Another Predictable Gun Ban


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/20/statement-by-president-biden-on-the-deadly-shooting-in-colorado-springs/

Quote

We need to enact an assault weapons ban to get weapons of war off America’s streets.

It is ironic that with a Republican majority in the house, we can look forward to a gun ban actually passing this next session.  Or, if there is any fear from the left, they may try to ram it through before the new representatives are sworn in.

My prediction?  It is too close to call.  They may very well be able to pass even after the new Congress.  The majority is not solid enough.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to enact an assault weapons ban to get weapons of war off America’s streets.

This quote, is highly disingenuous, and it represents the dishonesty of politicians' at its finest. The concept of "weapons of war" leaves the statement open to every gun in the stores, which ultimately allows for the removal of the 2nd Amendment, or simply removing "shall not be infringed."

Every gun from a .22  caliber pistol/rifle and higher are "weapons of war". The .22LR suppressed High Standard pistols were widely used in the Cold and Second world wars. The Colt M4, another .22 rifle was used also in war, and is still issued to the US Army.

All hunting rifles. All muzzle loaders can be "weapons of war."

And we will have useful idiots who simply go along giving up the rights they have, and which were instilled for their protection from tyrannical and dictator ploys by people who desire power and control.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I do not think any new citizen gun restrictions will pass within the next two years.  That is good in my opinion.  We do not need anymore citizen gun restrictions, just enforce what is already on the books. 

(Some gun restrictions also need to go away like short barrel rifle and shotgun laws in my opinion.  These types of firearms are good home defense weapons that should not require a Class III license with a lot of restrictions on them that criminals will continue to ignore.)

The White House is doing everything it can to hurt and take rights and liberties away from the common people in since January 2020.  They want semi automatic rifles gone from the common populace as they wish to exercise unrighteous dominion over us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 8:32 AM, Anddenex said:

The Colt M4, another .22 rifle was used also in war, and is still issued to the US Army.

I agree with basically everything being said in this thread, but with all due respect, I must disagree with the above single statement. Perhaps you're not a regular shooter (or perhaps you are) and this is simply an oversight, no biggie... But the M4/AR platform, is not chambered for a ".22" round, in the traditional sense. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet (meaning the diameter is .22 of an inch)... but actually saying the M4 fires a ".22", as opposed to what it actually fires... a ".223 or 5.56", is disingenuous.

The muzzle velocity and energy exchange on impact of the ".22" vs the ".223 or 5.56" are vastly different.

The .22 has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1,000fps... the .223 is approximately 2,600fps.

The .22 has a muzzle energy of approximately 100 (foot pounds of energy)... the .223 is approximately 1,250 (foot pounds of energy).

Note: The word "approximately" as used above, is simply to denote that the numbers shown are "averages" based on "standard" bullet weights, powder loads, etc. 

Can you get a kit to convert, (or buy new) an AR that will fire traditional .22 ammo, yes you can. Does the military issue the M4 rifle to fire a .22... no they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMGNUT said:

it is basically a .22 caliber bullet (meaning the diameter is .22 of an inch)... but actually saying the M4 fires a ".22", as opposed to what it actually fires... a ".223 or 5.56", is disingenuous.

You appear to be completely missing Anddenex's point, which is that that the term "weapons of war" is useless. Any firearm is a "weapon of war". That the .223 round is three thou larger in diameter than the .22, or that the .223 uses a larger case that carries far more powder, is utterly irrelevant to his point. There is not the least thing disingenuous about what he wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DMGNUT said:

I agree with basically everything being said in this thread, but with all due respect, I must disagree with the above single statement. Perhaps you're not a regular shooter (or perhaps you are) and this is simply an oversight, no biggie... But the M4/AR platform, is not chambered for a ".22" round, in the traditional sense. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet (meaning the diameter is .22 of an inch)... but actually saying the M4 fires a ".22", as opposed to what it actually fires... a ".223 or 5.56", is disingenuous.

The muzzle velocity and energy exchange on impact of the ".22" vs the ".223 or 5.56" are vastly different.

The .22 has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1,000fps... the .223 is approximately 2,600fps.

The .22 has a muzzle energy of approximately 100 (foot pounds of energy)... the .223 is approximately 1,250 (foot pounds of energy).

