Guns, Love Em or Leave Em

**burn** · Post by **burn** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:30 pm

True Cap. The National Firearms Act (NFA) made licensing (registration) required for all suppressors, sub-machine guns, and short barrels.

Now if that were a rifle, after the Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban (SAW) lapsed in 2004, flashiders were legal again. Thereby, one could permanently attach a flashider to a 14.5" barrel for the total 16" minimum requirement.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:54 pm

funny thing is:
they're not "flash hiders"......they distribute the flash away from the sights so as not to blind the shooter when using in low light situations.......
if you've seen one work, it makes a star type pattern, open at the top.
they don't reduce it as such.

and, gun control laws.......yeah, the "criminal" is going to waltz in and hand over his weapons.......yup.......

But, they do like to know "Joe citizen" has little if any chance of being armed.....

I like the idea that, it's not only not ok to kill someone, it's REALLY not ok to use a gun......yikes, how can there be degrees of murder in relation to that.........malice is malice, and, intent.........why should it matter what someone uses to that end.........

I also like how we can't have guns, hidden on us, but, Di-Fi and all the politicians and their body-guards can...........

Maybe locking up the violent?........egad, there's a thought........
certainly we could make room for them, letting so many in prison for the wrong reasons out..........

nope, not jaded a bit..........

Ygmir

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:26 pm

I think the better flash suppressors are intended to help combust the unburned powder and reduce the visible flame.
Different from a muzzle brake, of course.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:33 pm

in the good ol' days there used to be a shooting gallery on the old playa.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:35 pm

That's what convinced me to go.
I'm still mad that I missed it.

It wasn't the old days then.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:38 pm

Yeah, but it was a heck of a lotta fun I tell ya!

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:50 pm

It would be fun to do it off season sometime.

CapSmashy · Post by **CapSmashy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:09 am

**burn** wrote:Now if that were a rifle, after the Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban (SAW) lapsed in 2004, flashiders were legal again. Thereby, one could permanently attach a flashider to a 14.5" barrel for the total 16" minimum requirement.

16" minimum barrel length for rifles has been in place since the 18" for shotties. You can mount a 5" permanent flash hider onto an 11" barrel if so inclined. As long as the final barrel length comes out to 16.

Flash hiders were 100% legal during the AWB. It depended entirely on the configuration of the weapon and what combo of "features" were utilized from the menu board created by our idiot lawmakers.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:30 am

DVD Burner wrote:in the good ol' days there used to be a shooting gallery on the old playa.

their still is on 4th of July. missed it this year, but got to play with exploding targets last year. Waiting to try a Dragon's Breath shell..

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:35 am

..and.. why would anyone "shorten" a rifle barrel? unless you want to give your target a better chance..

**burn** · Post by **burn** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:23 am

Anyone seen H.R. 6257, introduced June 12 to the House to re-instate the AWB?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-6257

It also lists the scary features of guns affected by the ban.
Once, again, Cap's right. The flashider is just one scary item of the short list of two that then defined a SAW.

â€˜(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least 2 of--
â€˜(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
â€˜(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;
â€˜(iii) a bayonet mount;
â€˜(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
â€˜(v) a grenade launcher;

The flashider was one of the features many manufacturers chose to eliminate.

And I think in the BATFE's theory - if they consider a suppressor to be a silencer than you can expect them to think a flashider somehow allows the gun owner to magically hide the entire firearm under, let's say, a trenchcoat.

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:59 am

TomServo wrote:Waiting to try a Dragon's Breath shell..

I assure you they are loads of fun. Especially if fired at a woodpile soaked in gasoline with some tires on top.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:00 am

what is interesting to me is how they think banning these, usually quite expensive weapons will somehow make us all safer......
and the "accessories" you can't have.......like a flash suppressor, pistol grip, folding stock, will make the gun more dangerous? The operator is the dangerous one.........
Most of the "bangers" can't afford them, and, want a small hand gun to 'cap' someone, throw it away and run.........IMHO........
Like banning the .50 BMG guns here in CA...........at well over 1k, and, 3 rounds at best, no ones going to rob a 7-11 with one, especially when it weighs 20+ lbs.........
And to think a criminal will not buy or get something because it's illegal to own?
I think it's more political to make some folks think the legislators are working to "protect" us..........feel good legislation that does nothing positive.......

nope, no opinion or cynicism here.......

