ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Bill Of Needs!
OMG -- perfect!
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Well said, sir, well said.
OMG -- perfect!
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Well said, sir, well said.
"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.
- Thread starter gunsmith
- Start date
- Status
Yes, all too familiar, and very old, pattern appears. They just "appear" - out of nowhere. Change agents.
If the NRA was what it is cracked up to be, they would sink a pile of time and money into investigating and researching Schoenke, all his "partners" and everyone associated with them and find out; who originally orchestrated this one, who is funding it from the getgo, and expose their complete political ideology and agenda. Who is pulling their strings.
Yes, we have seen the writing on the wall for a long time - some of us.
Others - and doubters of what is being railroaded through by their beloved "defenders" in Washington and elsewhere - can read it in plain english for themselves;
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...558293,00.html
This should have been their position in the early 1930s and again in the late 60s, much in between and after. Instead they have come to embrace compromizes and changes as "good" and "necessary". Thus as an organization they have compromized and in effect changed themselves.
Right; everything is vague, murky, foggy and gray - subjective. "Just a point of view".
Fact; on issues of fundemental ideological difference "compromize", "middle ground" and "non-partisan" are errosive tools for planned, organized and choreographed change. It does not evolve or "just happen".
---------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Sharps-... what's the holdover (bullet drop) on a 2 mile targeted strike and just how much oomph is left on that .45-70 projectile and just what is deadly force?
(j/k) But it does point out definition of "assault weapon" begs wanting. Buffalo assault, deer assault, bunny assault, duck assault... well, you understand what I'm talking about... do you think Mr. Schoenke and his ilk will?
I know darn well that Ms. Feinstein and her ilk understand exactly what I'm talking about. Ban them all. Let only the police forces and military have access to politically approved and controlled weapons.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
Not quite...at least not by anyone who remembers their support of some of the worst bans we have now. And they aren't pushing for any repeals either.The NRA is the middle of the road! If you want the "uncompromising, stalwart" organization, you're looking for GOA. And this AHSA is the extreme left anti-freedom group. Heh, like anyone who was really a "hunter and shooter" would care if someone else owned an icky semiauto. Come on.
They're not fooling anyone.Axman
Member
After weeding and wading through nearly 4 pages of this thread, I can honestly say that what is really scaring them is the term "assault". How about we just rename them "defense rifles"? That way it eliminates the bad scary word! After all, aren't the full-auto versions being used by the "defense department"? Maybe the military is really the "assault department"!
On a side note, I was in Wally World one day looking around the sporting goods section and I happened along the baseball goods. There in the bat rack was a flat black baseball bat with a rubber grip. I laughed to myself as I thought, "Wow, an assault bat!"
On a side note, I was in Wally World one day looking around the sporting goods section and I happened along the baseball goods. There in the bat rack was a flat black baseball bat with a rubber grip. I laughed to myself as I thought, "Wow, an assault bat!"
DirksterG30
Member
I refer to my AR-15 as a "freedom rifle" or "liberty rifle".
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Defense Rifle
+1 on Axman.
I think the man has a point.
We USED TO HAVE a War Department. This, clearly, was viewed as "too aggressive" by someone(s). Now we have the Department Of Defense.
Clearly, in that same spirit, defense rifle is a valid moniker.
If someone complains that "you're just playing with words" he would first have to answer why we have a DoD, then answer why we have a "BATFE" instead of a "Rights Deprivation Squad" -- if you're going to name something according to what it DOES, then I think that's a fair position.
You can call my rifle an "assault" rifle after I've committed assault with it. Until then, it's only function is "preparedness for defense" so you may call it a "preparedness rifle" or "defense rifle" as long as that obtains.
+1 on Axman.
I think the man has a point.
We USED TO HAVE a War Department. This, clearly, was viewed as "too aggressive" by someone(s). Now we have the Department Of Defense.
Clearly, in that same spirit, defense rifle is a valid moniker.
If someone complains that "you're just playing with words" he would first have to answer why we have a DoD, then answer why we have a "BATFE" instead of a "Rights Deprivation Squad" -- if you're going to name something according to what it DOES, then I think that's a fair position.
You can call my rifle an "assault" rifle after I've committed assault with it. Until then, it's only function is "preparedness for defense" so you may call it a "preparedness rifle" or "defense rifle" as long as that obtains.
engineer151515
Member
we "think" for most .......
I don't need anyone to think for me, thank you.
