RE: The US and guns

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The US and guns

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The US and guns

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The US and guns - 10/19/2006 12:48:59 PM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

MizSuz - thanks.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to MizSuz)

Profile

Post #: 261

RE: The US and guns - 10/19/2006 12:51:28 PM

MizSuz

Posts: 1881
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

MizSuz - thanks.

E

Lady Ellen,

I'm not sure I answered your questions, frankly. I just tried to give you an overview of some of the germane history.

_____________________________

“The more you love, the more you can love—and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.”
- Robert Heinlein

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 262

RE: The US and guns - 10/19/2006 9:00:31 PM

Pulpsmack

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Here's a (probably daft) question -

If the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the founding document of the US, signed only by those states that were then in existence (13?) - was it then signed/ratified by the later states when they joined the Union, or was it just implied that the Constitution would extend to cover them too as they had joined the Union?

Another probably daft question -

When the southern states seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War, didnt that mean that they had revoked their coverage under the Constitution? Was it signed again by states like Georgia for example, or again was it implied that they would be or already had always been, covered by the Constitution?

Its probably not that much of a daft question, inasmuch as if the newer states and the southern states didnt actually sign/ratify, but that it was just implied that the Constitution applied, there could be a very useful loophole there for those who wish to control guns to exploit - leaving only the 6/7 (I'm not sure) original states which hadnt seceded from the Union, covered by the right to bear arms.

Would be interested to know.

E

Constitutional rights apply to people, not places

Yick Wo, was a watershed case that showed equal protection applied as far as LEGAL aliens

Katz v. US applied the 4th amendment as a protection of the people, not the places that were deemed private.

The Southern states were either re-incorporated in the union, or never recognized to have left (your choice) but the significant point is that the Southern citizens were considered Americans, thus they were free to enjoy the rights afforded to them via the constitution.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 263

RE: The US and guns - 10/19/2006 9:13:34 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

Hello A/all,

Kevlar will stop a .38 slug, a .45 slug, and I believe a .44 magnum slug.

It will not, however, stop a .22 long rifle because the cross section is small enough that the kevlar fibers cannot stop it.

There was a guy who was showing off his bullet proof vest by having a friend fire his M16A1 at him. The guy shot 2 inches below the bottom of the vest, severing the guys spine and killing him. He won a Darwin Award.

Not sure why I brought this up, but a cop friend said that police tend to be a lot more nervous about pistols that shoot .22 long rifle bullets than bigger guns.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 264

RE: The US and guns - 10/19/2006 10:30:38 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

sinergy - slightly off topic and not sure how true it is but I heard a tale that when they were filming Rbin hood prince of theives for the shot with the arow going straight towards the camera there was going to be a bullet proof glass used to protect the camera man. He wasn't very hapy and asked for proof at which point they shot the arrow and it went thorugh the bullet proff glass / perspex - something to do with the rotaion effect -

Anyone else heard this story / know the truth behind it?

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 265

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 5:18:08 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Bullet proof vests are called bullet resistant vests in the industry.

Several things affect the ability of a vest to stop a given projectile, profile of the bullet, mass of the bullet, and velocity of the bullet are the primary ones.

Almost all vests will stop a .22. 44 mag will punch a level II (what most cops wear) vest simply because it combines mass and velocity on a grand scale. Almost all rifle caliber weapons (.22 isn't considered rifle caliber) will punch level II and III vests. The M16 has a projectile that is .22 caliber in diameter but it is heavier and moving about three times faster and will go right through a vest. Their is a common pistol caliber that was first used in the 1890s and later adopted by the Russians that will easily punch level II and sometimes level III vests. It is for reasons like this that the NRA fought so hard against "cop killer bullets" because it would have outlawed many common calibers and pistols and since ANY real rifle will go through both sides of almost any vest the whole debate had as much substance as the WMD debate does.

Arrows combine profile (sharp point) and a very very huge mass and will go through vests like butter. Remember they were designed to kill mounted armored knights in steel armor!

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 266

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 6:05:39 AM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Amaros,

I am surprised at you. In reading of contemporary writing, it is clear what they meant by regulated. In addition, many of the states bill of rights ommited the section about militias and simply stated the right of people to be armed. It is quite clear what the writers meant when they used the word regulated.

