Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder

"A thief is shot in the dark. Who's hand is on the trigger?" A paraphrase of an old Indian saying. The VICTIM was the Senator, not the thug. Applying "Victim" to him pisses me off as much as listing the bomber as one of the "VICTIMS" of his his homicide bombing. Or the shooter who takes his own life after committing his crime (or sucumbs to police issued or civillian donated lead poisoning) being included in the list of "VICTIMS" of a crime.

It's all a matter of technicality -

The senator was a victim of attempted burglary.

The thief was a victim of a gunshot wound.

I understand the term "victim" as it's used. The intruder is a "victim" of being shot.

The Senator is a "victim" of the break-in.

Oh, I just noticed Sgt said the same thing. So, I'll merely agree.

Either way, it's not the subject of topic. The fact is the good Senator doesn't trust anyone but himself to use a gun. That's the point of the article, I think.

If the senator was truly for good gun control then the perp would have had 2 through the pump.

The thief was a victim of a gunshot wound.

No. The thief was the recipient of a gunshot wound. If he's a victim of anything, it's his own poor judgement.

The press would not be calling them victims they would be referred to as the deceased.

Ha! Loved this line!

He might have been a victim, after all the specifics of the indictment haven't been made public and the good senator is under investigation for other issues including his long time and "close" association with other boys and young men he had defended. BTW a 380? You really are a liberal.

WH - true on the .380, although a .380 in your pocket beats the hell out of the .45 on the dresser at home while you are on the street!

Hell, I might just carry a KBAR vs a 380.

a victim in the past doesnt mean hes THE victim this time ,

couldnt we all be victims then?

BTW a 380? You really are a liberal.

.380 good stopping power easily concealed. Florida law says the weapon must be concealed, can't carry a canon. If I can't bring em down with 6 I deserve to be jacked.

you dont need smaller gun you need bigger coat

lol j/k

Wizeguy- I prefer the Colt Officer's ACP, 7 rounds of .45 ACP, and not much bigger than a snubbie .38.

Whitehood- Why not both? The KBAR for if he keeps coming after 6 .380 HPs?

.380 is a shortened 9 mm. The 9mm is the same caliber as .38 and .357 magnum but shorter. The .357 has more powder in order to give it more power. The military went to the .45 because of the LACK of stopping power of the .357 in the Phillipines. Machete wielding natives would charge. They would be shot with the .357 Mag and killed yet momentum would still carry them forward. The .45 pushed them back.

The new 9mm have twice the capacity than the .45. Reason? With the .45 you only had to shoot them once. With the 9 (.380) you have to shoot them AT LEAST twice...

Dr Know

Sorry, but just about all wrong. To say that the .38, .357 and 9mm are all the same caliber is a blatent disregard for the obvious. 9mm converted comes to .355 and a .380 or .38 bullet sure as hell wouldn't go through my 9mm barrel.

As far as stopping power you have to look at the laws of physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Given that if the force of a bullet could push someone back, it would push back on the shooter even more given the fact that some energy was lost in travel. If you are charging forward, a .45 bullet is NOT going to push you back. The primary reason the 1911 replaced the .357 and .44 revolvers though is that it was a magazine fed semi-automatic.

The primary reason for the .45 ACP is that the larger holes produced won't cotterize and stop bleeding. The .45 was introduce before hollow point bullets were much more than an experiment. Since bullets didn't expand much on impact, the size of the bullet made all the difference.

Today's 9mm hollowpoint ammo will produce larger wounds than .45 ACP full metal jacket ammo. The 9mm has the advantage that many shooters are more capable of managing the recoil plus still producing a substantial wound track.

The key though to stopping an assailant in not the size of the caliber, it's shot placement. While a larger wound will help make an assailant bleed out faster it's still going to take time. Time that the assailant has to continue attacking. You stand a much better chance of stopping someone with proper shot placement in vital areas. a 9mm round in the lung will be much more effective than two .45 rounds in any non vital area.

