Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Actually, the weed would make you a lot less likely to want to use the rifle....

 

Yes, i say that because of the following points,
1) He is a democrat & most(not all of course) are for gun control.
2) His appointment of very much anti-gun people such as Eric Holder & Rahm Emanuel(among others)
3) Just listen to the rhetoric spoken by senators & representatives such as Carl Levin*, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein & other prominent democrats.

* - Just last month on the floor of the senate Levin said "assault weapons" are "capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute" and that they are "once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods." due to the AWB lapsing.

Hmm, lets see "assault weapons" as covered by the AWB were NONE of them, not a single one, automatic weapons. All were semi-auto, which means 1 pull of the trigger = 1 bullet fired from the weapon. As far as i know, there are no 600 rd magazines for semi-auto(or full auto for that matter) rifles & i know for sure that i can't pull a trigger 600 times in 1 second.
He was deliberating trying to scare people into thinking that the AWB applied to automatic weapons which it doesn't.

Wow, very nice Aldeth, several very good questions. Now lets see if i can give you an answer that will satisfy you.

First question as to why buy now.
If you found out that new laws coming into effect soon were going to ban the sale of motorcycles, even if you don't ride or have never ridden before, you would be more likely to go out & buy one. That way, if at some time in the future, you wanted to or needed to have one, you would.
A large part of it is the "Plan for the worst, Hope for the best" philosophy.
you know, like saving part of your income for the future or an emergency.

The second question is about personal safety & also plays into the planning bit also. the old saying about "I would rather have it & not need it, than need it & not have it".
A large number of those getting CCW's are women, as even a woman trained in self-defense is at a disadvantage against a larger, stronger man(not all women of course). It is all about the Force Equation.
A 5' 100lb woman has very little chance against a 6'4" 275lb man, however, give that same woman a simple .38 revolver & a little basic training in it & she is on a much more equal stanging with that man.
An old saying about it is "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal"

Third question is actually several parts.
AR's are legal to hunt small game in all states & are legal to use on deer in a fair number of states.
Here in NC it is legal to hunt deer with any pistol with at least a 5" barrel & at 357 magnum caliber.
A 357 Magnum inparts ~600ft-lbs of energy to the bullet, while an AR imparts ~1200 ft-lbs of energy.
AK type weapons are even more powerful as they are .30 caliber weapons. However a lot of hunters still disdain them as weak sisters of "true" hunting rifles.
A typical 7.62 X 39 round(what most AK fires) imparts a speed of ~2300FPS & ~ 1,550ft-lbs of energy to a 150g bullet.
An average 7MM(a fairly common hunting rifle caliber) imparts a speed of ~3100 FPS & ~3,100 ft-lbs of energy to a 150g bullet.

As for why have one in a home defense situation, Even a short as legally allowed carbine is going to give you several advantages over a pistol.
1) At least a 16" sight line(the length from your rear sight to your front sight) as opposed to 4-6" on a pistol making it much easier for those with less training to aim accurately.
2) A round that is going to impart at least twice the force of an average size pistol round, meaning you are much more likely to be able to stop the attacker with the first round.
3) Just by the ergonnomics of a rifles design you are going to be subjected to less "felt" recoil, thus enabling you to make more accuarte shoots & quicker than with a pistol.
4) Frangible ammo - great for indoor use as it breaks up in drywall, thus limiting the possibility of shooting through your walls & injurying innocents. They make FA for pistols but the larger shell & bullet size of rifle rounds allows even the frangible ammo to be larger than most pistol ammo. Faster too.

As far as # of rounds this goes back to Pt #2, i would rather have 30 rounds & need only 7, than have only 6 & need 7.

But what about an automatic pistol, like a 9mm, that can hold 12-18 rds you say?
Not available to a lot of people, as like in DC, which was just told that there laws where unconstitutional, they still classify all pistols that load through a magazine into the pistol grip as a MACHINE GUN!
Yep, according to DC if a pistol has a detachable magazine than someone(they dont specify who) can manufacture a high capacity clip for it, which in their eyes make it a machnie gun. Explain that one to me boys & girls.

hope these help answer some of your answers.