Note: The word "approximately" as used above, is simply to denote that the numbers shown are "averages" based on "standard" bullet weights, powder loads, etc. 

Can you get a kit to convert, (or buy new) an AR that will fire traditional .22 ammo, yes you can. Does the military issue the M4 rifle to fire a .22... no they don't.

I think @Vort covered what I was saying nicely.

Edit:

Let's review what I said and your interpretation, singling out one statement. Here are the main points of what I said surrounding "weapons of war."

1) .22 caliber and higher are weapons of war. This is a factual statement.

2) Is the M4 a higher caliber of the .22 standard pistol? Yes, yes it is. Another factual statement.

3) Is the M4 a weapon of war. Yes, yes, it is. Once again a factual statement.

4) In war, we can see that lower caliber of weapons than an AR have been used in war. So the velocity means nothing to the comment I made. It actually supports it because we can see lower caliber weapons have been used in war -- and are considered weapons of war.

5) If you use the term "weapon of war" it can mean any gun because .22 caliber weapons have been used in war.

What was disingenuous in my post? Nothing. And you even said yourself, which is what I specified, "Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet." The velocity between the two are irrelevant seeing there are much more high powered guns used in war than a .22 high standard pistol and the M4. Thus, my post centered around "weapons of war." Are you saying you disagree that the M4 and other lower velocity pistols are weapons of war, or do you think the lower velocity isn't a weapon war? What's disingenuous?

The disingenuous statement is from Biden about removing "weapons of war"? This includes all guns as they can be weapons of war. My shotgun. My 30-30, my 210, and others can all be used to defend if "war" ever hit our continent. Thus my statement stands correct, if you can regulate the term "weapon of war" this means goodbye to the 2nd amendment or at least "shall not be infringed."

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Club Q shooting is fueling this latest interest in more gun control.  And democrat politicians are doing what they always do - seeing a bunch of people all mad and walking in the same direction intent on making change, and getting in front of them to "lead" them.    This is just part of the same old cycle.  CO is going to give more gun control a try, and we'll see if we've got enough red in the state to stop it.  The feds will try something that sounds good but has no teeth, b/c the democrats are too weak to accomplish anything in this part of the election cycle.  The media will drop the Club Q news like a smelly turd as soon as they realize the bad guy is striking a blow against the golden rule of "thou shalt respect pronouns".  The vocal right won't let that one go, but everyone else sure will, and we'll all stop thinking and talking about it two point four nanoseconds after the media drops it.  

The other thing I'm always fascinated to watch, is what media chooses to push into our national conversation, and what it doesn't.  Brutal 'assault rifle' shooting attack by a white guy on the LGBTQIA+ community that killed 5 and injured 26?  It's everywhere, in all our media.   Brutal driving attack by a black guy at the height of the ACAB/racist America/defund the police/unrest in the streets wave, that killed 6 and injured 62?  Yeah, well...

13FCf02.png

 

 

yhMvwmB.png

 

That blue line from the bottom chart just kills me.  Darryl Brooks got more media attention as a goofy sovereign citizen, than he did as a murderous mass killer.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks bunches for the review... again, I don't disagree with any of the points being made here. So no worries... and very sorry to have ruffled feathers and muddled an otherwise great rant about ignorant liberals and their desire to outlaw guns, with actual information.

All to often the libs misquote and misstate basic facts in regards to firearms. For us to do the same (knowingly or otherwise) does nothing to help our cause. I guess it's just a pet-peave of mine when someone (again, knowingly or otherwise), misstates facts about firearms. Fact... the military does not issue a .22 caliber M4... which is what you said.

But again, I'm very sorry to have rained on the parade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DMGNUT said:

Fact... the military does not issue a .22 caliber M4... which is what you said.

But again, I'm very sorry to have rained on the parade.

Interesting as to what you call a fact, and how people split hairs. Let's review this fact for a moment. The US Army indeed does have the M4 currently in the list of given weapons.

You have already pointed out that the M4, your words, "Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet," which can be validated with this also, "22 caliber, or 5.6 mm caliber, refers to a common firearms bore diameter of 0.22 inch (5.6 mm). Cartridges in this caliber include the very widely used . 22 Long Rifle and . 223 Remington / 5.56×45mm NATO."