There are distinct advantages and disadvantages to all calibres and not nearly enough to time to separate them all.

The .380 and 9 mm bullets are .356 inches in diameter. The .38 and .357 bullets have a diameter of .357 inches. There is a 0.0005 inch difference on a radius. One can use lead .357 bullets to load .380 and 9 mm. The difference between all of these rounds is the size and shape of the case.

The .380 is truly a shortened 9 mm. It just has less capacity for powder.

The .357 is truly a lengthened .38 special. Many military .38s had the cylinders lengthened to allow .357 rounds to be used.

The military changed from 30-06 and .45 to .223 and 9 mm because the new rounds were more likely to wound than kill. It takes more people (resources) to tend to wounded people than stack corpses.

I agree that shot placement is best for stopping an assailant but most people are not capable of deciding what button to hit or which hole in the button.

I won a world championship in long range pistol shooting. I do have extensive experience in loading, reloading and researching this area.

You're right that the .45 and 30-06 stand better chances of killing than the 5.56 or 9mm.(the military does not actually use .223, they use 5.56, similar and generally interchangeable but not exactly the same) However, the size of the 30-06 round makes it too restrictive to carry large capacity magazines and is a much to powerful round for personel carried full auto fire. The military didn't switch because the 5.56 had less of a chance of killing, they switched because it wasn't practical given modern weaponry.

The 9mm took over for the .45 as well because the 9mm has a better chance of defeating light armor. It's a faster, lighter and maintains more of its energy after impact penetrating deeper than the .45. It's also easer to carry larger quantities of ammunition.

generally interchangable .223 and 5.56

im not sure but i believe if its chambered for the 5.56 you can shoot the .223 but if its made for the .223 you need to check about shooting 5.56 im not 100% on this info check YOUR GUN TO MAKE SURE BEFORE YOU SHOOT ETHER ROUND (you should check before you buy them to avoid wasting money)

Originally an alternate military cartridge, the 223 (5.6 x 45mm) is now the official U.S. and NATO military round.

From The Reloading bench...

The case used may be a problem with headspace.

Exactly... if you're anti-gun, don't own one.

I understand why he is anti-gun and still owns one.

He is thinking like a parent.

Longhorn78759

Exactly... if you're anti-gun, don't own one.

But that's just it. They're not anti-gun, they're just anti-other-people-having-guns.

I have always asserted that these law makers and politician, in the true manner of elitists everywhere, understand and value the effectiveness and lethality of firearms and covet that for themselves and their families even if they chose to implement it through the use of armed body guards or "extra" protection of their local PD and not personally by being owners themselves.

Being "anti-gun" is just a cover for being "pro-control". Control of everything as long as it's someone else's life and freedoms that are being controlled.

Remember the following; "Gun Laws Are Enforced At Gun Point".

Yup, same with disarmament.

You guys are all fools. This guy was pro-gun control not anti-gun.

Icepick- there is no difference. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Control is infringing upon our rights. And no matter what exception you come up with, the answer is a resounding NO! unless it is a rule established by a private citizen, upon property owned by that individual.

The operative statement here is "for the general public". If he were part of the general public as with most of his cohorts, they would be unemployed and in jail for some of the crapola they pull. They feel and act as they are above us common folk aka the general public.

the term gun control shouldnt even be in politics

it should be on the shooting range

ill go with that

What?? He's being charged with assault because he shoots this guy who is kicking his door in?? Next time shoot to kill!! Is there a jury in NC that will convict him??

Actually, Gary. I'm glad he's being charged.

Now that he has been charged, perhaps something will be done for others who are charged of the same thing. Defending their home. This is a Senator, therefore, it will be made public. Perhaps, it will help others facing the same thing if the Senator wins.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not happy at all he has been charged. I just think this may be a golden opportunity for others.

