Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by KalMart

If you take a apart a motorcycle....what are those parts for then, 'technically'?

That's a wheel. It's not a motorcycle, right?

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Bill

You're still not getting it. You have not posted a picture of a field stripped barrel and receiver that has a view from the breech down the barrel. I did not ever state at any time that you couldn't see the chamber. I said you did not have a direct line of sight down the barrel from the breech due to the receiver. That's the reason why you look down the muzzle.

This is what you want to see:



You're looking into the entire length of the barrel to check for obstructions and cleanliness.

This is what you see when you don't remove the barrel from the receiver:



As you can see, the receiver blocks a direct line of sight into the barrel so that you cannot see to the muzzle.


This is about as close as you can get until the receiver blocks your view:



You want to see down the entire length of the inside of the barrel. You can't do that from the breech end without removing the barrel from the receiver.

I can't explain it any more clearer than that. You either don't understand what is being said, or you don't want to admit you're wrong. If it isn't clear now, I'm done. We've went out of our way to explain this to you, and you just can't, or don't want to, get it.

I'd say that of anyone making claims here, your lack of understanding of simple terms and poor research abilities would lead me to believe you've never seen the inside of a college classroom. Either that, or you need to get a refund on your education. You got gypped.

Looks to me that there's enough room to put your eye right on the end of the barrel since the receiver has a recess. If that is a problem, sure, you could look down the other end (or you could just shine a light ), but that doesn't change the fact that it answers Hotwire's question and is an alternative way to safely inspect the barrel of an M1 or AR-15 riffle.

[Hotwire]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Looks to me that there's enough room to put your eye right on the end of the barrel since the receiver has a recess. If that is a problem, sure, you could look down the other end (or you could just shine a light ), but that doesn't change the fact that it answers Hotwire's question and is an alternative way to safely inspect the barrel of an M1 or AR-15 riffle.

Which I clarified with this post.

Originally Posted by Hotwire

My point was that to visually inspect the barrel, you have to look down it. And, I've told you, before the rifle is handed off, it is secured so that it cannot fire.

Again, you are trying to prove wrong the people who know what they're talking about.

Why? Why can you not accept that, admit you're wrong, and move on?

[Bill]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Looks to me that there's enough room to put your eye right on the end of the barrel since the receiver has a recess. If that is a problem, sure, you could look down the other end (or you could just shine a light ), but that doesn't change the fact that it answers Hotwire's question and is an alternative way to safely inspect the barrel of an M1 or AR-15 riffle.

There's not enough room, so there is a problem. And the M16 is a different animal, as has been explained to you. It isn't a matter of shining a light. It is a matter of line of sight to see the entire bore. Again, this is an in-ranks inspection, so the rifle is not field stripped. In the context of the picture and what is being done, it was safe.

No one is arguing that there isn't alternative ways to inspect the bore. But for an in-ranks inspection, the bolt is locked back and weapon cleared, twice. It was perfectly safe.

You've got the evidence, with pictures. Can we get past that ego?

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by dnno1

That's a wheel. It's not a motorcycle, right?

It's not exactly part of a rifle.






















Right?

[roach]

I like how the conversation got majorly sidetracked

[KalMart]

He's good like that.

[wiegeabo]

seriously guys, just put him on ignore and lets get back to discussing the second amendment.

Because someone who can so confidently put their utter lack of any practical experience with firearms against over the overwhelming evidence of procedures and expertise refined over a century by the UNITED STATES MILITARY is not someone continuing the argument with at this point.

[mrvlknight21]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

seriously guys, just put him on ignore and lets get back to discussing the second amendment.

Because someone who can so confidently put their utter lack of any practical experience with firearms against over the overwhelming evidence of procedures and expertise refined over a century by the UNITED STATES MILITARY is not someone continuing the argument with at this point.

HA! And thats just the BEGINNING of the issues with dnno1 and his ignorant, ridiculous and flat out stupid statements and arguments on this topic.

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by mrvlknight21

HA! And thats just the BEGINNING of the issues with dnno1 and his ignorant, ridiculous and flat out stupid statements and arguments on this topic.

I know.

It's why I can't see them anymore

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

seriously guys, just put him on ignore and lets get back to discussing the second amendment.

Because someone who can so confidently put their utter lack of any practical experience with firearms against over the overwhelming evidence of procedures and expertise refined over a century by the UNITED STATES MILITARY is not someone continuing the argument with at this point.

I finally put him on my ignore list a couple days ago and it's amazing how this thread is so less aggravating to read without going through his posts.

[Phallic]

I have him on ignore too - I got fed up with the ignorance.

Probably asked already, but did anybody go to any of the rallies on the 8th?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

Way I see it, if you lump shootings civilians and police together, you are against it for both.

But I would throw money to support a police disarm in Washington.

Being for or against a certain something has little or nothing to do with what policies you favor. I mean abortion is fairly immoral, and I think you'd be hard pressed to defend something like that on moral grounds, but legally it seems as though it ought to be permissible at least in our legal context (or rather to say 'it is permitted').

Laws really have very little to do with morality. A court is not a morality play.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

Which I clarified with this post.

