Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=370667)

CrufflerJJ | 04-27-2009 11:15 AM
Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" It's still hard for me to believe how a highly intelligent (former nuke boat driver) person can be so mistaken about firearms. Oh well....I guess everybody has the right to be mistaken about something. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/op...rter.html?_r=1 What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? By JIMMY CARTER Published: April 26, 2009 THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons {there's NO SUCH THING as a semiauto "assault weapon"} like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994. When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired. I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes.{GOSH! Two of his rifles have SCOPES! I guess that means that Jimmy supports the right of people to own eeeeevil "sniper" rifles, huh?} I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office. But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult. An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints {cough, choke, gag} like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase. A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands. Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case. Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty.{such as just about ANY centerfire rifle ammo - how unreasonable!} In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows. What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people {like the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, 1903 Springfield, 1917, .30-40 Krag,.......}? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide. Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute. The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.{gosh - I'm glad to learn that these eeeeevil weapons were designed only to kill police officers & us poor little sheeple. I'll remember that the next time I take an AR15 out to the range to do some target shooting.} Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Iptuous | 04-27-2009 11:23 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Oh, goddamit. now i'm foaming at the mouth, and my coworkers are looking at me funny.... thanks, Cruf! :wink:

Twisted Avatar | 04-27-2009 11:33 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" 1 Attachment(s) I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office. But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult. How about I want to own them because I fear that the Gubbermint might over step it bounds and infringe on my personal freedom or my abilty to protect those whom I love?? Nah........ Im just being silly........ Gubbermint ALWAYS does the right thing for the people.

CrufflerJJ | 04-27-2009 11:50 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Iptuous (Post 1696200) Oh, goddamit. now i'm foaming at the mouth, and my coworkers are looking at me funny.... thanks, Cruf! :wink:
Always glad to help!bancha

GreenSpirit | 04-27-2009 11:59 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Iptuous (Post 1696200) Oh, goddamit. now i'm foaming at the mouth, and my coworkers are looking at me funny.... thanks, Cruf! :wink:
That's cubicle-life for ya!

Chris_Is_Here | 04-27-2009 02:09 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" It is essential to oppose EVERY effort to control or limit gun ownership, no matter how innocuos THEY make it sound....the zombie-sheep do not realize is that once an "assault weapons" ban is in place, it only takes a few small incremental steps to move to an outright ban.....you simply amend the bill to keep expanding the definition of what constitues an "assault weapon" until no one can own anything.....

Twisted Avatar | 04-27-2009 02:48 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Is_Here (Post 1696496) It is essential to oppose EVERY effort to control or limit gun ownership, no matter how innocuos THEY make it sound....the zombie-sheep do not realize is that once an "assault weapons" ban is in place, it only takes a few small incremental steps to move to an outright ban.....you simply amend the bill to keep expanding the definition of what constitues an "assault weapon" until no one can own anything.....
Like we can actually "stop" them. These hacks just go through the motions of rules and ammendments to give the false appearence that procedure and protocol somehow matter. One must Understand: POWER IS RAW FORCE.......IT OFFERS NO EXPLAINATION WHEN IT IS DISPLAYED ............THE VICTIM IS LEFT TO INTERPET THE ACTIONS AFTER IT HAS OCCURED. POWER MOVES AND MOVES CONFIDENTLY. They will do as they please just as they have always done.........you better do likewise when they show up at your door. T

elroy | 04-27-2009 06:32 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Here is an article on the Law Enforcement Alliance of America website that explains why the public believes so many police chiefs are against private citizens owning guns. http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20...susguncon.html These law enforcement groups are funneled money by federal bureaucrats and congresscritters who are for gun control. The position advanced by these groups don't necessarilly reflect the opinion of the members. Carter seems like a decent honest guy with good intentions but .......

45 ACP | 04-27-2009 06:34 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend
That has to be the stupidest line in the article. Yep, a bunch of gun makers got in a back room and designed guns to only kill police officers and those they defend. What a tard.