Their are a few critical pieces missing from the story. Namely where exactly was the intruder (both) and where was the Senator? From the original story:

Batten says the shooting occurred when two men went to the senator’s house and tried to kick in his front door. No charges have been filed.

I notice the word "tried" was used in the story. I am curious what the police report says. Specifically where was the intruder? Was the intruder shot from inside to the outside?

I ask because whether he is a gun-rights or gun control advocate, was this a good call on the DA part or ???

RR98411

i agree if he was outside the house then he has less of an argument for self defense if any one has an updated story i would love to know the details

The shooting took place in August, there are myriad stories about it, I've been trying to sort through them and get information on his 'gun-control' stance. He's had several weird, newsworthy, notable events occur in recent years. The two involved in this shooting is not the only one that involved clients or former clients of his. Hmmm.

thanks neenie

im trying to do the same thing

Never fire just one shot, that implies control. Empty the mag or clip even it some shots miss the intended target, that implies fear for your life.

ty sureshot

never looked at it that way (till now) but im sure a judge / jury might

Never fire just one shot, that implies control. Empty the mag or clip even it some shots miss the intended target, that implies fear for your life.

So your suggestion is to empty the magazine, even if the assailant is disabled with the first round? And you think the judge/jury will look kindly on you for that? What is it that brings you to this conclusion? I was always taught, "Shoot to stop, not to kill."

You're right Rigbee, that was horrible legal advice (not that anyone should construe ANYTHING on NV as legal advice). We shoot to stop the threat, that's it. If you cannot maintain you're composure in high stress situations I'd suggest thinking twice before carrying a gun.

Rigbee....I guess it really depends on what state you live in, because in Florida the assailant will get a lawyer and sue...happens all the time here. Regardless if the assailant is completely wrong, they usually get something from your home owners insurance company. I am in the business and see this happen all the time, however, very rarely seen judge/jury convict someone with "Homicide" because they have 14 bullets in them, as long the assailant is in their house, business ect... The new "Non-Retreat" law has just made it worse. We empty the mags here......

@rz - Legal issues aside (because there's always somebody who'll sue you), are you really OK with shooting someone after they are no longer a threat to you or your family? Sounds a bit like execution to me.

Yes.... I am OK with making sure he will "absolutely" no longer be a threat. Is it an execution? No, it is eliminating the threat of harm, death or ANYTHING else to my children. When you make that decision to enter my sanctuary without my approval, you have made a decision that you may be "eliminated" I am sorry that I sound so sadistic, but unfortunately, in this state, THEY have pushed US to this....

An execution would be to hunt him down.

If he/she chooses to invade my only sanctuary, it cannot be an execution.

call it what you will but for me and mine if someone invades my house I'm hitting them with everything I have to make sure they can't hurt my family. Heck after I run out of ammo and things to throw I might go over and give them a good kick just for good measure.

hey frosty ,

go in with a stomp (straight down) rather then a kick more effective

if someone messes with my family i want that persons last thought to be a shoulda messed with a momma grizzly woulda been safer

not only more effective but would probably feel more satisfying. You and I are of the same mind on that momma griz can be a bit rough but they'll have wished for her after I'm done. I could go a step worse and turn my wife on them after she's good and pissed.

If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries, for heavy ones they cannot.

- Niccolo Machiavelli

good quote confused I hadn't heard that one before.

ty

ive alway felt this way but niccolo machavelli put it into words for me :)

It is, in fact hypocritical to maintain guns if you are advocating that no private owner should be allowed to have guns.

No, it isn't. He is a law-abiding citizen, following the laws, and legally trying to change them. That isn't hypocrisy. Claiming that is is simply ludicrous.

If a senator was advocating changing the law to make people drive on the left side of the road, would you call him a hypocrite for driving on the right side until the law was changed?

Your claim is illogical and absurd.

Much akin to lighting a doobie while you are writing an anti-marijuana article.

Why would that be hypocrisy? Marijuana users are probably in a better position than anyone else to offer an opinion about its use.

