9 day Penna gun/outdoor show cancelled due to outrage over firearms ban

[unlinked]

Originally Posted by glocke12

You know, you can spin this any way that suits you. The bottom line is that the sporting community was outraged by Reeds actions and banded together to boycott this years show. There are simply no if's, ands, or buts.

There are companies that decided to boycott that will lose alot of business this year.

Talking about spin I don't see a firearms ban.

[duneriderltr450]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

I don't doubt that rural people need rifles to shoot rabbits. Do they need rifles configured so that they can be fired at automatic rifle rates? Do they need fake bayonet mounts? You may think it is an amusing fad, but, the reality is that people die because of it.

Wow I didnt know my bayonet mount could be so deadly. Also, just because it looks like an 'assault weapon' doesn't mean it's an automatic...

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Assau...automatic-guns

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

What features make them excellent hunting rifles?

Are they particularly accurate?

What feature do they possess that works better for hunting than other rifles?

Yes, AR15's are incredibly accurate. Direct gas impingement lends to accuracy in a way piston driven semi automatic rifles cant touch. 15 years ago bolt action rifles were the standard for long range competition shooters, but now AR15's tend to be way more popular.

Also AR15's have vast aftermarket support for accessories and they are easily accurized. Really, add a stainless barrel, good glass, and a free float rail and you can get clean hits out to 700 yards all day with a good load.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by glocke12

its also a hell of alot more humane than some of the alternatives which includes poison.

You missed the point. It isn't something that should be celebrated.

Originally Posted by hulugu

If you want to fix the land, you need fewer black rifles and more black-footed ferrets.

Ferrets are awesome.

[IBradMac]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Yes, AR15's are incredibly accurate. Direct gas impingement lends to accuracy in a way piston driven semi automatic rifles cant touch. 15 years ago bolt action rifles were the standard for long range competition shooters, but now AR15's tend to be way more popular.

Also AR15's have vast aftermarket support for accessories and they are easily accurized. Really, add a stainless barrel, good glass, and a free float rail and you can get clean hits out to 700 yards all day with a good load.

Yeah with the .308 not so much the .223

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by duneriderltr450

Wow I didnt know my bayonet mount could be so deadly.

Deadly in the hands of some "misguided individual" (observing the niceties of MR) who thinks he looks like Rambo.

Also, just because it looks like an 'assault weapon' doesn't mean it's an automatic...

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Assau...automatic-guns

I think this has been pointed out about 50 times by now, but, some configurations of semi-automatics fire as rapidly as some automatics. Not too long ago, I heard someone shooting at a firing range. It sounded like a fully-automatic to me, like an old M16 in auto-mode. I was surprised that someone would risk that at a firing range. Since then, I have realized that some semi-automatics can be legally configured to fire that fast. The URL below is one of thousands you can Google of people showing off how fast they let loose.

So, do tell, what exactly is the difference between an automatic, and, a AR15 with sliding fire butt stock and a belt conversion:

http://www.gunblast.com/SlideFire.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_D-g1mWxg

Oh, and one more thing-- what does the "AR" in AR15 stand for?

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Yes, AR15's are incredibly accurate. Direct gas impingement lends to accuracy in a way piston driven semi automatic rifles cant touch. 15 years ago bolt action rifles were the standard for long range competition shooters, but now AR15's tend to be way more popular.

Also AR15's have vast aftermarket support for accessories and they are easily accurized. Really, add a stainless barrel, good glass, and a free float rail and you can get clean hits out to 700 yards all day with a good load.

So, tell me, is there any reason to think that a bolt action competition rifle would not be as or more accurate than a souped-up AR15? What can the modified AR15 do, other than fire more rapidly?

[duneriderltr450]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Deadly in the hands of some "misguided individual" (observing the niceties of MR) who thinks he looks like Rambo.



I think this has been pointed out about 50 times by now, but, some configurations of semi-automatics fire as rapidly as some automatics. Not too long ago, I heard someone shooting at a firing range. It sounded like a fully-automatic to me, like an old M16 in auto-mode. I was surprised that someone would risk that at a firing range. Since then, I have realized that some semi-automatics can be legally configured to fire that fast. The URL below is one of thousands you can Google of people showing off how fast they let loose.

So, do tell, what exactly is the difference between an automatic, and, a AR15 with sliding fire butt stock and a belt conversion:

http://www.gunblast.com/SlideFire.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_D-g1mWxg

Oh, and one more thing-- what does the "AR" in AR15 stand for?

Yes you are right about the slide fire stock. Those things are junk and almost everyone I have ran into that owns one, from what i saw is an irresponsible gun owner.

