Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Monday, June 20. 2016

AR-15 craziness

I think that the press and most of the politicians do not know the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47. More likely, they don't care because incremental gun-grabbing is one of their missions. Thus any new regulation is a step towards the goal of citizen disarmament.


In case you think Second Amendment is standing in the way of banning semiautomatic weapons...


Apparently CT can outlaw some semiautomatic firearms. I have semi-automatic shotguns which I am certain will not fall under regulations - yet. The magazine is internal, so there is no visible clip. To comply with game laws, I have plugs in them to limit me to 3 cartridges (or bullets, as we term them).


Besides being black and ugly, I do not get the functional appeal of the highly-popular AR-15. It is not particularly powerful or useful at long distances. I think it is good fun at the range or close-in game hunting but there are better firearms for that. There is no accounting for taste, and the best thing to do is to pick a firearm for your use and to get good with it.


I think it might be the clips that the grabbers are using, in this case.



Posted by The News Junkie in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 17:14 | Comments (25) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Regarding the AR-15, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regards accuracy. One of the keys to the design is that the chamber is in a direct line with the stock. Combined with the already light recoil of the .223 they are a pleasure to shoot and incredibly easy to get back on target.

I owned several before they were all lost in a tragic boating accident. They were all tack drivers out to 200yrds with iron sights.

Want more power? Simple. The AR you already own can easily be converted to a 7.62X39, .308, 300BLK and many others, all with readily available parts and no gunsmithing skills needed. Many who own ARs start with a stripped receiver and then purchase internals, triggers, barrels etc. I've seen ARs set up for everything from 3 gun competition to long range varmint hunting to deer hunting.



Hot Air linked to a very good article earlier today, regards the broad appeal of the AR platform (and it truly is a platform, designed for easy and quick upgrades, mods). You can find it here
https://medium.com/@jonst0kes/why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c#.nl50jeqks

I think the Author sums it up best when he says: " the AR-15 is basically a giant lego kit for grownups".
#1 NorthCountry on 2016-06-20 18:32 (Reply)
"tragic boating accident" What a coincidence. Same thing happened to me.
#1.1 mary on 2016-06-20 18:46 (Reply)
It was indeed tragic! Whilst paddling madly to save a drowning fluffy little duckling, I overturned the canoe that I was very coincidently using to transport every single firearm I have ever owned.

It truly is unfortunate, because if any State or Federal agency ever wanted to say, confiscate firearms from the public at large, I won't have any to give.
#1.1.1 NorthCountry on 2016-06-20 19:56 (Reply)
And those water tight storage cases are just so heavy, it must have sunk very deep into the mud where it will never be found, eh? ';)
#1.1.1.1 J.T.W. on 2016-06-21 03:05 (Reply)
Dang, the exact same thing happened to me seven years ago, go figure.
#1.1.2 Jim O'Neil (Link) on 2016-06-20 22:58 (Reply)
Agree. It wasn't designed to be a long range rifle, esp. in .223 configuration. Although an argument can be made that "light" .233 round is relatively (compared to 7.62) easily deflected by moderate vegetation. Gotta know what the right tool is for your job.
#1.2 mike m on 2016-06-21 00:46 (Reply)
We may disagree on what "long distances" are.

In the Marines, we shot our M16A2's with the full 20" barrel at 500 yards with iron sights. That's about as far as you can accurately shoot 5.56 and what I think of as entry-level for long-distance.

I had an HK .308 that was good for a bit more but it was banned by the Northeast states as too evil, then lost in a tragic boat accident. I'll thinking Springfield M1A1 soon.
#1.3 NJSoldier on 2016-06-21 07:58 (Reply)
You sir, are in possession of both better training and eyesight than I.

Up here in the mountains of NH, the VAST majority of deer and moose are taken inside 50 yards. The only time you will ever take a shot farther than say 75 yards is if you are hunting farm land of a powerline cut. Our local range is only 300 yards, I would have to drive an hour south to shoot at a 500 yard range.

So indeed, we do have differing ideas regards "long distances". The simple fact being that I just don't play in your league.
#1.3.1 NorthCountry on 2016-06-21 13:14 (Reply)
It's not a clip.
#2 Magazine on 2016-06-20 18:40 (Reply)
QUOTE:
I think that the press and most of the politicians do not know the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47 ...


