Guns in Idaho: Common misconceptions

Discussion in 'Firearms and Hunting' started by Robert, Jun 18, 2019.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,357
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, are you even aware of what the first "AR" was?

    Well, in an effort to educate the uninformed, this is the first AR to ever make it out of prototype, the AR-5.

    [​IMG]

    So since I guess that since you believe AR means "Assault Rifle", this is the first one.

    A bolt action, 5 shot weapon that fired the .22 Hornet rimfire round. It was specifically designed as a survival weapon, and they (and ones that followed) have been part of aircrew survival kits for over 60 years.

    They are also popular with backpackers, as the entire rifle breaks down and is stored in the buttstock itself.

    Next time, try to do at least a little research before you post. Otherwise you would go off thinking this is an "Assault Rifle":

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,357
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then tell me, is this an "Assault Rifle"?

    [​IMG]

    How about this?

    [​IMG]

    How about this?

    [​IMG]

    Please tell us which of these is an "Assault Rifle".
     
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,357
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They did make some, but they were not commonly issued.

    However, the M14 was essentially just an M1 with selective fire and a 20 round magazine.
     
  4. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Make some what? All the M1s I used (in high school ROTC) had clips, not magazines (although I was usually assigned a B.A.R.). Did they ever make M1s with magazines? I do recall reading that the automatic ejection of the clip when the 8th round was fired proved to be a handicap in Korea, where the frozen earth was so hard that the ejected clip made a distinct noise when it hit the ground, alerting the enemy to the fact that the person using the M1 was temporarily holding an unloaded weapon. Seems too far out to be true, though.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,357
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The research is not hard, I have seen these things in gun shows many times. There were even some conversion kits made to convert the clip fed to a magazine feed.

    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...iants-cody-museum-courtesy-forgotten-weapons/
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  6. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pretty much the M-14 is a .308 chambered M-1 with a detachable magazine. I think the ejection noise is a myth. This is in the middle of a firefight. If they are close enough to hear the sound of the clip hitting the frozen ground, they have just listened to 8 round of .30-06 at close range. I think their ears are still ringing, they aren't hearing the clip.

    http://armamentresearch.com/myths-misconceptions-the-m1-ping/
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But he did not create the AR15, currently on shelves and in racks at gun stores all around the country.
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same can be said for any rifle that fires 5.56x45.
    You say that like you do not realize said distinction is hugely significant.

    Why do militaries issue the M16/M4 rather than the AR15?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do militaries issue the M16/M4 instead of the AR15?
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no sound argument for this.
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your statement is false - if he had an assault rifle, he would not have had a need for a bump stock.
     
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    5.56x45 is a little over two inches long, and is by no means huge.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know you statement is false.
     
  14. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Founders wrote their document in a context in which it was taken for granted that almost all able-bodied white males would serve in the militia.
    So let's return as closely as we can to that situation, taking into account how the concept of who can be a responsible adult has expanded to include all races and both sexes.
    Voting rights should be restricted to people who have performed military service and remain in the reserves; military service is open to everyone.
    Good behavior is required to remain in the miltary: gang-bangers, people who commit felonies, those who are too drugged up to attend regular
    sessions of the reserves, those who burn the flag or attack people carrying it, are given a bad conduct discharges and lose their citizenship, although
    they retain residency rights.
    People serving in the military, or the reserves, can own appropriate high-grade weapons: small arms can be kept at home.
    Non-citizens, including people kicked out of the military, have to get a license, and they're restricted to .22's and shotguns.

    Okay, this is not feasible at all in the US as it is today.
    As it is today.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of which would ever pass constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny if challenged in court. Therefore there is no legitimacy in discussing such a proposal as if it had any merit.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  16. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, of course not today.
    I'm not talking about the US of today, but of a USA that has come apart, or is beginning to come apart. Let's hope it never happens, but the US is not immune from the same forces that have torn apart many other empires and multi-ethnic countries. Or rather, it has been relatively immune, but the material circumstances which granted this immunity may not prevail forever.
    A large part of the upcoming generation of elite despise their country and its ordinary citizens. A growing part of it doesn't identify with it. It may suffer a serious military humiliation in the future, as it's pushed off the top place by China.
    Hopefully, this won't happen. But if it does, we must make the best of it.
     
  17. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    26,704
    Likes Received:
    20,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The military =\= the militia. As defined by US Code:
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    The 2A does not specify organized or unorganized, thus it applies to all of 'the militia'.

    Additionally, the context of 'regulate' was different when the 2A was written:

    "The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

    1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
    2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
    3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
    4) To put in good order.

    [obsolete sense]
    b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

    1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

    (more on this here: https://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html )

    Regulation of the militia in a constitutionally contextual sense would require incentivising all able bodied adults to voluntarily participate in paramilitary training and material preparedness.

    You and I both know our government would never even try to do that today. Most folks participating in what was called 'Civil Defense' under JFK are now viewed as likely terrorist organizations by our political establishment.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  18. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, of course not.
    Nor would most young people want to tear themselves away from their pleasures, to low-crawl under barbed wire and learn how to treat a sucking chest wound.

    Certainly not most of the young people in our elite colleges. They leave military service of any sort to their social inferiors.

    But that's the US today. The US is changing rapidly, as is the world it's in. We're soon going to be Number 2, first of all economically, and then militarily. Who knows what may happen then? The US may well have absorbed millions of people from Central America and Mexico, who don't care a fig for a Constitution written by old white men long ago, an attitude in which they'll be encouraged by progressives.

    So it doesn't hurt to think about, should the US come apart -- as many other multi-ethnic multi-cultural countries have in the 20th Century -- how should the 'conservative part' try to organize itself?
     
  19. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    26,704
    Likes Received:
    20,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We regulate our own militia(s). We carry on JFKs 'Civil Defense' anyway.
     
  20. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 2A does not specify...but Article One Section 8 describes it...and it describes a militia that is organized,trained,has officers and rolls.

    Also, your militia ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45. Oops
     
  21. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    26,704
    Likes Received:
    20,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It says:
    "[The Congress shall have power] to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

    What training discipline has Congress prescribed to the unorganized militia? What provisions has it made to arm the unorganized militia?

    My Civil Defense group petitioned the Office of the Governor of Washington State for direction into these matters (officer appointments, training discipline, etc). They repeatedly refused to respond in any way. Why do you think that might be?

    You might notice that no where in there is it specified that Congress or the states can order the militia to disarm or disband. I suspect thats why neither is willing to 'provide for organizing, arming, disciplining and governing the militia' as codified, as 'disarm and disband' are the only orders they would like to give. And they know they can't.

    False. US Code does not specifically prohibit anyone from the militia. It defines what the militia is, but it doesnt define what the militia is not. As such (and likely even if it did), it would be instant political suicide for any legislator or regulator to attempt to disclude or prohibit women, the elderly or the disabled from militia participation. In every way that matters, the militia now = all adults.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of which matters, because the 2nd protects an individual right not connected to the militia.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  23. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Odd that it begins with "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...." then huh?

    Not connected , your butt
     
  24. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because since the passage of the Dick Act...the militia is irrelevant
     
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,701
    Likes Received:
    19,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry you don't like the truth, but the truth it remains.

    "...right of the people..."
    Not the right of the state, the militia, or the people ion the militia, but the people.
     

Share This Page