Author Topic: Why is this person in office? (Read 1517 times)

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 28, 2005, 02:50:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
It's your age.

I voted for her twice, and I think it is the NRA nutburgers who are spreading lies and fears about the issue. She is not advocating getting rid of these weapons, just that they be regulated like automatics. She also was one of the few Democrats that spoke out against the actions of Bill Clinton. You'd think she would be considered a MILF in here just for that reason alone.

I wouldnt even do her with YOUR dick... you sick puppie you.

bustr · « **Reply #46 on:** July 28, 2005, 02:52:43 PM »

Guys I dont mind heated debat, but if we start getting dirty again Skuzzy will take this away permently. I look forward to reading all of your posts.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #47 on:** July 28, 2005, 02:55:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I voted for her twice, and I think it is the NRA nutburgers who are spreading lies and fears about the issue. She is not advocating getting rid of these weapons, just that they be regulated like automatics.

She's not advocating getting rid of weapons, she's just advocating taking them from the general public and only allowing people SHE chooses to have them.

Seagoon · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2005, 03:30:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I voted for her twice, and I think it is the NRA nutburgers who are spreading lies and fears about the issue.

Yeah, you know us NRA nutburgers are just waiting for the opportune moment to team up to destroy America... Why you take MAV's ex-police and tank driving skills and wed them to my preaching and apologetics ability and we're like an all new Legion of Doom.

MT, she's the one who is doing the fear mongering here - making a single shot weapon never used by a terrorist into the terrorist's weapon of choice for shooting down airliners.

Quote

She is not advocating getting rid of these weapons, just that they be regulated like automatics. [/B]

Respectfully, her bill S.505 the "Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act" would make all .50 caliber rifles the legal equivalent of a machine gun merely because of the round they fire. This would put Barrett and the other manufacturers out of business and effectively ban the public from owning them, which is, after all, her objective.

Now if she can fear monger .50 cals into the restricted category because they can shoot through a brick, how soon before she "discovers" that many rifle rounds will defeat Kevlar body armor? For instance, most of my jacketed and solid core 180 grain .303 rounds will go through the average police vest with no trouble whatsover some rounds might even defeat the "rifle plate" inserts. In the hands of a terrorist my Enfield could be used to defeat police countermeasures! In no time .303s will be the weapon of choice, and an entire airliner could be depressurized with just one shot!

No one needs such a powerful rifle or a jet ski, for that matter.

- SEAGOON

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #49 on:** July 28, 2005, 03:47:20 PM »

It won't put Barrett out of business, he's got enough contracts with the military to last a lifetime.

What it WILL do is further encroach on the Second Amendment. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Or, more to the point, surrender the right to one firearm and they'll pick another that is "evil"

or too "dangerous"

. And then another, and another.

There is no valid reason to consider a rifle chambered in 50BMG to be the equivalent of a fully automatic weapon. The idea is ludicrous. They are no more dangerous or likely to be used by terrorists or criminals than any other high powered rifle. In fact, they are less likely to be used for any number of reasons.

Further, there is no legal basis to sue a firearms manufacturer because his weapon works as advertised. And that is EXACTLY what Fienstien wants to make possible. Some thug uses a Taurus to knock over a liquor store and kills the clerk, and she wants the clerk's family to have grounds to sue Taurus. Some drug dealer uses a Glock to kill another drug dealer and she wants the family of the dead drug dealer to be able to sue Glock.

Her goal is simple. She cannot get guns themselves outlawed. She intends to make it possible to SUE manufacturers into bankruptcy. She intends to have courts like the 9th circuit to help her legislate from the bench.

midnight Target · « **Reply #50 on:** July 28, 2005, 03:49:17 PM »

But it's a good gun!!!!!

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #51 on:** July 28, 2005, 03:57:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
But it's a good gun!!!!!

Don't like it? Fine. Don't want one? Don't buy one. Just don't try to keep those who want one from legally obtaining one. And don't try to sue the manufacturer because it fires when the trigger is pulled.

bustr · « **Reply #52 on:** July 28, 2005, 04:01:02 PM »

Seagoon,

I cast my own 200gr slugs for my .303's. do you have any freinds who reload their own with cast rounds that have a load formula that they get thighter than 3" at 100yds? I know there are other issues at play here like throat dia. due to erosion and actual chamber and throat size vs. SAMMI specification for the Enfeild. I'm not too bad off being that my 2 Enfeilds throat dia. are .313 and .314. I'm sizing my cast rounds at .314.