Well, that convinced me.

I'm glad you saw the light.

Following current laws while trying to change current laws is not hypocrisy. This is simply a silly straw-man.

Zom Zom.... If you are against something you are against it, whether or not it is legal, you do not do it. What the senator is, what he is....a hypocrite.

Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai Date: 13th century

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

And what he's against is them being legal. And owning one is not inconsistent with advocating their outlawing. They are legal. The position is completely consistent.

Fine....he is a consistent Advocating Hypocrite...

I have to disagree with you......why would a MJ user be writing an anti-MJ article??? that would be the definition of hypocrisy [hɪˈpɒkrəsɪ]

n pl -sies 1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety 2. an act or instance of this

appears to fit this senator's stance to me....................

If a senator was advocating changing the law to make people drive on the left side of the road, would you call him a hypocrite for driving on the right side until the law was changed?

Exactly. There is nothing hypocritical about obeying current laws while trying to change them.

I too own guns but am an advocate of legislation banning them. That does not make me a hypocrite. I am obeying the law and hoping for changes of those laws.

Address the article and discuss in a mature manner, do not insult people or I will delete your comments.

I didn't see any insults?

didn't see any insults?

Me either. Some people just don't like it when their opinion is challenged.

These, I consider insulting,

He wasn't attacking you personally, only your claims. Last I checked that was acceptable.

well, if you think those are insults, then I think you're too sensitive. moving on now..........

Zom Zom and Not over it: Recalling your previous statements on other issues, you seem to think that Mark Sanford and other religious politicians that have extramarital affairs are hypocrites. That violates your own logic as there is nothing illegal about adultery. This douche rails against people owning guns, and yet what does he do? He owns a gun and uses it to defend himself! That is, by definition, hypocrisy.

6.13 and 6.14, off topic.

Yes off topic. Simply responding to you, the author. Just following your lead, or is that not allowed now either?

I see you are just trolling then, correct?

I am at work and on occasion I actually have to work. The post has been up for an entire 10 or so minutes. A little patience please.

Mark Sanford and other religious politicians that have extramarital affairs are hypocrites

Actually I very clearly stated that I couldn't care less that the man had an affair. That is between him and his wife. I dislike Mark Sanford for many many reasons and not one of them includes who he sleeps with. If you care to discuss the many issues, you will have to write a new article as I am sure that Mark Sanford is "off topic", right Spikegary?? Odd that you didn't mention that to Mister Joshua.

The Senator is no more hypocritical than is a PETA member who wears leather, or a person opposing the eating of meat having a burger. OH, Wait. That IS hypocritical, as is anyone whowns guns and opposes gun ownership. Sorry, ZZ, but despite your being a friend, this one makes you a hypocrite.

a PETA member who wears leather

I remember a story told to me one time from a guy who worked in a high end restaurant. There was a customer one day who was radically, vocally vegan so much so that she left the restaurant in a big huff because they could not cater to her standards of no animal anything. What made the story funny was the leather jacket, motorcycle pants and boots she was wearing.

I was on The Mall, in DC, about 16 or 17 years ago, and there wasa PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) table set up. The clown behind the table was wearing a leather belt and boots. When I pointed it out, he didn't get the hypocrisy of it.

I will gladly give them up as soon as legislation passes that bans them.

At which point you will become easy prey for all the criminals who are still armed, because criminals don't obey the law.

I will gladly give them up as soon as legislation passes that bans them. But, so long as everybody else has them, so will I.

And you honestly believe the criminals will give up their unlicensed guns that they procured illegally once a law is passed and you will suddenly be safer than you are today. C-mon man.

An avowed and proselytizing Vegetarian, that still eats meat... until the restrictive law mandates everyone else eats only Vegetables?

Sadly the world is filled with that type... The rest of us, protect their right to be so...In the Freedom loving 'United States of America', that is.

