General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

See Different Reactions of 7-Year-Old Little Girl and Liberal Writer After Shooting AR-15 for Very First Time
Jun. 19, 2016 7:09pm Jason Howerton

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06 ... irst-time/

After shooting an AR-15 rifle for the first time, liberal New York Daily News writer Gersh Kuntzman said he suffered from PTSD and a bruised shoulder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc-hqiAlfQM

In stark contrast, a 7-year-old little girl shot an AR-15 for the first time and had a very different reaction. The noise and recoil from the semi-automatic rifle didn’t seem to bother the girl one bit. "That was pretty good!" she exclaimed. The video was uploaded by a dad who runs the Haus of Guns Facebook page.
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06 ... -reaction/

“The recoil bruised my shoulder,” he added. “The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”

Video of reporter at link above.

Pardon my language but that reporter must be the poster child for pu**y!

I brought my son out to shoot a few different weapons when he turned 13. I can't imagine what a 7 year old girl is doing with an AR15 in her hands. Not saying it's wrong, but it does lean towards irresponsible.

I've come up with a solution to the real problem that should make everyone happy...and it's this:


If you buy a gun that is designed for more firepower than you need on a dear/bear hunt, then you should be required to serve in a local STATE-mandated militia for 3 years; and on constant reserve as long as you own that weapon. That would make everyone with a powerful weapon accountable to other responsible gun owners, it would provide for the common defense of a community, it would give citizens a way to monitor and prevent future problems, and a State militia would be a much better option to opposing an out-of-control Federal government than one individual.

Ted

So all the good ole boys with a 30 30 or an Enfield should be essentially drafted? Bad idea.

The guys with the more under powered ARs and AKs shouldn't be drafted either. Note that real and pretend 'assault rifles' fire a 'Kurz' or 'Short' round. Don't have the oomph of a real rifle.

Most gun violence in the US is confined to a small percentage of a single demographic - otherwise we are Canada statistically. Our friends in the uniparty are trying to fix that by glomming a whole new murderous demographic on us. While trying to disarm us. What a wonderful bunch. It seems to be working. God help us.

Talbot

Pardon my language but that reporter must be the poster child for pu**y!

No just total proof that people don't have a clue.
I didn't catch the name of the senator or congressman that came out and said there was no reason to have a gun that can fire 3000 rounds per minute. I don't think there are many guns that can do that and they are all military.
Anyway... 556/223 is basically a very accurate squirrel round. Even a 22 in the right hands is dangerous out to 200 yards.

The misconceptions are so screwed up it is getting people killed. It wasn't a moooslim gun, that killed American citizens that were just out looking to get laid. It was a radical moooslim terrorist.

Hunt them down, the responsibility of the government sworn to protect you. Bullshiit... All they want to do is take away your little pea shooters so you can be easily killed.

By the way, if it doesn't leave you with a sore shoulder after 100 rounds... It ain't a gun, just a sling shot. (by the way, illegal here ny).

If you buy a gun that is designed for more firepower than you need on a dear/bear hunt, then you should be required to serve in a local STATE-mandated militia for 3 years; and on constant reserve as long as you own that weapon.

Ted I have to disagree on this one. Not the being part of a militia part, I wouldn't have a problem with that myself but I wouldn't want to see it mandatory. About the power of the firearm part. I don't think it should be mandatory to be a part of a military unit, but the option should be open to those who wish to have these weapons and have the training to use them in that type of situation. It's not the same as deer hunting...

The AR15 usually fires a .223 caliber round. Barely larger than a .22 thousands of people plink with, but with a lot more powder behind it. My .243 is a larger round, and more powder too. Nothing like the "scary rifles" gun control fanatics hate, just a plain everyday deer rifle. (Mauser mod 3000, inherited when my father died.) The 30-30 and 30-06, .270, .308 and others are much more powerful rounds. As Mike already noted, almost every deer hunter in the country would be subject to your requirement, thousands of them use deer rifles in the calibers I listed and others all the time. The .270 in particular, if I remember the ballistics right, has the least drop of any common big game caliber, at 100 yards it has almost no drop at all. Sighted in at 200 yards, it's still not starting to drop at 100 yards yet. My .243 has around 1 1/2 inches if I remember correctly, which is doubtful, I haven't looked it up in years. The 30-30, 30-06 and .270 also all have a lot more powder pushing the bullets than either the .223 or .243. Then there's reloading, a lot can be done to optimize the ballistics by adjusting powder and bullet weight.