By the way, most people in the U.S. who own and practice with a scope mounted M1A1(M14 for those from Reo Linda) can at 600 yards keep all 20 rounds of .308 in a 12 inch circle. If the 747 sits still long enough on the runway and you can get within 600yds, sure you can put holes in it. Fortunatly the real world is not AH, so you won't get a one ping kill......................... ...

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #53 on:** July 28, 2005, 04:06:48 PM »

Lead bullets need to be 0.001 or so larger than the bore. You need to have the bore slugged to see what diameter you need to size your bullets to. How hard is your bullet alloy? Hardness is especially important in rifles because of leading due to velocity. They need to be just short of being brittle. Look at lube as well, it's important, for the same reason as hardness. Have you tried paper patching?

bustr · « **Reply #54 on:** July 28, 2005, 04:26:50 PM »

Oops, I keep forgetting, for Progresives like Feindstein, it's mearly the idea of knowing we are out here(what if), and that our freedom means, if I wanted to hit her limosine at 600yds-1000yds with a Barret, or any comercially available Lapua .338 .250gr FMJ-BT, she has to sit around and wait out the (what if) if I would actually go to the trouble. It's the fact that some of us citizens are running around freely in this country who have the skill to do it.

At 1000yds though, most of people I know are happy to hit something as big as a limo anywhere on its body......but for her this (what if) requires banning all guns in the U.S. Just in case someone gives more that a rats dropping about this poor fear demented sad creature.

Personaly I hate shooting anything getting as big as a Lapua .388. Hurts my shoulder and the blast gives me a headach after 20 rounds.

bustr · « **Reply #55 on:** July 28, 2005, 04:44:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Lead bullets need to be 0.001 or so larger than the bore. You need to have the bore slugged to see what diameter you need to size your bullets to. How hard is your bullet alloy? Hardness is especially important in rifles because of leading due to velocity. They need to be just short of being brittle. Look at lube as well, it's important, for the same reason as hardness. Have you tried paper patching?

I've slugged them and the lans<--(sorry grooves, I get these backwards) at the throat are .313 and .314 respectivly. My load right now gives me a 2" pattern at 50yds with 5 rounds. But at 100yds it spreads out. I have been reaserching it and I may just need either cream of wheat packing to fill the bore on ignition, or to change to a new powder made for CAS shooters that will fill the shell and is not position sensative.

Iv'e been using IMR4895 for these loads because I wanted to have only one powder in the house. I reload for my M1A1 and Garand, and the H4895 and IMR4895 work best with those gas systems. The 4895's aren't too bad if you relaod 170-180gr commercial jacketed rounds for the .303. Lead just increases the life span of the barrel, and the load problems are fun to tinker with and safer...lower preasures. I also get a longer usefull life from the cases loading with cast bullits.

My alloy is Hardball 2-6-92. I drop my casts into a 5gal bucket of water. My mold is a 2 cavity Lyman 200gr .314 dia #314299.

kevykev56 · « **Reply #56 on:** July 28, 2005, 07:20:51 PM »

Thanks guys for keeping this thread civil.

Seagoon,

I wish I had been able in my first post to express what you did with your reply to skydancer. You summed up my feelings towards this woman and her agenda.

Hopefully most americans will be able to see through this and make the right decisions and keep our rights intact. The big scary gun is not a problem, it is what keeps us safe. Senators like Feinstien are what will make us unsafe.

SOB · « **Reply #57 on:** July 28, 2005, 08:16:53 PM »

I agree with Seagoon. Damn, break out the holy water and get a'preachin', Seagoon, 'cause the rapture is here!

As far as buying guns without background checks though, you can do that in Oregon. You don't need to register your weapons with the government (rightfully so), and I see a gun post every now and then on pdx.forsale for private party. I don't know about gun shows though.

bj229r · « **Reply #58 on:** July 28, 2005, 09:53:37 PM »

50 cal is just the latest--I expect there will soon be a segment on 60 Minutes spewing bs about it...these people tried to give the impression that cops and innocent bystanders across the country were being mowed down by 'assualt' rifles (read: ANY black gun with a clip)

..they will trot out a film of the 50 cal blowing away a watermelon at 800 yards... (a 38 will explode a watermelon, just not at 800 yards) They tried to give the impression that MANY murders were being committed with 'assault rifles'--in fact, figure is like 7/10 of 1%....but anti-gun zealots never let facts get in their way--crackheads dont spend 1500 bucks on a gun when they can get a throwaway for 100 bucks and STILL be able to buy 1400 bucks of blow

superpug1 · « **Reply #59 on:** July 28, 2005, 10:57:17 PM »

lol bring down aircraft with a 50 cal sniper rifle. wow. thatd b an awsum shot!