Couldn't find the post I was looking for, but this one will do fine:
All Things Second Amendment
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Couldn't find the post I was looking for, but this one will do fine:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You are nothing if not consistently fallacious in your "reasoning".
There's no way keeping a gun in your toolbox could go wrong, just like there's no way keeping a sharp knife in there could go wrong. What could go wrong? It's not like you could shoot yourself in the foot, or in the hand, or cut yourself or stab yourself by accident, if you keep a sharp knife in there—there's just no way.
And same goes for anybody else who might be digging around in your toolbox either—there's just no way.
I'm picking up on your sarcasm.
Well I should hope so because I'm laying it on pretty thick.
Or, you know, it could save your life.
I think the risks are outweighed by that one benefit.
It's why I always carry a gun.
Dangerous freedom is good.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Saw an old R. Lee Ermy episode, talking about rifles through the ages. It was unfortunately pretty terrible, glossed over lots of stuff, and mainly was so that Ermy could entertain us, it wasn't a real good documentary, I learned almost nothing.
But when he got to the AR (M16) he mentioned a few things about it and one of them was that it was a force multiplier because it'd only wound the enemy, which meant that not only was he disabled, but also you tied up two more guys, to help him off the battlefield and care for him, so that's why he called it a force multiplier. Which I had never heard before, and it made we wonder how if the M16 (an AR) only wounded people then why in mass shootings with an AR do so many people die? You'd think if it only wounded that there'd be more survivors of mass shootings with ARs.
And the only other thing was that story about troops being found dead in Vietnam, with their M16 flipping cleaning kits out. The gun was malfunctioning and they had to get out the cleaning kit to try to clear a jam or a casing or whatever it was. I guess one of the things was that the gas system wasn't water tight like it is today, and that was one big problem. I mean at least the M14 was reliable, it was the wrong gun for a lot of Vietnam, but at least it worked. I'd rather get killed because my gun was the wrong gun, than that my gun just didn't work at all. What a nightmare.
They learned a lot in Vietnam, on how to fine-tune the AR. But that was the wrong way to develop your new product. They should have learned all that stuff without having to send home body bags, that's an inhumane and un-American, frankly, way to do things.
Last edited:
That is an inaccurate statement. A smaller bullet certainly needs to be moving really fast to work, and it does when fired from the 20" barrel. In the early 80s the ammunition changed because a belt fed weapon was introduced because it is so effective on the human target. And they actually changed it and of course the results were still really good, except when they were not.
The original round is first. Then the updated M855 green tip, or SS109 NATO, then the 7.62x51 used in the M14, M60 and M240 machine gun. Of course there are many factors and this is a generalization from shooting ballistic gel.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Which round do you prefer? I notice the 7.62 NATO round penetrates way more than the 5.56, but obv it's heavier. Would it just depend on the situation? Say you're hiking and you encounter a bear or a rabid wolf, would you prefer the 7.62 or is the 5.56 OK? I guess it depends how many rounds you can get on him, especially if it's a big bear.
If it is a 20 inch barrel it should be the original M193. If it is a short barrel M4 variant you need a bigger bullet. The 6.8 SPC is ideal for the 14-16” barrel.