Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[dnno1]

It depends on the rifle. The M1 in the picture you posted of the President does not break. The breech is checked twice, by the soldier and the inspecting officer, before looking down the muzzle. That is the only way to look down the barrel for that particular rifle.

And you're still wrong about the barrel of an AR being easy to remove.

Yo, man, I can see a YouTube video and I know you're BS'ing me.

The Standard Issue M1 carbine was designed to be field stripped. I remember school teachers who said they could do it with their eyes closed. If there's one that can't be stripped, then it isn't an M1.

 

[wiegeabo]

The President is not a civilian. He certainly isn't treated like one. He is a citizen, but he is also a member of our armed forces. In fact, he's not only a member, he's the President of it.

He is a civilian.

The Founders purposely put a civilian in charge of the military because they were suspicious of standing militaries, and incompetent or malevolent military leaders.

 

[Bill]

Yo, man, I can see a YouTube video and I know you're BS'ing me.

The Standard Issue M1 carbine was designed to be field stripped. I remember school teachers who said they could do it with their eyes closed. If there's one that can't be stripped, then it isn't an M1.

I didn't say it couldn't be field stripped, but that it can't be broken. You're obviously not going to field strip it in formation for an inspection as each soldiers rifle will be checked. You do know the difference between a rifle or shotgun that breaks and field stripping, right?

Obviously.

Also, even when field stripped, you still have to look down the muzzle to view the barrel. You don't have a straight line of sight from the breech on an M1.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The President is not a civilian. He certainly isn't treated like one. He is a citizen, but he is also a member of our armed forces. In fact, he's not only a member, he's the President of it.

What do you think they mean when they say the military is under civilian leadership?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I didn't say it couldn't be field stripped, but that it can't be broken. You're obviously not going to field strip it in formation for an inspection as each soldiers rifle will be checked. You do know the difference between a rifle or shotgun that breaks and field stripping, right?

Obviously.

Also, even when field stripped, you still have to look down the muzzle to view the barrel. You don't have a straight line of sight from the breech on an M1.

I seriously don't think he does. It's his thinking that he can look at Youtube or Wikipedia and be completely knowledgeable about guns is what the problem is.

 

[dnno1]

I didn't say it couldn't be field stripped, but that it can't be broken. You're obviously not going to field strip it in formation for an inspection as each soldiers rifle will be checked. You do know the difference between a rifle or shotgun that breaks and field stripping, right?

Obviously.

Also, even when field stripped, you still have to look down the muzzle to view the barrel. You don't have a straight line of sight from the breech on an M1.

I didn't say that you had to break the rifle either. I just said that one safe way to inspect a rifle barrel was to disassemble the weapon (separate the upper receiver and barrel group from the lower is what I said). That doesn't imply that you are breaking it at all (unless you lose a couple of parts).

 

[Hotwire]

I didn't say that you had to break the rifle either. I just said that one safe way to inspect a rifle barrel was to disassemble the weapon (separate the upper receiver and barrel group from the lower is what I said). That doesn't imply that you are breaking it at all (unless you lose a couple of parts).

Again, why can't you admit you're wrong?

 

[dnno1]

Again, why can't you admit you're wrong?

Because I am not. You asked me a question and I gave you an answer with proof.

 

[KalMart]

dnno1 is never wrong.


Just really....really...confused....and delusional....

 

[Bill]

I didn't say that you had to break the rifle either. I just said that one safe way to inspect a rifle barrel was to disassemble the weapon (separate the upper receiver and barrel group from the lower is what I said). That doesn't imply that you are breaking it at all (unless you lose a couple of parts).

Again, in the context of the photo, which is a Military Inspection, the rifle is not field stripped. The rifle is emptied of all ammunition, bolt is locked to rear, the breech double checked, and the barrel is checked through the muzzle which is the only way for that particular rifle. Given the checks and state of the rifle during the inspection, it is a perfectly safe method of performing that check.

You can further field strip the rifle, but this is done for cleaning and maintenance. It is not necessary for an inspection, nor is it expedient to do so. It is still safe.

Look at this site for a picture of a shotgun that breaks. That is what is meant. You can see from the breech to the muzzle. An AR15/M16 can also do this by removing the rear receiver pin, "breaking" the rifle and removing the bolt carrier group. They are not "break actions", but they can simulate it. You have a direct line of sight from the breech to the muzzle. Bolt actions can also give you a direct line of sight by removing the bolt.

None of this trivializes the "muzzle in a safe direction" rule. It is a good rule to follow, and it is still maintained in the military. However, when performing inspections, the rifle is cleared in such a way that there is no doubt it is empty and not able to readily fire when it is placed into the hands of the inspecting officer. It is safe.

One last time, to reiterate, the rifle in the photo is an M1 Garand. You have to look through the muzzle to check the barrel for cleanliness, which is the purpose of the inspection. The steps employed in clearing the rifle before handing it off the to the inspecting officer are no less safe than field stripping it. The rifle is still empty.

Also, the barrel of an AR does not come off easily.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

He is a civilian.

The Founders purposely put a civilian in charge of the military because they were suspicious of standing militaries, and incompetent or malevolent military leaders.

I meant that in the colloquial sense because dnno1 was making it out like Harry S. Truman was just some random dude inspecting a rifle.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Actually, he is. The framers of the Constitution were particular about the fact that they did not want a military head for the armed forces. Although the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Militia, he is a civilian.

I think you know what I meant by that. Now you're just making this about semantics.