 

martaug: Most arguments against assault weapons also include the caveat that kits are available to make the weapon fully automatic. While I agree the 600 rounds/minute is a red herring a thinking person can quickly do the math and realize a 30 round clip will be emptied in 3 seconds -- 30 rounds in three seconds can do significant damage to a crowd.

I completely agree with your reasoning for your first two answers.

The third answer is correct as well, some states allow hunting with nearly any weapon -- provided the weapon has not been modified with a kit. A follow-on question could be "why is it allowed?" It certainly is not necessary. The hunting rifles out there are much better than any assault weapon for hunting (sans sniper rifles). For a challenge, the hunter can shift to a pistol which requires closer ranges.

For home defense: I think the frangible ammo with assault weapons has limited use in the much weaker structural strength of residential construction. Typically, drywall is the minimum thickness with no "filling" to further impede the progress of the bullet. In residential construction the frangible ammo will still have significant penetrating capability (penetration comes from the speed and mass of the projectile) -- I would advise against anyone assuming the use of such ammo with assault weapons will prevent "friendly casualties." Granted, frangible ammo will be better than a solid load from a 12 gauge or a .300 Winchester Mag using a 180 grain projectile. However, pistols using ammunition with subsonic speeds (i.e., non magnum loads) are better weapons to prevent penetration through walls -- frangible ammo for the same pistol would be very effective at preventing penetration.

I personally feel the best home defense weapon is the shotgun. Using 00 buckshot the individual pellets are large enough to stop a person (at .38 equivalent) and slow enough to minimize penetration through walls. The scatter is reasonable (about 8-10" in diameter) at typical distances indoors which still allows the nervous home owner to stop the target. Plus the sound of chambering a round in a shotgun is enough to cause anyone to take notice.

Basically, for every argument a proponent can come up with for having an assault weapon there can be counter arguments which give valid options to achieve the same level of protection using more traditional weapons.

Drew: ... and make actually hitting your target less likely.

 

Exactly. Well said.

 

Every firearms expert I've ever met agrees with the above statement. Not only is the shotgun effective, but it also has a very distinctive sound that most people recognize.

 

The shotgun(especially a 12ga) is an excellent choice for home defense for a man. Not so sure about for a smaller frame woman though,maybe a .410 or even a 20ga would be ok.

Actually T2 a large amount of pistol ammo is supersonic now. (supersonic is anything over 1125 FPS for those that did't know)
Almost all 9mm ammo is supersonic, as well as a fair to good percentage of .380, .40 & 10mm ammo.
Most 45 auto ammo isn't but there are some exceptions(like the aquila 45 acp 117g @ 1450FPS)

Even 2 3/4" 12 ga 00buck is supersonic(1250-1325 FPS).

Oh yeah, don't forget, that all of those standard hunting rifles are what the Gun Control nuts call "sniper rifles" since they are obviously intended to kill at long range with a single bullet.

*edit*
this has nothing to do with guns but it is pretty funny, i didn't think we would see jon stewart make fun of obama this early.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=218356&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house


*edit*
Well obama has screwed another group by breaking another campaign promise.(sigh, he is getting good at this)
http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20090213/DC7054113022009-1.html

Just check out the American Small Business Leagues website, they have a running counter of how much they have lost to big business due to obamas broken promises.
http://www.asbl.com/

Do you remember the promise he made about a $3000 tav break for every job created by a company in america? Yep, that puppy has been quietly buried.

 

Or perhaps he just hasn't gotten to it, yet. Obama, himself, has been pushing for the inclusion of a good number of tax cuts in the bailout legislation -- and his democratic congress is vehemently opposing most of them. Give the guy some credit, here. If he wanted to, he could have just pushed for a measure that gives the democrats exactly what they wanted, using the high political cost of opposing the bill to get at least a few Republican votes, which is all he would need. Instead, he's made every effort to be bi-partisan, much to the chagrin of his own democratic leadership.

 

That is what I'm hoping for. While I'm very disappointed in the "stimulus/porkulus" bill I figure I have to give Obama a good six month grace period to see what he is really about.