It is about as hypocritical as you can get. To act in a manner contrary to your beliefs is hypocritical. This man's belief is that no one should have guns/own guns, etc. Similar to a Senator preaching "Family Values"...

I guess all those advocates of "Family Values" who go and have sex with other people weren't hypocritical...because I mean they were just having fun and not breaking laws, right? It was only a one time deal. No biggy.

Hypocrisy doesn't have to involve the law.

Zom Zom, most states have a trade guns for gift card programs. Find one. If you are against private ownership yet own one, why do you need a piece of legislation to reinforce your own beliefs?

Neal...I once stumbled upon a PETA rally and hung around out of curiosity. I kept to myself at the back of the crowd to observe. What I observed was one PETA member writing down the recipe given by the other member for goose pate. I took mental notes and it turned out not too bad at all. Hypocritical on their part, good eating on mine. But once I found out how goose pate is harvested, I won't touch the stuff now.

The chips will fall...probably blow our minds when they do.

going up

The chips will fall...probably blow our minds when they do.

I agree.... this story is taking some weird turns.

Ever heard of someone shooting someone and being charged with assault ? Hell, if you brandish a firearm that's usually charged as menacing, whereas a criminal-shooting of another is usually called 'attempted murder'

Johnny Yuma:

Yeah. Looks like the sordid side of the senator's life may hit the big screen. Ewww.

if you shoot someone below the waist its "usally" not considered attempted murder

In certain countries, 'Knee Capping' is allowed with little court intervention.

Pink Iguana,

That is definitely an off-topic remark, and to post a link to another story w/o the moderator's permission, is definitely a COH violation.

Sorry. I encourage him to delete it.

The NRA ratings appear to be based on answers to a questionaire that they send to all (?) candidates for office.

From what I can tell a group called Grass Roots North Carolina has complied their rating based on the Senators voting record in the senate, bill sponsorhsip and surveys. The voting record is weighted more heavily.

Of the last eight years his record is in the 60"s 6 times, a low of 20 in 2002, a high of 80 in 1996.

As far as the locals are concerned he appears to be anti-gun...

ya the questionaire has one question on it ... how much is your vote gonna cost ?

not a big fan of the nra , they have personal agendas just like any other company , but they have uses too lots of voters on thier side

Sniff, sniff. Smells more like hypocricy to me.

can't it be both?

even the title has some bs in it ... dont you need to get inside to be an "intruder"?

i dont get it .....

you feel you need a gun now but wont if the law abiding people give up the ones they have??????

instead of being against guns why not be for the stricter enforcement of the laws in place????

lol

gonna have to go find it for fun :-)

LAY- the second Amendment does not allow for ANY control on gun ownership for CITIZENS. Once convicted of a felony , these rights are removed. Concealed carry permits, if there is a means to deny it FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A FELONY COVICTION, violates that Amendment. It doesn't matter if the gun is a single shot muzzleloader, or a brownind .50 caliber M2 machinegun, we have the right to own it. The NRA is a bunch of wimps when it comes to strict interpretation of the 2nd Amedment.

Also, the Senator is not pushing legislation to make it harder for criminals to get weapons. He is pushing for making it illegal for private citizens to own firearms. I agree that some gun laws do make sense, and really it for the safety of everyone involved, but I believe that an American has the right to a gun if he can be responsible with it. I can't really see anyone being responsible with a Browning M2HB HMG. That's just being a little silly.

alex

I can't really see anyone being responsible with a Browning M2HB HMG. That's just being a little silly.

have you heard of the knob creek (ky) shoot?

they have everything there , from the .22 caliber to .50 caliber full auto machine guns (and even flamethrowers)

google it and let me know how many people are shot there every year or any year for that matter

to assume just because its a bigger gun people are less responsible is a little silly

Ok, so you agree that felons should not own guns however I see nowhere in the constitution that felons have lost the right to anything other than the rights to vote, hold certain offices or serve in the military once they've served their time. According to your statement, you'd also believe that the mentally ill should have legal access to firearms.

