text:
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:26 PM
DonViejo (25,555 posts)
Joe Biden Discounts Semi-Assault Weapons: Buy A Shotgun
Source: TPM
Vice President Joe Biden participated in a Facebook Town Hall hosted by Parents Magazine on Tuesday as part of the administration's push to reform the nation's gun laws. Responding to a question about a possible ban on assault weapons, Biden advised that shotguns provide better protection. "If you want to protect yourself get a double barrel shotgun, you don't need an AR-15," Biden said, referring to a type of semi-assault weapon. "You don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use...buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun." Biden also spoke about owning guns himself last month before the US Conference Of Mayors meeting in Washington, using the tale as a way to relate to fellow gun owners. I have a 20 gauge and a 12 gauge shotgun, he said. Watch video of Biden's remarks at the Facebook town hall here: Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/joe-biden-discounts-semi-assault-weapons-buy-shotgun
229 replies, 36282 views
229 replies | Author | Time | Post |
Joe Biden Discounts Semi-Assault Weapons: Buy A Shotgun (Original post) |
DonViejo | Feb 2013 | OP |
Mojorabbit | Feb 2013 | #1 | |
SylviaD | Feb 2013 | #3 | |
Mojorabbit | Feb 2013 | #5 | |
Deep13 | Feb 2013 | #104 | |
LanternWaste | Feb 2013 | #122 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Feb 2013 | #126 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #11 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #15 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #25 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #55 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #76 | |
Hoyt | Feb 2013 | #118 | |
bitchkitty | Feb 2013 | #142 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #207 | |
Shivering Jemmy | Feb 2013 | #227 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #145 | |
indie9197 | Feb 2013 | #169 | |
OGKush | Feb 2013 | #176 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #36 | |
zipplewrath | Feb 2013 | #20 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #26 | |
zipplewrath | Feb 2013 | #34 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #151 | |
yellowcanine | Feb 2013 | #53 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #152 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #175 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #149 | |
yellowcanine | Feb 2013 | #46 | |
Travis_0004 | Feb 2013 | #98 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #153 | |
darkangel218 | Feb 2013 | #81 | |
pasto76 | Feb 2013 | #120 | |
cliffordu | Feb 2013 | #135 | |
timdog44 | Feb 2013 | #157 | |
rhett o rick | Feb 2013 | #173 | |
treestar | Feb 2013 | #224 | |
Kingofalldems | Feb 2013 | #2 | |
onehandle | Feb 2013 | #4 | |
ag_dude | Feb 2013 | #6 | |
Taverner | Feb 2013 | #14 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #23 | |
derby378 | Feb 2013 | #35 | |
LanternWaste | Feb 2013 | #127 | |
derby378 | Feb 2013 | #185 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #80 | |
Duckhunter935 | Feb 2013 | #111 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #121 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #141 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #159 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #162 | |
Duckhunter935 | Feb 2013 | #165 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #168 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #155 | |
sir pball | Feb 2013 | #193 | |
Taverner | Feb 2013 | #205 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #206 | |
Taverner | Feb 2013 | #209 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #213 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #28 | |
Travis_0004 | Feb 2013 | #101 | |
frylock | Feb 2013 | #138 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #156 | |
treestar | Feb 2013 | #225 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #17 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #31 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #60 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #68 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #74 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #83 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #96 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #109 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #161 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #163 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #164 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #170 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #174 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #183 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #188 | |
sir pball | Feb 2013 | #194 | |
rhett o rick | Feb 2013 | #143 | |
bitchkitty | Feb 2013 | #214 | |
derby378 | Feb 2013 | #38 | |
frylock | Feb 2013 | #137 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #192 | |
SCVDem | Feb 2013 | #7 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #9 | |
NickB79 | Feb 2013 | #19 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #22 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #30 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #32 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #33 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #41 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #49 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #58 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #85 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #89 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #102 | |
oldbanjo | Feb 2013 | #158 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #166 | |
Xithras | Feb 2013 | #215 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #219 | |
ManiacJoe | Feb 2013 | #182 | |
SCVDem | Feb 2013 | #197 | |
ManiacJoe | Feb 2013 | #210 | |
SCVDem | Feb 2013 | #211 | |
ManiacJoe | Feb 2013 | #212 | |
NickB79 | Feb 2013 | #8 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #12 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #37 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #44 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #57 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #61 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #77 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #97 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #119 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #66 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #73 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #84 | |
Nuclear Unicorn | Feb 2013 | #78 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #79 | |
Hugabear | Feb 2013 | #82 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #87 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #91 | |
oldhippie | Feb 2013 | #201 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #86 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #90 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #105 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #107 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #110 | |
Nuclear Unicorn | Feb 2013 | #92 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #124 | |
treestar | Feb 2013 | #226 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #94 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #103 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #125 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #208 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #218 | |
krispos42 | Feb 2013 | #114 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #39 | |
indie9197 | Feb 2013 | #220 | |
NickB79 | Feb 2013 | #10 | |
SCVDem | Feb 2013 | #13 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #43 | |
AtheistCrusader | Feb 2013 | #88 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #113 | |
AtheistCrusader | Feb 2013 | #116 | |
mikeypooh | Feb 2013 | #136 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #139 | |
sir pball | Feb 2013 | #195 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #199 | |
sir pball | Feb 2013 | #200 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #203 | |
IthinkThereforeIAM | Feb 2013 | #48 | |
AtheistCrusader | Feb 2013 | #95 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #115 | |
AtheistCrusader | Feb 2013 | #117 | |
AtheistCrusader | Feb 2013 | #123 | |
AtheistCrusader | Feb 2013 | #128 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #131 | |
AtheistCrusader | Feb 2013 | #132 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #16 | |
Blandocyte | Feb 2013 | #18 | |
formercia | Feb 2013 | #45 | |
yellowcanine | Feb 2013 | #56 | |
One_Life_To_Give | Feb 2013 | #198 | |
one_voice | Feb 2013 | #21 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #24 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #27 | |
yellowcanine | Feb 2013 | #62 | |
hack89 | Feb 2013 | #140 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #29 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #42 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #50 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #54 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #59 | |
Light House | Feb 2013 | #63 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #67 | |
derby378 | Feb 2013 | #71 | |
yellowcanine | Feb 2013 | #65 | |
slackmaster | Feb 2013 | #69 | |
yellowcanine | Feb 2013 | #72 | |
derby378 | Feb 2013 | #40 | |
SCVDem | Feb 2013 | #47 | |
derby378 | Feb 2013 | #51 | |
SCVDem | Feb 2013 | #108 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #130 | |
derby378 | Feb 2013 | #186 | |
Kingofalldems | Feb 2013 | #52 | |
AnotherMcIntosh | Feb 2013 | #189 | |
Dash87 | Feb 2013 | #64 | |
Dyedinthewoolliberal | Feb 2013 | #70 | |
judesedit | Feb 2013 | #75 | |
bossy22 | Feb 2013 | #129 | |
SCVDem | Feb 2013 | #133 | |
Veilex | Feb 2013 | #93 | |
Politicub | Feb 2013 | #99 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #100 | |
Deep13 | Feb 2013 | #106 | |
krispos42 | Feb 2013 | #112 | |
Duckhunter935 | Feb 2013 | #134 | |
rhett o rick | Feb 2013 | #150 | |
krispos42 | Feb 2013 | #167 | |
rhett o rick | Feb 2013 | #171 | |
sir pball | Feb 2013 | #196 | |
krispos42 | Feb 2013 | #221 | |
2ndAmForComputers | Feb 2013 | #222 | |
mwrguy | Feb 2013 | #179 | |
Progressive dog | Feb 2013 | #144 | |
Betsy Ross | Feb 2013 | #146 | |
NaturalHigh | Feb 2013 | #147 | |
Pakid | Feb 2013 | #148 | |
iandhr | Feb 2013 | #154 | |
truthisfreedom | Feb 2013 | #160 | |
Pterodactyl | Feb 2013 | #172 | |
ManiacJoe | Feb 2013 | #184 | |
quadrature | Feb 2013 | #177 | |
Deep13 | Feb 2013 | #178 | |
Wolf Frankula | Feb 2013 | #180 | |
harmonicon | Feb 2013 | #181 | |
AngryAmish | Feb 2013 | #187 | |
CharlieVicker | Feb 2013 | #191 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #216 | |
ileus | Feb 2013 | #190 | |
oldhippie | Feb 2013 | #202 | |
Kingofalldems | Feb 2013 | #204 | |
Eleanors38 | Feb 2013 | #217 | |
TwilightGardener | Feb 2013 | #223 | |
Beacool | Feb 2013 | #228 | |
and-justice-for-all | Feb 2013 | #229 |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:29 PM
Mojorabbit (16,019 posts)
1. I find the opposite to be true
I don't have a lot of upper body strength as a woman with MS and a shotgun is hard as hell for me to use. The AR 15 is a breeze.
Perhaps from a man's perspective it is easier to use? |
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:35 PM
SylviaD (566 posts)
3. Sorry but the AR15 should be banned and illegal, ease of use or no. n/t
Response to SylviaD (Reply #3)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:42 PM
Mojorabbit (16,019 posts)
5. I was commenting on his assertion.
Not the issue of whether they should be banned or not.
Peace, Mojo |
Response to SylviaD (Reply #3)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:25 PM
Deep13 (39,128 posts)
104. disagree
prohibitions should have functional reasons, not because they look scary.
Response to Deep13 (Reply #104)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:54 PM
LanternWaste (27,222 posts)
122. Much as a disagreement should be aimed towards a relevant and stated premise
"prohibitions should have functional reasons, not because they look scary..."
Much as a disagreement should be aimed towards a relevant and stated premise, not on one you made up to better fit your narrative. Six of one and half a dozen of the other, you see... |
Response to Deep13 (Reply #104)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:57 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
126. Trust me,...
....the sound of cocking a pump action will send a burglar flying out the window.
No window? |
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:50 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
11. Some would take away choices while saying that women should not own firearms for self-defense.
Some of these people claim that their intolerant position is the position that should be taken by all good liberals and that only the evil NRA favors any kind of firearm ownership.
