What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

this is the reason for my rant..............

  • #41
Steve
Hollowpoint bullets are designed to expand once inside of the target body. Therby shredding the meat, leaving bits of shrapenel behind and genarally causing massive internal bleeding and injury

describes EVERY SINGLE hunting bullet with the exception of non-expanding solids. and actually hunters want massive bleeding. it drains the blood from the meat. every single hunting implement be it knife, spear, arrow or bullet operates the same way aslong as there isnt a CNS hit. massive bleeding that causes the blood pressure to the brain to drop to the level that the animal passes out and dies.

non expanding solids in smaller calibers such as the .366 and .375 rifles are used almost exclusivly for CNS shots. in larger calbers such as .458 and such solids can be used cause when your punching a half inch hole through something expansion is generally not needed though some profesional hunters prefer that an individual use expanding bullets on everything except elephant and hippo. you are also generally hunting something that bites back in which case your generally looking to break the shoulder and hip joints to stop the animal if your first shot doesnt bring about a quick end they also make it possible to try and penetrate the brain of the largest critters from any angle.
 
  • #42
onto the next issue
Now I am going to single you out here Rattler because I know you are going to point out that you live wayyy out in BFE.. you need your guns at your own home cause you would be too far away from a cache' in the event of emergency.. blah blah.. The very fact that you do live out in the sticks means that if we are invaded, you and your guns will be little or no value to the country as a militia man. Again, the arguement over needing a ready militia is moot in that circumstance.

im fully aware that i live in BFE, my wife turned down a job at USA Today that would have paid 4 times what she makes now so that we can continue to live in BFE :grin:

as far as a well regulated militia, the founding fathers considered every able bodied man to be a member of the militia. if Hurricane Katrina taught us anything its that you CANNOT under any circumstances rely on the government(be that city, state, or federal) to take care of you. if you want your property protected you must do it yourself. to do so you must be properly armed, which means if the bad guys have it you better be aware of it and be able to counter it. the government failed when Katrina hit. its not a question of if something like that happens again, its a question of when. chances are Steve, given your location it will happen to you before me. i am also not preparing for an all out invasion from an outside enemy.............one only has to look at Ruby Ridge to see that our own government is more likely to do the invading in this country, not some foreign power.
 
  • #43
As a homeowner I would rather use hollowpoint bullets for any application. The full metal jacket shells tend to keep on going thus not limiting the damage to the intended target and hitting who knows what else behind the bad guy.
 
  • #44
if Hurricane Katrina taught us anything its that you CANNOT under any circumstances rely on the government(be that city, state, or federal) to take care of you.

That statement could not possibly have any less bearing on this discussion than saying "Bubble gum should be blue and not pink". What does Hurricane Katrina have to do with the government protecting anybody? We are not talking about a city, who's bonehead designers built it 10 feet below sea level in an area KNOWN to be succeptible to hurricanes and expect it to last forever. It's not the governments fault that the city planners were stupid. Its not the governments fault that people were stupid enough to live there. Its not the governments fault that people are STILL stupid enough to rebuild it and try again. NO government anywhere in the entire world is more powerfull than Mother Nature.. when she strikes, all the militia, all the guns and all the good intentions in the world go right out the window. If your house and guns are under 10 feet of water, they are not much good to you, are they?

its not a question of if something like that happens again, its a question of when. chances are Steve, given your location it will happen to you before me.

Yup you are probably right.. and givin the concentration of population where I live it is highly unliklely that I will ever see the faces of my killers if we are invaded. My city and most of the surrounding area will most likely be oblitterated from above by some form of WMD.
 
  • #45
actually Steve, i was going more for a very major earthquake senario than the WMD theory but whichever you prefer :grin:

actually Katrina has bearing......same thing has happened to Florida and other gulf coast states in the past........major hurricane strikes land, local and state police get tied up helping th injured and evacuating ppl and individual home owners are sometimes stranded and have to protect themselves their family and their property for days or weeks till roads are cleared and order restored.
 
  • #46
BTW i agree on the whole stupidity of being below sealevel........was actually hoping more crap would have been thrown twords the Corps of Engineers, that way maybe we could have been able to declare them inept and taken control of the dams on the upper missouri away from them and into the hands of the states
 
  • #47
Well if you wanna go by the earthquake thing.. you are probably more likely to be killed by a tornado than I am to be killed in a quake. Believe it or not, about 50x as many people die each year in America from tornados than earthquakes. The major quake in the Bay Area in 1989 killed 63 people, most of them when the overhead roadway collapsed onto the traffic on the lower level. In the 18 years since, there have been a total of 70 deaths in the US as a result of earthquakes.

Now back to the topic... You say that after a major event such as a quake or a Katrina, that you may need to protect yourself and your property for days or even weeks. You are trying to tell me that you can not do that with a 9mm pistol with a 9 rd 'magazine' (I better not slip on that one again eh?)? You must have a 30 rd magazine to protect yourself? Or a rifle that lets you kill from a half mile away? Are you tring to tell me that its necessary to have THAT kind of arsenal at your disposal to protect your home and family after a major natural disaster? C'mon man....
 
