The Gun Forum Primer

[Bum]

(chuckle)

Nope. What you're seeing is thread playing itself out beautifully. All the so called "gun experts" are trippin up on their own BS. And no you enter.

Ga'head make an argument.

If by "beautifully" you mean self immolating yourself in a debate....I agree, you have really outdone yourself. :thumbs:

It has been entertaining to watch you change lanes once you realized you were in over your head; after throwing yourself under the bus with repeated technical blunders, you retreated and suddenly went "Well, this thread really isn't about being technically correct, its about the larger picture, and I know all about that".


No...you went straight to the deep end without a clue, and when called on it, you try to play it off as though you orchestrated the entire thing and pretend to be privy to some higher knowledge or insight.


Based upon the glaring failure to understand even something so basic as measurements of ammunition, I think your strategic thinking is less Bobby Fischer and more Fisher-Price.

 

[pinqy]

That got answered a long time ago, ask Pingy.

What exactly do you think I would say, considering your rebuttals to me have been crushed and you’ve ignored my last few responses to you. I thought you had put me on ignore.

 

[jet57]

If by "beautifully" you mean self immolating yourself in a debate....I agree, you have really outdone yourself. :thumbs:

It has been entertaining to watch you change lanes once you realized you were in over your head; after throwing yourself under the bus with repeated technical blunders, you retreated and suddenly went "Well, this thread really isn't about being technically correct, its about the larger picture, and I know all about that".


No...you went straight to the deep end without a clue, and when called on it, you try to play it off as though you orchestrated the entire thing and pretend to be privy to some higher knowledge or insight.


Based upon the glaring failure to understand even something so basic as measurements of ammunition, I think your strategic thinking is less Bobby Fischer and more Fisher-Price.

You guys are unable to prove me wrong anywhere in the thread, you've not proved yourselves right or answer the very simplest of questions anywhere in the thread which is very typical of gun guys. You guys resort to "technical issues" every time you get trapped and yes, it's played itself out quite well here.

 

[jet57]

What exactly do you think I would say, considering your rebuttals to me have been crushed and you’ve ignored my last few responses to you. I thought you had put me on ignore.

You would tell me which of the two would be better for you in that given situation, but since you got caught bein silly you ran from it.

Nothing you guys say has any effect on sound socially responsible gun control: "technicalities" had zero effect on passage of he second amendment and they have no effect now. As Trump and the Republicans keep screwin up, the Dems are waiting on the wings.

 

[pinqy]

You would tell me which of the two would be better for you in that given situation, but since you got caught bein silly you ran from it.

The only weapons you asked me which I would choose between were a sling and an AR-15. You didn’t give a situation. In my response I pointed out that a sling did have advantages over the AR-15 in certain circumstances. And I stated I would prefer an M4 to an AR-15.

I don’t know how you thought that was running away.

But you avoided one of my questions:
Under the 1994 assault weapons ban, a Ruger 10/22 with folding stock and threaded barrel qualified as an assault weapon.
The Ruger mini-30 eas exempted (I think mostly because there was no folding stock available at the time)
For a firefight, or any requirement to kill lots of people, which would you prefer: The 10/22 with folding stock a flash hider and 25 round magazine (magazine, not a clip) or a Ruger mini-30 with standard stock, no flash hider, and 5 round magazines?

The 10/22 is chambered in .22lr, and the mini-30 in 7.62 x 39mm.
I would choose the non-asssult weapon: the mini-30. You?



Nothing you guys say has any effect on sound socially responsible gun control: "technicalities" had zero effect on passage of he second amendment and they have no effect now. As Trump and the Republicans keep screwin up, the Dems are waiting on the wings.[/QUOTE]

 

[jet57]

The only weapons you asked me which I would choose between were a sling and an AR-15. You didn’t give a situation. In my response I pointed out that a sling did have advantages over the AR-15 in certain circumstances. And I stated I would prefer an M4 to an AR-15.

I don’t know how you thought that was running away.

But you avoided one of my questions:
Under the 1994 assault weapons ban, a Ruger 10/22 with folding stock and threaded barrel qualified as an assault weapon.
The Ruger mini-30 eas exempted (I think mostly because there was no folding stock available at the time)
For a firefight, or any requirement to kill lots of people, which would you prefer: The 10/22 with folding stock a flash hider and 25 round magazine (magazine, not a clip) or a Ruger mini-30 with standard stock, no flash hider, and 5 round magazines?

The 10/22 is chambered in .22lr, and the mini-30 in 7.62 x 39mm.
I would choose the non-asssult weapon: the mini-30. You?



Nothing you guys say has any effect on sound socially responsible gun control: "technicalities" had zero effect on passage of he second amendment and they have no effect now. As Trump and the Republicans keep screwin up, the Dems are waiting on the wings.

"I didn't give a situation" ...:lamo

 

[pinqy]

"I didn't give a situation" ...:lamo

See, that response is what is called “running away.”
You said I avoided which would be better in a given situation. But you never gave a situation. You find it funny that you made a trivial and pointless lie?

 

[jet57]

See, that response is what is called “running away.”
You said I avoided which would be better in a given situation. But you never gave a situation. You find it funny that you made a trivial and pointless lie?

Dude, you've been running all over the place. It's funny really; now you accuse me of lying.

Man you're toast: toy lost this argument a long time ago.

 

[pinqy]

Dude, you've been running all over the place. It's funny really; now you accuse me of lying.

Man you're toast: toy lost this argument a long time ago.

I have responded to every post you addressed to me and answered every question. If I am mistaken, point out the specific questions.
You on the other hand have sucked many claims:
The BATFE defines an antique firearm under the NFA as muzzleloaders designed before 1998 and all replica muzzleloader s, And And other firearm made before 1898 if ammunition is no longer sold commercially. Do you still maintain the M1 carbine is an antique?
Does caliber size refer to the cartridege or the bullet? And length or width?
Why does it make a difference that current M1 carbines are knock offs or replicas but it doesn’t matter that the same is true for the AR-15?
Does the fact that a firearm was designed for war make it more dangerous than those not?
And, For the third time:
Under the 1994 assault weapons ban, a Ruger 10/22 with folding stock and threaded barrel qualified as an assault weapon.
The Ruger mini-30 eas exempted (I think mostly because there was no folding stock available at the time)
For a firefight, or any requirement to kill lots of people, which would you prefer: The 10/22 with folding stock a flash hider and 25 round magazine (magazine, not a clip) or a Ruger mini-30 with standard stock, no flash hider, and 5 round magazines?


I find it amusing you accuse me of running away.

The 10/22 is chambered in .22lr, and the mini-30 in 7.62 x 39mm.
I would choose the non-asssult weapon: the mini-30. You?

 

[beerftw]

I didn't label anything, the designers did. There IS a difference between a 30-06 and a BAR wouldn't you say? Which one was specifically designed for heavy combat? A 30-06 could be used as sniper rifle, but in a heavy fire fight, it'd be kind of slow wouldn't it. So of the two, which one do you think the Vegas shooter would have used if he'd been able to get several BARs? He chose the AR15 though didn't he. There's your legal precedent right there. Moreover, the 1994 assault weapons ban set a legal precedent as well. THAT'S the part of this entire thing that spoils your "technicalities argument". These silly rabbit holes you try and take everybody down is exactly what inspired this thread: your nonsense means nothing against sound rational argument of effects and policies that arise from them. You can't prove anything dude; you can'tr answer the simple of questions that make a mockery of your entire case. So I'll ask you again: what got in the way of sound legal gun regulations that have passed muster in this country and the several states since our founding? Which of the founders who wrote, debated and passed the second amendment were "gun experts? THEY decided policy and law, so name the gun experts.

You can'y do it, and that's my point.

The bar used the 30-06, and the 30-06 was originally a military round to replace the short lived 30-03 used in the first few years of the m1903 springfield. The bar is a difference in firearm not round, and the 30-06 is famous because it performs very well and versatile for many applications which is why civilians use it long after the military ditched it.

The military adopted later what was equal to the .308 which was weaker than the 30-06, but was a shorter round with a heavier bullet, and was short action instead of long action in which they deemed the weight reductions and simplicity of action as well as nato compliaance offset the small reduction in energy.


If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the 30-06 is merely a round that replaced the 30-40 craig round of the 1890's, and has no bearing on the firearms that use it as everything from a simple bolt actions to a machine gun can use a 30-06.

 

[beerftw]

And it’s a weapon of war. We still had the 1911’s in our arms room as late as 1991.

Technichally special forces still have the m1911 in stock even if only rarely used as well as m1a1 rifles.

 

[pinqy]

Technichally special forces still have the m1911 in stock even if only rarely used as well as m1a1 rifles.