I'm not sure that it's that clear at all, since so many people have so many different interpretations - i.e., which "contemporary" writers? The NRA itself simply leaving the first clause off entirely doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to arrive at a balanced interpretation, and they are unlikely to endorse anything that hurts gun sales as they have come to represent the gun (manufacturers) lobby.

In the end, it would be a matter for the SCOTUS, you may hope it will be clear to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

If I was the guerilla general and I could get the US army to fire on a huge crowd of civilians with the loss of one guy with a .22, I would call that a great victory. Also, one guy lying in the grass on a runway with a silent .22 could also take a headshot on the pilot of that AC130 before it took flight, pilots are not easy to replace and I would trade shooters for pilots 1 for 1 as long as anyone was stupid enough to let me.

quote:

I wouldn't expect it to ever come to that.

Neither would I, I work hard to ensure it doesn't get to that and I would be the last one to throw in the towel and want to start shooting, but when I did, I wouldn't miss.

It's possibel I suppose, but I'm sorry, it's just a ludicrous scenario - the only thing that isn't in doubt is that such an event would be both unfortunate and bloody.

In the Fort Wingate standoff, a high percentage of the civilians involved were in fact former Marines, well armed and excellent marksmen - which figured into it I suspect. In this case, negotiations continued throughout, and ultimately resolved the issue without it turning into a bloodbath.

< Message edited by Amaros -- 10/20/2006 6:09:40 AM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 267

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 6:17:58 AM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

During a meal and wine with some americans the subject of licenses to carry concealed fire arms came up. Most did not have one and did not carry fire arms in this manner. Most had rifles for hunting and pointed out that by the time they got the rifles out of the combination safe in their houses any intruder would have been in and out. The main argument put forward for why some of them were considering getting a license and starting to carry a weapon was that they new people that did and were concerned about these "lawfully" carrying people getting tanked upon on alcohol and using the concealed handgun insted of their fists in any confrontation. Main point, they did not feel threatened and so did not have guns for anti person protection but the laws comming in were causing / potentilly causing an escalation in hand guns.

This is the usual bullshit argument, what I said was, that if you don't have it within your physical control it needs to be locked up - i.e., when your in the house, and you fear attack, by all means, carry it on you, or leave the safe unlocked if you're in the same room, whatever, it's just common sense.

They're weapons, they require dicipline to handle them properly - if you don't have that dicipline the chances are they will be stolen and used in a crime where somebody else will be killed with your gun, or one of your kids is going to blow his own or his buddies head off - seen that too, more than once.

As for concealed carry permits, I believe they do have something of a chilling effect - you don't even need to carry: if somebody starts some shit, all you have to do is reach around behind your back like you are carrying, and watch your attacker turn all pale and sweaty. Thing is, nobody knows who's strapped and who's not, so advertising that you aren't strapped, i.e., a soft target, is going to raise your risks considerably.

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 268

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 6:30:08 AM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Bullet proof vests are called bullet resistant vests in the industry.

Several things affect the ability of a vest to stop a given projectile, profile of the bullet, mass of the bullet, and velocity of the bullet are the primary ones.

Almost all vests will stop a .22. 44 mag will punch a level II (what most cops wear) vest simply because it combines mass and velocity on a grand scale. Almost all rifle caliber weapons (.22 isn't considered rifle caliber) will punch level II and III vests. The M16 has a projectile that is .22 caliber in diameter but it is heavier and moving about three times faster and will go right through a vest. Their is a common pistol caliber that was first used in the 1890s and later adopted by the Russians that will easily punch level II and sometimes level III vests. It is for reasons like this that the NRA fought so hard against "cop killer bullets" because it would have outlawed many common calibers and pistols and since ANY real rifle will go through both sides of almost any vest the whole debate had as much substance as the WMD debate does.

Arrows combine profile (sharp point) and a very very huge mass and will go through vests like butter. Remember they were designed to kill mounted armored knights in steel armor!

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 269

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 6:34:07 AM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Here's a (probably daft) question -

If the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the founding document of the US, signed only by those states that were then in existence (13?) - was it then signed/ratified by the later states when they joined the Union, or was it just implied that the Constitution would extend to cover them too as they had joined the Union?