So, fact, the military actually does issue a .22 rifle for all intents and purposes. Not sure why you want to split hairs, or deny this fact but totally up to you.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... when I'm wrong about something I simply say, "sorry, my mistake". But I find that some have difficulties with that simple response.

At this point, I am truly sorry to have started a discussion about firearms with someone who knows little to nothing about firearms... Sorry, my mistake.

I will politely excuse myself from this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DMGNUT said:

Wow... when I'm wrong about something I simply say, "sorry, my mistake". But I find that some have difficulties with that simple response.

At this point, I am truly sorry to have started a discussion about firearms with someone who knows little to nothing about firearms... Sorry, my mistake.

I will politely excuse myself from this discussion.

Yes, please do. This way I don't have to further a discussion with someone who wants to pretend to be sorry, and wants to insult someone producing facts about firearms you seem to not be able to handle. If you can't deal with facts, which you couldn't dispute. Don't bother further communication. It's better that way.

EDIT: This discussion reminds me of pedantic anglers who try to tell someone the fly fishing "indicator" isn't a bobber, and then proceed to give their full anal explanations of why the indicator isn't a bobber. But with all "intents and purposes" its a bobber.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

EDIT: This discussion reminds me of pedantic anglers who try to tell someone the fly fishing "indicator" isn't a bobber, and then proceed to give their full anal explanations of why the indicator isn't a bobber. But with all "intents and purposes" its a bobber.

Fly fishing is like the major leagues of fishing. Way, way beyond my ability, that’s for sure. 

I used to enjoy regular, basic fishing but I’m awful at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Fly fishing is like the major leagues of fishing. Way, way beyond my ability, that’s for sure. 

I used to enjoy regular, basic fishing but I’m awful at it. 

I doubt it would be beyond your ability. I used to think the same way before I started fly fishing. I'm not as good, or detailed in the minutiae as other fly fisherman, but it sure is a fun method to catch fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMGNUT said:

Wow... when I'm wrong about something I simply say, "sorry, my mistake". But I find that some have difficulties with that simple response.

At this point, I am truly sorry to have started a discussion about firearms with someone who knows little to nothing about firearms... Sorry, my mistake.

I will politely excuse myself from this discussion.

I am not very knowledgeable about firearms, but I was not trying to correct you on firearms issues. I just thought that calling Anddenex's post "disingenuous" was an unnecessary insult. Maybe you didn't mean it as an insult, in which case I withdraw my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I doubt it would be beyond your ability. I used to think the same way before I started fly fishing. I'm not as good, or detailed in the minutiae as other fly fisherman, but it sure is a fun method to catch fish.

I appreciate your confidence but take my word on this: I’m awful at fishing. Some people go days without catching anything, I go seasons. I eventually just gave up because I realized that it was hopeless. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2022 at 5:02 AM, Anddenex said:

I think @Vort covered what I was saying nicely.

Edit:

Let's review what I said and your interpretation, singling out one statement. Here are the main points of what I said surrounding "weapons of war."

1) .22 caliber and higher are weapons of war. This is a factual statement.

2) Is the M4 a higher caliber of the .22 standard pistol? Yes, yes it is. Another factual statement.

3) Is the M4 a weapon of war. Yes, yes, it is. Once again a factual statement.

4) In war, we can see that lower caliber of weapons than an AR have been used in war. So the velocity means nothing to the comment I made. It actually supports it because we can see lower caliber weapons have been used in war -- and are considered weapons of war.

5) If you use the term "weapon of war" it can mean any gun because .22 caliber weapons have been used in war.

What was disingenuous in my post? Nothing. And you even said yourself, which is what I specified, "Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet." The velocity between the two are irrelevant seeing there are much more high powered guns used in war than a .22 high standard pistol and the M4. Thus, my post centered around "weapons of war." Are you saying you disagree that the M4 and other lower velocity pistols are weapons of war, or do you think the lower velocity isn't a weapon war? What's disingenuous?

The disingenuous statement is from Biden about removing "weapons of war"? This includes all guns as they can be weapons of war. My shotgun. My 30-30, my 210, and others can all be used to defend if "war" ever hit our continent. Thus my statement stands correct, if you can regulate the term "weapon of war" this means goodbye to the 2nd amendment or at least "shall not be infringed."