If you go out for bear, better bring out the heavy artillery...I'm not sure I'd want anything smaller than 30-06 for that, a bear is a lot more formidable than a deer. And harder to bring down. I wouldn't touch a .223 if I were going for bear, which I don't ever plan to do...my .243 might work, but I'd want something bigger anyway.

So your idea would mean every deer hunter in the country would be drafted...might not be a bad idea, quite a few of them can actually hit a target...then again I've seen some who fired 5 shots at a deer and never even drew blood...

Actually in my situation, if I were to be able to get any deer rifle I wanted for this area, I would grab a Marlin .357 lever action. Or Henry lever action also in .357. Big heavy bullet, slow, and far less ricochet in brushy terrain, which is the most common around here. Lots of drop for a deer rifle, but once sighted in at 100 yards, not enough to worry about at the normal range I'd get around here, usually 50 to 60 yards at most. And if it's an inch high, I can compensate...the down side is it's not a long range firearm, but I don't need that for here.

The .223 is a very good round, and the AR15 was designed for accuracy, so a decent deer gun, but it is not an assault rifle, that's a misconception. No assault rifle is legally available in the US. The usual definition of assault rifle is a small size easy to carry weapon capable of selective fire, either semi or full automatic. The military grades of assault rifle have a selector switch for semi, one bullet per trigger pull, or full auto. AR 15 is also not what was used in Orlando, it was a Sig Sauer, MCX. The confusion comes form the original announcement by the police chief, who said in the first announcement that it was a AR15 TYPE rifle. I remember hearing that, but it didn't register until later when the controversy showed up. Be that as it may, neither is a true assault rifle. No true assault rifle is legal to own in the US without a specific federal permit to possess an automatic weapon.

It's also a myth that any such rifle of this type can be easily converted to full automatic. Most of the time it's not as simple as changing one part. There is also a fairly well known tendency for any semi auto or full auto to jam at times, some more than others. I've had to clear jams with small semi auto pistols more than once, the .25 I had at one time jammed once, out of about 250 rounds, but the Llama .22 I had a few years earlier never did at all. And I fired many more rounds with the .22, probably at least 1000. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere not long ago that the AR15 does have a failure problem, but not a serious one. But if it jams, many people don't know how to clear it, if they don't have decent firearms training. I'm not sure if I could, and I've been shooting since I was about 5 years old, cleaned and oiled every gun in the house by 8.

Traumatized by shooting a small caliber like .223? Give me a break...Try shooting a 12 gauge Browning "humpback" semi auto at 10 years old...damn thing almost knocked me down...That AR15 is really loud, but not a lot of recoil compared to a 12 gauge or a 30-06...my 16 gauge Winchester probably kicks more...

"assault rifle"?

I never heard that term in the service. Isn't a butter knife an "assault knife" when you assault someone with it? That whole idea of referring to any weapon as an "assault" this or an "assault" that is simply a fear mongering tactic by the lying left to instill fear into the ignorant. Any dictator needs to get the weapons out of the hands of its citizenry to have total power over them, simple as that. I read the other day where a nationally known marksman tried to fire those 3,000 rounds or even the 700 rounds some "legislators" claim. per second. The best he could get out of an AR 15 was limited to the explanation below.