... said someone who does not know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

ProTip: there's no invisible clip on your shotgun either.
#3 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-20 19:57 (Reply)
You know what I meant. A container for bullets.
#3.1 The NJ on 2016-06-20 20:15 (Reply)
That would be a box.
#3.1.1 Or a can on 2016-06-20 22:22 (Reply)
Now THAT'S funny!
#3.1.1.1 Sven Svenson on 2016-06-21 09:27 (Reply)
A "ban" is just a sales cap ...unless you want to go the
full confiscation route (Hitlary) so all of the hand wringing
does not amount to a hill of beans ...let's take care of the
terrorists , gangs , and mentally ill.
#4 Ron Spins (Link) on 2016-06-20 23:52 (Reply)
A ban also bans ownership, turning every citizen who owns the banned item into a felon (unless, possibly, there's a grace period in which they're allowed to hand them over to the police without getting charged).

And that'd grant the police the powers to do no-knock entries in just about any residence in the country, stop any car at any time, etc. etc., because with an estimated one third of citizens owning firearms, there's now probably cause to treat all of them as suspects in a federal crime.
#4.1 J.T.W. on 2016-06-21 03:08 (Reply)
Except they have not done that in CT, NJ, CA or anywhere else.

Instead the ban really just becomes a pain in the ass where you now have a rifle you can't shoot and can't sell.

You toss it in a safe or store it somewhere waiting for the day you move to a free state.
#4.1.1 NJSoldier on 2016-06-21 09:28 (Reply)
The Second Amendment Isn’t About Hunting or Self-Defense, But Revolution

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-isnt-about-hunting-or-self-defense-but-revolution/
#5 feeblemind on 2016-06-21 00:03 (Reply)
Don't see the appeal, huh? What else are you going to want when they're coming down the street for you? Maybe you live in a posh protected neighborhood?

Gonna have to have one, one day.
#6 Jack Reacher on 2016-06-21 00:24 (Reply)
I think the most criminal part of the whole gun debate is that the lefties start from the "you can't hunt with it, so why would you want to own it?" argument. I always point out that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect us from government tyranny, not allow us to hunt or even to allow for home protection. I am convinced that our Founding Fathers never could have imagined a time when Americans wouldn't be allowed to protect our families, selves and property with firearms...or imagine a time when it might be forbidden to hunt. Back to the point, they had just lived under a repressive government bent on disarming them to tyrannize them more effectively. So obviously they wanted responsible Americans to be able to own whatever firearms they wanted to keep politicians at bay. Knuckleheads like Piers Morgan say that the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets because guns like AR15s weren't around then. But that is bull. If the FFs could conceive of AR15s they would surely want us to own them. Only the best weaponry (rifled muskets like the Kentucky Long Rifle) had allowed us to beat back the Brits and their mercenaries during the American Revolution.

So NEVER give up on your right to be armed with a semiauto like an AR15 if you are a law-abiding citizen. Anyone who says the gubment should take them from us for our protection is out to tyrannize you.
#7 Dangerous Dean on 2016-06-21 01:45 (Reply)
A shotgun has shells, not a bullet or a cartridge.
#8 ron snyder on 2016-06-21 08:05 (Reply)
he's right on this one. hang around an Amateur Trapshooting Association match or even casual hunters and you'll hear shells referred to as bullets.
#8.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-06-21 12:17 (Reply)
Hey guys!

I watched this great movie about the impact of gun control. It's called "SCHINDLER'S LIST."

Y'all should watch it!
#9 B48 on 2016-06-21 09:22 (Reply)
Throughout the life of Nazi Germany, the regulations for gun ownership were fairly relaxed. Restrictive registration only applied to handguns. Otherwise, anyone 18 or older could purchase a rifle or shotgun and ammunition. There was a permit process (which allowed the authorities to maintain records of who legally possessed firearms) but it was not particularly onerous.

The Nazis only removed firearms ownership from one group: the Jews.
#9.1 JJM on 2016-06-21 12:03 (Reply)
Yeah. There was that ONE little problem for Jews, right? The Nazis disarmed the Jews so that they would be able to more effectively oppress and eventually murder them.

If the liberals in America could disarm conservatives they MIGHT NOT do the same to us. I won't take that chance, though.
#9.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-06-22 11:45 (Reply)
There was a pretty long line this weekend at the gun shop where I do business...Father's Day sale you know.
#10 rocdoctom on 2016-06-21 11:28 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.