Still_Small_Voice said:

I do not think any new citizen gun restrictions will pass within the next two years.  That is good in my opinion.  We do not need anymore citizen gun restrictions, just enforce what is already on the books. (Some gun restrictions also need to go away like short barrel rifle and shotgun laws in my opinion.  These types of firearms are good home defense weapons that should not require a Class III license with a lot of restrictions on them that criminals will continue to ignore. Also supressor restriction - why would you ban supressors, it's like banning an AR 15 handguard or night vision scope for no particular reason)The White House is doing everything it can to hurt and take rights and liberties away from the common people in since January 2020.  They want semi automatic rifles gone from the common populace as they wish to exercise unrighteous dominion over us.

Completely agree. You can dig history books and slap "weapon of war" tag on literally anything and ban it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2022 at 11:49 AM, mirkwood said:

No, they are not the same.  

 

223.jpg

No one said they were the same! No one argued they were the same.

EDIT: Once again this reminds me of fly fisherman who argue tooth and nail that an "indicator" and a "bobber" are not the same thing. They will show pictures also.

No, they are right, the pictures of indicators and bobbers aren't the same. The indicator and the bobber are different, and can be different in weight, size, floatation, etc... and despite all this the fly fishing indicator is a bobber just like the .223 and the .22 are both .22 caliber bullets.

Once again, no one argued they were the same bullet.

EDIT 2: This also reminds me of Crocodile Dundee where the would be robber pulls a knife out and says (paraphrased), "I've got a knife." By which Dundee say, "That's not a knife, this is a knife." For all intents and purposes, the humor is great here, BECAUSE they were both knives. And if anyone denied the smaller one was a knife, simply because it's smaller...well...anyone can argue against what something is. We do it all the time.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anddenex,

I'm going to take a different tack to what (I believe) you're trying to say.

With the current state of the gun-control lobby and the level of knowledge of Democrat legislators (and even the general public) we have to be concerned about the language of the bill not being too broad or vague (which is often done on purpose).  If they were to ban a gun capable of firing a .223 round, it takes no stretch of the imagination to apply that legislation to a gun capable of firing a .22 round.

  • They don't even know the definition of "semi-automatic".  It's just "scary sounding."  That's all they know. 
  • "Weapons of war" is a meaningless term.  Every gun is made for war.  Some are more effective or have different purposes.  But any gun can be used effectively in war.  That's the whole point. 
  • Trump banned bump-stocks through executive order because it was, indeed, a "cheat" (IMHO).  But the Dem reps didn't even know what a bump-stock was.  They just had another "term" to rally against.
  • They completely fabricated the term "assault rifle" for no reason other than to ban "scary-looking" guns that were functionally no different than many other guns that were ignored.

Given the people we are dealing with in Washington, does anyone really think that any legislation aimed at .223 weapons will not be applied to .22 weapons?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carb, there are two different discussions going on in this thread.  One is what you said, which as far as I know, we all agree on about gun grabbers and their antics.  The other is the below quote.  That quote is factually inaccurate, which is where the discussion of calibers occurred.  There is either ignorance or willful ignorance (I frankly don't know which) going on in that part of the discussion.   The M4 (and other variants) do not fire a .22 cartridge.

 

Quote

The Colt M4, another .22 rifle was used also in war, and is still issued to the US Army.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Carb, there are two different discussions going on in this thread.  One is what you said, which as far as I know, we all agree on about gun grabbers and their antics.  The other is the below quote.  That quote is factually inaccurate, which is where the discussion of calibers occurred.  There is either ignorance or willful ignorance (I frankly don't know which) going on in that part of the discussion.   The M4 (and other variants) do not fire a .22 cartridge.

On that note, I'm going to give @Anddenex the benefit of the doubt here and note that we have two methodologies of terminology we're applying.

  • "The name of the round": The formal name of a given round that is industry standard (which would certainly differentiate between a .22 & a .223).  This takes into account much more than simply the diameter of the round.
  • "Definition of caliber": The generic definition of "caliber" which is simply the diameter of the bullet being propelled.  By this method, we're really splitting hairs when we say that a .223 is "completely" different from a .22 cal.

Most gun enthusiasts use the first method. And it is (IMHO) the proper way to do it.

But many still abide by a common definition.  They're not exactly "wrong".  They just don't think of the "name of the round".  They're only thinking of the diameter.

Then there is also "context" in which we throw around these terms.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share