There is no middle ground. Either you can defend yourself when the government can't reach you, or you can't.
Remember Katrina.
john paul
Member
he's right
he's right. i don't need an assault weapon. i also didn't need that whole buttermilk pie my wife cooked for thanksgiving. but when the coyotes are chasing my wife's registered rat terrier around in the back yard, you can bet your butt she's not going out the back door with her spatula!
he's right. i don't need an assault weapon. i also didn't need that whole buttermilk pie my wife cooked for thanksgiving. but when the coyotes are chasing my wife's registered rat terrier around in the back yard, you can bet your butt she's not going out the back door with her spatula!
johnster999
Member
Semi-autos are ok by me but those double barrel shotguns scare me. Especially the ones with the one barrel on top the other. What's that for? Shooting down planes? Oh and those rifles with the telescope thingies on top. Bet you could gun down someone from the other side of town with one of those! Spooky stuff.
I sure don't need any of those kind of guns. We need common sense laws on stuff like that. I'm just a plinker. I only need my AR-15 and AK and pistols and...
I sure don't need any of those kind of guns. We need common sense laws on stuff like that. I'm just a plinker. I only need my AR-15 and AK and pistols and...
Everyone needs an assault weapon to keep that pesky Bill of Rights from walking away from us, seems like every time we turn our backs someone is trying to take it from us, usually "for our own good" or "because we don't need it".. they are always trying to lure it off and a assault weapon or two seems to keep it staying put.
That's just my wiseass response
That's just my wiseass response
Letter I wrote to ASHA...
I am glad I saw this post because I was considering joining that organization...
Gentlemen;
I am a life member of the NRA as well as a member of Gun Owners of America, I fully intended on joining your organization because of the recent election results…I am an avid hunter as well as being a competitive shooter with both AR15’s and AK47’s neither of which is an “assault rifle”…I am also a licensed concealed pistol holder in the State of Michigan and exercise my right to carry every day…
On the surface your organization appeared to be behind gun owners rights and then I read this:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/sports/16099505.htm
"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.
Perhaps someone in your organization can clarify this exactly? You purport yourselves to be hunters and gun owners friends and yet you seem to lean toward having some compromise with anti-gun people? Does Schoenke even know what an “assault weapon” is by true definition?
With the instability in the world and crime as it is, accepting anything that potentially limits law abiding citizens the opportunity to own rifles or handguns of their choosing is simply unacceptable in any form…
The current power structure in Washington after the elections have placed gun owners in potential jeopardy…These people need to understand that they will never be permitted to alter our 2nd Amendment rights!
Organizations that truly support gun owners don’t say things like Schonke did in that article…
The whole concept behind the 2nd was to insure Americans never get put under the thumb of the government! If we don’t have the right to own guns that some elitists think we shouldn’t, how do we defend ourselves against those that would abuse their power?
Your group certainly does not represent me or any other “hunters” I know and I will work hard in my sphere of influence as well as the gun clubs I belong to, making sure they are clear on what it appears your organization is all about…Why would any compromise with any anti-gun groups or people be acceptable to you at all?
Why don’t you get to work on getting these liberals to impose harsher punishment on criminals that use guns in the commission of crimes and stop being namby-pamby about restricting law abiding citizens’ options in their choices of firearms?
I am glad I saw this post because I was considering joining that organization...
Gentlemen;
I am a life member of the NRA as well as a member of Gun Owners of America, I fully intended on joining your organization because of the recent election results…I am an avid hunter as well as being a competitive shooter with both AR15’s and AK47’s neither of which is an “assault rifle”…I am also a licensed concealed pistol holder in the State of Michigan and exercise my right to carry every day…
On the surface your organization appeared to be behind gun owners rights and then I read this:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/sports/16099505.htm
"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.
Perhaps someone in your organization can clarify this exactly? You purport yourselves to be hunters and gun owners friends and yet you seem to lean toward having some compromise with anti-gun people? Does Schoenke even know what an “assault weapon” is by true definition?
With the instability in the world and crime as it is, accepting anything that potentially limits law abiding citizens the opportunity to own rifles or handguns of their choosing is simply unacceptable in any form…
The current power structure in Washington after the elections have placed gun owners in potential jeopardy…These people need to understand that they will never be permitted to alter our 2nd Amendment rights!