The problems he has been having with his nominations, I'm not sure I can blame him personally. However, it makes me very concerned about the people he surrounds himself with. They are either incompetent at performing due diligence or they don't care about the results.

What I'm really concerned about, is that he didn't realize how difficult it was going to be to work with Pelosi and the rest of Congress. They probably expect him to rubber stamp everything they send him, but Congress can and will kill things in committees that he likes and they don't.

 

TGS - What specifically has disappointed you about the Stimulus Bill?

 

This was a list as of 2/9/09. I'm not sure how many survived the final bill or what other things were added. I just don't see how any of these will aid the economy. To me the entire thing was just a bailout and additional government spending for "pet projects" A true stimulus would have been to give the money to the taxpayers and let them spend it however they want to. That of course is exactly the opposite of what a politician (of either party) believes in. Somehow they know better then we do.

Here is another list. This one contains the infamous money for ATV trails.

 

TGS - While the Stimulus Bill is not perfect, it has a lot of good things in it as well:

This is the bill that the Senate sent back to the House. I know they did some tinkering with it on that side as well. Every spending bill has a small degree of silliness in it. But on balance I feel it's a pretty good bill.

http://www.themiddleclass.org/bill/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-2009-senate-version

 

I personally love McCain's comment about the stimulus package:

“This measure is not bipartisan, contains much that is not stimulative, and is nothing short of generational theft.” ​

Granted, this is most likely partisan rhetoric but I think he hits the nail on the head. Which side of the coin this plan falls will really depend on whether or not the stimulus package works. If the stimulus package works, the cost is worth it. If the stimulus package fails, we have sold our children into indentured servitude (which Bush also did for the War in Iraq -- but not the War on Terrorism ).

 

Yeah, if the "nail" is a lying hypocrite. This is from the guy who wanted to cut the top tax rate down to 25 percent, which would have drastically cut government revenue for a generation (talk about generational theft). Mac made a total fool of himself with that comment, IMO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29209460/page/4/

 

Wait, so chandos you think the government NOT taking our money is theft??


On a seperate note, what do our members from California & kansas think about their states suspending tax return payments?
Does this put a hold on tax return anticipation loans, like you get from H&R block?

 

I was talking to a colleague who is a California CPA. He has instructed his entire client base to stop making estimated payments to CA and if they can to decrease their withholdings also. He isn't giving CA any chance to "borrow" the refund money.

 

It means that if we run up the bill, and charge it now, our kids are going to have to pay for it. Who's going to pay for a trillion dollar war? Or to bail out all those idiots on Wall Street who jacked-up the economy? Or the cost of the Stimulus package? Our kids are going to have to pay for all the mistakes of the last 8 years, and all the government is going to spend on "stimulus" projects. That fact is we can't pay for all this crap, so our kids will.

Note: By the last eight years, I don't mean GWB, but all those investment brokers who sold fruadulent investments to us and the rest of the world. And who now we are paying to save. Yeah, they screw everybody and we get to pay. Isn't the "free market" just a lovely thing?

 

So your idea is that we haven't spent enough money so we need to spend Trillions more under obama?
Thats not going to work any better under obama than it did under bush.

 

Martaug - You may not have noticed but we have the worst economy since the Great Depression. Who else is going to spend the money to fix the problem? Nevertheless, I gather from your comments that we should stop spending money on the War in Iraq and bring everyone home; and that we not spend anymore of the TARP money to bail-out the Wall Street gang. All that would be fine with me. But as far as not spending any money to jump-start the economy...well, I didn't know we had the reincarnation of Herbert Hoover here on SP.

 

No, i do think that we need to spend some but not on all the pork spending that is in the bill. Just like california has indicated that the 10+ Billion that they are expecting from the stimulus won't be spent on road construction or any new jobs but to pay off existing debt. If you notice the money going to the states has no conditions like the money now going to the banks & businesses now have. So they can spend the money any way they want.
Just look at the mayor of chicago's answer when asked what projects he was going to spend the money that they are expecting on. He said that nobody needed to know where he was spending it as it was his decision as to when & where to use it. Now thats ballsey