Guns

[Jeff Lebowski]

I get that a lot. My point, lame though it obviously is, is based on the assumption that gun rights advocates would prefer not to have any gun control legislation passed. Reid's excision of the assault weapons ban (which he says would have precluded passage of his entire bill) now makes passage of gun control legislation more likely, even though it's not as restrictive as it would have been with the assault weapons element included.

Perhaps, but this is a sign that anything involving an assault weapons ban would be DOA. That is a good sign, IMO.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Perhaps, but this is a sign that anything involving an assault weapons ban would be DOA. That is a good sign, IMO.

And since Congress thinks it has to pass something, I suppose a watered-down bill is better than the alternative.

As I've said, I've never owned a gun and haven't fired one since the '80s, so part of me couldn't care less what happens here. My biggest beef with the gun control efforts aren't out of concern for the Second Amendment, but that such efforts address, at most, only a small element of the greater problem (a culture that fosters violence and does a lousy job of identifying and treating the mentally ill).

[il Padrino Ute]

If Reid is correct, and he wouldn't have been able to muster 40 votes for his gun control bill with Feinstein's language in it, shouldn't this development be seen as disappointing to gun rights advocates? In other words, hasn't Reid made passage of a bill limiting gun rights more likely with this move?

Baby steps. Reid decided that it wouldn't get the votes, so rather than forcing it against the will of the people, he backed off. Sure, a bill limiting rights may be more likely, but the gun grabbers now understand that they have to consider what their constituents want, rather than doing whatever they feel like doing. They didn't learn from Obamacare, but enough of them who are up for reelection most likely realized that we're serious about retaining our God-given right to be armed, which is why I believe they couldn't get 40 votes.

[Jacob]

the greater problem (a culture that fosters violence and does a lousy job of identifying and treating the mentally ill).

How do you reach that first conclusion considering the dramatic decrease in violence and crime over recent decades? We live in the most peaceful time in recorded history, but the culture fosters violence? Seems like quite a leap. We live in an age that offers more knowledge and treatment of mental illness than any other, but the "culture" is to blame? I don't get it.

[Eddie]

How do you reach that first conclusion considering the dramatic decrease in violence and crime over recent decades? We live in the most peaceful time in recorded history, but the culture fosters violence? Seems like quite a leap. We live in an age that offers more knowledge and treatment of mental illness than any other, but the "culture" is to blame? I don't get it.

I think that it is easy to say that video games and entertainment media is getting more and more realistic in it's portrayal of violence. And that most of the video games in question are first person shooters. So I would take that as a cultural acceptance of violence. In speaking with my friends from Europe, it is interesting that Americans tend to see violence as OK, but avoid sexual content (how many here would watch an R movie if it has violence, but wouldn't if it is full of sex? For how many is the opposite true?)

As for mental illness - I think the bigger struggle is identifying where to place the line between freedom and forced treatment for folks with a mental illness. Do they have the right to be homeless if that is what they want? And at what point do you know that a mental illness is placing others at risk versus just effecting the afflicted person's lifestyle choice? I think that's a tough one.

[Jacob]

I think that it is easy to say that video games and entertainment media is getting more and more realistic in it's portrayal of violence. And that most of the video games in question are first person shooters. So I would take that as a cultural acceptance of violence. In speaking with my friends from Europe, it is interesting that Americans tend to see violence as OK, but avoid sexual content (how many here would watch an R movie if it has violence, but wouldn't if it is full of sex? For how many is the opposite true?)

Of course we can agree that video games and entertainment are more realistic in its portrayal of violence over recent decades. Nobody would argue that (though not nearly as realistic as gladiator games, for example). But the claim made was that our culture "fosters" violence and that it is a major problem. The implication is that we ought to limit speech or at least improve the culture so that people don't buy such media ()this last part is obviously unrealistic without limiting speech and expression by government force). But the facts are that violence and crime are down and we live in a very peaceful society. So the facts contradict the claim that our culture "fosters" violence. An increase in violent video games and other media (not to mention gun ownership) has coincided with a decreace in violence. I don't claim that the one cause the other. I only ask how he reached the conclusion he did based on the contradictory evidence.

[il Padrino Ute]

Child services and cops show up at a New Jersey home because of a photo on facebook. Notice the position of the boy's trigger finger. He's been taught how to handle a gun properly.