You asked my if there was a safer way to inspect a rifle and I told you. Now most of you are trying to create a straw-man argument by saying that the upper receiver is still attached or that you clarified something with your post or even that you can't look down the back of the barrel. This is all irrelevant to what I stated. I said that the barrel could be inspected when it is disassembled. If the receiver is still on and you can not look down the back end of the barrel you could certainly look down the front. It is still safer.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Bill

There's not enough room, so there is a problem. And the M16 is a different animal, as has been explained to you. It isn't a matter of shining a light. It is a matter of line of sight to see the entire bore. Again, this is an in-ranks inspection, so the rifle is not field stripped. In the context of the picture and what is being done, it was safe.

No one is arguing that there isn't alternative ways to inspect the bore. But for an in-ranks inspection, the bolt is locked back and weapon cleared, twice. It was perfectly safe.

You've got the evidence, with pictures. Can we get past that ego?

M1 Garand Upper Receiver
(view looking aft)

I'm still not convinced that you can't.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by KalMart

It's not exactly part of a rifle.






















Right?

And a part of a rifle would not make a rifle either.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by dnno1

And a part of a rifle would not make a rifle either.

But if all the parts are taken apart and still together...it's still technically a rifle, just in parts, as it can't be made to be anything else. I think what you were searching for is that it's not lethal when taken apart, unless you bash someone over the head with it.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by KalMart

But if all the parts are taken apart and still together...it's still technically a rifle, just in parts, as it can't be made to be anything else. I think what you were searching for is that it's not lethal when taken apart, unless you bash someone over the head with it.

If they are taken apart they can't still be together.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by dnno1

If they are taken apart they can't still be together.

No kidding...until they are put back together. But technically, a gun that's disassembled is still a gun. It can't shoot, but it doesn't become something else for some other purpose.

However...amusingly enough, this essentially was a technical distinction employed by FDR prior to US joining WW2, when he skirted the Neutrality Act in order to sell weapons to England. A la...he technically sold them steel...that happened to be in the shape of 16" battleship gun barrels and such...even though they're technically not weapons in any individual shipment, nor in any way implied that they will one day be combined into one (wink-wink ).

So your perspective isn't entirely without precedent...albeit with different awarenesses.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by KalMart

No kidding...until they are put back together. But technically, a gun that's disassembled is still a gun. It can't shoot, but it doesn't become something else for some other purpose.

However...amusingly enough, this essentially was a technical distinction employed by FDR prior to US joining WW2, when he skirted the Neutrality Act in order to sell weapons to England. A la...he technically sold them steel...that happened to be in the shape of 16" battleship gun barrels and such...even though they're technically not weapons in any individual shipment, nor in any way implied that they will one day be combined into one (wink-wink ).

So your perspective isn't entirely without precedent...albeit with different awarenesses.

No, it can be a firearm until it is capable of discharging a round. A barrel (even with the upper receiver attached) can not discharge a round since it does not have a firing pin nor a hammer. Neither can any of the other individual parts by themselves.

[Destructus86]

just curious...how hard is it to make your own gun?

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by dnno1

No, it can be a firearm until it is capable of discharging a round. A barrel (even with the upper receiver attached) can not discharge a round since it does not have a firing pin nor a hammer. Neither can any of the other individual parts by themselves.

Again, those parts have no potential to be anything else, so it's technically still a gun, just disassembled, if semantics are that important to you. And you're weren't referring to just a barrel with every other part halfway around the world (until now), either. If you take a gun apart, and the parts are all there in front of you...it's still technically a gun, a la something built specifically for a specific lone purpose...but it's just in parts so it's in a different state. But no, it most likely can't still shoot a bullet in that state, but that's not the point.

It is, as a collection of parts, technically still a gun as an object. It just cannot fulfill the function of a gun in that state. Just to clarify.

Bigger question is if it's safer to inspect a barrel when it's disassembled from a gun than when installed. Yes, if you cannot confirm that a round is not chambered. If you can, then they are technically equally safe. But the essential part about presenting your firearm for inspection is to check if the chamber is empty before handing it over.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Destructus86

just curious...how hard is it to make your own gun?

Not really any harder than making your own bomb or wine....especially if you only need it to fire once. A more precision instrument that can withstand hundreds of rounds with accuracy and reliability...a bit harder.

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by Destructus86

just curious...how hard is it to make your own gun?

If you want to make a homemade one (from scratch) that will probably only last a shot or two, then not all that hard. But one that you can fire over and over (from scratch), you need some good metal machining tools, materials, and skills, which is very difficult for the average person. If you just want to buy the parts for one (like an AR-style weapon), putting one together wouldn't be too hard if you know your way around guns. I know many gun owners who buy the parts and then send them to a gunsmith to assemble and fine-tune it.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Again, those parts have no potential to be anything else, so it's technically still a gun, just disassembled, if semantics are that important to you. And you're weren't referring to just a barrel with every other part halfway around the world (until now), either. If you take a gun apart, and the parts are all there in front of you...it's still technically a gun, a la something built specifically for a specific lone purpose...but it's just in parts so it's in a different state. But no, it most likely can't still shoot a bullet in that state, but that's not the point.

It is, as a collection of parts, technically still a gun as an object. It just cannot fulfill the function of a gun in that state. Just to clarify.

Bigger question is if it's safer to inspect a barrel when it's disassembled from a gun than when installed. Yes, if you cannot confirm that a round is not chambered. If you can, then they are technically equally safe. But the essential part about presenting your firearm for inspection is to check if the chamber is empty before handing it over.

No, it's just a part and not a gun since it can't fire a round by itself.