Ygmir

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:56 am

ygmir wrote:what is interesting to me is how they think banning these, usually quite expensive weapons will somehow make us all safer......
and the "accessories" you can't have.......like a flash suppressor, pistol grip, folding stock, will make the gun more dangerous? The operator is the dangerous one.........
Most of the "bangers" can't afford them, and, want a small hand gun to 'cap' someone, throw it away and run.........IMHO........
Like banning the .50 BMG guns here in CA...........at well over 1k, and, 3 rounds at best, no ones going to rob a 7-11 with one, especially when it weighs 20+ lbs.........
And to think a criminal will not buy or get something because it's illegal to own?
I think it's more political to make some folks think the legislators are working to "protect" us..........feel good legislation that does nothing positive.......

nope, no opinion or cynicism here.......

Ygmir

I think Ronnie Barrett engineered his way around the California ban with the .416 http://www.barrettrifles.com/ammo_416.aspx
if I'm not mistaken.

Things like this are disturbing and cast doubt on our ability to hang onto weapons during times of emergencies: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481673/posts

Texas has a concealed carry law that seems to be working. I think they should make a test case for concealed carry in Texas' border National Parks. I backpacked there and only learned afterwards that where I was, was a major foot transport route for Mexican drug smugglers. I believe the Senate is looking into this and has the votes for some kind of concealed carry permits in the National Parks. A woman was nearly raped, thankfully not, but she was assaulted in GGNRA in Marin recently. That's a whole other issue that is complex and brings up advanced training needs and requirements, but as we see the economy further decline, I think we'll see more assaults.

CapSmashy · Post by **CapSmashy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:23 am

TomServo wrote:..and.. why would anyone "shorten" a rifle barrel? unless you want to give your target a better chance..

Depends on application.

In an open range environment where target engagement is in the 75 to 200 yard range, a short barreled rifle (SBR) is at a disadvantage. You can still reach out there with it, but not with the same authority as rounds from a 20 inch barreled rifle.

A close range environment, such as an urban area or inside a building, is where a SBR shines. It gives you much more punch and range than a pistol in a platform that is basically as fast in terms of target acquisition and transitions.

CapSmashy · Post by **CapSmashy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:29 am

Toolmaker wrote:I assure you they are loads of fun. Especially if fired at a woodpile soaked in gasoline with some tires on top.

mmmmmmmm... marshmallow time.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:33 am

The purpose is to ban rifles already built that way.
By the time the rules went into effect, AK47s were being mass produced that fit all restrictions.
The magazine rules resulted in more high capacity magazines being available than ever would have been without it.

Assault rifles are automatic.
Already regulated.

The republicans sure gave themselves away voting in crap like that didn't they?
I think the Brady movement has resulted in more murder of victims than any other single cause in the usa.

The republicans really do support gun ownership (of those that are rich).

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:45 am

CapSmashy wrote:
TomServo wrote:..and.. why would anyone "shorten" a rifle barrel? unless you want to give your target a better chance..
Depends on application.

In an open range environment where target engagement is in the 75 to 200 yard range, a short barreled rifle (SBR) is at a disadvantage. You can still reach out there with it, but not with the same authority as rounds from a 20 inch barreled rifle.

A close range environment, such as an urban area or inside a building, is where a SBR shines. It gives you much more punch and range than a pistol in a platform that is basically as fast in terms of target acquisition and transitions.

I understand that, but why not use the rifle best suited? If I were at a 100-200 yard range, I'd use a swedish mauser. If at the dump, just off the playa, I'd bring my Hungarian AK. I understand why people saw of their shotguns...as they don't sell 18 inch barrels. Or not that Im aware of. But a rifled barrel?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:23 am

gyre wrote:T

The republicans really do support gun ownership (of those that are rich).

I don't understand this part.........

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:51 am

ygmir wrote:
gyre wrote:T

The republicans really do support gun ownership (of those that are rich).
I don't understand this part.........

The republicans have always talked a good game on personal defense, but like most things, don't do what they say.
Wealthy people have always had a way to defend themselves and that is the republican's real base.
You could even get carry permits when they were "illegal".

Why some democrats don't recognize the reality of personal defense and the public's opinion, I don't know.
I wrote to Barack Obama about this and got a pretty lackluster response.

How does anyone in california ever get elected with the boneheaded stuff they pull there?

CapSmashy · Post by **CapSmashy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:20 pm

TomServo wrote: I understand that, but why not use the rifle best suited? If I were at a 100-200 yard range, I'd use a swedish mauser.[/b]

100-200 yards is right in the sweet spot for a .223 and your AK. I'm not knocking on the Mauser, or any other WW2era and earlier bolt action rifles, but semi auto and high capacity were developed for a reason.

I understand why people saw of their shotguns...as they don't sell 18 inch barrels. Or not that Im aware of. But a rifled barrel?

Typically referred to as riot, police/cruiser style or more recently, home defense shotguns, 18" to 20" barreled shotguns have been available to the public since they've been making modern action (pump) shotguns.

