "round".
.30cal is a "round", as in 7.62x63 or .30-06.
7.62mm bullet size is a "caliber", as in "a bullet with a 7.62mm diameter".
And, just to note, while 7.62x39 is nominally a 7.62mm round, the bullets are actually .311" diameter, same as in the UK's .303 and Japan's 7.7mm weapons.
I was hoping to hear a reply to this question as well.I'll ask you...
Can you provise a list of people who advocate no regulation for gun ownership?
:doh.30 cal is an actual round but any round in .30Cal is also considered a .30Cal round.
:doh
10 characters
Whatever you want it to mean.And what is that supposed to mean?
Still havent seen a respone from D505.I wonder when D505 will respond to this post...
I dont see that poll option.That 40% embrace the Constitution so and believe that no gun restrictions are necessary - this is scary.
How are they obtuse?Either these people are obtuse or they really hold this to be dear.
This, your opinion, has no meaning whatesoever.I'd say that in a modern society, the guns are not necessary.
How does that follow?But do we have a "modern" society ?
The people at the "town hall" meetings say NO.
That 40% embrace the Constitution so and believe that no gun restrictions are necessary - this is scary..
Either these people are obtuse or they really hold this to be dear..
I'd say that in a modern society, the guns are not necessary.
But do we have a "modern" society ?
The people at the "town hall" meetings say NO.
I'd say those 40% probably have a much better idea about what a right is and the importance to have it recognized than your lot.
I don't doubt the realization of what a right is is lost on them.
I think it's more of a "I'm better than them" ideology.
As I noted before, and as the OP has refused to address, restrictions on and the degree of protection for the right to keep and bear arms should parallel those of those rights found under the 1st amendment.Cause if the government were to try and limit their right to free speech... they'd be up in arms.. (not literally as most of them we know like to be victims)