Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of my guns I buy from stores and some I buy from individuals... I have a CHL from Tx so I undergo a pretty complete FBI background check to maintain it, so no, I don't have anything to hide, but since you were the one that brought it up, do you have a guilty conscious? Something to hide??
Oh and if they are going to Nevada and are residents of California to buy guns, it is illegal.
No, pretty sure I've done my share of federal anal probes, I mean background checks.
I understand its illegal, but without a background check in Nevada, no one knows.
So you need the universal background check, not the "show me your license" that many do.
And I wasn't calling you out, but in general, the only folks that are against a background check is someone who can't pass one.
No, pretty sure I've done my share of federal anal probes, I mean background checks.
I understand its illegal, but without a background check in Nevada, no one knows.
So you need the universal background check, not the "show me your license" that many do.
And I wasn't calling you out, but in general, the only folks that are against a background check is someone who can't pass one.
Not at all.. I just feel the government really has no need to know what or when I buy what. I think it's healthy for them to not know everything. If you start background checks in Nevada, (just as an example) do you think they will buy their guns from a gun show if they have to fill out a form? No, they will as I said, go on the black market and buy them or simply steal them...
In the State of Wisconsin:
4. Guns and Ammunition
While pursuing migratory game birds, it is illegal to:
✦ Methods: hunt with anything other than a shotgun fired from
the shoulder, bow and arrow, crossbow, or by falconry
Not at all.. I just feel the government really has no need to know what or when I buy what. I think it's healthy for them to not know everything. If you start background checks in Nevada, (just as an example) do you think they will buy their guns from a gun show if they have to fill out a form? No, they will as I said, go on the black market and buy them or simply steal them...
Anytime someone buys something that is meant to cause harm, and guns are, they can run a check in me. I know guns not used are not hurting anyone, but neither is a c4 explosive without primer, but they don't sell that without a background check either.
If you've already had a background check, they already know some of what you own, and they haven't come to take anything away.
I support universal background checks, I want parents with lose guns tried for negligent homicide as well.
Anytime someone buys something that is meant to cause harm, and guns are, they can run a check in me. I know guns not used are not hurting anyone, but neither is a c4 explosive without primer, but they don't sell that without a background check either.
If you've already had a background check, they already know some of what you own, and they haven't come to take anything away.
I support universal background checks, I want parents with lose guns tried for negligent homicide as well.
I know that no government agency has yet to take guns away and may never, but I also that a government having this knowledge has the capability to. I don't think they really need that capability and I don't think it will curb violence. Simply stated, as well you know.. Criminals aren't too concerned about laws regarding anything, much less firearms.
I know that no government agency has yet to take guns away and may never, but I also that a government having this knowledge has the capability to. I don't think they really need that capability and I don't think it will curb violence. Simply stated, as well you know.. Criminals aren't too concerned about laws regarding anything, much less firearms.
Criminals may not care about legality, but if its harder to obtain guns without a background check, the illegal price will go up, and many gang bangers won't be able to afford them.
Again, nothing will eliminate violence, the idea is restrict the number of guns in the hands of folks that will do harm, and a background check helps to achieve that purpose.
Criminals may not care about legality, but if its harder to obtain guns without a background check, the illegal price will go up, and many gang bangers won't be able to afford them.
Again, nothing will eliminate violence, the idea is restrict the number of guns in the hands of folks that will do harm, and a background check helps to achieve that purpose.
They are and will remain cheaper on the black market than they are at even gun shows. The availability will increase as will burglaries to obtain them. If everyone kept their unused firearms in a decent and properly installed gun safe, this wouldn't be the case, but they don't. I will go along with you that anyone allowing unsupervised access to a firearm should be charged.. I would go along with harsher fines and sentences for anyone caught with a stolen firearm. I would go along with more severe punishment for any crime committed with a firearm. I don't think you can really and truly enforce background checks on individual sales... If I have a number of firearms and I decide to sell you one as another individual, who would know? How do you enforce it? With what resources? Most local police departments don't have the manpower nor do most Sheriff depts. The feds don't have the manpower. How could you effectively implement it?
The .243 Winchester has more muzzle energy than the .30-30 in all bullet weights in commercial ammo. It is comparable to the .32 Special with many loads. It typically shoots better (higher ballistic coefficient) bullets and retains more energy than both at 50 yards and beyond. Even the .223 "varmint" round only slightly below the venerable .30-30 for muzzle energy, and also better downrange. I know people that have taken deer with it (and they were bang-flops), but I agree, I want a little more punch. Both the .30-30 and .32 Special were fine rounds in their day...but that "day" was in the early 1900s. Both will take critters fine, but are very much "old school" technology, being (loosely) based on black power loads of the late 1800s. Though loaded with smokeless powder, the second "thirty" in 30-30 implied that it was comparable to a load with 30 grains of black powder. The .30-30 is fine for a short range brush gun, but given the low muzzle velocity and a trajectory that resembles a baseball...not much use beyond 100 yards.
As far as comparing the .22 Hornet to the .223, the .223 has a muzzle energy of 1700-1800 ftlb, the Hornet 700-800. There is little comparison, other than bullet diameter. The Hornet is more similar to the .22 rimfire.
The formula I mentioned earlier (which I have not had use for in a number of years) uses the diameter of the projectile. The larger the diameter, the greater the kill factor. That would be the reason a 30-30 or .32 special comes in above the line is the diameter. A .243 comes in below by virtue of the smaller diameter. A serious disadvantage to a .243, and even more so for a .223, is the light projectile. Not that bad in an open field, but the slightest branch or even blade of grass will deflect the bullet from your intended path.
Not sure about where you live, but in the pine forests of WI, I want a projectile that goes through pine branches like a bulldozer. In that environment, a 30-30 or 32 special still brings down more deer than a .243, and I don't know of anyone that uses a .223. A little swamp grass and the deer turns tail and runs off unscathed.
Now, with a clear shot (no twigs or grass in between), a .223 or .22 hornet is almost perfect for picking off ducks and geese before they take off from the water. A good scope and the patience to wait for more than one head to be perfectly lined up and you get more than one for a single shot. I know guys that did that any chance they got. But for me, ducks are a bit too greasy. They seem to be about half fat, so I won't even hunt them with a legal shotgun.
Can you imagine what Cheney's "friend" would look like after hunting with Dicky if he used a bushmaster? He certainly showed his obvious expertise with weapons, probably much like some of the "expert gunners" here.
2. What would give you any confidence that that rifle killed that duck?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He certainly showed his obvious expertise with weapons, probably much like some of the "expert gunners" here. 