Winchester was one of the first with the Model 1897 that was quickly adapted to military and law enforcement applications.

A rifled barrel on a shotgun is for shooting slugs accurately and not typically found on riot type shotguns.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:32 pm

My old Mauser was accurate as hell, but over time I noticed the bullets were tumbling. found a perfect side profile of the slug on my target. Was a 1918 Carl Gustav Mauser.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:44 pm

I agree that the wealthy can always find a way to protect/defend themselves, but, I'd argue whether most republicans are wealthy, or, that most of their support is there.......Most all holly-wierd supports the left, a lot of the uber-rich elitist types, et al..........
Di fi and Oprah, and other "elites" have body guards allowed to carry, and, they carry themselves....and, they're democrats.........

I'd be more inclined to blame most of the ills on congress, and, it has been mostly controlled by the left for a long time........and are, IMHO, for the most part, out of touch with the "real" world........

I'd rather say it's "sheeple" vs "people" as far as that discussion........that people who would rather be self-reliant and self-responsible look at it differently than those that look to government and agencies for their lifestyle and want to blame someone else for everything that happens to them, or, that they do......

those that would rather protect themselves vs those that want someone to come protect them.......

not so "good vs bad" as just differing visions on life in general.....

must be why I'm more of an anarchist, in the truest sense.........let me sink or swim by my own hand, don't help, me, just, stay out of my way........

Wasn't the Brady Bill a left controlled and passed piece of legislation?
I agree with it's ineffectiveness........

In reference to Ca and stuff getting passed.....refer to "sheeple/people" phrase above......IMHO......

Ygmir

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:39 pm

That isn't normal for the Mauser.
Check the end of the barrel.

I didn't say all republicans are rich.
It is just the rich they actually represent.
They operate by misinformation.

Many people supported Brady, but he was always a reaganite.
None of this nonsense happens without republicans for the most part.
They just pretend they had no connection.

Democrats can't really control anything without enough majority to always override vetoes and riders on bills.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:33 pm

I'd agree, that shouldn't happen in the Mauser, until you are way, way down range........how far was your target?
Otherwise, there are a few causes for this.......
as Gyre pointed out, the barrel is the first suspect.......a burr or something....also, though, the ammo can be bad. Were they hand loads? Old?
really low velocity combined with a short projectile will do it......were they light bullets with a light load?
Just some thoughts....

and:
Oh those nutty politicians..........

I'm back to my anarchy, the rest embarrass and frustrate me......all of 'em..........

I'll hope to meet some of you on the Playa..........

Ygmir.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:14 pm

i pleaded nolo contendre to conspiracy to possess...WHOEVER cut down that shottie did it to fit in the saddlebags is my guess, and i bet it was for the intention of using it for personal protection and "Plinkin'" along the way...

just an educated assumption.....but, as i said, yes, the shottie was there, but no, i have NO IDEA how it got there, and thanks to the sheriff, for realizing that me and my illegal bike and plates magically arrived on the playa together, and that i did not drive them there across state lines.

i love Ron Skinner too....He's a GOOD MAN, and a DAMN GOOD public servant, and you're right, they probably dont pay him CLOSE to what he's worth...

howdy to LT. BJERKA, as well, another good guy, all-around.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:00 pm

I think I'm giving up on politicians too....they don't run things anyway.
Act locally! It works, I've tried it! For example....This!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/0 ... 516676.php

Are those incendiary 12 gauge rounds California legal? Ya I know, slingshots with rubber band clips are illegal in Cali.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:08 pm

nope, nothing incendiary is legal here in the PRoC.........to much chance of fires..........

very good article..
I agree, act locally. We influence what we can.....do what we can, where we can..........

Nope, to me, most of the big "politicians" are just "fronts" for others.......

nope, not cynical or conspiratorial.........

Ygmir

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:43 pm

I don't think the atf is currently regulating flash suppressors.
As I carry a very short barreled weapon, I have inquired about flash suppressed powder.
Though it is possible, it cannot go beyond current levels without reducing power.
Speer makes a specific short barrel round aimed primarily at revolver owners, some barrels being 1.75 inch.

Audio suppressors are different from flash suppressors and an incredibly stupid law it is.
They are still available, just very expensive.
They are almost standard in many countries to reduce noise pollution.
Many ranges require them to shoot.
It is a fascinating area of design.

Two people I know holding patents in muffler design say all theory is wrong in this area.
I am curious whether this applies to suppressors for weapons too.
Thanks to current law, I can't do research in this area.
Few people can.
So the rest of the world will advance without us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:32 pm

Guns, Love Em or Leave Em

Auto Fire