Another probably daft question -

When the southern states seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War, didnt that mean that they had revoked their coverage under the Constitution? Was it signed again by states like Georgia for example, or again was it implied that they would be or already had always been, covered by the Constitution?

Its probably not that much of a daft question, inasmuch as if the newer states and the southern states didnt actually sign/ratify, but that it was just implied that the Constitution applied, there could be a very useful loophole there for those who wish to control guns to exploit - leaving only the 6/7 (I'm not sure) original states which hadnt seceded from the Union, covered by the right to bear arms.

Would be interested to know.

E

I believe the constitution had to be ratified by the de facto legislature of a territory before a territory was admitted as a state - or re-admitted, as in the case of the Southern States. Similarly, every ammendment has to be ratified by a majority of States to become law.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 270

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 6:41:44 AM

ShreveportMaster

Posts: 899
Joined: 10/6/2004
From: Dallas, Tx
Status: offline

Concerning BP vests, First, a .22 LR will be stopped even by a level 1 vest. If you want something that will easily penetrate a Kevlar vest, use an ice pick. a Tanto style blade also works wonders here, unless you happen to hit a trauma plate with it. (Ceramic add-on piece that fits in a pocket on the vest, used to cover as much of the vital area as possible.)
As for .44,s .45's etc These are big, fat, slow-moving slugs that hit like a freight train, and expend all their ballistic energy in the target, which is exactly what you want a bullet to do.
9 mm etc, just punches a nice neat little 9 mm hole in the perp, and the slug often winds up in the next county over. Bad form, and also very inefficient. The only exceptions to such are the glaser type safety slugs, and a few of the rather esoteric numbers such as the old Balck Talons.

I will always support trhe right to keep, and arm Bears.

I wish you well,
Shreve

_____________________________

"And to sooth the Bosk, there was found a Singing Cowboy. To soothe the Cowboy, a kajira is needed."

Riders of Gor
Book 37, Pg 298 ;-)

(in reply to Amaros)

Profile

Post #: 271

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 7:03:47 AM

TahoeSadist

Posts: 176
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline

The .44 has relatively little pentrating power, it's a large slug with a low muzzle volocity - good in dense brush since it doesn't deflect as much as say a .357 which has a maller projectile and much higher muzzle volocity, hence, greater penetrating power. In some field tests with an auto mag, the .44 dented and tore a 1/4 stainless steel apature plate, while the .357 punched right through.

Ok this is false. The .44 Magnum is primarily a hunting round because of it's recoil and power (which includes penetration) Design of the projectile is going to determine penetration and stopping power. A fast websearch turns up all sorts of data on the 44, with different bullets and in different roles as far as penetration and stopping power. Also, the "brush busting" theory has been thoroughly debunked in tests over the years: bullets will deflect when striking objects on the way to a target, but bullet design, mass and velocity play a big role in how far they'll deflect. It sounds to me like your example may have been mistaken, as it sounds much more like a comparison of the .45 ACP and the .357 Magnum perhaps?

Same difference between the AK (7.76) and the M-16 (5.56, or .222) - the AK is better in dense cover, while the M-16 round, which spalls by design, is going to be considerably less accurate when there are obstructions.

Ok, I have to ask, when did the AK-47 switch from being a 7.62x39 round to this 7.76 you speak of? Same question on the M16 which seems to have moved into a .222 (which is an excellent round, but not the same as the good old .223 that the AR's and M16 can fire) As to the relative effectivness of the 7.62x39 vs the 5.56, you may note that the Soviets replaced the 7.62x39 cartridge in 1974 with a high velocity 5.45x39 round. It is believed that this happened based on their observations of the performance of the 5.56 round in, let me check my memory....the jungles of Vietnam.

Eric

_____________________________

As long as one of us enjoys it, it's not a total waste

(in reply to Amaros)

Profile

Post #: 272

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 7:39:20 AM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

I stand corrected on the calibers, .223, and &.7.62, it's an interest, not a fetish for me. Most rounds fall into the .22, .38, or .45 range.

The .44 test I performed myself with a Teledyne Auto Mag - prone to jamming, unfortunately. Both rounds were unjacketed wadcutters, so projectile design wasn't an issue.