  • #48
The people who have PC tolerated guns that don't support those with the evil "Black Guns" are looked down upon in the Society. Sorry, but that's how it goes...
The Second Amendment also states that an Individuals rights shall not be infringed.
You also forget that we speak of having the People have the power in the Gov't. Having a secure cache would be useless when the Gov't has the keys.
The Milita arguement is an Anti-Gunner arguement. The other Amendments are about individuals rights. That's like saying the 1st is only for News reporters...
Long Island has a rich history of being on the Frontlines and Behind the lines of some of the largest conflicts on American soil. Oh, and did I say I was alone or unorganized?
Police use HP's btw.
btw I'm not the one talking about taking anyone out here, don't know what you meant by that but having a Bow in a Firefight is laughable. You'd be outranged and powered by a Looooonnnnnggggg shot.

Not lookin for any bad blood. This is a subject I feel strongly about as do many other Americans and I will defend my position.

I'm quite active in the defence of the Second Amendment and am quite well-informed in the history of gun laws and their effects in many countries throughout history.
Your opinions are respected but it's all just well-meaning philosophy...

Most people that own these types of Firearms are Serious, involved people.
I would be worried about the loner with an arsenal as well but the fact is that is just an ugly stereotype and not appreciated whatsoever.

(this was for an earlier post, alot filled in since)
 
  • #49
i just figure one of these days your going to slide right off into the sea :grin:



alright since your specifically asking "me". i hate the 9mm, they are a piss poor handgun round for self defence which is why more and more troops are going back to the 1911 even if they have to buy their own ammo. most special forces types are using the 45ACP once again. i would much prefer a 1911 in 45ACP. with handguns i prefer a bigger hole. even though a 45ACP is throwing the bullet at slower speeds(below the speed of sound infact) i would rather have it than a 9mm. besides a bigger hole in the target its got less of a report in enclosed spaces. being that i prefer the standard 1911 it means i would also be using magazines that hold in general 7 rounds. high capacity mags in handguns are a pain in the *** and if your going to need more than a mag full your better off having a rifle.

point of fact at the moment i do not own a handgun, as i havent found one im sweet on yet. though within the last year ive owned a semi auto 22 pistol and a 44 magnum revolver. however i generally carry a rifle as i have always done. i generally have a rifle at the office(its a firearms friendly place, most of the employees hunt) as well as usually carrying one in my vehicle.

as far as a rifle that kills at half a mile. do you realize the old buffalo cartridges can be used out past a half a mile if you know the distance and know what your doing? thats with no scope, lead bullets and black powder. ive seen it done at a black powder shoot down the road from me with such regularity that its damn near scary.

a mile is 1760 yards which makes a half mile 880 yards. i've hit a coyote just this side of 400 yards with a 4 power scope and a rifle round thats more suited to routing grizzly bear out of alder thickets at powder burn range than pot shotting 'yotes at a quarter mile using my pickup hood as a rest. with some practice and a more suitible rifle, smoking a human sized target at 900 yards isnt that big of a stunt. i know of one person who routeenly shoots deer at the 600-700 yard rangeand is damn consistant with one shot kills. however this guy prolly shoots more ammunition in a year than the entire local national guard unit does. practice and an accurate rifle do wonders with making long shots look easy.

as for my personl preferance for defending my personal property, within my home it would be a short barreled lever action 44 mag rifle. outside it would be a properly tuned semiauto FN-FAL in 7.62 NATO with the standard 20 round magazine.

however as i said before im more worried about big brother than some invader as was our founding fathers back in 1776. the constitution was put forth to protect Joe Blow from the government, doesnt make sence to me to take rights away from Joe Blow and give them to big brother
 
  • #50
I dont know why you are so insistant on nitpicking tivialities such as proper terminology or the exact distance from the target or what specific handgun is the "best" while completely avoiding the actual point of my posts. I used 9mm cause it was easy to type, thats all. It has no bearing on the effectiveness of said weapon.

If you read back to my original post, I said that "I see no reason for massive capacity magazines for home defence and I see no reason for military type (or "assault" if you prefer) weapons for hunting or home defence." Thats all I said. None of the discussion from that point has had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with those specific points. Why should ANY handgun need a magazine that holds more than 7-10 rounds other than to make it possible to kill more targets with fewer reloads? Again, thats not home defence.

btw I'm not the one talking about taking anyone out here, don't know what you meant by that but having a Bow in a Firefight is laughable. You'd be outranged and powered by a Looooonnnnnggggg shot.

Nobody said that I would carry a bow into a firefight. If a man were to break into my home, he is well within range of my bow and all the kevlar vests in the world wont protect him. Knives, arrows and the like penetrate those vests with little or no disturbance, ESPECIALLY in close quarters. Thats all that I meant by that.
 
  • #51
actually you specifically asked if i needed a "rifle that lets you kill from a half mile away". i was mearly pointing out that in terms of technology available in 1874 that a half mile isnt very far. in terms of technology starting oh say 1948 or so when telescopic sights became affordable to the average hunter, though there have been telescopic sights on rifles back to the late 1800's, shooting something the size of a man out past a half a mile isnt that difficult with practice. also Steve i actually thought you directed your last set of questions at me personally and not at the ideas in general. i think if you read back over your statement you can see where i got that impression. i went on personal terms cause i thought thats the way you wanted me to answer the question.
 