Truth be told though, almost any firearm, including full auto machine guns, ARE infact legal to own by civilians. Heavily restricted, yes as I believe they should be. I'd fight for your right to own any semi-automatic fire arm available but a full auto multi barrel chain gun capable of cutting city busses in half don't belong in just anyone's hands. Full auto weapons are not defensive tools, they're offensive tools.

On top of that, U.S. criminal code is severly compromised with the use of full auto weapons in a crime. The key element in a crime is intent and when a weapon fires multiple rounds per trigger pull its much harder and in some cases impossible to prove intent for each possible victim. Our military goes through extensive training to handle such weapons and the laws of war are vastly different that those of our criminal justice system.

Confused? That's different. Not even on the same subject. A gun is a tool, not a toy. A gun has two purposes: protecting it's owner and putting food on the table. Explain to me what purpose the M2HB has? Unless you live in an area of the US that has wild roaming armored personnel carriers that are trying to kill you, what reason would you have it? It's for military use only, to keep our sons and daughters safe while they do their duty to this country. In the hands of anyone else it's a toy. It serves no useful purpose.

Explain to me what purpose the M2HB has

I can't really see anyone being responsible with a Browning M2HB HMG. That's just being a little silly.

not that i need go get your permission or approval , but ill play along i got nothin to hide

how is it different i gave you a legitimate purpose (people of a like mind getting together for a good time )

and a example of (not just one but) 1000's of people being responsibile with h2hb and bigger better weapons

do i think i need one ? no

do i want to shoot one ? HELL YA

I don't need either of the turbos on my sports car, but I want them and I use them anyway.....

If you don't need them, give to the needy :). My 525i NEEDS a turbo! :)

Blogengeezer, you present an interesting idea. But, you don't have your head around the whole of the problem. You see, our problems that make us the most murderous and violent people in the Western world or (so-called) "civilized" people, is not that we don't know how to use guns or have access to them. The problems arise from those who know how to use them and have access to them. Everyone who wants one can have one, from a street dealer, the net, or a local store or gun show. Guns are everywhere, tens of millions of them. Every lunitic, illegal, dope dealer, angry husband, prophet of "God", or just an angry old man with a carry permit, all can own or acquire an automatic, semi-automatic, and a thousand rounds of ammo for just a few dollars.

Now, teaching our children and those who never thought of owing a gun, how to use one of these is not going to stop the nutcases and violent offenders from using the ones they have. Throwing gasoline on a fire generally doesn't help much to contain the blaze. Putting water on a fire, removing it's oxygen, is the accepted and effective method.

So, you will have to think of something else if you really want to help your grand kids and their friends to avoid being killed by a gun-toting idiot or drug dealer. Removing the weapons that have no purpose but to kill another human, the semi and automatics, the millions of 9mm pistols, the AK 47s and AR 14s, the 50 cal. "rifles, etc. and preventing the manufacture and sale of any such WMDs could be a start. Making mandatory sentences for owning or using such a weapon would also be helpful. Disbanning the NRA and other organizations that encourage the manufacture and sale of weapons of murder and mass destruction would also be a step toward a sane policy.

For every "good news" story you can find of an innocent citizen saving themselves or others by using their weapon, there are a hundred stories of a lunitic or sociopath killing multiples of innocent people. Just yesterday it happened in St. Louis, every day somewhere, a school, a church, an office. Doing more of what obviously doesn't work is much like wishing that George Bush would run for re-election!!

Well I was going to attempt to engage you in a debate but then realized that since you began by being disingenuous it would probably be a waste of time. Still....

Laughing at you-1547675

Blogengeezer, you present an interesting idea. But, you don't have your head around the whole of the problem. You see, our problems that make us the most murderous and violent people in the Western world or (so-called) "civilized" people, is not that we don't know how to use guns or have access to them. The problems arise from those who know how to use them and have access to them. Everyone who wants one can have one, from a street dealer, the net, or a local store or gun show.

