brickhistory Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 but it's not so neat and clean as a bipolar choice. New York, California, Illinios, DC, and Maryland are very neat and clean choices for me. Colorado passing their law will add another state to that list for me. Not so difficult after all. Sometimes it is a right or wrong issue. Nuancing and compromising on some principles is actually giving them up.
Spartacus Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Out of wedlock birthrates are up all over the world, but the U.S. is pretty much dead in the middle of this group of14 advanced nations. Japan is super-low, Iceland is super-high. I think a lot of that difference is societal and can be linked to the acceptance of out of wedlock births in general, but I'm not sure it's such a terrible malady when 2 of the countries with the consistently highest quality of life ratings are over 50%; doesn't seem to be negatively affecting their society in measurable ways, at least not yet. I see your point but you are missing out on a lot of other factors here. The Scandinavian countries' laws discourage marriage by making it a lot more expensive to be married thereby creating a lot of out of wedlock births. Their culture fosters this much more than our own. Their quality of life is also largely due to oil, hydroelectric power, and fishing industry, which have made the region extremely rich. So, you make a good point but it is moot when these things are factored in.
spaceman Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 The Scandinavian countries' laws discourage marriage by making it a lot more expensive to be married thereby creating a lot of out of wedlock births. Their culture fosters this much more than our own. Honest question, any idea why? Why would they want to discourage people from getting married? And to stay on topic, I got out and shot the Winchester SXP I posted a page or two back. It shoots and cycles great! They way the action is designed the recoil partially pushes the bolt back, so if you apply a little rearward pressure on the forearm while you're holding it, it pretty much opens itself for you as soon as you fire. Very fast! Pretty light on recoil too. I tried shooting some trap with it but with an 18" barrel and no choke I was just chipping a lot of clays and not blowing many up. But I also am very new to trap and I suck at it so that probably didn't help. Still fun though!
Shaft34 Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) I'm a big fan of C&R, which is one reason the gun hysteria isn't affecting me very much. One rifle I'm interested in right now is a Gewehr 1888. It fires an 8mm Mauser round, but does not use the more modern spitzer slug. I've looked everywhere online, but I can't find anyone making it. Does anyone know anything about it? If I can't find rounds for one, I'll probably just stick with my Gew98s. I went to Cabela's today, and they wanted $330 for a Turkish Mauser that looked like someone had used it as a wheel chock. I can remember when gun stores couldn't give them away for $50. Not an expert in this area by any means, but you definitely need to so some research when looking to shoot a Gew 88 rifle. I had a Gew 88/14 which had been modified by the Turks to fire the regular spitzer ammo. There was a small notch in the top of the receiver bridge to allow for the longer pointed bullet. A couple things to note: The Gew 88 used a .318 diameter bore, while the Gew 98/K98 used a .323 bore (the standard 8mm bore today) The 88 rifles are really old, so question the quality of steel work before firing a high pressure load (any load designed for a 98 is bad juju for a 88) I don't know of anyone making ammo specifically for the Gew 88 rifle with a .318 bore. Maybe you can find a custom ammo maker some where who would do this, but it would cost you a lot. More than just buying basic reloading gear and doing it yourself. The best bet is loading some regular 8mm brass with lead bullets swaged to >.318 (like .321 or whatever the land diameter is for your rifle) and use a mild load. Here is a good thread on Gunboards discussing this very issue: https://forums.gunboa...-and-Ammunition Another from arf.com: https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=6&f=14&t=260534 Good luck! Edited February 19, 2013 by Shaft34
HU&W Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Looks like Minnesota Democrats are on board. Here's some language from the gun control bill they've proposed. 10.20 Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS. Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133: (1) remove the weapon from the state; (2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction; (3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or (4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
arg Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 NM is in. https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0402.pdf
bronxbomber252 Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 NM is in. https://www.nmlegis.g...ouse/HB0402.pdf Really hope that doesn't pass, or coming back for an instructor tour in a few years would really blow!
