New Gun laws to be struck down

[Boiler 45,516]

How would it effect speed of shooting. Seems more for looks.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

read that post of his again, this time as an observation on his part rather than as a directive.

then reconsider your post.

I see it now. My bad.

It does not change my observation about misused vocabulary.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

From the anti's perspective I'm going to assume they feel it allows the shooter to fire faster accurately. Why would anyone put a muzzle break on a 22 btw?

I dropped a few things off yesterday during my lunch hour and the gunsmith mentioned he has alot of guys coming in with 91/30s who want him to remove part of the barrel and install muzzle breaks to help compensate for the increased recoil. (He gets annoyed when people ask him to make modifications on a cheap firearm).

Um nice try and giving them the benefit of the doubt...nice guy

Actually they have no effin' clue what the f**k they are talking about and do not care. They think it is a "muzzle break" (not "brake") they think a clip is a magazine, they think any of it has anything to do with crime. Most are just moronically stupid. And perfectly comfortable that way.

Then you have the ones that want to strip you of individual rights. They go for cosmetic things because stupid people think they are "ugly" or look bad and that way they can ban MORE firearms. The GUN must be bad because it LOOKS bad. Only BAD people would want a BAD looking gun. What morons. The bolt action rifle was the BAD rifle 100 years ago, the lever action before that. This is just the use of stupidity and ignorance to oppress free people...period.

People that want these laws are either...

1. Oppressors of Freedom

OR

2. Stupid

Either way, they should stay away from our rights and go watch "Dancing with the Stars" or something else productive for them.

I see it now. My bad.

It does not change my observation about misused vocabulary.

Nor my observation that you cannot contribute to the topic for lack of knowledge. Thank you for continuing to make my point.

Apology accepted.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gun control bukkake reminds me of this scene.

Webley Mk VI revolver, caliber .380-200 This is the cartridge we called the ".38 S&W" The cartridge was introduced by S&W in 1880. It pre-dated the .38 Special by 19 years. Standard Service Revolver of British Commonwealth nations during WW2. The cartridge is still made but i am not aware anyone still makes firearms for it. It is an obsolete cartridge actually. It will be made for many years simpley because there are alot of firearms floating around that use it. Canada also used Browning Hi-Power pistols made by Ingliss in Montreal. Canada and Britian were very short of firearms during the war because their governments restricted firearms manufacture and they had to buy huge quantities of firearms from the USA.

The NRA did a call out for donated weapons which were given the to the British home guard to free up weapons for the military PLUS made millions of rifles for Britian, Canada and Australia in the US by Eddystone, Remington and Westinghouse. Westinghouse also made MOST of the Russian 1891/30 rifles.

Both British and Canadian forces also used US M1911 .45 pistols. Canadians particularly liked those but the Brits called them "horse pistols"...to big and powerful. So much for a stiff upper lip.

[Boiler 45,516]

Not quite right but reminded me of this.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

How do you tell the difference between the .380 version and the .455 version - The scale of barrel in the video?

I figured it was a .455 since they are more common on todays market (though normally modified for 45ACP with moon clips)

The MK1-MKIV .455 is a much larger revolver overall. .455s were also used in WW2 though they were not the "standard" issue revolver.

And note they are modified for use with CLIPS, they do NOT have "magazines"

[Karee 4,190]

This whole argument about clips vs. magazines reminds me of a couple 40 year old single guys in their respective parent's basements, arguing about the positive/negatives of different Dungeons and Dragons characters in an AOL chat room.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Karee

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This whole argument about clips vs. magazines reminds me of a couple 40 year old single guys in their respective parent's basements, arguing about the positive/negatives of different Dungeons and Dragons characters in an AOL chat room.

1. There is no argument

2. People too ignorant to know the difference merely need to be pointed out as they make comments on the issue of gun control. It is a microcosm. If you are too ignorant to know the difference then your comments are as worthy as your knowledge.

If you have been told that they are not the same by knowledgeable people and continue to insist they ARE the same because 30 million ignorant people say so on wikipedia...you cannot plead ignorance. That is stupidity.

Imagine a person that does not know the difference between a TIRE and a WHEEL wanting to take away your CAR. That's what it reminds me of.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

More off topic ignorant nonsense. Your gun law fantasies crashed and burned because they are idiotic and there are not enough idiots to actually implement something like this in a FREE country

Eat it.

But thanks for the boost to the NRA.

I have repeatedly started I believe that most gun laws are ineffective and that I don't lobby for nor support them. They are placebos for the real problem of guns being misused by accident and criminal behavior. I have consistently agreed gun bans don't prevent gun violence or gun accidents.

You can find my consistent disagreement with you in regards to your belief guns make you safer. They don't.

[lostinblue 1,989]

At this point, it is now a criminal offense in the State of New York to drive your AR-15 to the range with any ammunition in the car. The basic explanation for this insanity is that there are guns, and there are firearms. In general parlance, the two words can be used interchangably, but not in the vocabulary of New York State legalese. AR-15 and like semi-automatic guns, formerly known as "long guns" are now classified as "firearms". In fact, after the registration date, anyone who does not register will be in criminal possession of a "firearm". You may not transport a loaded firearm in an automobile. Loaded, by definition of the Court, means possession the firearm while at the same time possessing a quantity of ammunition sufficient to discharge said firearm.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

At this point, it is now a criminal offense in the State of New York to drive your AR-15 to the range with any ammunition in the car. The basic explanation for this insanity is that there are guns, and there are firearms. In general parlance, the two words can be used interchangably, but not in the vocabulary of New York State legalese. AR-15 and like semi-automatic guns, formerly known as "long guns" are now classified as "firearms". In fact, after the registration date, anyone who does not register will be in criminal possession of a "firearm". You may not transport a loaded firearm in an automobile. Loaded, by definition of the Court, means possession the firearm while at the same time possessing a quantity of ammunition sufficient to discharge said firearm.

Now that is crazy.