mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Angmo

300 meters does not define it. Perhaps you should join the Marines. They’ll educate you.

Najataagihe

Original post.

Who's deflecting?

Angmo

Never been defined by you. You missed the defining feature. Has zero to do with bullet weight.

Najataagihe

You are a man after my own heart.

300 meters is the maximum effective range of an assault rifle.


Marksmen, Marine or otherwise, shoot battle rifles a lot farther than that!

Angmo

My M16 max effective range was 460 meters.
You can still reach out and touch someone further out than that. My M14 & 300 Win Mag has no issues as they are larger more powerful cartridges. .338 is really good.

It really has to do with accuracy as the bullet t***sitions from supersonic to subsonic and energy (foot pounds) at the receiving end. That’s called terminal velocity.

The se*****r switch matters with the definition of an assault rifle. The media and evil leftie Dems are ignorant of firearms.

The more ignorant, the louder the opinion.

The military assault Rifle was designed to be used at 300 meters hence the cartridge design and all. That’s is not max effective range. Desert and mountain environments really need a more powerful cartridge.

The military always fights the last war. While the 5.56 can be devastating inside 300 meters, I just don’t care for the caliber.

And the AK? @300 meters it is not accurate.

Rose42

One thing republicans have going for them is they have far fewer snowflakes.

They also don’t champion k*****g life at its most innocent as you do. Only the depraved give no thought to that innocent life.

But they are corrupt just as the democrats are.

pendennis

Easier stated than accomplished.

HIPAA laws protect people from nosy, prying folks who have no earthly reason for seeing those records. And it presents a very slippery slope from which there is no return; greased at the edge and perpendicular to the ground.

The doctor/patient relationship has to remain highly sacrosanct, and not just for cases of mental illness for the purchase/ownership of firearms. There are all kinds of diseases and conditions which folks have, and which have negative social, financial, etc., implications for employment, social interaction, any number of reasons. Once the relationship has been broken for preventing a firearms purchase, the next fracture becomes much easier. If a judge decides that your illness/condition should be revealed to your employer, the game is over. Precedent has been established, and courts will use stare decisis for every reason under the sun to break the relationships. Your medical life is no longer private. Say you had syphilis when you were 21, you're now fifty. Want that to become public knowledge? And that's one of the milder examples.

From there, it's only a matter of which trust relationship can and must be violated - lawyer/client, priest/parishioner. The Fourth Amendment applies here especially. Now, I'm not naive to believe that these trust relationships are literally inviolable, they're not. But there have to be very real limits, and brutally high sanctions for anyone who violates them. Judges are not all bestowed with Themis-like wisdom, so we should err on the side of the individual.

There's great gnashing of teeth and thumping of breast over these last two shootings. However, bad as they were, they're a relatively rare event; higher numbers of murders go on each week in Chicago, Baltimore, and other large cities, and the "press" hardly reports on those.

If a person's mental condition is brought into the public arena, and it turns out that this person wasn't a mental defective because of error or maliciousness, just what is the remedy? It brings another round of legal proceedings, and the only ones that get rich are the lawyers. No amount of money will repair the loss of reputation once these violations are made. As the line from former Secretary of Labor James Donovan goes, "What office do I go to get back my reputation?".

Angmo

Evil leftie Dems have closed most all insane asylums. Preferring to open the doors and medicate the crazies.

Consequences of evil leftie dem policies always fail.

Najataagihe

Literally speaking, you are correct.

However, I did not want to have to explain why a rifle with a maximum effective range of 460 meters has a battle sight zero at 250 meters.

Had I mentioned that the requirements were for a maximum 300-meter battle sight zero, I would have had to explain it to those who have no idea.

Now that you brought it up, YOU can explain it!




One of the few statements to which I can honestly say "Duh".




Hey, it's great for coyotes and feral dogs!




That's because it was designed to always go "boom", not be a marksman's rifle.

Angmo

Feral dogs... none in my state

Najataagihe

That depends on your definition of "feral dog", doesn't it?

No, No. Bad Naja, no biscuit.


Real feral dogs k**led several of our goats and a young calf.

A few Vitamin Pb pills solved that problem.

Angmo

I figured you meant hogs. Pigs that is.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Per the f*****t progressives it’s a gun that shoots anything besides filtered water, though allowances are made for switching out the water with acid when it’s a f*****t progressive shooting at a Conservative!

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Actually gun deaths dropped almost in half once the ban lifted (on a per 100,000 basis).

You can’t solve a problem if you don’t define it, and that’s further proof no politicians really want to solve this issue. Remember, along with a******n it’s the largest fundraiser for BOTH parties.