CQC McDuck | 04-27-2009 06:42 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" I guess this piece by Jimmy Carter underscores why people are buying guns and ammo like there's no tomorrow. TPTB, via the Democrats, are coming for the guns that are able to defend individual liberty the best. You can't defend yourself against a modern tyrannical government with a muzzle loader, and TPTB know it.

Twisted Avatar | 04-27-2009 06:44 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by 45 ACP (Post 1696901) That has to be the stupidest line in the article. Yep, a bunch of gun makers got in a back room and designed guns to only kill police officers and those they defend. What a tard.
What is more frightening is the sheep will read this article and wont even have a passing attempt at critical thinking. They will swallow that pap hook line and sinker. JC said Blah , blah blah... When I read stuff like this it makes my aniexety level rise because It is futher proof just how stupid and blind those around me are. I need more ammo..... T

Irons | 04-27-2009 06:45 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" I dont really think things are going to shit, unless you live in the city, its pretty much game over at that point

nunaem | 04-27-2009 07:03 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" How many people are shot by 'assault rifles' each year? Whatever it is, I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number killed by pistols. Why aren't they going after pistols? Because a war can't be won with pistols. Battle rifles are the only guns that threaten their power.

Mill Man | 04-27-2009 07:43 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerJJ (Post 1696183) It's still hard for me to believe how a highly intelligent (former nuke boat driver) person can be so mistaken about firearms. Oh well....I guess everybody has the right to be mistaken about something. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/op...rter.html?_r=1 What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? By JIMMY CARTER Published: April 26, 2009 Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States � a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.}[/COLOR] Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
Sounds to me like he just admitted that the U.S. gov is supplying weapons to the cartels. Certainly a neutered version of a 45 year old rifle is not advanced weaponry so the only logical conclusion is that jim jim here is referencing the anti aircraft MG, grenades, and other weapons the cartels have been caught with.

Dirty Harry | 04-27-2009 08:14 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" :banana:THANKS Jimmy for giving me the incentive to purchase another 1000 rounds of 7.62x39 for my "BLACK NASTY".bancha:banana:bancha:banana:bancha

Elvis | 04-27-2009 08:58 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Mine is especially designed to kill tyrants.

EireGoBragh | 04-27-2009 08:59 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Carter needs to just lay down.....

GoldWampum | 04-27-2009 09:00 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by 45 ACP (Post 1696901) That has to be the stupidest line in the article. Yep, a bunch of gun makers got in a back room and designed guns to only kill police officers and those they defend. What a tard.
No shit... and who are these "those that they defend". Must be themselves and politicians, because all they do otherwise is show up AFTER THE CRIME and do an investigagtion, file a report. Someone tell me, how does that defend anyone? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

morganchaser | 04-27-2009 09:03 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1696550) Like we can actually "stop" them. These hacks just go through the motions of rules and ammendments to give the false appearence that procedure and protocol somehow matter. One must Understand: POWER IS RAW FORCE.......IT OFFERS NO EXPLAINATION WHEN IT IS DISPLAYED ............THE VICTIM IS LEFT TO INTERPET THE ACTIONS AFTER IT HAS OCCURED. POWER MOVES AND MOVES CONFIDENTLY. They will do as they please just as they have always done.........you better do likewise when they show up at your door. T
One of the most insightful things I've ever heard you say. :)

Twisted Avatar | 04-27-2009 09:10 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by morganchaser (Post 1697104) One of the most insightful things I've ever heard you say. :)
In Between the freakouts every so often I do manage to make a point that has a stroke of sense to it. Thank you very much kind sir :ok:

poor boy | 04-27-2009 09:13 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerJJ (Post 1696183) to kill people {like the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, 1903 Springfield, 1917, .30-40 Krag,.......}? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
Yep ,people are dropping like fly's do to being shot with M1 Garands.....

CrufflerJJ | 04-28-2009 08:36 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by poor boy (Post 1697119) Yep ,people are dropping like fly's do to being shot with M1 Garands.....
Well, if I got shot with a Garand, I'd probably drop, too! And then there's all those drive-by bayonet attacks we keep hearing about - ought to outlaw "assault bayonets" as well as anything sharp & nasty. For the children.

