Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

a reply to: darkbake

Sound's like a perspective addicted to the Kool-Aid, to me.

Sooooooooooooooo . . .

WHY ON EARTH

would you ASSUME

that the blokes in power . . . who have stated in dozens of writings and speeches . . .

that their goal is to remove all guns from the citizens . . .

and that limitations along the way are merely frog-in-the-bucket

STRATEGIES

toward getting all guns out of the hands of all citizens . . .

WHY ON EARTH would you

ASSUME

that such politicos had GIVEN UP

such goals and strategies?

Such an assumption strikes me as sheer and utter suicidal lunacy of the worst order and greatest degree.

Sigh.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm really just curious about the relative rates of fire between the two rifles. I'm not making any point about it.

By todays standards a musket would be a pinto.

And AR would be a ferrari.

Rate of fire is rather meaningless to begin with.

Because the most important factor is AIM.

Stationary targets not a big deal.

Moving that takes SKILL.

They don't want to ban guns, they just want to make it harder to own guns.

0_o

So we still have the same freedoms, we just have to beg for them now.

0_o

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not own one....so I cannot provide 1st person data on that.
Sorry

You've been kind to provide what you have.

Thanks again.

EDIT: ... wait a minute ... is the .223 semi the same as an AR-15?

The .223 is a HUNTING round.

The military calls it 5.56.

While the external case dimensions are very similar, the .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm differ in both maximum pressure and chamber shape.

en.wikipedia.org...

The AR is not a 'weapon of war'.

a reply to: neo96

As you likely know, but to educate the uneducated here I offer this tidbit. With regard to aim, the musket was a smooth bore, whereas a rifle has rifling grooves. A smooth bore is much less accurate at distance than a rifle. SO, again, it is not a fair comparison.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm really just curious about the relative rates of fire between the two rifles. I'm not making any point about it.

By todays standards a musket would be a pinto.

And AR would be a ferrari.

Rate of fire is rather meaningless to begin with.

Because the most important factor is AIM.

Stationary targets not a big deal.

Moving that takes SKILL.

I agree with one caveat. A room full of moving people takes no skill. Ya know "fish in a barrel". So rate of fire isn't meaningless if we are being honest.

a reply to: neo96

So what you're telling me is ...

IF a skilled musket shooter like Krakatoa and I (owner of my dad's 12-gauge double barrel) were standing side by side,

He had the Brown Bess and I had the AR-15 ... he could shoot 3 times a minute and I could shoot what ... 15 or 20 shots in about 3 seconds?

I really had no idea. Thanks guys!

a reply to: neo96

So what you're telling me is ...

IF a skilled musket shooter like Krakatoa and I (owner of my dad's 12-gauge double barrel) were standing side by side,

He had the Brown Bess and I had the AR-15 ... he could shoot 3 times a minute and I could shoot what ... 15 or 20 shots in about 3 seconds?

I really had no idea. Thanks guys!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Krakota would hit his target every time.

You may be once.

I could shoot what ... 15 or 20 shots in about 3 seconds?

That's what they call spraying and praying.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Krakota would hit his target every time.

You may be once.

What if I practiced?

a reply to: Gryphon66

What's the target?
Is it moving?
How far is the target?
What are the wind conditions?
Day or night?
Quiet or noisy with a haze of black powder smoke in the air obstructing our view?

Rate of fire is irrelevant to a well regulated (i.e. trained) marksmen. But seems to be of concern to someone that is not well regulated, and very dangerous.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

What's the target?
Is it moving?
How far is the target?
What are the wind conditions?
Day or night?
Quiet or noisy with a haze of black powder smoke in the air obstructing our view?

Rate of fire is irrelevant to a well regulated (i.e. trained) marksmen. But seems to be of concern to someone that is not well regulated, and very dangerous.

But anyone can become a better shot if they work at it ... Right?

a reply to: Gryphon66

If they are well trained by a competent instructor...and thy apply themselves, Yes. How this is relevant I do no know. It has nothing to do with morals or intent....it is simply knowledge. Knowledge is agnostic, it is the person with the knowledge that makes the conscious decision what they will do with that knowledge. And, everyone is not the same either. Short of a full-blown psych profile, which might get you a high level of confidence (perhaps 70%) that the person will not use that knowledge for nefarious purposes.

ETA: And once trained, you will quicky realize that Rate of Fire is irrelevant. Accuracy is a lot more effective than speed.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

What's the target?
Is it moving?
How far is the target?
What are the wind conditions?
Day or night?
Quiet or noisy with a haze of black powder smoke in the air obstructing our view?

Rate of fire is irrelevant to a well regulated (i.e. trained) marksmen. But seems to be of concern to someone that is not well regulated, and very dangerous.

See...that's sort of the argument. It's the people who aren't trained and regulated that have access to the same level of firearm to someone that is. I think the fish in a barrel analogy really sums up with what people are concerned about.

All this gun talk makes me want to hit the range.....

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neo96

A sharp stick is an "assault weapon".

A closed fist can be an assault weapon.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

So what you're telling me is ...

IF a skilled musket shooter like Krakatoa and I (owner of my dad's 12-gauge double barrel) were standing side by side,

He had the Brown Bess and I had the AR-15 ... he could shoot 3 times a minute and I could shoot what ... 15 or 20 shots in about 3 seconds?

I really had no idea. Thanks guys!

Wrong. An AR semi auto can maybe shoot 2 rounds in a second. One squeeze, one bullet.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
He had the Brown Bess and I had the AR-15 ... he could shoot 3 times a minute and I could shoot what ... 15 or 20 shots in about 3 seconds?

Do you think you could pull an AR-15 trigger 5-7 separate times in a second?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
He had the Brown Bess and I had the AR-15 ... he could shoot 3 times a minute and I could shoot what ... 15 or 20 shots in about 3 seconds?

Do you think you could pull an AR-15 trigger 5-7 separate times in a second?

It would double feed before the second round even went off rofl. People that want these bans don't even know what they are banning, its 100% emotional, nothing more.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: xuenchen

Of course. Why can't you get this through your thick skull? It's not about taking guns from legitimate people, and it never has been. I would tell you what it's about but you already know. If you didn't before this thread Gryphon has explained it to you again. You're not that dense, are you?

But what are you complaining about? The sit-in protest is over. There will be no vote.
Terrorists and other assorted killers can still buy guns, so you got what you want. Congratulations.

But there was a vote, 4 of them, even Democrats voted down the 4 seperate gun control bills. Why? Why vote them down 4 times only to stage a sit-in to demand that the House votes on a dead bill. This has never happened, ever.

Even if every gun on the entire planet was ruled illegal, terrorists and other assorted killers could still purchase guns. The only people that would be stopped would be honest citizens.