These self-appointed "liberal" spokespersons (including that gun-owning hypocrite Dianne Feinstein) do not speak for me. It seems to me that an AR-15 is a good choice for a woman for home defense. Not only are they lighter, they kick less. If a person has the body strength, a reliable 12 ga pump, such as a Remington 870, is a good choice and a better choice than a double-barreled shotgun. In contrast to a pump, a double-barreled shotgun limits a person's ability to reload. If a person knows that, they may be inhibited to shoot when necessary. If they are unwilling to shoot and a home invader or other attacker realizes that, the show of force may simply anger an attacker. |
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #11)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:59 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
15. So an AR-15 semi-automatic is now a "woman's right" issue?
This thread is the first time I've ever heard anyone try to make that claim.
Assault weapons should be BANNED. Period. There are better options for home defense than an assault rifle. |
Response to Hugabear (Reply #15)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:14 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
25. Whether you believe yourself to have superior knowledge as to what is best for home defense,
who are you to believe that you or anyone else can take away the choice of women or men to own an AR-15 for home defense.
I've trained women how to shoot. I know, as most people know, women commonly do not have the same hand strength and wrist strength as men. Do you favor a pistol for home defense for women? Since you should know that women tend to have less wrist strength than men, there is a greater opportunity for them to jam a pistol by limp-wristing it. Even a long gun can be jammed with limp-wristing, but a person who holds a rifle with two hands is much less likely to do so. Do you favor a rifle other than "an assault rifle" (whatever than means)? Well, good for you. Disapproving of "assault" rifles and those who own them, even if AR-15's are used to clear ranch land of rodents called prairie dogs to protect cattle against broken legs from stepping in prairie-dog holes, seems to be the current politically correct stance. No one should have a firearm in the home for self-defense unless you approve? Sorry. I'm an old fashioned FDR-type liberal. I'm not buying it. |
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #25)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:47 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
55. So what did all those women do during the AWB ban?
Sorry, there is nothing you can say that will convince me that women - or anybody else - NEEDS to have an assault weapon for home defense.
No one should have a firearm in the home for self-defense unless you approve?
Nice strawman - nowhere in this thread did I suggest that "no one should have a firearm" |
Response to Hugabear (Reply #55)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:07 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
76. I'm sure some purchased semi-auto carbines (AR-15s, AKs, etc.) during the "AWB ban."
By now, you should have realized that the 10-yr. ban did not prohibit the sale & possession of these weapons, only certain accouterments. Many of these weapons were sold during the "ban."
When will controllers get over their obsession with "looks" and the firearm equivalent of "tail fins?" Is the allure of prohibition of ANYTHING so great as to overcome that highly-touted notion of "common sense?" There are many semi-auto rifles and carbines which will be completely unaffected by any of the proposed bans before congress. Is it just about some kind of scalp on the wall? Some way of saying: We beat 'em, we beat 'em!? If so, then I can understand anyone imbued with the looks-are-everything culture we live in being so overcome that they another "ban" will do some good. But don't think for a minute that it will stop crime, or prevent mass-shootings. And to that extent, some controllers are being selfish in promoting schemes which will not work, and putting less emphasis on measures which might. |
Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #76)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:49 PM
Hoyt (29,191 posts)
118. Agree. The ban should not be based upon "looks." Ban all semi-autos, including
Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1) hand guns.
And, if we continue to sell the dang things, anyone who wants/covets the "scary looking" ones should be required to pass an exhaustive psychological exam. Why exact does someone covet the "scary" looking ones? |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #118)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:02 PM
bitchkitty (7,344 posts)
142. Because they're scared?
Maybe it's compensation for someone who feels weak and powerless when left to their own devices.
That said, I don't have a problem with someone owning a handgun, and keeping it in their home, if they've been properly screened and have a license. Some neighborhoods are dangerous. (Mine is - I don't go out after dark, and I have some awesome locks, but no gun.) |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #118)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:33 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
207. Thank you for making the case for the slippery slope...
Would you like to perform the psychological exam?
Need to clarify the "scary" looking ones. To me, some of 'em are butt-ugly, based on old technologies and "the latest!" accessories. |
Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #207)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:17 PM
Shivering Jemmy (900 posts)
227. I'd be happy to do the psych exam
Response to Hugabear (Reply #55)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:07 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
145. In a close neighbor hood an AR15 is one
of the safest guns to have it will not hit the next door neighbors house, the bullet will break up after going thru one wall, a shotgun with buckshot will go thru four or more walls and hit the neighbors house.
Response to oldbanjo (Reply #145)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:32 PM
indie9197 (503 posts)
169. You are correct
I didn't believe it so I googled it and .223 caliber rounds (AR-15) penetrate only through one layer of drywall before fragmenting. Bullets from .45 caliber hand guns and buckshot from a 12 gauge shotgun easily go through three layers of drywall.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #15)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:29 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
36. yes, IMO there are better weapons
but the problem is those are weapons that many in our party would like to see banned as well
weapons such as Pistols Revolvers Pump-action/semi-auto shotguns Here is the issue....when you start going by the logic that "weapons used by Law enforcement/military should not be in the hands of the civilians" without delving deeper into "why" they are used, you will end up taking some of the best weapons off the market I find it silly and insulting when a politician says that all I should have is a 1 or 2 shot shotgun, and anything more is crazy. If they truly believe in allowing americans to own weapons for the primary purpose of self defense they are going to have to allow weapons that are good at "killing" people. A pump action shotgun, in the wrong hands, can have a devestating effect, especially in such things as "contained" mass shootings. |
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:06 PM
zipplewrath (11,102 posts)
20. I still think he's right
Upper body strength not withstanding, if you are going to be "effective" in a home defense situation, you really want a shot gun. Yes, it's going to be a two handed weapon if you can't handle the weight. But it doesn't require alot of accuracy, it won't be particularly lethal through walls and doors, and it will stop the forward motion of an attacker. The AR-15 will tend to shoot anyone in the vicinity, even through doors and walls. It needs to fairly well aimed. And except for maybe the best of body mass shots, an attacker is likely to continue towards you, even if just on shear momentum.
Sad part is that probably what you really want is a "sawed off" shotgun, i.e. a short barreled, pistol gripped weapon that is illegal in many states last I knew. |
Response to zipplewrath (Reply #20)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:16 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
26. a standard 18" pump action shotgun will do the trick
the problem is that such weapons are common in police arsenals so it would fall counter to the prevailing "logic" that "weapons the police use should not be available to citizens"
Response to bossy22 (Reply #26)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:27 PM
zipplewrath (11,102 posts)
34. Yeah, poorly stated
I tend to think of a weapon with something between 12 and 15 inches. But it is a poorly worded guideline to suggest "if the police use it, you don't need it". It's more of the converse, "Just because the police have them, doesn't mean you should". Of course it isn't automatic that you SHOULDN'T either.
Response to zipplewrath (Reply #34)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:19 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
151. The police are fighting the same people that you will be fighting if they don't show up
so you need the weapons that they need.
Response to zipplewrath (Reply #20)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:43 PM
yellowcanine (30,934 posts)
53. The youth model takes care of those drawbacks and is legal.
Light and easy to handle. The barrel is longer than a sawed off but the shorter stock makes up for that a bit. And as you pointed out, aiming is not really needed, just pointing.
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #53)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:21 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
152. Horseshit, you need to ame a shotgun if you
expect to hit your target.
Response to oldbanjo (Reply #152)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:23 AM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
175. But you don't have to aim an AR-15?
Response to zipplewrath (Reply #20)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:16 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
149. A shot gun has to be aimed at close range just like a rifle.
One of my shotguns has a 18 1/2" barrel and a pistol grip. A bullet from an AR15 will stop you. A shotgun with buckshot will shoot thru a lot more walls than an AR15.
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:37 PM
yellowcanine (30,934 posts)
46. A youth model 20 gauge doesn't require a lot of upper body strength and is easier to
stop an intruder with one shot at close range in poor light than an AR 15.
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #46)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:22 PM
Travis_0004 (5,417 posts)
98. I disagree.
I think 12 gauge is a better round than 5.56, but I think that 5.56 is more effective than 20 gauge.
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #46)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:23 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
153. A light 20 gauge shotgun will kick harder than a
heavy 12 gauge.
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:52 PM
pasto76 (1,589 posts)
120. try a smaller shottie
like a .410. still hella powerful round. VP is right on this count.
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:43 PM
cliffordu (30,993 posts)
135. Of course what you WANT is a round moving around the house at 2500 feet per second.....
'SPECIALLY if you get some of the new rounds for that schweet piece...
"For general issue, the U.S. military adopted the M855A1 round in 2010 to replace the M855. The primary reason was pressure to use non-lead bullets. The bullet is made of a copper alloy slug with a steel penetrator, reducing lead contamination to the environment. The M855A1 offers several improvements other than being lead-free. It is slightly more accurate and has an increased penetrating capability. The round can better penetrate brick, concrete, and masonry walls, as well as body armor and sheet metal. The propellant burns faster which decreases the muzzle flash, an important feature when fired from a short barreled M4 carbine. Though the M855A1 is more expensive to produce, its increased performance compensates. One possible danger is that it generates more pressure in the chamber when fired, slightly increasing the risk of catostrophic failure of the weapon, though this has yet to occur. From fielding in June 2010 to September 2012, Alliant Techsystems has delivered over 350 million M855A1 Enhanced Performance Rounds." Cause then you can shoot through the walls and kill the people in the next apartment. Do some push ups. OR get a .357 magnum. OR a 20 gauge shotgun. |
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:35 PM
timdog44 (1,388 posts)
157. if you are talking about weight.
Check it out. Shotguns can weigh less than an AR 15. Pulling the trigger I would guess to be the same.
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:00 AM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
173. With due respect, a 20 gauge is easy for anyone to handle.
Shotguns may not be as effective (capable of killing, killing, killing) as a m-fucking-16, but a shotgun is enough to scare the shit our of anyone in your home. And it maybe less apt to kill those you love.
The gun idiots wouldnt agree. They want to have the ability to lay down blanket firepower that will kill anything in the area. If your children die, too bad it is just collateral damage. |
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #1)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:38 PM
treestar (66,996 posts)
224. Maybe an MS exception?
People who really think they need a gun to defend themselves would need one they can handle. But then, are there other alternatives?
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:30 PM
Kingofalldems (23,956 posts)
2. Here we go...
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:35 PM
onehandle (51,122 posts)
4. But what's easier to kill Kindergartners with? nt
Response to onehandle (Reply #4)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:42 PM
ag_dude (562 posts)
6. Not sure.
Never done it and don't ever plan on doing so.