Organizations that truly support gun owners don’t say things like Schonke did in that article…
The whole concept behind the 2nd was to insure Americans never get put under the thumb of the government! If we don’t have the right to own guns that some elitists think we shouldn’t, how do we defend ourselves against those that would abuse their power?
Your group certainly does not represent me or any other “hunters” I know and I will work hard in my sphere of influence as well as the gun clubs I belong to, making sure they are clear on what it appears your organization is all about…Why would any compromise with any anti-gun groups or people be acceptable to you at all?
Why don’t you get to work on getting these liberals to impose harsher punishment on criminals that use guns in the commission of crimes and stop being namby-pamby about restricting law abiding citizens’ options in their choices of firearms?
Prince Yamato
Member
Again, the 2A isn't about hunting.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Assault Rifles
All rifles are...by design and intent... "Assault Rifles"...since the rifle is an instrument that one correctly uses to carry the fight to an enemy...to attack him at a distance.
In 1860, it was the Springfield rifled musket. By 1875, it was the Trapdoor Springfield and the Sharps rifles. In 1894, the Winchester .30-30 levergun filled the niche. 1918 rolled around, and the '03 Springfield and the 1917 Enfield was the Doughboy's assault rifle...and the Gewehr 1898 Mauser served the German army...and continued to serve with deadly effectiveness through WW2. The bolt-action "sporting" rifle is nothing more than a Mauser in Blaze Orange clothing...and they'll call for those too, given enough time and
one more incident like we had in Maryland and DC a few years back. If those two cretins had used a Remington Sendero, the gun-grabbers would have been all over it.
The term has become a catch-phrase for anything that "they" feel that we have no "need" for. We've seen "Assault pistol" and "Assault Shotgun" come and go...along with some pretty nifty pistols and scatterguns.
Anybody takin' bets that the next pet peeve will be "Assault Sniper Rifle"...
and any rifle that will accept scope mounts will be taboo. How about need-based licensing for any rifle telescope above 2X...or any scope with an illuminated reticle.
The problem is that "they" don't want us to have these things because it
nullfies their power grab...and "Stalemate" is not part of their plan.
All rifles are...by design and intent... "Assault Rifles"...since the rifle is an instrument that one correctly uses to carry the fight to an enemy...to attack him at a distance.
In 1860, it was the Springfield rifled musket. By 1875, it was the Trapdoor Springfield and the Sharps rifles. In 1894, the Winchester .30-30 levergun filled the niche. 1918 rolled around, and the '03 Springfield and the 1917 Enfield was the Doughboy's assault rifle...and the Gewehr 1898 Mauser served the German army...and continued to serve with deadly effectiveness through WW2. The bolt-action "sporting" rifle is nothing more than a Mauser in Blaze Orange clothing...and they'll call for those too, given enough time and
one more incident like we had in Maryland and DC a few years back. If those two cretins had used a Remington Sendero, the gun-grabbers would have been all over it.
The term has become a catch-phrase for anything that "they" feel that we have no "need" for. We've seen "Assault pistol" and "Assault Shotgun" come and go...along with some pretty nifty pistols and scatterguns.
Anybody takin' bets that the next pet peeve will be "Assault Sniper Rifle"...
and any rifle that will accept scope mounts will be taboo. How about need-based licensing for any rifle telescope above 2X...or any scope with an illuminated reticle.
The problem is that "they" don't want us to have these things because it
nullfies their power grab...and "Stalemate" is not part of their plan.
Sharps-shooter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 488
I don't know, really. I typically don't shoot at anything further than 1000 yards, as that's all the further the gun is really sighted for. I can hit a barn at that distance, but not a beer can. I've read some reports from other people shooting that far away (2 miles), though, and apparently it still hits pretty hard. I don't have the exact figures handy as far as penetration goes. It would also depend on what kinda round you're shooting. A sharps or a ruger 1 can handle much higher pressure than a springfield trap-door 45-70, but the more common factory loads are weak enough that the trapdoor can use them safely. I've fired rounds that were specifically made for hunting pachyderms, with much heavier bullets and more powder.
In any case, a projectile fired from this elegant antique hunting rifle is far more powerful than one fired from the AR, which is basically a small game rifle.
of course, even a .22 short can kill someone, and no projectile is gauranteed to kill any given target. So a lot of the debate about which gun is best for xyz application, seems overstated to me.
Kaylee
Member
Builder --
Nice reply, but sadly pointless I think.
As noted above, the ASHA board of directors is filled with known gun-grabbers.