Everyone who wants one cannot legally acquire one, but those who can't, can illegally get them on the black market. Lumping legal gun owners with criminals illegally in possession of guns is a known propaganda tactic.

Guns are everywhere, tens of millions of them. Every lunitic, illegal, dope dealer, angry husband, prophet of "God", or just an angry old man with a carry permit, all can own or acquire an automatic, semi-automatic, and a thousand rounds of ammo for just a few dollars.

Are you referring to several different people or do the words "lunitic, illegal, dope dealer, angry husband, prophet of "God"" refer to the angry old man with a carry permit? Whichever the case, please refer to my previous comment.

Laughing at you-1547675 said: "or just an angry old man with a carry permit, all can own or acquire an automatic"

Who you calling angry? LOL Anyway I usually carry my revovler when I walk the dog or go to the grocery. But going out to dinner or to the movie the automatic is much more comfortable when I'm sitting.

Laughing at you-1547675 said "and a thousand rounds of ammo for just a few dollars"

where do you shop ... my ammo is expensive as hell

Laughing at you-1547675

Everyone who wants one can have one, from a street dealer, the net, or a local store or gun show.

That isn't true, there are exactly 9 categories of people that are restricted from owning weapons, the most important categories are felons, domestic violence offenders, and people that have been committed to a mental institution. If a dealer or anyone else sells a weapon to these individuals it is against the law, period.

all can own or acquire an automatic, semi-automatic, and a thousand rounds of ammo for just a few dollars.

+1 on confused asking where you shop, pretty soon they will be asking for my first born..., unless you are so rich that a few thousand dollars can be easily confused with a few dollars

Removing the weapons that have no purpose but to kill another human, the semi and automatics, the millions of 9mm pistols, the AK 47s and AR 14s, the 50 cal. "rifles

Thats funny because I use a 9mm pistol and sometimes a carbine to control predators on my land, or to teach people how to shoot, or for plinking. I have an AR that I'm gearing up for hunting large animals (its in .338 federal so not an AR-15, someone reading this will probably appreaciate the difference). So wow it looks like I'm using a good portion of my guns all wrong according to you....

The other side of that is if you keep a weapon for defense (which I do) you are not going to choose a weapon that is ineffective against a person, or else you really didn't understand the point of having that weapon.

As for your .50 rifle comment, how about you find the number of crimes committed with a 50...and no I'm not talking about the police found that the criminals had a 50 when they searched their homes, I'm saying times the 50 was lugged out to commit a crime...I'd be willing to bet that my one hand can count to a higher number.

Making mandatory sentences for owning or using such a weapon would also be helpful.

Just like the sentences for felons in possession of ANY firearm? We can see how effective those sentences are against people who don't care about breaking the law.

Doing more of what obviously doesn't work

Laws are just words on a page until they are enforced, what we need is to crackdown on dealers that will sell weapons illegally to shady people, on felons who possess weapons, on straw purchasers. The guns themselves are not the issue, its the crappy people that use them against innocents that are the issue. If we don't have enough ATF enforcement to make sure current laws are followed why would you have any faith that more laws would magically change the situation?

He's like most liberals, he will just lie and that's what lauging at you is doing. He seems to have a hard *& for 9mm. Anyway just about everything he's said is total BS. For one I'd like to see where he can get a thousand rounds for a few dollars? The big question is he just stupid or brain damaged?

agm65ccip thanks for the +1

is the .338 on a normal AR-15 frame?

i have a handbuilt one out of misc ( best ) components, and its the most accurate gun i have ever shot much les owned

ps. not built by me but a coworker with 20+ years at a well known gun company and 20+ years in the reserves as a amorer ( gun builder ) 6in group @ 400 yards

I notice the writer in disagreement with my original post, conveniently failed to address the point, that the present lawyer infested USA Legal System, with it's countless thousands of Laws, manages (through taxpayer subsidized legal gymnastics) to keep, (I will repeat it again)

Countless Thousands of "Career Violent Repeat Offenders roaming in among the Law Abiding Public". As noted, Herein lies the basic problem.