What does that have to do with my rights? |
Response to ag_dude (Reply #6)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:58 PM
Taverner (55,476 posts)
14. Sorry, innocent children's right to live trumps your right to own a military grade weapon
Just saying
Response to Taverner (Reply #14)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:13 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
23. Is "military grade" the new meme?
what rifle in the past 100 years was not "military grade" at some point? Lets not forget that bolt action rifles were the main infantry weapon in WWII.
Do you really mean "modern"? |
Response to hack89 (Reply #23)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:28 PM
derby378 (30,201 posts)
35. My Kalashnikov is definitely military-grade - and perfectly Constitutional
Response to derby378 (Reply #35)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:57 PM
LanternWaste (27,222 posts)
127. Very precious salt for the wounds of twenty dead six year school children.
"My Kalashnikov is definitely military-grade - and perfectly Constitutional..."
Very precious salt for the wounds of twenty dead six year school children, one might think. Woo-hah, indeed... |
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #127)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:13 AM
derby378 (30,201 posts)
185. You can use those kids as props all you want...
And if that doesn't work, try stamping you foot and holding your breath.
Response to hack89 (Reply #23)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:09 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
80. Here comes the gun-lobby to once again quibble over common-sense terminology
I think it's pretty clear when someone refers to "military-grade" weaponry, we're talking about weaponry currently used by the military - ie assault weapons, machine guns, etc - not what was used by the military 50 years ago.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #80)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:39 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
111. well I guess an AR-15 does not meet that
A MILITARY GRADE rifle has select fire to allow burst fire. Since my civilian M-4 carbine does not have this feature it is not military grade. It is also not a machine gun.
Thanks for the schooling on this. |
Response to Hugabear (Reply #80)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:53 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
121. thats still a bad definition
because then by that definition all modern firearms (anything except a musket) should be banned
The military uses Pump-action/Semi-auto shotguns- a weapon that happens to be one of the top choices for home defense Pistols- another weapon that happens to be used heavily for defense Bolt action rifles with scopes- which happen to be one of the primary weapons hunters and target shooters use. But this question needs to be asked- if it is such a "common sense" definition- why is every assault weapon ban law on the books define it significantly different- to the point that large number of guns are prohibited by some but allowed by others? |
Response to Hugabear (Reply #80)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:02 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
141. AR-15s are a 50 year old design
so there is that. Do we have to wait until they invent phasers before it is ok to own AR-15s?
It is merely a rifle. Like every generation before, a large group of men in the military become familiar and comfortable with a certain type of rifle. The AR-15 is a 50 year old design - is what two generations of men think of when they hear the word rifle. |
Response to hack89 (Reply #141)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:53 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
159. If it's "merely" a rifle...
...then why do so many gun-lovers obsess over it?
Response to Hugabear (Reply #159)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:03 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
162. By its truest factual definition it is a rifle
Just like by the truest factual definition a Ferrari is "merely" an automobile.
I can't tell you why others like them- only why i do...here are a list of the few reasons Accurate Comfortable to fire Reliable Looks "cool"- yes, that is most certainely a legitimate reason to by something. We buy things that we find aesthetically pleasing Ammunition is easy to find for it Accessories are easy to find for it Parts are easy to find for it |
Response to bossy22 (Reply #162)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:31 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
165. Add to that
It is a modular design meaning I can change the upper receiver to what caliber I want to fire without having to buy another rifle. 22 caliber plinking ammunition is cheap. I still have the option of.223 if I want to fire at longer range targets. It is also the basic type of weapon I trained on.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #159)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:20 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
168. Why don't you ask them?
me and my family shoot them because they are the standard for competitive target shooting. Very accurate, very reliable, very comfortable to shoot. We don't obsess - we just want to be competitive when we enter competitions.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #80)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:29 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
155. A shotgun was used for hunting now
the military use it, would that made it illegal, an AR15 is not military grade.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #80)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:44 AM
sir pball (2,565 posts)
193. So you want my deer rifle, eh?
I have a rifle that is literally the exact same thing the Army and Marines use. Remington Model 700 in .300 Winchester Magnum, issued as the M24. I could walk into an armory and exchange any part on it with a genuine, military-issued one with absolutely no problem whatsoever. Mine is even heavy-barreled, accurized, and painted scary black!
I am being a bit disingenuous; it's an attempt to point out that you don't want to control "weaponry currently used my the military" but rather weaponry that resembles currently used military rifles. I'm not going to get into worrying about whether pistol grips and flash hiders affect the usability of a rifle, point is functionally and mechanically an AR is a hell of a lot less like its military issue counterpart than the most popular bolt-action rifle in the country. It's a lot more intellectually honest and I find respectable to simply say either "I don't like the way 'assault weapons' look and want them banned" or "I really want ALL semiautomatics and/or detachable magazine guns banned" instead of using Sugarmannn-esque tactics to try to confuse and cow people to your opinion |
Response to hack89 (Reply #23)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:49 PM
Taverner (55,476 posts)
205. Don't pretend to be stupid
You're not stupid, so stop asking dumb questions
You know what military grade is... You know what an assault weapon is... It's the NRA crazy organ that belts out these dumb "What do you mean by "the"?" type questions |
Response to Taverner (Reply #205)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:19 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
206. They are meaningless, made up terms
that have no technical meaning.
We are talking about semiautomatic rifles that have certain cosmetic features. Here is the stupidity of the entire AWB in two pictures: This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being illegal under the AWB: This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being legal under the AWB: They are both Ruger Mini-14s http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html What is going to happen when gun manufacturers simply make their rifles look like the bottom rifle? There will be no more "military grade assault rifles ". Will we be any safer? |
Response to hack89 (Reply #206)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:21 PM
Taverner (55,476 posts)
209. So Ruger found a loophole
And exploited said loophole - that doesn't make the terms meaningless
The focus should be on capacity though - in clear terms - over 6, you need a special license |
Response to Taverner (Reply #209)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:53 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
213. There is nothing uniquely military about semiautomatic weapons.
The internal workings of a Mini-14 are the same as an AR-15 and there is nothing military about a mini-14. It has been a civilian gun from the get go. A few cosmetic changes do not make it "military" grade.
As for your wish -is not even possible to pass a watered down AWB. Anything stricter is firmly in the realm of fantasy. That is what always fascinates me about many hard core gun controllers. I can understand and appreciate the source of their passion but I am constantly flabbergasted how disconnected from American social and political reality they are. |
Response to Taverner (Reply #14)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:18 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
28. what is a military grade weapon?
any modern firearm can have a military purpose
gandpa's deer rifle- it can make one hell of a sniper rifle standard double stack 9mm pistol- great side arm for soldiers pump action shotgun for home defense- great breaching weapon for CQB |
Response to Taverner (Reply #14)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:23 PM
Travis_0004 (5,417 posts)
101. By that logic, should be ban alcohol.
Drinking and driving kills lots of people, a lot of whom are in kindergarten. Should we ban alcohol. . . . for the children.
Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #101)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:50 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
138. why the hell not?
is that the answer you wanted?
Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #101)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:32 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
156. They tried that once before and it
didn't work, this won't work either.
Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #101)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:41 PM
treestar (66,996 posts)
225. Logic
Alcohol does not exist for the sole purpose of using it to get drunk in order to drive and crash into other cars/people.
Response to ag_dude (Reply #6)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:01 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
17. You do not have a "right" to an assault weapon
There is absolutely nothing in the 2nd Amendment that guarantees your right to own any kind of firearm you want.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #17)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:24 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
31. cough
Ninth Amendment.
Response to slackmaster (Reply #31)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:51 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
60. Show me where that was used by a federal court to strike down the AWB
I'll be waiting...
Response to Hugabear (Reply #60)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:57 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
68. The AWB evaporated on its own accord, as it was designed to do
The Ninth Amendment means people have a right to own, say, or do ANYTHING that hasn't been explicitly prohibited through due process of law.
Response to slackmaster (Reply #68)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:04 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
74. And the 2nd Amendment gives Congress the power to REGULATE ownership of firearms
Which is exactly what Congress has been trying to do, even though the NRA and gun-lovers seem to think we should have an unrestricted right to arms.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #74)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:10 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
83. No. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights it limits the power of Congress. Read the preamble.
Clearly civics is not one of your strong subjects.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html |
Response to slackmaster (Reply #83)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:21 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
96. So then Congress does NOT have the power to regulate firearm ownership at all?
Silly me. And here I thought Congress could mandate such things as background checks, place restrictions on fully automatic weapons, etc.
Maybe I'll just go down to the local gun shop and ask to buy a fully automatic machine gun. I'll tell them that slackmaster told me that Congress isn't allowed to place any restrictions at all, so if they could just please hand it over no questions asked. |
Response to Hugabear (Reply #96)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:32 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
109. Looks like logic is another one of your not-so-strong subjects
Response to slackmaster (Reply #109)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:57 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
161. Either Congress can or cannot regulate gun ownership
Either you accept that gun ownership can be regulated, or you reject the notion. There is no in between.
If Congress can regulate fully automatic machine guns, then they can regulate semiautomatic guns. Please explain how this is wrong. |
Response to Hugabear (Reply #161)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:19 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
163. Of couse Congress can regulate it, based on the Interstate Commerce clause
The same justification that serves as the federal government's regulation of agriculture and pretty much everything else it regulates. I have never claimed otherwise.
If Congress can regulate fully automatic machine guns, then they can regulate semiautomatic guns. Please explain how this is wrong. It isn't wrong, it's just off topic with respect to this sub-thread that started with you declaring in reply #17 that people don't have the right to own some arbitrary class of firearms that isn't even defined. BTW, manufacturing of and commerce in all firearms is regulated. |
Response to slackmaster (Reply #163)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:31 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
164. So Congress absolutely can regulate ownership of assault weapons
See, that wasn't too hard
Response to Hugabear (Reply #164)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:47 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
170. They are just smart enough to talk about it but not actually do anything.
they are not stupid - they want to be reelected.