HossHarris Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Colorado passed their background check and mag-limit laws yesterday. Thanks Murray
HeloDude Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 NM is in. https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/13%20Regular/bills/house/HB0402.pdf I'm fairly confident that Gov Martinez will veto any such bill that makes it to her desk. I sure do appreciate the Dems giving the GOP this gift for the 2014 midterms--trying to take people's guns away I don't think will be a popular issue to defend in 18 months.
kabagram Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Absolutely it is worth it. There are some things worth sacrificing material comfort for. It's called taking a stand on principles. I completely understand, brick and I was hoping that was a point someone would make. However, I'd like to present the argument that "taking your ball and going home" isn't "taking a stand on principles". it's retreating, it's shrinking away. Boycotting nearly always fails, because it is, almost by definition, an intentional failure to act as opposed to taking an action. If moving elsewhere were to be gun owner's primary tactic of fighting the 2nd amdendment battle, they'll eventually run out of states to move to.
FreudianSlip Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) I completely understand, brick and I was hoping that was a point someone would make. However, I'd like to present the argument that "taking your ball and going home" isn't "taking a stand on principles". it's retreating, it's shrinking away. Boycotting nearly always fails, because it is, almost by definition, an intentional failure to act as opposed to taking an action. If moving elsewhere were to be gun owner's primary tactic of fighting the 2nd amdendment battle, they'll eventually run out of states to move to. As a CO resident now, I appreciate Brick's stance. As a CO resident I will stay and put in the good fight and ask all those in Colofornia to stay too but if you don't live here, don't spend your hard money in a state that is against freedom. Will this hurt our economy if you don't come here. Probably not. If you are thinking about a vacation to CO and are Pro 2A and decide against, sure write our local reps and let them know this but those that voted for this crap won't care. For instance I have been emailing all the CO reps against this junk legislation almost daily. I received a response for someone in favor of the legislation that stated, and I'm going to paraphrase here, 'you are not in my district so I don't have to respond to you but since you asked I will vote for the legislation.' My rep never responded. Will the FUDS who want to come here to hunt once a year with their bolt action hunting rifles still come. Sure they will. Not much I can do about it. But this will hurt 3 Gun in our state. The Noveske 3G will happen this April in CO but after that, it won't happen any more (I talked with the Match Director about this very thing). This is a National level match with people from all around coming in. Nobody wants to shoot 10 round ARs in a competition. Magpul should leave and take their money with them. The "Ops Amendment" as some CO ®s called is a perfect example of the (D)s lack of intestinal fortitude. They want Magpul's money, just make sure they ship those 30 rounders to other states. Overall, very sick about the subject. This was just more of a rant but again, thanks Brick for your stance. Edited February 19, 2013 by FreudianSlip 2
ecugringo Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 The Denver Post had a good read on the vote. It might actually be tough for the Senate to get it through. Dems hold the Senate 20-15, 18 votes needed, 2 dems are historicaly pro guns. Not all dem in congress voted for it either. www.denverpost.com
arg Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 I'm fairly confident that Gov Martinez will veto any such bill that makes it to her desk. I sure do appreciate the Dems giving the GOP this gift for the 2014 midterms--trying to take people's guns away I don't think will be a popular issue to defend in 18 months. I tend to agree with you, just trying to get this out to as many people as I can.
HeloDude Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 I tend to agree with you, just trying to get this out to as many people as I can. No worries man, you're exaxtly right. Anybody who cares about freedom should write/call their reps. Don't say it too loud though, as we might scare the few libs on here who are scared of guns.