Experts said that firing 700 rounds per minute is unrealistic due to the time it would take for a shooter to reload magazines and because the gun would overheat. The accuracy will probably be worse than that of a select fire firearm set on automatic because rapidly jerking the trigger for speed will be destructive to accuracy. In practical terms, 90-120 rounds per minute. Roughly two rounds a second. No guarantee as to accuracy at that rate and that doesn't take into account reloading time. With a little practice, a rate of 45-60 aimed shots per minute is a manageable rate of fire. More: And how about aiming at other targets? These tests were on a stationary target not taking into considering the time it takes to align a different target with every shot. Starting to sound not quite like the firepower the radical leftists claim it has.

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016/06/ ... -a-minute/

http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... ds-minute/

What is the approximate maximum rate of fire for a semi-automatic AR-15?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-appro ... atic-AR-15

How about banning the assault mouths of the media and these entrenched ruling class politicians? Their lies are more of an attack on this country and its citizens than any other weapon.

There is a need to identify the crazies before they commit mass murder, is there not?

Do you really want to leave that up to the Fed? Something will be done...why not take pre-emptive action that keeps the Fed out of it?

In my idea, a local militia is regulated only by local and State government, where the locals have the power to replace a politician.

This militia would be like a national guard unit; meet once a month for target practice and a game of poker. Don't want to serve your local community? Then don't buy a gun whose sole purpose is killing a lot of people quickly (as defined by the manufacturer). But under this plan you would have the right to any weapon that police or military have.

We all know that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and accountable folks so what's the worry about them hanging out together periodically? Over time, they could identify the gun owners who are not responsible, not accountable. They themselves would know who is criminal, who is mentally ill, who is on dangerous drugs, who is perpetrating violent rhetoric, or who is dangerous for any reason.

It would also establish a way for each local community to muster against enemies, both foreign or domestic, in cases of extreme emergency


.

"it should be mandatory gun safety courses for anyone who purchases a firearm."

Many states do require a gun safety course. Mine does. However, if you are Muslim and decide one night to serve god as your Quran dictates, no background check will stop that. No background checks will stop a jihadist or a criminal that decides to get a weapon under the table to avoid notice. No background check will stop someone who goes psycho under the unforeseen pressures of life.

You should not be required to be a member of a militia although it would be nice to have an informed and organized volunteer militia.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed" being one provision. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." a second provision

I do not read them as a single provision one thought being dependent upon the other.

We already have tons of gun laws. They have not stopped lawbreakers. When someone having had a background check gets a weapon legally and he has a "bad day" or a psychotic event and commits a crime there is no way to stop it. How can you stop someone sane one moment and whaco the next? No one can stop someone from buying a weapon on the black market to commit a crime.

The real problem with gun laws already on the books is lax enforcement. And another is having people in charge of background checks who are not doing a diligent job. But who does a diligent job when you have a government union that keeps the incompetent from being fired?

If there were not a single gun to be found in the world, someone would make one unless you remove all the tools in the world. Anyone familiar with zip gun?

Billy very good post. Just for the record and something to check, the sear pin catch in an AR trigger assembly can wear. It should be checked and replaced after 20 or more thousand rounds. It can create an unintentional situation of uncontrolled auto fire. Just a note.

People don't understand one thing... You don't want me to have a gun. Why? I would never hurt you. You still don't want me to have a gun... Why?
Because it's not so easy for you to control me and ultimately kill me. AND JUST WHO THE FUUUCK ARE YOU?

I heard a news reporter refer to the AR-15 as a deer hunting rifle. They don't know WTF they're talking about because they're obviously NOT big game hunters. A .223 is a varmint round, not a big game round.

Jook - Right you are, and I didn't think of that until sometime much later, .223 is one of several considered varmint rounds. Also .22 magnum, 22-250, .218 Bee and .222, 17 caliber if you can find it, and 5mm magnum, which I haven't seen since the 70's. Had one back then, rimfire, something like a .22 with powder behind it between .22 and .22 magnum. We used it for hunting muskrat and nutria for the pelts. Great squirrel and rabbit gun too.

I did a little looking around, more varmint rifles than I thought, and some I'd never even heard of. The .223 is probably the largest of them, but good for things like coyotes and such. For other uses, like rabbits, squirrels, one of the smaller rounds like .22 magnum or the 5mm magnum, which seems to be making a comeback, would be better.