[Coach McGuirk]

Colorado signs some gun restrictions,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2917490.html

I would like to welcome MagPul to Utah!

[BigFatMeanie]

Child services and cops show up at a New Jersey home because of a photo on facebook. Notice the position of the boy's trigger finger. He's been taught how to handle a gun properly.

Don't you know that guns are brutal instruments of violence? Any child who sees a gun or talks about guns, heaven forbid actually handles a gun, is by definition being exposed to the tools of violence and must be protected by the state. Especially guns that are black, or have pistol stock grips, or high capacity magazines. Those are symbols of violent brutality and must not be exposed to children in any way, shape, or form.

[il Padrino Ute]

Don't you know that guns are brutal instruments of violence? Any child who sees a gun or talks about guns, heaven forbid actually handles a gun, is by definition being exposed to the tools of violence and must be protected by the state. Especially guns that are black, or have pistol stock grips, or high capacity magazines. Those are symbols of violent brutality and must not be exposed to children in any way, shape, or form.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

[Coach McGuirk]

[il Padrino Ute]

[statman]

I just dramatically increased the size of my arsenal. On Saturday I went to Gunnies in Orem and saw quickly that they had several dozen 880 round crates of 7.62X54R (a high-powered 30 calibre round roughly equivalent to the .308 NATO or .30-06 rounds. - just Wikied it and .308 < 7.62X54R <= .30-06. There are some 30-06 loads that are hotter than 7.62X54Rs are capable of, but most are very close)

Anyway - I bought a case of 880 rounds on Saturday for $189. And I asked about the next time they'd have something that would SHOOT 7.62X54R in stock. Gunnies dude told me that they had a bunch of Moisin Nagants in the back - some in crates, that were loaded with cosmoline, and some in boxes where the cosmoline had been cleaned off enough that they were test-fired before they bought them. None of them were ready for sale until today, however. I stopped off there and got two Moisin Nagants (WWII vintage Russian long barreled rifles (26")). THey are ugly as sin, but once all cleaned up, they are very accurate guns. I paid $169 for the nicer of the two, and $129 for one that had furniture that looked like they'd used it to bash down the doors of Hitler's bunker. I also got two more cases of 880 rounds...

What I really wish I had was a Dragonuv rifle. They shoot the same round, have equally long barrels, but are semiautomatic. They also come standard with lit reticle scopes. They have one at Cabelas for $1500, but that's too spendy for me - even for a Russian "sniper rifle" (it's not really accurate enough to be classified as a sniper rifle. But it's supposedly easy enough to shoot that a novice could learn to use it effectively as a semiauto out to 600-800 yards. That's about where a decent AR with decent optics can go - but the 7.62X54R has WAY more stopping power than an AR.

I shoulda bought a Dragonuv a year or so ago when they were $700-$800. Oh well...

So if anyone feels left out of the gun buying craze, Gunnies in Orem can jump you right back into the thick of it. But it really has to be with the Moisin Nagant and that 7.62X54 ammunition. That's all they really have to sell in bulk. All other bullet sales are limited to two boxes of any kind of ammo per person per day. If you buy a gun from them, they up that to three boxes...

Oh yeah - they do have the 5.45X39 in bulk (440 round 'spam cans' - for the AK74 (yes, I typed that right - the AK74 not the AK47). It's the Russian gun that's styled after the mechanics of the AK47 but with the small/fast bullet characteristics of the US M-16/AR-15. They have big bulk packs of the 5.45mm, but no AK74s to shoot the stuff. Lotta good that'll do you...

[mtnbiker]

Yeah, the Mosin Nagant 91/30 is a fun gun to shoot. Actually, it's got a 28" barrel, so it's pretty long. I've also got an M38, one of the carbine versions. Much easier to hold on target. And with the shorter barrel, you get a bigger boom and flames out the front because the powder is still burning as it exits. Just remember that the primer is corrosive, so you need to clean the bore right after shooting. Spray ammonia or window cleaner that has ammonia in it, or even boiling water, to neutralize the corrosive salts. Otherwise you'll end up with pitting.

Gunnies has (or had) quite a few crates of Mosin Nagants, and seems to put out about 10 guns on the rack every 2 weeks or so. They're all gone within a week or week and a half.

[CardiacCoug]

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories...vid_4367.shtml

Funny that they end the article with "The homeowner was not charged."