CrufflerJJ | 04-28-2009 08:37 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" 1 Attachment(s) Quote:
Originally Posted by EireGoBragh (Post 1697098) Carter needs to just lay down.....
Nice Avatar - KTW 9mm??

Squirrel Bait | 04-28-2009 09:19 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 1697036) Jimmy Carter is a terrist.
Was he a veteran?? Yeah, he's a terrorist. An idiot, too. s

Tn...Andy | 04-28-2009 09:38 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" I still had a small amount of respect for Carter.....didn't agree with a lot of his positions, and voted him out for that reason, but as an honest, moral man, I think he was probably the best guy in the Oval office from that standpoint in a long time..... But if this is his understanding of the 2nd amendment, I have lost even that tiny amount of respect. What a puttzz.....

Shoden | 04-28-2009 10:33 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Tn...Andy (Post 1697809) I still had a small amount of respect for Carter.....didn't agree with a lot of his positions, and voted him out for that reason, but as an honest, moral man, I think he was probably the best guy in the Oval office from that standpoint in a long time..... But if this is his understanding of the 2nd amendment, I have lost even that tiny amount of respect. What a puttzz.....
I'm not old enough to have voted Carter out of office, but other than that, your post states my feelings exactly.

Twisted Avatar | 04-28-2009 10:39 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Tn...Andy (Post 1697809) I still had a small amount of respect for Carter.....didn't agree with a lot of his positions, and voted him out for that reason, but as an honest, moral man, I think he was probably the best guy in the Oval office from that standpoint in a long time..... But if this is his understanding of the 2nd amendment, I have lost even that tiny amount of respect. What a puttzz.....
Nothing moral about him as far as I can spit. He was a dam gatekeeper to make sure that true information on Three Mile island never reached the public. The Cancer count in that area is STILL off the meter but somehow nobody is able to make a "connection" back to the 3MI Screw Jimmy Farter. T

SLV>GLD | 04-28-2009 10:50 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" I always gave him credit for being in the mj decriminalization camp. I, too, am too young to make any experienced opinions on the man. I've never known anyone to speak very favorably of his tenure but always good things about the man.

EE_ | 04-28-2009 11:02 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerJJ (Post 1697737) Nice Avatar - KTW 9mm??
Are these still illegal? Would there be an advantage to using them in the event you can no longer find hollow points? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_abaJ0xbRju...sum+bullet.jpg http://forum.pafoa.org/imagehosting/...b41e84e200.jpg

Twisted Avatar | 04-28-2009 11:14 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by EE_ (Post 1697962) Are these still illegal? Would there be an advantage to using them in the event you can no longer find hollow points? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_abaJ0xbRju...sum+bullet.jpg http://forum.pafoa.org/imagehosting/...b41e84e200.jpg
What are they?? What are they referred to as?? What are the details when it makes contact with the target??

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 AM. |
Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons"

Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=370667)

Chris_Is_Here | 04-28-2009 11:16 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1696550) Like we can actually "stop" them. These hacks just go through the motions of rules and ammendments to give the false appearence that procedure and protocol somehow matter. One must Understand: POWER IS RAW FORCE.......IT OFFERS NO EXPLAINATION WHEN IT IS DISPLAYED ............THE VICTIM IS LEFT TO INTERPET THE ACTIONS AFTER IT HAS OCCURED. POWER MOVES AND MOVES CONFIDENTLY. They will do as they please just as they have always done.........you better do likewise when they show up at your door. T
I don't disagree, TA, but I believe we are obligated to fight the good fight right up until the end, even when we know what is coming.... Personally, I will play by their rules and fight within the system as long as I can....knowing full well that there will come a day when the gloves are thrown off, the illusions are cast aside, and the fight is on..... C~

hypervel | 04-28-2009 11:22 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" A bolt action rifle is like opening a bag of chips with only 4 chips in the bag. A hi cap semi auto is like opening a can of Pringles.