AR stands for ArmaLite.

http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf

Page 3 near the bottom.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by IBradMac

Yeah with the .308 not so much the .223

Depends on the shooter. I've seen competitive shooters run rings around 7.62NATO with 77gr match 5.56 ammo.

----------

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

So, tell me, is there any reason to think that a bolt action competition rifle would not be as or more accurate than a souped-up AR15? What can the modified AR15 do, other than fire more rapidly?

That's not the right question. Your typical bolt gun is more of a pain in the ass to get accurate, keep accurate, and configure to meet your shooting objectives.

[IBradMac]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Depends on the shooter. I've seen competitive shooters run rings around 7.62NATO with 77gr match 5.56 ammo.

----------



That's not the right question. Your typical bolt gun is more of a pain in the ass to get accurate, keep accurate, and configure to meet your shooting objectives.

I was referring to longer range shooting.
77 gr requires a lot more doping on the scope than say 150 gr.

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Depends on the shooter. I've seen competitive shooters run rings around 7.62NATO with 77gr match 5.56 ammo.

My dad has an older 25-35 (small caliber high velocity round) lever action that is dead nuts accurate, even with only the iron sights on it. If i remember correctly it is sighted in at 200 yards and I can pick of a ground hog at that distance.

We don't use it a whole lot because ammo can be a pain to get for it. I am in the process of making my own rounds for it so we can use it more. It is such a nice low recoil yet powerful gun to shoot.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by duneriderltr450

Yes you are right about the slide fire stock. Those things are junk and almost everyone I have ran into that owns one, from what i saw is an irresponsible gun owner.

This could be the basis for a rational discussion. To some extent, the problem we are facing is one of the First Amendment as much as the Second. Gun manufacturers are promoting ownership of weapons to irresponsible gun owners and the NRA is fueling that. The question is how to put a lid on it.

One way to do it is to try to restrict the sale of weapons that have particular appeal to impulsive irresponsible people. Another way would be for organizations like the NRA to stop their irresponsible speech.

In recent weeks, I have followed up on a number of these YouTube references that get posted, and naturally, "related" videos are suggested. It is amazing how many times the person with the loaded gun turns towards and camera and smiles before shooting. For some reason, "Darwin Award" comes to mind ...

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Do they need fake bayonet mounts? You may think it is an amusing fad, but, the reality is that people die because of it.

I'd like to see the source upon which you're basing this claim. Just how many people die each year because of "fake bayonet mounts?"

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Ugg

My bad, but it still doesn't address how the NRA is turning from a responsible lobby into one that seemingly ignores hunting while furthering rambo/conspiracy types.

You forgot the Ultra Conservative, self righteous, Communist accusing to any who does not agree to every position.

They have attacked Republican congressmen for near hint they did not fully support them.

IMHO, they seem completely corrupted and tyrannical.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

You forgot the Ultra Conservative, self righteous, Communist accusing to any who does not agree to every position.

They have attacked Republican congressmen for near hint they did not fully support them.

IMHO, they seem completely corrupted and tyrannical.

Was nice seeing a few Senators standing up to LaPierre's bull **** at yesterday's hearings. The NRA needs a new spokesperson. LaPierre is toxic at this point.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

One way to do it is to try to restrict the sale of weapons that have particular appeal to impulsive irresponsible people. Another way would be for organizations like the NRA to stop their irresponsible speech.

Its easy.
Certification/qualification classes before a purchase is allowed.

Instructor will approve based not just on passing questions, but on discipline and respect to the weapon.

This could be done in lieu of background check, as criminals would not have the money or patience to do something like this to get a weapon.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Sad to see this type of thinking still prevails. Prairie dogs are an important part of the diet of a number of species. They may be inconvenient for you on your land, but, if there are no prairie dogs anywhere on any land, it makes it that much harder, for example, for Golden Eagles.

Well, consider the Coyote and Wolf too. They need to eat.

But then those attack peoples pets, and people as well.

So we hut those to near extinction, or at least to control.

But then their is no check on the varmint becuase its predators are hunted to protect humans.

So, people need to hunt varmints becuase we hunted predators to protect ourselves.

Few things are simple.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Well, consider the Coyote and Wolf too. They need to eat.

But then those attack peoples pets, and people as well.

So we hut those to near extinction, or at least to control.

But then their is no check on the varmint becuase its predators are hunted to protect humans.

So, people need to hunt varmints becuase we hunted predators to protect ourselves.

Few things are simple.

What's with this whole 'varmint' thing. It's not a biological or legal definition so it must be some kind of justification for killing animals.