M2 Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 From an AK forum I frequent... Here is a list of the Colorado State Senate and Reps. This is ready to cut and paste into your email address field so we can spam all of them at once. If we are going to put a stop to any potential state legistlation we must come together and write our reps DAILY. So, here you go have at it. Senate: irene.aguilar.senate@state.co.us; david.balmer.senate@state.co.us; randy.baumgardner.senate@state.co.us; greg@gregbrophy.net; bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us; morgan.carroll.senate@state.co.us; larry.crowder.senate@state.co.us; angela.giron.senate@state.co.us; kevin.grantham.senate@state.co.us; lucia.guzman.senate@state.co.us; ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us; rollie.heath.senate@state.co.us; owen.hill.senate@state.co.us; mary.hodge.senate@state.co.us; senatorhudak@gmail.com; cheri.jahn.senate@state.co.us; mike.johnston.senate@state.co.us; senatormattjones@gmail.com; john.kefalas.senate@state.co.us; andy.kerr.senate@state.co.us; steve.king.senate@state.co.us; senatorlambert@comcast.net; kevin@kevinlundberg.com; vicki.marble.senate@state.co.us; john.morse.senate@state.co.us; linda.newell.senate@gmail.com; jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us; senatorrenfroe@gmail.com; ellen.roberts.senate@state.co.us; mark.scheffel.senate@state.co.us; gail.schwartz.senate@gmail.com; pat.steadman.senate@state.co.us; lotochtrop@aol.com; nancy.todd.senate@state.co.us; jessie.ulibarri.senate@state.co.us; House: john.buckner.house@state.co.us; perrybuck49@gmail.com; kathleen.conti.house@state.co.us; don.coram.house@state.co.us; lois.court.house@state.co.us; brian@briandelgrosso.com; tim.dore.house@state.co.us; crisanta.duran.house@state.co.us; justin.everett.house@state.co.us; thomas.exum.house@state.co.us; mferrandino@yahoo.com; rhonda.fields.house@state.co.us; randyfischer@frii.com; mike.foote.house@state.co.us; leroy.garcia.house@state.co.us; bob.gardner.house@state.co.us; cheri.gerou@gmail.com; joann.ginal.house@state.co.us; millie.hamner.house@state.co.us; chris.holbert.house@state.co.us; dl.hullinghorst.house@state.co.us; rephumphrey48@yahoo.com; janak.joshi.house@state.co.us; repkagan@gmail.com; reptracy29@gmail.com; jeanne.labuda.house@state.co.us; lois.landgraf.house@state.co.us; polly.lawrence.house@state.co.us; steve.lebsock.house@state.co.us; pete.lee.house@state.co.us; claire.levy.house@state.co.us; jenise.may.house@state.co.us; beth.mccann.house@state.co.us; mike.mclachlan.house@state.co.us; jovan.melton.house@state.co.us; diane.mitschbush.house@state.co.us; dominick.moreno.house@state.co.us; murrayhouse45@gmail.com; clarice.navarro.house@state.co.us; dan.nordberg.house@state.co.us; dan.pabon.house@state.co.us; cherylin.peniston.house@state.co.us; brittany.pettersen.house@state.co.us; dianne.primavera.house@state.co.us; kpriola@gmail.com; bob.rankin.house@state.co.us; paul.rosenthal.house@state.co.us; su.ryden.house@state.co.us; lori.saine.house@state.co.us; joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us; sue.schafer.house@state.co.us; ray.scott.house@state.co.us; jonathan.singer.house@state.co.us; jerry@repsonnenberg.com; amy.stephens.house@state.co.us; spencer.swalm.house@state.co.us; libby.szabo.house@state.co.us; max@maxtyler.us; edvigil1@gmail.com; mark.waller.house@state.co.us; angela.williams.house@state.co.us; james.wilson.house@state.co.us; jared.wright.house@state.co.us; dave.young.house@state.co.us You want to oppose the following bills: HB-1224, 1226, 1228, and 1229 Apparently Biden was calling all the reps urging them to support this! Good luck to all those in Colorado, the war isn't over yet but you have an uphill fight to stop this! And there's no talk of such shit in Texas. Our Attorney General (who hopefully will be our next governor) has pledged to fully fight any efforts to propose such legislation here. God bless Texas! Cheers! M2 p.s. If this passes, anyone needing a place to sanctuary their prohibited items can feel free to contact me! 1
M2 Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 This is the idiotic mentality that is leading this effort in Colorado... Democratic Lawmaker Says Women Afraid of Rape Can’t Be Trusted With Guns; Later Apologizes Democratic Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar said, “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”
Fuzz Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 However, I'd like to present the argument that "taking your ball and going home" isn't "taking a stand on principles". it's retreating, it's shrinking away. Boycotting nearly always fails, because it is, almost by definition, an intentional failure to act as opposed to taking an action. If moving elsewhere were to be gun owner's primary tactic of fighting the 2nd amdendment battle, they'll eventually run out of states to move to. No gun owners will consolidate in states like texas and oklahoma and other gun friendly states, the rest of the states that ban weapons and drive gun owners out will turn into shitholes like chicago and DC. Theres only two ways to stay and fight...surrender your weapons and continue to lobby or outright rebel keep your guns and then we'll see a couple dozen Wacos, unfortunately thats a hard decision for those of us that are stuck in certain states.