SLV>GLD | 04-28-2009 11:24 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1697989) What are they?? What are they referred to as?? What are the details when it makes contact with the target??
It is a manually cut bullet nose, done with a sharp knife and preferably cut-proof gloves. Some folks call them X-bullets. Some manufacturers produce factory made versions. It was the old-school way to get more expansion out of lead-nosed bullets before the advent of precision ground hollow-points. The effects range from increased expansion and fragmentation (especially of the jacket) to squibs (round stuck in bore) to no noticeable difference at all. The technique has been popularized by some Westerns that escape my mind at this time.

Twisted Avatar | 04-28-2009 11:30 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" 1 Attachment(s) Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Is_Here (Post 1697993) I don't disagree, TA, but I believe we are obligated to fight the good fight right up until the end, even when we know what is coming.... Personally, I will play by their rules and fight within the system as long as I can....knowing full well that there will come a day when the gloves are thrown off, the illusions are cast aside, and the fight is on..... C~
Just give my a holler and we will be back to back whipping @$$ :ok:

EireGoBragh | 04-28-2009 11:33 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerJJ (Post 1697737) Nice Avatar - KTW 9mm??
Yep... KTW ...the original teflon coated brass bullet

EE_ | 04-28-2009 12:01 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1697989) What are they?? What are they referred to as?? What are the details when it makes contact with the target??
Since the 1890's, they were call "dum dum bullets"...I know they were illegal in the 70's. They're supposed to break apart on impact and spread to several areas of the body. Read: this pretty much answered my question http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot32.htm

Twisted Avatar | 04-28-2009 12:16 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by EE_ (Post 1698082) Since the 1890's, they were call "dum dum bullets"...I know they were illegal in the 70's. They're supposed to break apart on impact and spread to several areas of the body. Read: this pretty much answered my question http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot32.htm
Lessons learned: 1. Cutting "x"s in bullets is harder than you might imagine. 2. It might make them slightly more effective than Ball, but not nearly as effective as modern Jacketed Hollow Points. 3. The .45 ACP did not expand at all. This is probably the result of a much thicker jacket than the 9mm. 4. The lead .38 Special shed its petals, but didn't expand at all. 5. Cutting the end off a rifle Ball cartridge will definitely make the bullet expand or break up. Would this make it more lethal? Probably. But not as much as a modern JSP (Jacketed Soft Point) bullet. 6. Reversing a Ball bullet will cause it to expand and break up. Old Elmer said that it killed game just fine. But Elmer didn't have access to modern JSP ammo. If he had, I'm sure he would have preferred it.

CrufflerJJ | 04-28-2009 02:22 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by EE_ (Post 1697962) Are these still illegal? Would there be an advantage to using them in the event you can no longer find hollow points?
OF COURSE they're illegal! Everything is illegal - just to different extents. You can make your own "dumdum" bullets like the ones pictures, using a Dremel tool cutting disc (fiber reinforced abrasive disc, turning lots-o-thousands of times per minute). No need for sharp knives, cut hands & the like. The downside to doing this with a jacketed bullet is that many jacketed bullets are only jacketed at the "front" - the lead base is exposed. Upon firing, you run the risk of the lead core squeezing THROUGH the open (crosscut) hole in the jacket nose, leaving the jacket -somewhere- in the bore. This can lead to an unpleasant "surprise" (or at least a ringed bore) with the next round you fire. There ARE fully jacketed bullets, but they're less common (mainly used to reduce lead emissions at indoor ranges). "Dumduming" a lead bullet might help with expansion/fragmentation. You could always just dimple the nose of a round nosed bullet with a center punch, then use a drill to open a pseudo hollow point. I think there are also tools available to form a hollow point in .22LR bullets.

EE_ | 04-28-2009 04:02 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Any reloaders here ever experiment with casting 1/2" Hilti pins into lead bullets and test them on steel plate for penetration?