  • #52
About 40,000 Americans die in traffic accidents each year, so don't worry about hurricanes and earthquakes; don't drive around so much. Heart disease & strokes will kill about 800,000, so don't bother arming yourself against the invading Mongol hordes, you'd be better off eating a better diet and losing some weight.
 
  • #53
as far as the "need" of a magazine that holds more than 10rounds.........the standard round capasity of certain firearms has always been over 10 rounds. i believe the browning hi-power pistol originally carried 12 or 14 rounds and this was a standard, civilian pistol of the turn of the century. the standard Ar-15 magazine has always been 20 rounds and the standard AK mag has always been 30 rounds. as to why someone should have them. it is my understanding of the constitution and my understanding of the founding fathers intention that it is our right to have them if we so chose. i personally have lil use for most of them, i find having a more compact pistol or rifle to be more handy , and that handiness to out weight the benifits of a larger magazine. however that is MY opinion and it is not nessisarily the correct one in all circumstances. magazine capasity has absolutely nothing to do with the killing power of a firearm. a persons mentality and personal training does. a person with decent training could have gone through VT with 2 double action revolvers that only holds 6 shots apiece and racked up just as high or higher of a body count. hell Timothy Mcveigh killed 168 ppl and wounded over 800 without firing a shot. the weapon has nothing to do with anything, the persons mental state does.
 
  • #54
Saying the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to have a high capacity magazine is like saying the 1st Amendment guarantees a right to have kiddie porn. When you dig past the surface, the pornographers' arguments are the same "slippery slope" arguments as the gun crowd's. If I don't fight for the right of someone to sell pornography, the government will be confiscating my Faulkner next. If I don't fight for the right of someone to carry an AK, the government will be coming for my shotgun. It all comes down to the pornography and gun industries trying to protect their profits by exploiting people's fears. Fukkem.
 
  • #55
ahhhh Bruce, but kiddie porn has a "victem" there is an abused/exploited child who can not defend themselves, the act of owning a high capasity magazine for a firearm has no victem........
 
  • #56
First I'd like to say that while some may disagree with me, I am firmly against kiddie porn. If those that disagree with me could kindly post their name and address we'll have two very nice men in white coats visit you for tea and candy.

I REALLY don't see the harm. I mean I want people to be as free as possible, I mean.. cough cough... remember the whole "Land of the Free" thing? Whatever happened to that? There is no damage to another human by Sheridan owning an AK47 or sniper rifle or WHATEVER it is we are talking about today because I don't know diddly squat about guns (and don't really care about them).

Look, the way I see it, just because something is illegal doesn't mean jack. Do you think a criminal is going to not buy one on the black market just because Uncle Sam says not to? Sure there will be less of them out there to get, and it will be harder to get one, but they will still be there to have, supply and demand you know. EVERYTHING has a price if you are willing to pay enough, and as long as someone wants something it will be out there to have.
 
  • #57
Cocaine, Heroin, Crack... they're all very illegal and dangerous, and they're all very available in the US.
If people want something, they'll get it.
If a major hurricane hits LI, we're wiped out. When it becomes some crazy Mad Max/Water World/Katrina kinda thing. I'd like to be on par or better than the roving bands of hooligans that will be out there.
An it ain't like that's far fetched neither.
Course it's important to get involved locally and help out at the local range and whatnot as well.
 
  • #58
Finch, you seem to assume that just because someone has a firearm that they are required to use it

I resent the continued assumptions that continue to be incorrect.

"By your way of thinking..."

"you seem to assume..."

Enough already! I dont think that just because someone has a firearm that they are required to use it. Thats crazy. Who thinks that?

however as i said before im more worried about big brother than some invader as was our founding fathers back in 1776. the constitution was put forth to protect Joe Blow from the government, doesnt make sence to me to take rights away from Joe Blow and give them to big brother

Well, if the government sends enough armed men at you to make a high-capacity gun needed... well, i mean
If you are in deep enough **** for them to put that many people out on you, your probably dead anyway. Or u could put 50 rounds in to one person. That makse alot of sense too.

I mean.. cough cough... remember the whole "Land of the Free" thing?

Free? You cant drive at 90 mph in a school zone drunk as i recall and see that accepted as one of your many freedoms to do such. If we were truly "free" we could do that. That doesnt make it a good idea. Like, how free are you to view kiddy porn? Yor not, and that’s a good thing.
 
  • #59
It's not about WANTING to put 50 round into one person, or even needing to, but being able to if you had to. I don't think you should depend on the government in times of crisis like Katrina, because you aren't a face, you are a social security number.

And notice how I mentioned not hurting anyone. Driving 90 drunk in a school zone is putting your fellow people at risk.

I believe I am on the record for being against kiddie porn :)
 
  • #60
It's not about WANTING to put 50 round into one person, or even needing to, but being able to if you had to


And in what situation would you need to put 50 rounds in one person?
 
Back
Top