As for the recent Liberal 'Media Embraced' shootings. No FBI background checked, trained and Certified CCW permit holder was present (obviously). Sadly that is exactly the outcome in such a case.

Gun Free Zones are also an open invitation to any Violent Law Breaker.. They would absolutely Love a Gun Free Society.

hey blogengeezer

i agree with the statement criminals would love unarmed targets ( gun free society ) thats why you NEVER hear of a shooting spree at a gun show but there is plenty at schools

6 inch group at 400 yards is pretty big.

not for me.. just a redneck with a gun ... no training ..

the guy that built it can put all 30 rds into 2in group @ 600yards

confused????-03743

is the .338 on a normal AR-15 frame?

I wish it were, its on a DPMS LR lower, so it's compatable with a lot of aftermarket parts but not all. I wish the "AR-10" types would be more standardized between companies but maybe later...

Dr Know

6 inch group at 400 yards is pretty big.

Thats what 1.5MOA? Not too bad, won't win any benchrest competitions but for hunting that would be alright.

shoot for fun only .. but if that paper gets outta hand its done for .. lol

lol...ya gotta keep an eye on that paper, it might sneak up on ya ;)

I can hold a 4 in group with a pistol with iron sites at 200 meters.

great now im embarassed

nice shootin, glad im not a criminal lol

LAY- are you trying to claim that over 2,000,000 people are gunned down in the US every year?? In case you didn't know, that is the number of crimes the FBI says are stopped by legaly armed citizens every year. Next time, check your stats before you make them up!

neale,

have you read any of the armed citizen articles from the nra ?

they have some great storys on there from the 70's till now about armed citizens protecting family and friends against criminals

Far more people are killed by cars each year than firearms.

Far more people are killed by family members in cars than firearms.

Far more criminals "should" be killed each year from people with firearms.....

Typical Anti-Gun nut. I want to know where I can get thousands of rounds for a few dollars. My Mauser is 8 cents a round if I buy the old Turkish stuff, a dollar a bullet if I buy it new. I'm shooting ammo for my Mosin Nagant that was made when Stalin was still breathing because the newer rounds are so expensive.

Just make sure you clean the gun real good afterwards, that corrosive powder will turn your rifle into a mantle piece....

Yeah that was a must. The Mauser came with one, but the Mosin Nagant didn't. Then again, those rifles were made to be truly idiot proof. They were made to be used by drunken peasants in a blizzard, they had to be.

Yes, I read the Armed Citizen column every moth! Probably the best part of the mag.

@22.22 alex or rz ?

have you tried the hunting rounds in your mosin and if yes are they worth the money?

neale , agreed i think its the best part of the magazine ( its archived online if you missed any issues)

Confused- while I never used hunting rounds in a Mosin, I know several who have harvested whitetail wiht them, and were pleased with the performance.

Yeah they are worth it, but the old jacketed rounds will still do the trick for me. It has such a high velocity and so much stopping power it tends to take down whatever I shoot at. Except moose. That just pisses them off.

not allowed to hunt with fmj in new hampshire (or atleast i was told i couldnt)

thanks for the info ...

going to check that "law" on fmj in new hampshire now

Nope...only use military FMJ for target....the only thing here in SouthFlorida remotely big enough to use this cal. on is wild boar and I would still end up with a shredded pork sandwich....

@ mosin nagant 7.62x54r fans / owners

have you looked at the you tube video about making the mosin a floating barrel or the 2 videos about cleaning up the trigger pull?

i did it to mine , but i wont know how much / if it helped my accuracy till spring (the trigger is way better dry firing) half hour project to do all