The reporter claiming 'temporary' PTSD from the recoil of a .223??? That's horseshit. This is the rub there- the guy had his mind made up before he went through the experience.

You put it better than I did, he had his mind made up before he started. My first shot with a big gun was the Browning humpback 12 gauge I commented about earlier, I was about 10 and it almost knocked me down. My uncle handed it to me, I still think it was a prank (he was like that, always up to something) but later on I got a 16 gauge and liked it really well. Really wish it hadn't been stolen a few years later, not many Winchester Model 12 around at all in any gauge these days. My current 16 is a Winchester model 1200. Even if it was a prank, it wasn't exactly unsafe, he already knew I Had plenty firearm safety under my belt and had been hunting with a .410 for a couple of years, as well as target practice with several of us, all relatives, since age 5. I was already a very good shot, I wasn't allowed to go in the woods till I could hit a .22 cartridge box 10 times in a row at 30 yards with a Remington 512 single shot. Not much chance I'd hit anything but my target with a shotgun...we had a rule, you do not miss...period. If I shot 3 times, I was in trouble if I didn't bring in 3 rabbits...so he had no worries about anything going wacko. I hit my target too, even though I could barely handle the thing...

And thanks for confirming my guess about the .270 trajectory, I knew it was the flattest in the 80's, but haven't checked since then so I wasn't sure if something else had been developed that performed better. I had just gotten a .22 Marlin lever action and the Llama .22 pistol, and did a bit of research for someone who wanted a good deer rifle for long range shots, 200 to 300 yards. At that time the .270 was the flattest we could find, so that's what he got. I was surprised it out performed the 30-06, since that was a very popular deer hunting round. His had scope only, we sighted it in at 175 yards I think, that way anything between 150 and 250 yards would be within a half inch. Talk about loud...

That's what bothers me about people's anti gun views, I came from a background of hunters for at least 3 generations back, and we had definite rules. every gun in the house at my grandparents house was always loaded, you never EVER touched one unless it was to go out hunting. Before you did, you had to be able to hit your target. Missing was not an option. You also had to know how to keep it cleaned and oiled, and the very first thing you always did was check it to be sure it is or is not loaded. The way I was taught is, there's no such thing as an unloaded gun, until YOU check the chamber for yourself. Until then it's ALWAYS loaded. When cleaning the first thing you do is empty chamber and magazine, no exceptions. Want your ass whipped? start cleaning a gun without emptying it first...or pick one up and don't check the chamber...always keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot. I still do all of the above after 55 years shooting.

Everyone I knew when I grew up had those same rules. There was no such thing as a gun accidentally firing. It just didn't happen. I've walked into my grandparents' house and seen 15 rifles and shotguns leaning in the corner just inside the front door, all fully loaded, and never in 75 years had a shot been fired inside that house, even by accident. That's the kind of firearm safety we were taught, soon as we were old enough to hold and fire a .22 rifle. So it was automatic, pick it up, check the chamber.

I've always felt every kid in the US should be taught those same rules, even if they don't shoot, so they have respect for the firearm, rather than not knowing diddly about them and shooting a neighbor's while kid playing around with a gun they found in a closet...we never ever played with guns, even BB guns. BB guns were handled the exact same way. I started at age 5, by age 8 I could disassemble, clean, oil and re assemble every firearm in the house. Ditto for all our fishing reels, I was about 12 before I learned to clean the Ambassadeur reels, never had one till then. I have two Ambassadeur 5000 reels stored in my shed that I've had since the early 70's, both still work perfect. I could pull them out, put on new line and use them right now. I upgraded to the newer ones around 25 years ago, and still used the old ones for several years. But they are taken care of the same way. It's a tool that puts food on the table, you take care of it. Which reminds me, time to clean my guns. Even though the only one that's been fired is the .22 pistol in at least 6 months...took a shot at a snake a few weeks ago...I still clean and oil them all about twice a year, fired or not. More often if used.