ASHA isn't a naive "moderate" gun group -- it's a deliberate front group.
Rather than writing them directly, I believe efforts would be better spent exposing them for who they are.. and perhaps writing Schoenke himself with that info.
Nice reply, but sadly pointless I think.
As noted above, the ASHA board of directors is filled with known gun-grabbers.
ASHA isn't a naive "moderate" gun group -- it's a deliberate front group.
Rather than writing them directly, I believe efforts would be better spent exposing them for who they are.. and perhaps writing Schoenke himself with that info.
I agree...
Kaylee, I know you are right, but I do write letters when I feel like I am being dupped...
I write to my Senators and Congressmen all the time...Sometimes I get responses somtimes not...
Just one voice, but one speaking up none-the-less...
Kaylee, I know you are right, but I do write letters when I feel like I am being dupped...
I write to my Senators and Congressmen all the time...Sometimes I get responses somtimes not...
Just one voice, but one speaking up none-the-less...
The so-called American Hunters and Shooters is run by a guy named Rosenthal in Massachusetts, who has a long and steady history of trying to get laws passed which penalize the legal gun owners in this state.
They recently had a spate of murders and shootings here, and the mayor and this group now have to blame the surrounding states for having "lax" gun laws, because Massachusetts already has amazingly restrictive laws, and yet the criminals find a way to kill and maim.
The unspoken truth here though is that the courts are obscenely lenient on violent criminals, and virtually all of the shootings are by known criminals with histories of repeated weapons violations. The highly publicized "Bartley Fox" mandatory year in jail for illegal possession of weapons is in practice never applied to criminals here because it conflicts with other sentencing laws; it can only be used to threaten gun owners who have committed no other crime than possession without a permit. Someone who commits armed robbery, assault, or murder with a gun will never have to worry about this law.
They also have very deceptive claims about how gun violence is lower in MA than any other state, when our murder rate is actually kind of in the middle, and in fact the majority of killings and assaults in our state are due almost entirely to a small inner-city area of just a few square miles.
As a law abiding gun owner I am extremely insulted by this group's actions, and regard them as enemies of freedom. They have what I regard as an irrational agenda which blames guns for crime when in fact the criminals are not even punished for the violent crimes they already commit, with guns, knives, fists, rocks , shod feet and every other weapon they can get their hands on.
They recently had a spate of murders and shootings here, and the mayor and this group now have to blame the surrounding states for having "lax" gun laws, because Massachusetts already has amazingly restrictive laws, and yet the criminals find a way to kill and maim.
The unspoken truth here though is that the courts are obscenely lenient on violent criminals, and virtually all of the shootings are by known criminals with histories of repeated weapons violations. The highly publicized "Bartley Fox" mandatory year in jail for illegal possession of weapons is in practice never applied to criminals here because it conflicts with other sentencing laws; it can only be used to threaten gun owners who have committed no other crime than possession without a permit. Someone who commits armed robbery, assault, or murder with a gun will never have to worry about this law.
They also have very deceptive claims about how gun violence is lower in MA than any other state, when our murder rate is actually kind of in the middle, and in fact the majority of killings and assaults in our state are due almost entirely to a small inner-city area of just a few square miles.
As a law abiding gun owner I am extremely insulted by this group's actions, and regard them as enemies of freedom. They have what I regard as an irrational agenda which blames guns for crime when in fact the criminals are not even punished for the violent crimes they already commit, with guns, knives, fists, rocks , shod feet and every other weapon they can get their hands on.
jamz
Member
"No one NEEDS to hunt"
Folks, I *LIKE* this. Perfect, IMO.
Folks, I *LIKE* this. Perfect, IMO.
MathurinKerbouchard
Member
Speed Kills. No one needs a Ferrari. Ban sportscars!
dave_pro2a
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 447
Speed doesn't kill.... it's stopping abruptly that kills 
Ya know, like hitting a tree, a parked car, a telephone pole... och! ban all those things!
Ya know, like hitting a tree, a parked car, a telephone pole... och! ban all those things!
Axman
Member
jamz said:
Yeah, since the advent of the butcher shop and the supermarket, we can get our meat that way! However, I think we would look ridiculous dressed in blaze orange or camoflage, carrying a rifle through the local Safeway! Besides that, you could always hunt with a compound bow, so you REALLY don't need hunting rifles either...until they decide to ban bow and arrow!
- Status