kabagram Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Gun owners will shrink back and consolidate in a handful of gun friendly states while the states that they left see their leftist politicians move on unchallenged to Washington and enact the same policies on a national level. Texas and Oklahoma may be safe, but that's the very reason gun owners should be taking thier agenda elsewhere. Because Texas and Oklahoma and the diminishing number of gun friendly states can't fight the rest of the country in Congress. Retreating and consolidating is a losing strategy. Every gun owner in every state needs to stand thier ground and do what M2 suggests, petitition every representative to throw out these bills and enact gun friendly legislation. If Colorado gun owners had so passionately expressed their beliefs to thier reps (as the left did) prior to the votes on these bills, it may well have turned out differently. Unfortunately, the conservative method of approaching a problem with a cooler, reserved, rational response isn't as effective in garnering popular attention to an issue as liberal, loud, emotional knee-jerk reactions. Not buying houses, lift-tickets, and hunting licenses in Colorado isn't going to make a damn bit of difference on the gun issue. No one is going to correlate a negative economic impact with mistakes on a single issue in a state legislature. It'll be blamed on a whole host of broader economic political issues such as drugs, immigration, etc. What liberal politician wouldn't relish the fact that all he would have to do to get conservatives to leave his state would be voting for anti-gun legislation? Stay and fight. Saying you'll be forced to surrender your weapon or suffer a Waco is, as of now, a false dilemma. There's still time to keep it that way. Edited February 19, 2013 by kabagram
bronxbomber252 Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 What we really need is for one of these state laws to make it to the supreme court and be squashed.
FreudianSlip Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 From a CO shooting forum I visit (thank goodness it's a slow day at the office) someone suggested: Since HB13-1224 is the only one related to out of staters, I have started to send the note below off to out of staters: Here is the gov's facebook page, tell him to veto HB13-1224... https://www.facebook....ohnHickenlooper I agree, boycotting CO won't make enough of an impact that the (D)s who want this will notice but I do believe it is the principle that matters in this situation. Any non-CO residents want to voice their opinion, the Gov's Facebook thingy (whatever that is) would be a good place to post civil disagreement.
brickhistory Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 In those states where there is no chance of stopping the liberal anti-gun juggernaut, I'm sorry, I vote with my feet and my money. The legislature and governor have both very clearly said they are going to f' you, no matter what I want, AND enough of the masses want them to do it, then I'm outta there. It's all fun and games until the productive tax base is gone. I am pleased that industry is not lying back and taking this for England, but going back at the states - ok fine, we'll move to where we are wanted. Or we won't sell to you what you won't let ordinary citizens have. F'in' A, bubba! Eventually, we will run out of states, I admit. But until then, those that want to control me for simply existing can kiss my ass. The nation will be Europe II anyway by then. I wonder if Texas and Alaska can hold us all? (BTW, Texas, alone among all the rest of the states, has its own power grid per state law. It is hooked into the national grid, but the power is generated within the state and the state grid can be unhooked from the national. Purty smart thinkin' for them Texicans...)
HeloDude Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Eventually, we will run out of states, I admit. I could care less if we're down to one State, as long as that's the one that I am in. I wonder if Texas and Alaska can hold us all? Texas will be Colorado in 20-30 years. Hispanics are by far the fasting growing demographic and they are currently being born 50% out of wedlock which is more of a recipe for requiring welfare than not...couple that with that they recently voted 70% for a politician that promised everybody free stuff and there you have it--solid and growing base for the Dems (Bush never even got to 45%) . Throw in the wild card that the GOP might be stupid enough to allow the illegals to become citizens and then it's even worse. All I'm saying is that if you're trying to forecast what a State will be like, you can't just look at its current makeup. Texas is a no-go for me. But as always when it comes to this issue, I hope I am wrong.
brickhistory Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 BTW, I read the NM gun bill. Except for the magazine restrictions which is 10-15 (what happened to the Holy Grail of 10 or less?), the entire thing bans weapons due to cosmetic reasons. Absolutely every item listed was an adjective about appearance, not function - pistol grip/flash suppressor/thumbhole stockbayonet lug/adjustable stock, etc, etc, etc. They're not even trying hard. This ought to be a slam dunk legal case if it passes. Hopefully, the Gov does veto it.
HU&W Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Vice President Joe Biden suggested today that the best thing to do if you want to defend yourself is "buy a shotgun." He says that AR-15's are not very good for personal defense because they are "harder to aim" and you "shouldn't need 30 rounds to defend yourself." Therefore, passing an AWB won't be that big of a deal. He's trained his wife that if an intruder enters their home, she should take the double barreled shotgun onto the balcony and fire two shots into the air. That way the intruder will run away. Edit: found the video and it's much better than my summary. Edited February 20, 2013 by HU&W 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now