Can you provide me with numbers for coyote and wolf attacks? Obviously wolves have been hunted almost to extinction so the numbers are going to be miniscule for the last hundred years or so. Perhaps there are historical numbers you can provide?

I've never heard of a coyote attack a human being. So, I think you're looking for a problem for your gun-based solution.

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by Ugg

I've never heard of a coyote attack a human being. So, I think you're looking for a problem for your gun-based solution.

It is just like deer in that you can get a nuisance license to hunt them all year round.

While I have not heard of a human being attacked by a coyote I have had friends dogs killed by them. I know of two people that have lost 3 dogs in the last 5 years to coyotes.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by prostuff1

It is just like deer in that you can get a nuisance license to hunt them all year round.

While I have not heard of a human being attacked by a coyote I have had friends dogs killed by them. I know of two people that have lost 3 dogs in the last 5 years to coyotes.

They must live in a rural or exurban area and not keep their dogs under control. You must live in the NE or upper MW where the deer population is exploding. I always find it ironic that gun owners in those areas no longer care about hunting animals, only humans.

Suburban and exurban lifestyle choices are the reason for deer overpopulation along with a lack of natural predators. What's more, I'll bet that deer cause more human deaths in the US than coyotes or wolves ever have.

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by Ugg

They must live in a rural or exurban area and not keep their dogs under control. You must live in the NE or upper MW where the deer population is exploding.

Of course they do, most of them are farmers or own quite a bit of land. And as for the assumption they don't keep there dogs under control you can stop assuming and making an arse of yourself. The dogs are chained up at night by the dog house and are not "roaming free."

I always find it ironic that gun owners in those areas no longer care about hunting animals, only humans.

what does this even mean...?

Suburban and exurban lifestyle choices are the reason for deer overpopulation along with a lack of natural predators. What's more, I'll bet that deer cause more human deaths in the US than coyotes or wolves ever have.

Probably true. Just because you don't want to hunt an animal don't hate on the people that do.


Every animal I have ever hunted has been used in some way, including ground hogs and the like. I have only ever had one occasion to kill a coyote. It got into our barn where we had rabbits penned up for 4-H fair competitions. They forced there way into the cage and proceeded to kill any rabbit they could get a hold of. We could hear the rabbits squealing from inside the house so ran outside. We got outside saw the coyote which was trying to finish off one of the rabbits. My dad and I had guns so we proceeded to kill the coyote. The next day we skinned it out, cut it into pieces and took it to a friends house for his hunting dogs to eat.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by Ugg

The NRA was founded as a resource for hunters but today it's sole purpose seems to further Rambo/conspiracy theorist types.

I "heard" the NRA was founded because white hoods were out of fashion, and they needed a new social club. (See Bowling for Columbine - if you want a little controversy).

(edit - or as they would do on Fox News... some people are reporting that the NRA is an offshoot of the KKK).

(edit2 - I'm not suggesting this, I'm merely reporting what others have said, and are talking about).

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by mcrain

or as they would do on Fox News...

We report, you decide

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Ugg

What's with this whole 'varmint' thing. It's not a biological or legal definition so it must be some kind of justification for killing animals.

Can you provide me with numbers for coyote and wolf attacks? Obviously wolves have been hunted almost to extinction so the numbers are going to be miniscule for the last hundred years or so. Perhaps there are historical numbers you can provide?

I've never heard of a coyote attack a human being. So, I think you're looking for a problem for your gun-based solution.

And I thought the gun fanatics where bad, what an emotional response.
You even destroyed your own argument.

Varmint is a word.


Honestly the depth of ignorance on these and other issues is a big reason America is in trouble. Matches our very low educational level.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

And I thought the gun fanatics where bad, what an emotional response.
You even destroyed your own argument.

Varmint is a word.


Honestly the depth of ignorance on these and other issues is a big reason America is in trouble. Matches our very low educational level.

You'll have of course noticed in the wiki you posted, that 'varmint' is mostly used in Appalachia and somewhat in the nearby states. As such, it is a regional colloquialism, in other words not a word used in standard English.

I grew up in the upper plains, have family throughout the Midwest and have lived in the west all my adult life. I've never heard the word used by anyone other than Yosemite Sam.

While Appalachia certainly is viewed romantically by certain people, most people think of the movie Deliverance when they hear of the place. Other than lending cartoonists fodder for the big screen, Appalachia has not done our language any favors.

[rdowns]

Nonsense. Varmints has been part of the language since the first time Granny cooked some up on The Beverly Hillbillies.