True, but SF are different in their arms. The 1911 is not standard. Although to be fair, for some of our MI teams we’d include an M14 for extra firepower without the weight of a SAW or 240B.

 

[jet57]

The bar used the 30-06, and the 30-06 was originally a military round to replace the short lived 30-03 used in the first few years of the m1903 springfield. The bar is a difference in firearm not round, and the 30-06 is famous because it performs very well and versatile for many applications which is why civilians use it long after the military ditched it.

The military adopted later what was equal to the .308 which was weaker than the 30-06, but was a shorter round with a heavier bullet, and was short action instead of long action in which they deemed the weight reductions and simplicity of action as well as nato compliaance offset the small reduction in energy.


If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the 30-06 is merely a round that replaced the 30-40 craig round of the 1890's, and has no bearing on the firearms that use it as everything from a simple bolt actions to a machine gun can use a 30-06.

I pictured a 30-06 rifle. Being pedantic doesn't help your argument; it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[pinqy]

I pictured a 30-06 rifle. Being pedantic doesn't help your argument; it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

That is not the name of the model. The picture is a Browning FN high power (Safari grade) and was chambered in other calibers as well.

 

[RF667799]

I pictured a 30-06 rifle. Being pedantic doesn't help your argument; it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

You babbled about a "30.06" and a "BAR" (also 30.06) and claimed we would choose the BAR and therefore that's why the "Vega shooter" chose an AR15. Because if a woman weighs more than a duck she's made of wood....no actually because: "it's faster, has more velocity and does more damage on impact."

Does more damage than what?

 

[jet57]

You babbled about a "30.06" and a "BAR" (also 30.06) and claimed we would choose the BAR and therefore that's why the "Vega shooter" chose an AR15. Because if a woman weighs more than a duck she's made of wood....no actually because: "it's faster, has more velocity and does more damage on impact."

Does more damage than what?

(chuckle)

You lost the argument so now you have to kibitz?

 

[RF667799]

(chuckle)

You lost the argument so now you have to kibitz?

Post 249, Chuckles.

 

[TurtleDude]

(chuckle)

You lost the argument so now you have to kibitz?

No he didn't. Try again. You confused a caliber with a type of rifle

 

[jet57]

No he didn't. Try again. You confused a caliber with a type of rifle

Lying again eh.

Nope; I never confused anything.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lying again eh.

Nope; I never confused anything.

I will let the other posters decide. What is a "30-06" btw? A BAR is one for example. So was the Winchester rifle SSgt Hathcock used to waste dozens of NVA in Nam.

 

[jet57]

Post 249, Chuckles.

Wrong again. I offered a choice between two rifles. Your inability to interpret the English language is not my problem.

 

[jet57]

I will let the other posters decide. What is a "30-06" btw? A BAR is one for example. So was the Winchester rifle SSgt Hathcock used to waste dozens of NVA in Nam.

Lying again: go find my original post wherein I suggested a choice between two rifles. Silly little lawyer tricks won't work here.

Go prove I confused the two.

 

[jet57]

That is not the name of the model. The picture is a Browning FN high power (Safari grade) and was chambered in other calibers as well.

Wrong again. 30-.06 is a ubiquitous term for a hunting rifle. Not even a nice try dude. So between a 30-.06 and BAR in a close firefight, which would you choose?

And don't forget: we're not talking about a BAR that has a liquor license displayed; we're talking about the Browning Automatic Rifle.... funny how you lawyers didn't go near that one. You all just took it for what it said - "BAR"...

:lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

Lying again: go find my original post wherein I suggested a choice between two rifles. Silly little lawyer tricks won't work here.

Go prove I confused the two.

A 30-06 FAILS TO DEFINE A RIFLE. IT proves you really have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wrong again. 30-.06 is a ubiquitous term for a hunting rifle. Not even a nice try dude. So between a 30-.06 and BAR in a close firefight, which would you choose?

And don't forget: we're not talking about a BAR that has a liquor license displayed; we're talking about the Browning Automatic Rifle.... funny how you lawyers didn't go near that one. You all just took it for what it said - "BAR"...

:lamo

Another Jet bit of silliness. Using JET logic, the 30-06 was DESIGNED FOR HEAVY COMBAT-it was DESIGNED AND INTENDED FOR WARFARE! From Wiki (yes this is accurate)

For these reasons, the U.S. military developed a new, lighter cartridge in 1906, the .30-06 Springfield, "cartridge, ball, caliber .30, Model of 1906", or just M1906.