True, bullet design will make a notable difference in penetration, a hollow point will penetrate less than fully jacketed ball ammo, since it will flatten out on impact. I've also thouroghly tested the deflection theory, and I prefer to hunt in dense brush with a .44 Smith, which is a different set of conditions that most firefights.

I've also seen .223 rifle bullets deflect, while a .44 rifle round plowed right through with greater accuracy - definitely could be that some of this might be due to the difference in projectile shape, i.e., cone v.s. wadcutter.

When it comes to flesh, a .44 penetrates just fine, particularly at close range. A smaller, higher volocity round like a 9mm will penetrate and then some, as Shreveport points out.

Recoil, as far as I know has nothing to do with it, except perhaps as indicitive of the physics of a particular round in a particular weapon.

The 5.45 round has better accuracy at greater range, which is probobly why they switched, the slower, heavier slug will drop faster, and isn't very accurate at much more than a hundred yards or so.

Probobly for similar reasons the US went with a spalling round on the M-16 - turned out most soldiers weren't actually aiming, just pointing shooting, hence accuracy was wasted - for the Soviets, they probobly figured out that their toops were more effective firing from a greater distance.

There is some controversy over the question of "stopping power", i.e., penetration v.s. hydrostatic shock - but most anecdotal evidence suggests that larger slug drop's 'em faster, with a trade off in terms of range and recoil, which can affect second shot accuracy, depending on the weapon.

< Message edited by Amaros -- 10/20/2006 8:00:15 AM >

(in reply to TahoeSadist)

Profile

Post #: 273

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 7:41:10 AM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

I think it's actually the newer .41 magnum, I think it is, that will penetrate most vests - a heavier bullet, but with higher muzzle volocity.

(in reply to Amaros)

Profile

Post #: 274

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 9:25:48 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Military bullets do not spall, that would be a direct violation of the geneva conventions, while they can deform, they cannot spall. The Russian 5.45 has an interior hollow cavity which allows the base lead plug to shift forward upon impact and destabilize the projectile which causes it to tumble violently.

Spalling is when one object strikes another and causes the object to break on the interior and the kinetic energy is transfered to those pieces. This effect is called spalling, it is demonstrated by those little desktop toys with the balls suspended in a row.

(in reply to Amaros)

Profile

Post #: 275

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 9:40:46 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

.44 mag is usually loaded faster and with vastly heavier bullets than 9mm. Its muzzle energy is twice that of a 9mm.

It takes a better vest to stop .44 than 9mm.

This link is a BIG file but has a chart on page 4 that shows what vest stops what round.

http://media.msanet.com/NA/USA/GSALaw/5555-108-GSA-Law.pdf

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 276

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 11:04:37 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

As far as I'm aware it only takes three people to form a "Militia."

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 277

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 11:12:57 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Amoros,

quote:

I'm not sure that it's that clear at all, since so many people have so many different interpretations - i.e., which "contemporary" writers? The NRA itself simply leaving the first clause off entirely doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to arrive at a balanced interpretation, and they are unlikely to endorse anything that hurts gun sales as they have come to represent the gun (manufacturers) lobby.

In the end, it would be a matter for the SCOTUS, you may hope it will be clear to them.

When I mentioned contemporary writers, I meant ones contemporary to the writing of the bill of rights itself. That is also why I mentioned the bit about contemporary (to the bill of rights) state constitutions which clearly enumerated an individual right to own weapons.

As for SCOTUS, in the 1934 Miller decision, they clearly came down on the right of an individual ( even a felon! ) to own military weapons. They clearly ruled against Millers right to own the gun in question ONLY because it was unsuitable for military use.

(in reply to Amaros)

Profile

Post #: 278

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 12:30:05 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Crappy, you are correct. Although I bet a sawed-off shotgun would come in VERY handy in close-in house to house combat such as we are seeing in Iraq.
And, it is an "individual" right.
"The People" means just that!
"The State" IS The People.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 279

RE: The US and guns - 10/20/2006 2:10:51 PM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Popeye,

The idiot who was defending Miller wasn't aware that the US used shotguns as military weapons and if I remember correctly didn't even show up to argue the case.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 280