Jook - Excellent points all around.

I'm not a fan of shooting animals just for the hell of it either, and definitely against trophy hunting. I see no reason whatsoever to shoot an animal just to put a mounted head on your wall. When I was deer hunting the only reasons I kept the antlers was to use them for rattling, and in case I decided to try and make a new nut or bridge saddle for a guitar. Never did...still have some though.

That said, I'm going to have to start thinning out the rabbits and squirrels around here. We didn't get any peaches, pears or pecans last year, they got into my tomatoes, looks like this year we won't get any either. Time to thin the herd, they're destroying our gardens and fruit trees. A rabbit has been in my garden daily munching on the ends of all my cantaloupe vines, and something just chewed up a small cantaloupe about the size of a tennis ball, coyotes and foxes are wiping out a neighbor's chickens...Looks like my .22 rifle may get some use fairly soon...Old thing, Springfield Model 16 single shot made around 1945 - 47 or so. Had to rework it, stock was broken completely into two pieces, glued it back together and refinished it, looks great now. Given to me by a friend in Louisiana, told me if I wanted to fix it I could have it...

Your point about animals getting into livestock is also very accurate, that's why Texas had a $2 per ear bounty on coyotes a while back, may still have. Cattle ranchers are having a lot of trouble between coyotes and fire ants. Fire ants will kill a newborn calf within 45 minutes, they have to watch the herd and get the calf off the ground within minutes or ants will get it. Those that survive are targeted by groups of coyotes, wolves too, so it's a big problem in some locations. Neighbor up the street has lost at least 5 chickens in 2 weeks, and we've seen more red foxes the past 2 years than in 20 years. As much as I hate it, we might have to thin those too.

I'm the same, I like observing more than hunting to begin with, and I got sick of sitting in a stand freezing my butt off years ago, haven't even had a hunting license in 15 years.. I still hunt, but with a camera. Mostly birds though, and a lot of insects and flowers too.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paleopete

That's my Flickr page, over 1600 shots posted last time I checked, I add more every week. I have nesting boxes up in 4 places for Bluebirds, Chickadees and one for Tufted Titmouse. but Prothonotary Warblers seem to be using it instead. I don't mind...We also have Cardinals, Wrens, Mockingbirds, Summer Tanagers, Orchard Orioles, 3 varieties of Doves, Roadrunners, Barn Swallows, Blue Jays, Ruby Throated Hummingbirds and a few others nesting either in the yard or in the area.

The .223 is definitely a sufficient round for almost anything smaller than a bear, and would take out a bear if you got a good head shot. It's also a round designed to do lots of damage, in contrast to the round Oswald used when Kennedy was killed, it rarely broke up, it was a jacketed round that usually stayed in one piece and just went through. The .223 usually breaks up and bounces around, doing lots more damage. A plain jane .22 round can do more than many people realize, definitely lethal if a shot is places right, which is why firearm safety has always been such a serious issue in my family. Even a BB gun can cause serious damage, although it is rarely fatal.

Then you get into other weapons, which is one of the main reasons the gun control idea is useless. What about 2000 years ago before guns were ever dreamed up? Knives, swords, spears, boiling oil, rocks, clubs...the list goes on. This is still the case, how many suicide bombings have we heard about in Europe and the middle east since the 1960's? How many people have ISIS beheaded with knives? I saw a documentary a while back about a woman who ran over her husband in their car. Intentionally. eliminate one weapon, criminals and terrorists will just adopt another one. They've already done it, and even though France has the most restrictive firearm laws in the world, 130 people were killed with rifles and bombs not too long ago. The problem was nobody could shoot back. The everyday criminal will avoid a victim who can fight back or shoot back, terrorists don't care but do prefer unarmed victims. That's why they use bombs and hit locations like the bar in Orlando, where nobody else but the guard on duty would be able to do a thing about it. The punk in Charleston decided against a local college because they had armed security. The shooter in Lake Charles drove right by another theater, and went to one with a gun free zone sticker on the door.