Response to hack89 (Reply #170)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:22 AM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
174. Yes, I'm well aware of the NRA's stranglehold on Congress
Although it does appear the NRA is losing its public appeal. Hopefully sane heads will prevail, and one of these days we'll get meaningful hun legislation passed.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #174)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:31 AM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
183. It is the voters and not the NRA that concerns Congress
the NRA only has 4 million members - a tiny fraction of gun owners.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #164)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:32 AM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
188. I've never said anything to the contrary.
Response to Hugabear (Reply #164)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:49 AM
sir pball (2,565 posts)
194. Except by "regulate" you seem to mean "prohibit"
None of the court decisions claim there can't be regulation; Heller allows for some pretty strict stuff: licensing, registration, and a near-complete ban on possession outside the home. What you can't do is ban a type of weapon, nor "regulate" it to the point of a defacto ban - which bodes pretty poorly for any new AWBs but happily forces the discussion to more constructive and effective legislation like Colorado's, which incidentally I support 100%.
Response to slackmaster (Reply #83)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #143)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:03 PM
bitchkitty (7,344 posts)
214. At least he didn't shoot you. n/t
Response to Hugabear (Reply #17)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:30 PM
derby378 (30,201 posts)
38. Well, since nobody has got around to defining "assault weapon" in the first place...
...I think the Republic will not go kablooey if my pistol were to hold 11 shots instead of 10.
Response to ag_dude (Reply #6)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:46 PM
frylock (34,825 posts)
137. what do your rights have to do with your wants?
and let's get real here, the WANT to own a kick-ass military style carbine far exceeds the RIGHT to own, or more specifically the NEED.
Response to onehandle (Reply #4)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:34 AM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
192. It's a good thing that criminals NEVER use shotguns to commit multiple homicides
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:45 PM
SCVDem (2,483 posts)
7. With a Shotgun
Close counts!
That's the point. Usually just sliding the action will get the desired result. |
Response to SCVDem (Reply #7)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:48 PM
Light House (413 posts)
9. There's no other sound like a 12ga being racked.
It's a sound you'll never forget.
Response to Light House (Reply #9)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:03 PM
NickB79 (13,155 posts)
19. You don't rack a double-barrel though. NT
Response to NickB79 (Reply #19)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:08 PM
Light House (413 posts)
22. Well, ya kinda do if you put it in a rack.
But I was talking about something like what I have, a Winchester Model 870.
Response to Light House (Reply #22)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:21 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
30. Some have experienced jamming while using Winchester shells -- even with an otherwise reliable 870.
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #30)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:26 PM
Light House (413 posts)
32. I didn't know this.
Thank you for the info. I use Remington 00 buck. Never had a problem with it yet.
Response to Light House (Reply #22)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:26 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
33. Rem 870
You can get them on Sale for less than $225.
Get the optional Choke accessory kit and install the modified Choke Tube.12 ga. #2 High Velocity Steel 1 1/8 oz Shot can be found at the Big Box store we like to hate for under $9. a box of 25. Shot is better in an Urban environment, since it's less likely to kill or injure your neighbor across the Street. |
Response to formercia (Reply #33)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:33 PM
Light House (413 posts)
41. Sorry.
Meant the Remington 870 12 ga.
Mine is just out the box, no frills, plain, as it comes shotgun. Can ya tell I'm not well versed on firearms? |
Response to Light House (Reply #41)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:39 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
49. No problem
You can shoot all Week with that one.
Response to Light House (Reply #41)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:49 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
58. quite possibly the best overall home defense weapon
is the one pictured above.
I will qualify this with the fact that everyones situation is different but if you are "unsure" falling back to the "good ole" Rem 870 tactical is never a bad choice |
Response to Light House (Reply #22)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:11 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
85. Do you mean Remington Model 870? I have 2 of those, among others.
Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #85)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:14 PM
Light House (413 posts)
89. My mistake.
See post #41.
Response to Light House (Reply #89)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:24 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
102. Saw it, no problem!
Response to Light House (Reply #22)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:36 PM
oldbanjo (690 posts)
158. Thats a Remington 870.
Response to oldbanjo (Reply #158)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:36 PM
Light House (413 posts)
166. Thanks.
See post #41.
Response to Light House (Reply #9)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:48 PM
Xithras (16,191 posts)
215. I have NEVER understood the fascination with pump shotguns
In theory, you should only have to use a weapon on an intruder who intends to do serious bodily harm to you. Racking that shotgun does two things: 1) It tells the intruder exactly where you are (and where to point their gun, if they have one). 2) It confirms to the intruder that you have a slow-firing single shot weapon.
My home is defended by a Benelli M2 Tactical with an 18" barrel and a +3. IMHO, it's probably the single best home defense shotgun made by any manufacturer, anywhere. I'd even argue that it may be one of the best home defense weapons you can put in your home...period. I'd never pick a handgun over it in a life or death situation. Sadly, even though it's a shotgun, my particular configuration will be banned if Feinsteins AWB goes through because it's a semiauto and has a pistol grip under the stock. Still, it's available in a standard stock, and that won't be going anywhere. |
Response to Xithras (Reply #215)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:48 PM
Light House (413 posts)
219. Sounds like a very nice shotgun.
I'm not a big gun type guy and the only firearms i own are my shotgun, my 1911 Colt .45 and my Winchester 30-30 rifle.
That's all I really want for my needs. |
Response to SCVDem (Reply #7)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:27 AM
ManiacJoe (9,331 posts)
182. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
With a Shotgun
Close counts! That's the point. Usually just sliding the action will get the desired result. Hollywood movies are not good places to learn about firearms. Shotguns need to be aimed just like rifles do. Buckshot does not spread like Hollywood suggests. In reality, 12 gauge 00 buckshot from an 18 inch barrel has an average spread of 1 inch per yard of travel from the end of the barrel. At 10 yards (a long hallway) you are only going to spread 10 inches on average. You cannot miss fast enough to win. Only hits count. If the Bad Guy can hear you racking the pump shotgun, it means you entered the danger zone with an unloaded gun. |
Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #182)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:35 PM
SCVDem (2,483 posts)
197. Do YOU feel lucky?
If someone wants to break in and hears you chamber a round, do you think they will be doing the math on their odds of your missing?
Now it's you in the fantasy world where marauding gangs of murderers and rapists have targeted only you. I walked armory guard in the Marines with a short barrelled 12 ga. But what do the Marines know? |
Response to SCVDem (Reply #197)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:31 PM
ManiacJoe (9,331 posts)
210. Marines know what they have been trained with.
You post suggests you know what you have seen in Hollywood movies.
Shotguns are good for some situations, carbines for some others. Training and good tactics are always important. |
Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #210)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:39 PM
SCVDem (2,483 posts)
211. I know I served in the Marines.
A fact you dismiss.
You are living in the movies if you think you can aim a carbine while shitting your pants from fear. Welcome to the real world. Go away now! I hear Wayne calling you with a fresh batch of fear mongering! |
Response to SCVDem (Reply #211)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:49 PM
ManiacJoe (9,331 posts)
212. "I know I served in the Marines."
A fact you dismiss.
A fact unknown until now. Thank you for your service. While I would never dismiss that, at the moment I am questioning its relevance to this thread. You are living in the movies if you think you can aim a carbine while shitting your pants from fear.
Welcome to the real world. You seem to be suggesting that aiming a shotgun is any different from aiming a carbine. It is not. However, your choice of bullet vs shot vs slug will certainly need to play into your tactics. Go away now! I hear Wayne calling you with a fresh batch of fear mongering! Now you are just being silly. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:46 PM
NickB79 (13,155 posts)
8. Thank you for the advice, Elmer Fudd
A shotgun IS an excellent home defense weapon, but a double-barreled shotgun? Biden shoots himself in the foot with that remark (pun intended).
If I have to use a shotgun for home defense, I'll respect the years of experience most police departments have racked up and go with a pump-action 12-gauge equipped with an extended tube magazine and 18" barrel, minimum. I'm not going to rely on a skeet gun for home defense, if home defense were something I was really worried about. I wonder if Biden would be cool with this shotgun though: http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/shotguns/ksg/ |
Response to NickB79 (Reply #8)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:52 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
12. Biden should realize that if a 12ga coachman was better than a pump, the police would be using them.
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:30 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
37. Police have lots of weapons that civilians do not need, like AR-15 assault rifles
Just because they work well for the cops doesn't mean that anyone should be able to get them.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #37)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:37 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
44. Logically correct
it depends "Why" they use the weapon. But I'm curious, what other weapons that are in police arsenals that you believe citizens shouldn't have access to?
Response to bossy22 (Reply #44)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:48 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
57. All lethal weapons
Citizens don't need firearms.
Once we get the guns off the street then the cops won't need them either, and they can be like British Bobbies. |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #57)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:52 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
61. The fallacy in your logic is that
the impetus for owning firearms is to defend yourself from people with firearms. that is not necessarily the case. I own one with the expectation (and with statistics behind me) that if i encounter a home invader, chances are he will not have a gun him.
I don't want to be a "parity" with a home invader, I want to be the one with superior force. |
Response to bossy22 (Reply #61)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:07 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
77. Very few law abiding citizens have to deal with home invaders
If you are that scared of impending invasion then get a dog and put the cops on speed-dial.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #77)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:22 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
97. Very few people ever have to deal with a fire in their home
but we own fire extinguishers.
Do you know how many times the myth of the family dog being "a guard dog" has been debunked. good guard dogs are ones that are anti-social and have violent tendencies- which begs the question, why would I want such a creature around my family? Chances are the loveable friendly labrador that licks every strangers face, will probably do the same thing to an intruder. And the cops?- in most cases you will get at best a 5-7 minute response time. So what happens in those 5-7 minutes? |
Response to bossy22 (Reply #97)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:52 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
119. In Chicago, cops do not respond to all 911 calls. This includes burglaries, unless a homeowner has
gone through their house to verify that a burglar or home invader is still in the house.
Even if a burglar or home invader is still in the house, it's likely that the police will take more than 5-7 minutes. |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #57)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:55 PM
Light House (413 posts)
66. You're kidding,
What about bad guys who have guns? |
Response to Light House (Reply #66)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:02 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
73. Ban them, then eventually the bad guys won't have any.
I know it won't happen overnight, but we have to start somewhere.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #73)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:11 PM
Light House (413 posts)
84. You mean like alcohol during prohibition?
How about the drugs that have been banned. How hard is it to get just about any kind of prohibited drug in this country despite the decades old drug war?
Response to mwrguy (Reply #57)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:07 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
78. And once we get alcohol off the streets we won't have alcoholics.
Or, so it was once said.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #78)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:08 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
79. nobody has a physical addiction to assault weapons
Response to mwrguy (Reply #79)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:10 PM
Hugabear (10,340 posts)
82. You'd never know that by listening to gun-nuts - even here on DU
Gotta have their precious assault weapons
Response to Hugabear (Reply #82)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:13 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
87. It's a fetish
A sick obsession with an inanimate object.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #87)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:15 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
91. that mentality is what is wrong in this whole debate
you label the opposite side as having a mental disorder so you justify "expelling" them from the conversation. Then you make the claim that "no one can can justify the use of xx weapon"
Response to bossy22 (Reply #91)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:52 PM
oldhippie (3,249 posts)
201. Yep. And they are the ones ....
... that keep saying we need to have an "adult conversation."
Response to mwrguy (Reply #79)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:12 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
86. oh...so its all okay if it's an addiction?
but shouldn't it be the opposite- shouldn't we want to control addictive things that almost always cause extreme personal and societal harm when someone is addicted?
Response to bossy22 (Reply #86)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:15 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
90. addiction is obviously a harder nut to crack than "I want it just because"
The latter of which is the gun nut's positions.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #90)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:25 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
105. so because it's harder we shouldn't do anything about it?
why don't we try to stop it before it even becomes a problem. Why don't we ban the consumption and possession of alcohol? and i mean a true strict ban, with real prison time for violators.
Do you know how many children we will protect? 1 out of 5 children grow up in a household with an alcoholic. |
Response to bossy22 (Reply #105)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:29 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
107. Jailing alcoholics is insane
Response to mwrguy (Reply #107)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:34 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
110. how so?
we get them away from the rest of society. We get them out of homes with children. We get them out from behind the wheel.
We will also send a strong message that consumption of alcohol will not be tolerated. Yes, it won't stop all alcohol consumption, but just imagine all the lives we could save if the consumption of alcohol in this country was lowered to the level of other illicit drugs |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #79)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:16 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
92. Prohibition was not a matter of physical addiction
You get points for orginality though.
Seriously though, can you really suggest that a ban will disarm criminals? You can't disarm the world because the world doesn't care what you want. Guns will always be a fact of life. All you can do is render good people defenseless against those already determined to create victims. |
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #92)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:55 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
124. Well, as said by one of the gun-controllers above, they "have to start somewhere."
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #78)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:46 PM
treestar (66,996 posts)
226. Alcoholics or people under the influence
Don't drink so they can kill people. They don't have a bottle of Scotch sitting at home in case they need to kill an intruder.
They don't get drunk so they can get in the car and kill someone. An alcoholic doesn't carry his hip flask around in case someone attacks him, so he can get behind the wheel to kill the attacker. This is one of the top ten most illogical correlations. |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #57)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:16 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
94. You realize some of your allies-in-gun-control say "no one is gonna take away your arms."
Are they full of it? Are you going to do this?
Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #94)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:25 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
103. I'm with Dianne Feinstein, I'd love to get them all turned in at once, but
it will probably take an incremental approach to get the job done.
Those increments should be as big as practical, though. |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #103)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:57 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
125. If you are like Dianne Feinstein, then you also own a firearm and believe that only the political
elites should be able to do so.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #103)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:35 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
208. So there you have it: Prohibitionism, even as others say "no one's going to take your guns away."
Response to mwrguy (Reply #103)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:24 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
218. I understand your position, even if Feinstein had a license to pack...
What I find interesting is how many times I've heard from gun-control posters who ridicule pro-2A folks as paranoid, by saying: "No one wants to take your guns away."
And yet, here you are. Just asking, but do some of these folks ever take issue with you, or are they in on the same talking point (wink-wink) so that they might seem more reasonable? |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #37)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:45 PM
krispos42 (47,546 posts)
114. What about AR-15s disqualify them from private ownership?
The cartridge it fires?
The sights/optics? The accessory-mounting rails? The pistol grip? The quick-adjusting telescoping stock? The semi-automatic operation? The detachable magazine feeding system? The matte-black finish? You can pick more than one. |
Response to NickB79 (Reply #8)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:31 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
39. I have a 12 ga. double Hawes coachman
I can get off 2 shots faster than any pump and decide if the perp gets a Slug or Buckshot first. The short and light double is easy to handle an maneuver compared to the Rem 870 I have for backup. It does kick, but I relish it.
Response to NickB79 (Reply #8)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:50 PM
indie9197 (503 posts)
220. Plus, he told his wife if there is ever a problem...
go out on the balcony and fire two blasts up in the air. Really? Now she's temporarily deaf, out of ammo, and out in the open where she is vulnerable. At least the cops will be on their way but she could have just dialed 911. Thanks, Joe.
I had my eye on that Keltec for a while, almost impossible to find now at anywhere near MSRP. I like the sub2000 also. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:48 PM
NickB79 (13,155 posts)
10. How exactly is a shotgun easier to aim?
A 12-gauge kicks like a mule; I hate shooting them. Or is he referring to the myth that you can't miss with a shotgun because it fires pellets?
At 10 yards, a shotgun firing buckshot will put all it's pellets into a group smaller than a softball. The idea that a shotgun is a streetsweeper, spraying pellets in all directions almost immediately after they leave the barrel, is complete bull. |
Response to NickB79 (Reply #10)
SCVDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to NickB79 (Reply #10)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:35 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
43. Yes and no.
Different loads will give different patterns in the same shotgun. The only way to tell is to go to the Range with several different brands and try them out. Slugs will also impact differently.
making an absolute statement like that is a good indicator of your field experience. |
Response to formercia (Reply #43)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:14 PM
AtheistCrusader (30,613 posts)
88. You'd need one HELL of a choke to expand a group more than that poster described.
"making an absolute statement like that is a good indicator of your field experience."
so, I'd be careful with absolutes like that one. |
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #88)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:44 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
113. In my Double there is a lot of difference in group size
At 10 feet, Federal Premium OO buckshot has a spread of over 2 feet, yet, Winchester #4 Buckshot spread is less than 4 inches. Diferrent gun, different Load, different Size of pattern.
As far as the Rem 870 goes: The only thing you can do is go out to the Range and test your Shotgun for yourself. Chokes tend to reduce pattern size. The Modified Cylinder is the least restrictive and will tend to create a larger shot pattern than the Full Choke the 870 came with from the Factory. You should be careful as well. |
Response to formercia (Reply #113)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:48 PM
AtheistCrusader (30,613 posts)
116. I have never seen a 2 foot spread at 10 feet even from my wife's un-choked
Remington 1100 tactical.
Not even my over-bored Mossberg 835 ulti-mag will do that. And that's basically a 12 gauge chamber mated to a 10 gauge barrel, even without the choke. |
Response to formercia (Reply #113)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:46 PM
mikeypooh (9 posts)
136. Wut
A general rule of thumb is that shot spreads at a rate of about 1" per yard after the first 7 feet.
Meaning that at 10 feet, there is essentially no spread, all pellets will group in about an inch at that range regardless of gun or ammo type or ammo brand. Unless you have something extremely strange going on with your shotgun. If you really are getting 2 foot spreads at only ten feet, stop shooting that gun immediately and take it to a gunsmith, something is wrong with it. |
Response to mikeypooh (Reply #136)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:53 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
139. Nothing wrong with the shotgun
It is what it is.
Where did all these experts come from? |
Response to formercia (Reply #113)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:57 AM
sir pball (2,565 posts)
195. Maybe if it's a rifled slug barrel
Those will cause spreads of 18 inches at 5 yards, which would actually be pretty good for home defense except they tend to a "donut" pattern with the shot in a ring.
Me, when I live where I'm allowed to keep firearms, I use a Marlin Camp Carbine with hot .45 loads and a ghost ring. Nine JHPs are enough for any situation I can think of. |
Response to sir pball (Reply #195)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:14 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
199. The shotgun bore is a smooth Cylinder
I think the problem with the Federal Premium Buckshot loads is that they use a slow-burning powder. In an 18 1/2 inch Barrel, the muzzle Blast is excessive, leading me to believe that it is the problem. In a longer Barrel, the powder would be consumed and the patterns would be normal.
Hawes had the shotguns made by AYA in Spain. The finish isn't spectacular, but they are very well made. A Gun Dealer acquaintance tested one when they first came on the market. He told me he put 1000 rounds of the hottest 12 ga. shells he could find and the gun was still tight afterwords. I bought mine in 1983 and it's as good as new. |
Response to formercia (Reply #199)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:37 PM
sir pball (2,565 posts)
200. That's about the only other explanation
That makes any sense to me. I''m not calling shenanigans but I've quite literally never ever heard of or seen that kind of spread before...I wouldn't use it in the home, it's so extreme it seems like some pellets could miss and go zinging through the walls.
Response to sir pball (Reply #200)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:02 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
203. If it's not reliable, it doesn't get used.
That's why I keep recommending for folks to go to a Range and test out their loads. I Know what all of my firearms are capable of and know their limitations are. Peace of Mind.
Response to NickB79 (Reply #10)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:38 PM
IthinkThereforeIAM (2,066 posts)
48. Shotgun pellets scatter...
... and all you need to do is point the shotgun, especially a 12 gauge or 20 gauge, in the direction of the perp/attacker and you have about a 200:1 chance of hitting them with enough pellets to stop them, even if one hits them it is going to hurt and cause them to flinch, letting you get a closer follow up shot. That is the point I am sure he is inferring. Maybe I am wrong. A rifle is much harder to aim with as it has a much, much smaller point of impact than the multiple impacts that come with standard shotgun ammo (I am not talking about slugs or sabots, which are pretty unique in themselves). Do you want to increase your odds of hitting your target by 10 to 200 (general number of pellets in a shotgun shell in respect to shot sizes) or do you want that 1 chance? |
Response to IthinkThereforeIAM (Reply #48)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:17 PM
AtheistCrusader (30,613 posts)
95. This is not accurate.
With buckshot, at ranges useful to self-defense, you're putting the equivalent of 8 or so rounds of 9mm into a target about 5 inches across at 15 feet. At most.
you can see the actual performance of these sorts of things at a site called 'theboxoftruth' where you can see videos of the results of firing them into various semi-realistic targets. You don't shoot humans with bird shot. Slugs or buck for the most part. Screw around with rock salt or other pellets where deadly force was justified, and you may find yourself facing a jury taking your use of that round as prima facie evidence you were NOT justified in employing deadly force. |
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #95)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:47 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
115. My BS Meter just pegged.
Response to formercia (Reply #115)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:49 PM
AtheistCrusader (30,613 posts)
117. yeah, you have fun with that.
Response to formercia (Reply #115)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:55 PM
AtheistCrusader (30,613 posts)
123. Read it and weep.
Response to formercia (Reply #115)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:58 PM
AtheistCrusader (30,613 posts)
128. Unchoked remington, 12 feet, 3.5" spread, OH I'M FULL OF BS HUH?
Maybe we should just calm down and start over, huh?
Hi, my name is AtheistCrusader. I am well. How are you? |
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #128)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:03 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
131. I'm the guy with the Hawes double coach Shotgun
You better read it again. Those figures I gave were for the Double.
You just keep stepping on your Dick. |
Response to formercia (Reply #131)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:06 PM
AtheistCrusader (30,613 posts)
132. I also have a double barrel coach gun with the minimum legal length barrel and no choke.
I have yet to see a 2 FOOT SPREAD at 10 feet.
MAYBE at 20? Are you perhaps exaggerating a bit? Edit: Also, if you happen to be correct, and can demonstrate it, fine, that's actually a good argument AGAINST using such a weapon in self defense, for the sake of bystanders. there is a reason indiscriminate fire weapons, like grenades are not protected under the 2nd amendment, and rather than 'arms' are classified by law as 'destructive devices'. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:59 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
16. They need better arguments than that
if they plan to make any headway.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:02 PM
Blandocyte (1,231 posts)
18. So arm our soldiers with dbl barrel shotguns, not those useless rifles!
It's a disservice to the service, I tell ya!
Response to Blandocyte (Reply #18)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:37 PM
formercia (18,479 posts)
45. Biden is discussing Home Defense, not Combat
You need to go back to your Village for a refresher course.
Response to Blandocyte (Reply #18)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:48 PM
yellowcanine (30,934 posts)
56. Apples and oranges.
Soldiers aren't defending their house. And FWIW a lot of police departments do use shotguns for close quarters.
Response to Blandocyte (Reply #18)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:08 PM
One_Life_To_Give (6,036 posts)
198. We do
Was popular on patrols in Nam for point to carry 12ga.
Argentinians complained about British using a "Silent" 12ga shell in their night attack in the Falklands. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:08 PM
one_voice (20,043 posts)
21. If I were to get a gun for home...
protection it would be a pump action shot gun. One of my brothers works part time selling guns--in a store and teaching how to shoot, so I know I'd get what I need.
That's a big if. Right now I have to big beasties and an alarm system. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:14 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
24. double barrel shotgun?
ehh....I'm not so sure about that one. A pump action definately.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:18 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
27. An AR-15 is much easier to use
lighter, usually more compact and much less recoil.
Not my first choice for home defense - a handgun is better by far. I like a hand free to dial 911. |
Response to hack89 (Reply #27)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:52 PM
yellowcanine (30,934 posts)
62. Easier to use, not necessarily to stop an intruder in poor light.
If all you need is one shot the kick is not such a problem. And you don't need a 12 gauge - a 20 gauge is sufficient.
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #62)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:57 PM
hack89 (35,970 posts)
140. Shot guns need to aimed very carefully
they are not "scatter guns" like many think they are. And if you miss, then one shot is definitely not enough.
And shotguns can be intimidating for small framed women. I asked my wife what her preference would be - she said the AR-15. She has spent literally hundreds of hours shooting one and using it would be like second nature. Light, compact and low recoil - an excellent weapon. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:19 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
29. I don't need the Vice President or anyone else telling me what I need and do not need.
I am perfectly capable of making that kind of decision myself.
Response to slackmaster (Reply #29)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:34 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
42. So if you decide that you need a flame-thrower or a bazooka
then we should just let you?
That's how this epidemic of mass-killings got started, gun nuts feeling that they "need" assault rifles. |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #42)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:39 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
50. Since neither of those happen to be regulated items, I will just sit here and laugh at your reply.
Flame thrower = agricultural equipment.
Bazooka = hollow tube. |
Response to mwrguy (Reply #42)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:43 PM
Light House (413 posts)
54. Flame throwers and bazookas are legal to own.
Flame throwers are classified as Agricultural tools in most states and bazookas are legal as long as you go through the ATF background check, get an OK by your local police chief/Sheriff and pay the $200.00 tax stamp.
Response to Light House (Reply #54)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:50 PM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
59. So are assault rifles, doesn't make it right.
All those weapons of mass murder should be banned.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #59)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:52 PM
Light House (413 posts)
63. Should be.
But until the law is changed, there is nothing illegal about it, immoral, maybe, but not illegal.
Response to mwrguy (Reply #59)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:55 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
67. flame throwers are weapons of mass murder?
how many mass murder incidents in the U.S. have been done using flamethrowers? none
How about one of the biggest "weapons" of mass murder- ALCOHOL- did you know that the cost to society of alcohol is more than firearms, car accidents, and smoking combined? |
Response to bossy22 (Reply #67)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:00 PM
derby378 (30,201 posts)
71. And gee, we even had a Constitutional amendment (the 18th) to outlaw booze
Remind me again how well that law worked out, ladies and gentlemen?
Response to slackmaster (Reply #29)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:54 PM
yellowcanine (30,934 posts)
65. He was asked a question and gave his opinion.
Got a problem now with the VP even sharing his opinion?
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #65)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:58 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
69. I'm just responding to the opinion he expressed, as is my right.
I think his position on this issue is arrogant.
Response to slackmaster (Reply #69)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:02 PM
yellowcanine (30,934 posts)
72. And I think yours is thin skinned. So that makes it even.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:31 PM
derby378 (30,201 posts)
40. Next, Biden advised our men and women in uniform to trade in their rifles for shotguns
You buying it? Neither am I. They use rifles for a reason, people. Duh.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:37 PM
SCVDem (2,483 posts)
47. We are capable
of defining by type what you may not have!
Note we no longer talk of hunting animals for food as per the founders, but killing people. That is what ends this argument. You may have an unlimited supply of what was available at the time of the second ammendment! Tyranny from the government? I'm more woried about wannabe heroes! |
Response to SCVDem (Reply #47)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:40 PM
derby378 (30,201 posts)
51. Then you're telling me I can have all the 20-round magazines I want?
Well, that's a start, at least...
Response to derby378 (Reply #51)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:30 PM
SCVDem (2,483 posts)
108. No Problem!
Whatever was available in 1791.
That's when the 2nd was ratified. |
Response to SCVDem (Reply #108)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:01 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
130. Under that reasoning, bring back quill pens and otherwise censor posts on the Internet.
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #130)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:16 AM
derby378 (30,201 posts)
186. Exactly!
That's one thing gun-control advocates just don't seem to understand.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:42 PM
Kingofalldems (23,956 posts)
52. How dare the VP have an opinion!!
This is an outrage!
Gun grabbers! |
Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #52)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:32 AM
AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)
189. An opinion from the former Senator who pushed for the change in the bankruptcy laws so that
student loans owed by impoverished former students are no longer dischargeable? An opinion from the former Senator who represents the big banks and the super-rich instead of ordinary Americans?
An opinion from the former Senator who pushed for the adoption of the first AWB which according to Bill Clinton (in his autobiography and elsewhere) led to the 1994 defeat in Congressional elections? |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Dash87 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:59 PM
Dyedinthewoolliberal (9,455 posts)
70. I've never owned a gun
and outside of my time in the military never even fired one. But I know enough about 'em to know that a shotgun is the best wepaon for home protection. It's like those cameras, you know, 'point and shoot'! Within 15-20 yards it's all you need.........
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:06 PM
judesedit (1,437 posts)
75. Civilians shouldn't be able to own anything stronger than the police have in their caches.
Response to judesedit (Reply #75)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:58 PM
bossy22 (3,547 posts)
129. that is pretty much the case now
Police have access to Full-auto weapons, civilians generally do not
Response to bossy22 (Reply #129)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:15 PM
SCVDem (2,483 posts)
133. Full auto is usually worthless
Unless you have a bi or tripod, most rounds will miss.
Semi-auto is much more efficient and increases the odds for enfilade fire. Wouldn't you agree? USMC Vet |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:16 PM
Veilex (1,555 posts)
93. The posting and subsequent comments are all well and good, but the ignore the fundamental question..
What do we do to reduce fatalities due to criminal gun violence? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to hear people's thoughts on this. I don't think arming more people is the answer... arming more people means more guns out there and as a result easier access to guns for criminals. I don't claim to be the expert however, so please, add your thoughts.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:23 PM
Politicub (7,379 posts)
99. Cue the gun know-it-all chorus...
Who knows nothing, really. So much that passes for gun knowledge is derived from NRA propaganda, and therefore suspect.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:23 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
100. Who's thunk it? Joe Biden engenders a debate over the best home-defense firearm!
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:26 PM
Deep13 (39,128 posts)
106. What the hell is a "semi assault weapon?"
Something that assaults people half of the time?
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:40 PM
krispos42 (47,546 posts)
112. How about I buy the same rifle, but without a pistol grip?
Assault weapon:
Not an assault weapon: Both rifles pictured are semiautomatic rifles fed from a detachable magazine. Ruger Mini-14 rifles, to be exact. No matter how much you talk, the definition of "assault weapon" is entirely arbitrary and only addresses secondary features. The Newtown murderer used an AR-15 rifle that was, by definition, NOT an assault weapon. Connecticut has had a ban on "assault weapons" for nearly 20 years. |
Response to krispos42 (Reply #112)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:23 PM
Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)
134. no, that will cause brains to explode
facts do not matter
Response to krispos42 (Reply #112)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:18 PM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
150. You make a very good point. We need to outlaw all semi-automatics. Thanks. nm
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #150)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:12 PM
krispos42 (47,546 posts)
167. Your position is logically consistent.
Thank you.
Hypothetical question for you. What if somebody made a pump-action AR-15? With the whole tactical works... pistol grip, flash suppressor, telescoping stock, accessory rails, matte black finish, etc. Feeds from a regular AR-15 magazine, shoots .223 ammo, uses regular AR-15 accessories, barrels, trigger groups, etc. But it's a pump-action instead of a semi-auto. Any problems with that? |
Response to krispos42 (Reply #167)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:54 PM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
171. You may be able to dance around the problem but if we can get any of these
human killing weapons out of circulation, we are better off. Your clever redefining so you can have your macro-killing machines is hard to battle but I am willing to try. Those that need killing machines that can kill many in a short time are not who I want in my society. Try to justify it. Go ahead.
"I got to have weapons capable of killing people as fast as I can, because ." |
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #171)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:01 PM
sir pball (2,565 posts)
196. If I really wanted to kill as many people as I could
I'd probably use my M700 bolt-action and stake out 6-800 yards away from a crowd. And that line of thought is far too nasty to continue.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #171)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:03 AM
krispos42 (47,546 posts)
221. There are an awful lot of guns intended for killing humans in the country
Sorry the for delay; I mean to respond sooner but the week turned to shit.
Here's the issue that we can't get around. When a guy decides to go on a rampage, the guy generally picks a place where he will be successful. Lots of people with no active security nearby. It could be his place of employment, or a shopping center, or a grocery store, or a school. In those instances, the shooter has more than enough time to kill a bunch of people pretty much independently of the type of gun used. The Newtown shooter, for example, had about 11 minutes inside of a school filled with kids who were locked up inside. Six hundred sixty very long seconds. Any gun that is suitable for self-defense could have been used to kill that many at Newtown, including a double-barreled shotgun. My point in all of this is that the reason that an AR-15 and other rifles have the features that they have is because they are logical, reasonable features to have on a gun. Detachable magazines allow quick and safe loading and unloading. Pistol grips to get a more secure hold. Telescoping stocks allow quick adjustment to properly hold the gun. Barrel shrouds are heat shields to protect flesh from hot metal. Accessory rails allow the mounting of flashlights so you can see what you're aiming at. Even if semi-automatics are outlawed, the proven utility of detachable magazines, pistol grips, telescoping stocks, accessory rails, and/or barrel shrouds will be added to other, legal guns. Pump-action guns, for example. Lever-action and bolt-action guns can and will be built with all of the above features except pistol grips. This is the inevitable evolution of long guns. Expecting them to stay "Fudd-like" is unreasonable. |
Response to krispos42 (Reply #221)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:22 AM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
222. Uhm... they also sell wet water, I heard.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #150)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:38 AM
mwrguy (3,245 posts)
179. Absolutely
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:02 PM
Progressive dog (4,164 posts)
144. Good for Joe
Most of us liberal democrats agree with you Joe. The pro NRA gun worshipers already have their own party.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:07 PM
Betsy Ross (3,139 posts)
146. From personal experience only
I have a shotgun. It is my preferred defense weapon. I have had one, off and on, for the last 40 years. In those years, I picked up the gun for protection twice. In both cases it was to defend a young person staying with me. I put two shells in, but never closed the barrel. My hopes have always been that I wouldn't have to aim particularly well and, hopefully, would not kill anyone.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:09 PM
NaturalHigh (12,778 posts)
147. Well, that's what I did.
I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, but I don't consider myself a marksman. With my 12-gauge, I don't have to be. I also don't have to worry about a bullet going through a wall and hitting someone else.
That said, I'm not for politicians banning weapons, even the ones that look scary. History tells us that when governments start to take away guns, they don't stop. There are already plenty of people (likely many on this board) who think I'm a bad person for owning any sort of firearm and would like to see law-abiding citizens disarmed. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:12 PM
Pakid (478 posts)
148. I go along with Joe
If you feel the need to have a gun then a shotgun is the one to have for home defense.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:24 PM
iandhr (6,852 posts)
154. Biden is da man
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:53 PM
truthisfreedom (19,735 posts)
160. A Mossberg AS-20 Bantam semiauto shotgun is 5.5 lbs and holds 6 shells.
Well, if one is in the chamber.
It's a relatively inexpensive, extremely light, easy to shoot shotgun that can provide plenty of personal protection. The kick is completely reasonable... when we practice shooting, my slender girlfriend has never complained that it bothers her at all. On the other hand, I keep it at my log house in the middle of nowhere, and it's unloaded with the shells in a hidden cupboard far from the weapon. And if I ever purchase any other guns, I will not keep them in the city with me. That's where I keep my Taser. Yes, they're legal in most states. Check them out... they are (generally) non-leathal and work up to 15 feet. They have a laser that shows where they're going to hit, and the sight of that alone will generally diffuse any situation unless a gun is involved, in which case I gotta hope I don't miss because it only has one cartridge at a time and they're slow to reload. I don't want to kill anybody. I do want to enjoy shooting and, perhaps, hunting, now that I have 6.1 acres. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:57 PM
Pterodactyl (1,687 posts)
172. Pistols are a pretty good alternative to assault weapons, too.
Most life threatening incidents happen at close range and with a little training, you can be very effective.
Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #172)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:34 AM
ManiacJoe (9,331 posts)
184. As an alternative, sure.
However, given the option, a semi-auto carbine like the AR-15 is the better choice in most circumstances.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:31 AM
quadrature (2,049 posts)
177. Obama's seccond term...is this what he wants?
second presidential terms,
are usually difficult. these are the good days of Obama's second term. all down hill from here. does Congress plan on doing anything beyond 4 years of bickering and being on vacation? |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:29 AM
Deep13 (39,128 posts)
178. The thread title sounds likes a sales pitch...
...Come on down to Uncle Joe's discount assault weapons and buy a shotgun today!
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:59 AM
Wolf Frankula (1,643 posts)
180. A Gun is a Tool No More, No Less
Use the right tool for the job. If you are breaking up ice cubes, you do not need a jackhammer. Using an assault weapon, semi-auto or automatic for home defense is like using a jackhammer for making crushed ice.
For home defense, you need a small easily usable weapon. A revolver or automatic pistol is sufficient. Learn to use it. Or a shotgun, ten, twelve gauge or .410. Leave the .44 magnums to Dirty Harry. Leave the AR-15s, SKS, SLRs and other military weapons to the military. Keep the ammo locked up. Keep the weapon away from children. You don't need accidents. Learn to use it. Learn to be safe with it. You don't need lots of bullets or a high rate of fire, you aren't fighting a war, you're just defending your home. Wolf |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:21 AM
harmonicon (12,008 posts)
181. I knew there was a reason he was called Ol' Shotgun Joe. (nt)
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:22 AM
AngryAmish (25,071 posts)
187. Gun people a question:
Does buckshot really go through walls? Wouldn't a shot somewhere between buckshot and bird shot be safer for home defense? Most criminals don't have body armor.
Response to AngryAmish (Reply #187)
CharlieVicker Message auto-removed
Response to AngryAmish (Reply #187)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:06 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
216. Some debate on this, but buckshot will go through walls...
"When loaded with smaller shot, a shotgun will not penetrate walls as readily as rifle and pistol rounds, making it safer for non-combatants when fired in or around populated structures. This comes at a price, however, as smaller shot may not penetrate deeply enough to cause an immediately incapacitating wound; those who recommend birdshot for minimizing wall penetration also suggest backing it up with a larger buckshot if the first shot fails to stop the threat." (This practice is sometimes called "stacking.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun#Home.2Fpersonal_defense "...will not penetrate walls as readily..." suggests that anything heavier will "gladly" go through walls. ______________ Another source suggests that birdshot will be stopped, and ironically a variety of .223 fragmented/tumbled after hitting the third wall (this latter ammunition family was used in the Sandy Hook shootings). One could conclude that an FMJ (full metal jacket) in .223 would have penetrated like other rounds. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/ryan-finn/sheetrock-penetration-testing-take-1/ Other sources (and my own experience "patterning" at the range) point to a fallacy about shotgun firing method: "All you have to do is point." No, in the confines of a bedroom, you still have to aim because the spreading pattern -- even in an open-choke barrel -- is too gradual to exhibit a cartoon/Hollywood wide burst of shot. Shotguns are normally pointed (not aimed) when shooting clays or flying birds; but the ranges are much further than a bedroom's width. Personally, I prefer a powerful revolver; small, easily maneuvered, no mags, safeties, racking, etc. Just point and pull. I hope this helps. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:27 AM
ileus (15,031 posts)
190. subsonic 300 blk with sbr and suppressor stamps is the best HD
For most of us a common AR will have to do. Shotguns are nice but way limited on number of rounds. My mossy has 8 rounds to my AR's 31....pretty easy decision IMHO |
Response to ileus (Reply #190)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:33 PM
oldhippie (3,249 posts)
202. That's gonna be mine ....
... in about 5 months.
Already have the AAC 9" upper on a pistol lower. Apps for the SDN-6 and the SBR are in. Now working on sub loads with 208 AMax while I wait. You got any good load data for Lil Gun or A1680 (if I can finally get some)? Oh, and there will still be the 870 with #4 buck behind the bedroom door. And the G34 with TLR-2 on the nightstand. And the Ruger .357 on the wife's nightstand (she's partial to revolvers and .38s.) We like options. Sometimes I just scare myself. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:23 PM
Kingofalldems (23,956 posts)
204. Kick this for Joe and all Democrats
Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #204)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:15 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
217. I kind of agree. Because it was Joe Biden, many folks felt "safe" in discussing some...
serious issues about home-defense (semi-auto rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc.), and what is safest. Ironic as hell, but very positive.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:19 PM
TwilightGardener (46,416 posts)
223. W. Kamau Bell had this on "Totally Biased" last night--hilarious.
Crazy Uncle Joe: BUY A SHOTGUN!!
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:23 PM
Beacool (29,507 posts)
228. A double-barrel shotgun?
Does Joe know what he's talking about? A double-barrel shotgun holds only two shells, which means that if you fired two shots in the air, your attacker will probably have shot you dead before you had a chance to reload. Besides, the recoil is pretty strong for a small person.
Also, firing warning shots is a felony in most states, and will result in a prison sentence ranging from 3-20 years depending on the state because it is usually combined with other charges (assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful discharge, etc.). |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:21 AM
and-justice-for-all (14,764 posts)
229. Yes, ban that shit..
also, ban selling fire arms online and gun show purchases.


text:
Pumacat's posts from September 2008
I'm tired
(1984) I don't know why, I felt like showing this picture today … :-)
posted on Sept. 30, 2008
sunday morning
today I got up early to shot the sunrise and the fog. I couldn't decide which is the best shot to post here, so you can decide and tell me … :-) same location…
posted on Sept. 28, 2008
I know, these are not the best of my shots … but it was a funny day !!! today I went to a photographie guide tour to learn a bit more about taking photos. ……
posted on Sept. 27, 2008
mad world
all around me are familiar faces worn out places, worn out faces bright and early for their daily races going nowhere, going nowhere their tears are filling up…
posted on Sept. 26, 2008
guess how many people are crying right now, because of ...
posted on Sept. 25, 2008
like every day ... sun goes down ...
posted on Sept. 24, 2008
going nowhere
posted on Sept. 23, 2008
Stiftskirche, Herrenberg, Germany
take a look on yesterday to see more of this beautiful city.
posted on Sept. 22, 2008
Herrenberg, Germany
posted on Sept. 21, 2008
crossing my way
I'm still a bit sad about yesterday, but it's ok … it's life and nobody knows what or who will maybe cross your way (again).
posted on Sept. 20, 2008
my last day with D.
I don't know: should I be sad … … should I be glad … … there was a lot of darkness … … but also some light … … look to the ground … … look up to the sky … ……
posted on Sept. 19, 2008
... and some with green.
start on september 15th hoping for time and good weather at the weekend to shot some new pictures … :-)
posted on Sept. 18, 2008
... some red \ bw ...
start on september 15th
posted on Sept. 17, 2008
... some blue ...
start on september 15th
posted on Sept. 16, 2008
some old ...
this week I won't have much time to take some new pictures. So here are some old ones. In February I started to photograph doors. I've collected over 100 until…
posted on Sept. 15, 2008
every raindrop is a tear from heaven ...
you've cried so much the last days, give me some more smiling please …
posted on Sept. 14, 2008
now it's raining again
posted on Sept. 12, 2008
enjoy the sun ...
posted on Sept. 11, 2008

subset: commoncrawl


text:
More than 2,500 jobs at the troubled building services firm Connaught were saved yesterday when a rival agreed to take on parts of its social housing division. But the sacking of several hundred more workers by phone prompted outrage.
The more fortunate Connaught workers are those who will transfer to Morgan Sindall, which yesterday said it was paying £28m to take on contracts. In total, Connaught's social-housing division employs 4,500 staff and KPMG, its administrator, said it was still hopeful it might be able to secure more jobs.
However, the firm yesterday announced 700 redundancies at the business and admitted it had been forced to break the news of around 200 of those job losses by phone.
That prompted anger among many staff, with one union activist complaining: "They should be called KGB not KPMG for the way they have conducted themselves."
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of the UCATT trade union, said that while the Morgan Sindall deal was good news, the workers sacked by phone and been "treated quite disgracefully" and warned that "the remaining Connaught staff remain in complete limbo".
However, KPMG's Brian Green said the firm had found itself with no choice but to let some staff go by phone. "While the administrators made every effort to communicate with staff in person, the large number of staff and wide geographic spread necessitated a series of phone calls to ensure staff were informed of redundancies as soon as possible."
The social-housing business accounts for around half of Connaught's activities, with two other subsidiaries – Connaught Environmental and Connaught Compliance – continuing to trade normally, employing 4,500 staff between them.
- More about:
- Kpmg
- Telecommunications
- Trade Unions
- Unemployment


text:
Popular American singer-rapper Akon is likely to collaborate once again with filmmaker Anubhav Sinha for a track in the upcoming film 'Tum Bin 2'. The film starring newcomers Neha Sharma, Aditya Seal and Aashim Gulati, is a sequel of the director's 2001 sleeper hit 'Tum Bin'.
Chimbala, Herrra Family, El Shick Toxic Crow Dembow Mix 2012
sigueme en twitter @toxiccrow
Disco King of India Bappi Lahiri who spread what may be called the 'disco-fever' in Bollywood during the 1980, is all set to spread it internationally. The singer-composer is reportedly collaborating with American rapper Snoop Dog and r
Akon has a great fan-base here in India. However, apart from the urban crowd nobody really knew he existed. What did the trick for him was the song "Chammak Challo" from "Ra.One", the song was massy and made him reach out to a larger section of listeners who had no interest or taste in his kind o
Latest Bollywood News
- Pratyusha Banerjee's boyfriend Rahul files defamation case against Kamya Punjabi
- OMG: Raveena Tandon slaps her co-star Madhur Mittal
- Confirmed: Arbaaz Khan dating Romanian beauty Alexandra Camelia
- See Pics: Karan Johar takes his twins, Yash and Roohi home
- Suzanne Khan wishes son Hrehaan on his birthday, shares pic


text:
Away: Texas A&M [3-9 ATS] Home: Northwestern [5-7 ATS]
Game Time: 12:00 PM Stadium: Reliant Stadium
Recent Meetings: N/A
Team Leaders: Texas A&M: Passing: Ryan Tannehill (3415) Rushing: Cyrus Gray (1045) Receiving: Ryan Swope (1102)
Northwestern: Passing: Dan Persa (2167) Rushing: Kain Colter (589) Receiving: Jeremy Ebert (1025)
More: Live Odds In-Depth Matchup Information Consensus Betting Information
I'm taking Northwestern here. They have won 4 of their last 5, including beating Nebraska in Lincoln, with the only loss being to Michigan State in that stretch. Dan Persa should have a great day against the A&M pass defense (ranked 113th nationally).
The Aggies have lost 4 of their last 5, the firing of their head coach was a disaster, as his family found out via social media before he did, and they can't be thrilled about playing in the Meineke Car Care of Texas Bowl.
Northwestern, +10
Hey Sharp, good to see you on the board. Who do you like in this one?
I'll be at the game in Vegas...
What up bmilehigh? I haven't gotten this far in breaking down games yet... my first lean is Northwestern. I'll post as soon as possible. Good luck in the bowls!!
Over 66 LARGE
Northwestern +10 Medium
The can't close Aggies should be able to handle this one
A&M has talent. RB Stud Cyrus Gray is probably for this game.
Obviously A&M has been distracted with the firing of Sherman and their DC going to Fresno. But, with 60K Aggies at Reliant, a strong desire to end the season on positive note with a winning record, I think A&M has the motivation.
Persa is the real deal and he will create problems for A&M, but I think with a month to scheme, A&M will be ready to dominate.
A&M destroyed Baylor earlier in the season. They can put points on the board.
I may have to take the Aggies -9
and A&M is playing for their fallen OL Senior Lineman Comrade who was killed in an auto accidcent two days before Christmas...
with all the turmoil A&M has been through with the termination of Sherman and a disapointing season, I think they put it together at a quasi home game in Houston and end their season on a high note.
A&M has the talent, and yes Persa is a good QB for NW, but I think the intensity and finish of A&M will result in an A&M win and cover.
Texas A&M -9
Something please give me a reason to go under so I don't break the bank on this one.
Taking NW and the points here.
Just a hunch.
I've changed my mind about this game...
I have Over 66 LARGE
But I'm on Texas A&M Medium now...
Texas A&M
Over 66 im in


text:
Petroleum Minister releases Hydrocarbon Vision 2030 for North-East New Delhi: Mr Dharmendra Pradhan, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Petroleum and Natural Gas has released the Hydrocarbon Vision 2030 for North East India, with the objective of leveraging the north-east region's hydrocarbon potential... | Press Information Bureau | February 10, 2016 |
Javadekar Launches Web Portal for Online Application for Environment Clearance for Category 'B' Projects in States New Delhi: Government of India has launched an online web portal across the country for online submission of applications for Environment Clearance by State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities for Category 'B' projects. The portal w... | Press Information Bureau | July 03, 2015 |
Nitin Gadkari Dedicates to the Nation Two Major Highway Projects in the North East New Delhi: Mr Nitin Gadkari, the Union Minister of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, has dedicated to the nation the two major Highway projects in the North East at a function near Shillong. The projects will considerably ease the t... | Press Information Bureau | May 05, 2015 |


text:
kcruiser: Liberty of the Seas Cruise Review by kcruiser
Overall Member Rating
Destination: Western Caribbean
Embarkation: Miami
Overall, our experience was great. The porst were beautiful, the staff is friendly, and the overall appearance of the ship is impressive.
However, I agree with other reviewers that there just wasn't enough time in the ports. I would have liked to have had just a few more hours, especially in Grand Cayman.
Also, the ship is lovely, but there were just too many people to really enjoy it. The pool and the Flowrider were always crowded, as was the Windjammer. Sometimes the Promenade would be quiet and we could just stroll along. I found most of the other patrons to be friendly and courteous, but like me, they all seemed to be trying to find a table, a pool chair, or just a quiet spot in the bar.
Kirk, our Cruise Director, was great. He was witty, approachable and visible. The staff was impeccable when it came to service. Our room attendant greeted More us by name everytime we passed her in the hall. Our waiters at dinner were friendly and warm. All of the staff seemed willing to help us in any way.
I will probably sail again with Royal Caribbean. But I will look for a smaller ship or another route that is less crowded. Less
Published 09/26/10
Cabin review: E2 Deluxe Oceanview Stateroom with Balcony
Read All Deluxe Oceanview Stateroom with Balcony (E2) Reviews >>Not impressed with Carnival
Great Cruise and Staff --- NEV...
First, and probably last royal...
Tired, dated, poor entertainme...
The Cruise to Nowhere
Massive Ship
Sponsored Links


text:
Invaluable cannot guarantee the accuracy of translations through Google Translate and disclaims any responsibility for inaccurate translations.
Show translation options
Lot 257: YUYU YANG (Taiwanese, 1926-1997)
November 6 Estate Auction
by Butterscotch Auction Gallery LLC
November 6, 2016
Bedford Village, NY, USA
Live AuctionYuyu Yang (1926-1997) Please Register/Login to access your Invaluable Alerts
Looking for the realized and estimated price?
Description: 'No Meaning' (??), bronze figure of a water buffalo, h. 14 d. 18-1/2 in., with imbedded name plate reading 'YANG YING-FENG', Provenance: The Estate of the late Milton Gelfand, Pound Ridge, N.Y.