 

[dnno1]

Again, in the context of the photo, which is a Military Inspection, the rifle is not field stripped. The rifle is emptied of all ammunition, bolt is locked to rear, the breech double checked, and the barrel is checked through the muzzle which is the only way for that particular rifle. Given the checks and state of the rifle during the inspection, it is a perfectly safe method of performing that check.

You can further field strip the rifle, but this is done for cleaning and maintenance. It is not necessary for an inspection, nor is it expedient to do so. It is still safe.

Look at this site for a picture of a shotgun that breaks. That is what is meant. You can see from the breech to the muzzle. An AR15/M16 can also do this by removing the rear receiver pin, "breaking" the rifle and removing the bolt carrier group. They are not "break actions", but they can simulate it. You have a direct line of sight from the breech to the muzzle. Bolt actions can also give you a direct line of sight by removing the bolt.

None of this trivializes the "muzzle in a safe direction" rule. It is a good rule to follow, and it is still maintained in the military. However, when performing inspections, the rifle is cleared in such a way that there is no doubt it is empty and not able to readily fire when it is placed into the hands of the inspecting officer. It is safe.

One last time, to reiterate, the rifle in the photo is an M1 Garand. You have to look through the muzzle to check the barrel for cleanliness, which is the purpose of the inspection. The steps employed in clearing the rifle before handing it off the to the inspecting officer are no less safe than field stripping it. The rifle is still empty.

Also, the barrel of an AR does not come off easily.

No, it isn't (field stripped) in the picture, but I suggested that because Hotwire asked me to offer a safer way to inspect a gun barrel. Even an M1 Garand can be field stripped and once the hammer and bolt carrier are removed from the barrel and receiver group, it can no longer operate as a firearm. You can safely inspect the barrel (from either end) after that.

 

[Hotwire]

No, it isn't (field stripped) in the picture, but I suggested that because Hotwire asked me to offer a safer way to inspect a gun barrel. Even an M1 Garand can be field stripped and once the hammer and bolt carrier are removed from the barrel and receiver group, it can no longer operate as a firearm. You can safely inspect the barrel (from either end) after that.

Couple questions.
Have you ever served in any branch of the US military?
Have you ever personally handled any of these rifles?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

No, it isn't (field stripped) in the picture, but I suggested that because Hotwire asked me to offer a safer way to inspect a gun barrel. Even an M1 Garand can be field stripped and once the hammer and bolt carrier are removed from the barrel and receiver group, it can no longer operate as a firearm. You can safely inspect the barrel (from either end) after that.

Of course that way is safe because you've disassembled the rifle and it can no longer fire. But for doing a field inspection, the way Truman was doing it is the safest and least time-consuming method in that circumstance.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i dunno if anyone has posted this yet, but:

Since 1968, more people have died by firearm (homicide, suicide, accident) than all the wars combined in American history.

 

[dnno1]

Of course that way is safe because you've disassembled the rifle and it can no longer fire. But for doing a field inspection, the way Truman was doing it is the safest and least time-consuming method in that circumstance.

Yeah, but we civilians have been instructed that the military style inspection is not the safest way to do it... and that's the irony.

 

[dnno1]

Couple questions.
Have you ever served in any branch of the US military?
Have you ever personally handled any of these rifles?

No, but I don't see how that prevents me from answering your question. I am pretty sure I previously did. If a little girl can field strip an assault rifle, it proves to me that you don't need military experience to know about that subject matter. What is your point?

 

[Paradoxium]

i dunno if anyone has posted this yet, but:

Since 1968, more people have died by firearm (homicide, suicide, accident) than all the wars combined in American history.

It's clear we agree on this, it's time to disarm the police. Their shootings are included. It is within the the government and voter's abilities.

Is it not glorious comrade

 

[Bill]

No, it isn't (field stripped) in the picture, but I suggested that because Hotwire asked me to offer a safer way to inspect a gun barrel. Even an M1 Garand can be field stripped and once the hammer and bolt carrier are removed from the barrel and receiver group, it can no longer operate as a firearm. You can safely inspect the barrel (from either end) after that.

No, you cannot. The rear end of the receiver blocks the view from the chamber. You have to take the barrel off the receiver, which requires tools and a vise. That is above field stripping.

 

[Bill]

Couple questions.
Have you ever served in any branch of the US military?
Have you ever personally handled any of these rifles?

I think it's pretty obvious his knowledge of firearms is completely internet gleaned.

 

[Kelly]

Just respond to his posts or move on....

 

[Webfoot Hero]

No, but I don't see how that prevents me from answering your question. I am pretty sure I previously did. If a little girl can field strip an assault rifle, it proves to me that you don't need military experience to know about that subject matter. What is your point?

He asked if you've done either. The 10-year old girl, while not old enough to serve in the military, has probably been taught by her parents/relatives to do it so has experience in handling the rifle. She's probably done it numerous times under supervision and has intimate knowledge of what she's doing. Hands-on experience with handling and field stripping a gun is probably better overall to understanding basic gun mechanics and safety than just reading about or watching it.

 

[dnno1]

No, you cannot. The rear end of the receiver blocks the view from the chamber. You have to take the barrel off the receiver, which requires tools and a vise. That is above field stripping.

I'm not too sure about that. You can visually see the back end of the barrel even with the receiver attached.

 

[dnno1]

He asked if you've done either. The 10-year old girl, while not old enough to serve in the military, has probably been taught by her parents/relatives to do it so has experience in handling the rifle. She's probably done it numerous times under supervision and has intimate knowledge of what she's doing. Hands-on experience with handling and field stripping a gun is probably better overall to understanding basic gun mechanics and safety than just reading about or watching it.

So if a little child can learn how to do it I could certainly do it as well without serving in the military right? That pretty much nullifies your argument if there was any there.