CrufflerJJ | 04-28-2009 04:56 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by EE_ (Post 1698532) Any reloaders here ever experiment with casting 1/2" Hilti pins into lead bullets and test them on steel plate for penetration?
Nope! I didn't even know what a Hilti pin was till I Googled it. I suspect you'd need -something- to keep it centered along the axis of the bullet. Velocity would probably be HIGHLY important for armor penetration, which might make things difficult with a lead bullet "carrier" (unless you like lead plating your weapon's bore). Drilling (?milling?) a hole in the exact center of a jacketed round for the hardened pin might work out better if you want to punch through very light armor.

Irons | 04-29-2009 11:02 AM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerJJ (Post 1698626) Nope! I didn't even know what a Hilti pin was till I Googled it. I suspect you'd need -something- to keep it centered along the axis of the bullet. Velocity would probably be HIGHLY important for armor penetration, which might make things difficult with a lead bullet "carrier" (unless you like lead plating your weapon's bore). Drilling (?milling?) a hole in the exact center of a jacketed round for the hardened pin might work out better if you want to punch through very light armor.
Lots of chinee AK ammo has just that.I have no idea how old it is but the penetrator go's right through a lot of steel. In one side and out of the other on a motorcycle fork at least.

CrufflerJJ | 04-29-2009 03:25 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by Irons (Post 1699848) Lots of chinee AK ammo has just that.I have no idea how old it is but the penetrator go's right through a lot of steel. In one side and out of the other on a motorcycle fork at least.
The run-of-the-mill Chinese steel core ammo imported before the mid-1990s isn't true armor piercing. It has a mild steel core, because the steel was cheaper or more available than lead. You see the same thing with lots of ComBloc 7.62x54R ammo. Nice AP stuff like the black tip bullets used in some .30-06 rounds has a hardened steel penetrator. Of course, since even mild steel core 7.62x39 is "eeeeevil" according to the politicians, no more could be imported after the mid-90s (since a company, I forgot their name, decided to chamber a pistol in that caliber).

leadfoot | 04-29-2009 06:42 PM
Re: Jimmy Carter's Position on "Assault Weapons" Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerJJ (Post 1696183) Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
Everyone keeps saying that while he is an idiot, JC is honorable and truthful. Am I missing something? Was Reagan in favor of gun bans? Reagan on Gun Control and Self-Defense Quote:
My thanks to blogger Mark Alexander and his Patriot Post for digging up this great quote from our last truly great president, Ronald Reagan, concerning gun control: "You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." It seems to me that Reagan would have known all too well how to relate to last week's massacre at Virginia Tech. After all, he said those words in 1983, after surviving John Hinckley's assassination attempt in 1981. Indeed, Reagan wasn't a newcomer to his conviction. Back in 1975, then-Governor Reagan wrote: "Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection." Yet, time after time, we Americans will cede our responsibility -- and our rights -- to the government in a desperate attempt to guarantee our safety. But the tradeoff is an illusion: we do not become more safe, and it is not free. Again, Reagan speaks to this fact: "There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism -- government." It may be that Americans are waking up to the Pyrrhic nature of gun control laws and will instead reassert their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. The State of Tennessee has certainly moved in the right direction here. But as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently put it, it is still likely that some sort of "people control" will be sought as a result of this latest travesty. "Whenever something terrible happens," Paul explains, "people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty." Do we really want security cameras and checkpoints to fill every corner of America? Do we really want extensive intrusion into our medical records and the risk of involuntary internment in medical asylums? As Reagan often said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." Government is the problem here for the very reasons Reagan states above: its promises of security actually make us less secure. The solution -- as much of a solution that can reasonably be expected in a fallen world where evil people will always seek to do evil things -- is personal responsibility. It is the exercise of self-defense -- by exercising our right to bear arms, of course, but also through use of common sense and appropriate caution. And, as ACRU Policy Board member Walter Williams explained so well, this personal responsibility has to include appropriate parental oversight. In the wake of yet another massacre in a "gun free" zone, we could use some of Ronald Reagan's wisdom. Perhaps then we -- as individual Americans and not as the state collective -- can avert or lessen such senseless travesties.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 AM. |
Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM