Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big_Dog

Tougher Gun Laws - Yea or Nea

2,320 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

They're such great guns.  If I only had one rifle it would be a .308.  And if I'd bought any of mine, at least one of those would be a .308.  Instead I got two from my father in law and one as a fee in a divorce case about 18 years ago.

I'm so clueless about rifles that I thought I was buying a single shot. The guy did his best to keep his contempt to a minimun and had to show me that it holds 4. Now that I know how to load it, I'm basically like a special forces badass! These deer don't stand a chance!!! 

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, WalkingTheDawg said:

I'm so clueless about rifles that I thought I was buying a single shot. The guy did his best to keep his contempt to a minimun and had to show me that it holds 4. Now that I know how to load it, I'm basically like a special forces badass! These deer don't stand a chance!!! 

When you get some good glass on it, it will be money.

I looked at scopes today at Cabela's.  Still not sure what I'm getting but I'm looking at the VX-2 I recommended and the newer VX Freedom.  I think I prefer the VX-2.  I might yet upgrade to the VX-3i.  

I did get a ridiculously heavy tree stand on sale today though.  So I'm going to be really tired when I get to my spot.

WalkingTheDawg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tougher gun laws? This is a slippery slope. If they were going to implement tougher gun laws, they should have done so decades ago. IMHO, it is too late to now attempt to legislate gun control. There are too many guns already out there in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. There are too many easy channels by which people can obtain these guns illegally. 

It's only so much a government can do when it comes to stuff like this. They enact tougher gun laws, but that isn't going to stop anyone from obtaining them and using them maliciously if they really wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have a nice but well worn Remington 700 in .270 Winchester. It had the worst scope on it I’ve ever seen. A Simmons .44 Magnum that probably sold for $60 new and by this point is just fogged up and you have about half an inch of perfect eye relief and the rest is garbage. 

I used my recent gig money to get a Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40. I went in intending to get the Leupold VX-Freedom, but the Vortrex had equivalent glass (best I can tell anyway — both were head and shoulders above anything else they had in that price range up to maybe $200 more), and I like the reticle better. It’s their BDC (bullet drop compensate) reticle. I figure it will encourage me to shoot more, and trigger time is the best ingredient for good hits. 

I’m going hunting with my neighbor soon, so I need to get it sighted in. 

This isn’t mine, but I found it on the net. Same reticle as mine. It’s clear as a bell. 

ZWD6cGy.jpg

Googlywoogly likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good week to get some glass with the start of deer season this week. I also have a Remington 700 but chambered in .308 as well. One of these days I’m going to upgrade to the magpul chassis just because lol. Just gotta get some time away from work now.

Edited by heyme
JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, heyme said:

It doesn’t hurt the vortex lifetime warranty. I have their strike eagle on an ar15 build. Great budget scope. 

Yeah, I went looking for how to register it.  You don't register it.  If it breaks, they fix it.  They don't need to know where you got it, or how much you paid, or whether it was through an authorized dealer.  If it's their scope, they fix it.  Forever.

That's really hard to beat.  I'm thinking about getting a 20" AR platform rifle in a deer-worthy cartridge like .224 Valkyrie so my youngest can hunt.  She can't handle the recoil of a .270, so I want something that will get a clean kill and still not abuse her shoulder.  It will almost certainly get Vortex glass when I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 5:04 PM, JDaveG said:

So I have a nice but well worn Remington 700 in .270 Winchester. It had the worst scope on it I’ve ever seen. A Simmons .44 Magnum that probably sold for $60 new and by this point is just fogged up and you have about half an inch of perfect eye relief and the rest is garbage. 

I used my recent gig money to get a Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40. I went in intending to get the Leupold VX-Freedom, but the Vortrex had equivalent glass (best I can tell anyway — both were head and shoulders above anything else they had in that price range up to maybe $200 more), and I like the reticle better. It’s their BDC (bullet drop compensate) reticle. I figure it will encourage me to shoot more, and trigger time is the best ingredient for good hits. 

I’m going hunting with my neighbor soon, so I need to get it sighted in. 

This isn’t mine, but I found it on the net. Same reticle as mine. It’s clear as a bell. 

ZWD6cGy.jpg

Nice I have a Remington 700 308 but it has been highly modified. Old stock has been removed and replaced with a sniper stock. The rifle has been converted to magazine feed I have 10 and 20 round magazines for it. The barrel has also been threaded and a muzzle break has been added to the end of the barrel.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JayOzOne said:

 

 

and many drunk drivers have driver licenses when they use a car to kill people so what else is new

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brehus said:

and many drunk drivers have driver licenses when they use a car to kill people so what else is new

Well, for one thing, drunk drivers carry insurance in case they harm someone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2018 at 8:23 PM, JDaveG said:

I got her sighted in today. At 100 yards, one of those 4 shots in the red was already there (the one on the top left). 

The other 3 were the last 3 I fired. 

44819230_10213642568995554_8716722099592

Bullseye's

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-the-left-does-not-understand-about-hunters?fbclid=IwAR2z-rA8yJTqdOwX684jPpmrkSQFDwv7lE-xvP7HraPmnLnFjTwP65kl6Yw


"I’ve told them hunters pay Pittman-Robertson taxes when they buy guns and ammunition and that last year about $800 million was raised from these taxes and sent to the states for conservation programs. Another $350 million was raised in 2017 from similar taxes on fishing equipment.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms manufacturers, estimates that, on a daily basis, about $3.5 million is contributed through taxes on guns and ammo and hunting license fees to wildlife conservation.

The meat hunters bring home is eaten. Go to any local meat processor on or after opening day of deer season to see all the hunters coming in to drop off their deer and to tell the butcher how they want the meat cut up for their table. The wild meat is also “green,” as it is free-range, hormone-free and hasn’t been genetically messed with by man.

I’ve told my neighbors that each year I toy with restricting myself to only eating meat I actually kill, as I almost do that anyway. I don’t because, like most, I enjoy variety; still, we must respect where our sustenance comes from and securing meat with your own hands and wits does engender deep respect. As I said, from these experiences comes love."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thesouphead said:

on purpose?

Anybody with half a brain can see what the gun control nuts are doing. If someone uses an axe to kill someone blame the person if someone intentionally runs over a bunch of people with a truck blame the person. If someone makes a bomb blame the person. If someone uses a gun blame the gun and the person since it fits the gun control nuts agenda to abolish the second admendment. I see through the agenda so nothing the control nuts post on here will change my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Brehus said:

Anybody with half a brain can see what the gun control nuts are doing. If someone uses an axe to kill someone blame the person if someone intentionally runs over a bunch of people with a truck blame the person. If someone makes a bomb blame the person. If someone uses a gun blame the gun and the person since it fits the gun control nuts agenda to abolish the second admendment. I see through the agenda so nothing the control nuts post on here will change my opinion

 

  You might have a point if there were 40,000 axe murders each year.    ...there aren't.      How many "school axings" have you heard of?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JDaveG said:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-the-left-does-not-understand-about-hunters?fbclid=IwAR2z-rA8yJTqdOwX684jPpmrkSQFDwv7lE-xvP7HraPmnLnFjTwP65kl6Yw


"I’ve told them hunters pay Pittman-Robertson taxes when they buy guns and ammunition and that last year about $800 million was raised from these taxes and sent to the states for conservation programs. Another $350 million was raised in 2017 from similar taxes on fishing equipment.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms manufacturers, estimates that, on a daily basis, about $3.5 million is contributed through taxes on guns and ammo and hunting license fees to wildlife conservation.

The meat hunters bring home is eaten. Go to any local meat processor on or after opening day of deer season to see all the hunters coming in to drop off their deer and to tell the butcher how they want the meat cut up for their table. The wild meat is also “green,” as it is free-range, hormone-free and hasn’t been genetically messed with by man.

I’ve told my neighbors that each year I toy with restricting myself to only eating meat I actually kill, as I almost do that anyway. I don’t because, like most, I enjoy variety; still, we must respect where our sustenance comes from and securing meat with your own hands and wits does engender deep respect. As I said, from these experiences comes love."

That is one of the sad facts about how we currently live.  Most have a complete disconnect when it comes to where the food they eat comes from.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rocko said:

Lol maybe you should leave the 2nd alone and not get people killed by calling police on them. I can tell you the majority of older individuals I know would have 100% resisted like this guy including my dad. Get him killed with this unconstitutional nonsense and you'll see why the founding fathers added the 2nd.

I've gone over the history of the 2nd Amendment already.

On 10/31/2018 at 1:06 PM, Psychic Gibbon said:

Simply knowing colonial and early American history makes it plain. The colonies, then later the states, didn't arm or supply their militias but instead relied on militia members keeping and bearing their own arms. A stronger central government under the Constitution opened the door to that government having the power to disarm the state militias, thereby removing the only organized armed counterbalance to the federal standing army. So, the 2nd Amendment.

I don't necessarily mind the changed interpretation. The Constitution, after all, is a breathing document. What makes it annoying is that that interpretation is pushed by people who pretend to be originalists or textualists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rocko said:

Then you are an idiot. It was to defend against enemies including if the federal became tyrannical. 

On 10/31/2018 at 1:06 PM, Psychic Gibbon said:

Simply knowing colonial and early American history makes it plain. The colonies, then later the states, didn't arm or supply their militias but instead relied on militia members keeping and bearing their own arms. A stronger central government under the Constitution opened the door to that government having the power to disarm the state militias, thereby removing the only organized armed counterbalance to the federal standing army. So, the 2nd Amendment.

I don't necessarily mind the changed interpretation. The Constitution, after all, is a breathing document. What makes it annoying is that that interpretation is pushed by people who pretend to be originalists or textualists.

Can you not read?

The problem here, of course, is that organized militias are irrelevant now, hence the necessity from pro-gun advocates to try to divorce the right to bear arms from the organized militia portion of the amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0