datzenmike Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Not one hunting rifle on this page unless you include people. Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Not one hunting rifle on this page unless you include people. I've been known to throw pretty hard. Link to comment
q-tip Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Ar-15 is commonly used for hunting, wild pigs and varmits are common game take with an ar-15 type rifle. Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 I use my AR15 for pig and I use my AR10 for deer. 1 Link to comment
DRIVEN Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Huge with rural folk for coyote control too. And since someone mentioned "assault weapons" not being used in sporting competion, might want to familiarize yourself with 3-gun. Link to comment
tr8er Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 True. I always considered the AR-15 underpowered for boar hunting, but I was proven wrong recently. Did the job and was more accurate than his 30-30. I still prefer more behind my shot, but that's opinion, not needed. Link to comment
Jesse C. Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 True. I always considered the AR-15 underpowered for boar hunting, but I was proven wrong recently. Did the job and was more accurate than his 30-30. I still prefer more behind my shot, but that's opinion, not needed. Then move up to the 7.62 X 39 caliber. More oomph! 2 Link to comment
Draker Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Then move up to the 7.62 X 39 caliber. More oomph! yep. sks/ak is fun to shoot. Have a pistol that shoots 7.62 x 25 pretty punch as well. Link to comment
paradime Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Mike would love what Oregon did; in a Khrushchev-era soviet style of guilty-until-proven-innocent, the legislature rammed through a bill which basically allows anyone to accuse someone of being mentally deficient as to pose a threat to themselves or someone else, and a judge will issue an order to have all of their firearms confiscated. So the cops will break down your door, beat the shit out of you or kill you if you offer any objection, steal your guns (and presumably anything else that struck their fancy at the time, because, what are you gonna do) and the onus is on you to prove a negative. Governor #KorruptKate delayed signing it into law to run out the clock on the signature gathering initiative that would have put this in the ballot, so basically 50 democrats disenfranchised the rights of an entire state. Bear in mind that this is also the same legislature that floated a bill that would impose a $500 tax on climate criminals who had the gall to register and drive a vehicle over twenty years old. That one never made it out of session, presumably as the sponsor, who probably had a brother in law with a string of used car dealerships in WA and ID, couldn't muster enough support for it. At first I was thinking dude there's no way Oregon would pass a law like that. I've spent a fare amount of time in Ashland, and as liberal as that place is, because it's in the emerald triangle there's a huge gun culture. Especially for a little PNC college town. Then I remembered Oregon's Gov. Kate Brown. Has to be related to Jerry, right. If Jerry is Moonbeam, Kate would have to be Uranusbeam. After looking this up, although I totally agree this is State Government overreaching BS, flyerdan seems to be exaggerating a bit. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/fact_check_did_kate_brown_real.html Yes, family members or law enforcement can petition the court for an order. If the order is granted, that person's guns are removed and held for up to a year than returned. The accuser must make a statement under oath showing how the person poses a threat to themselves or others. The judge reviews the person's legal, domestic violence, mental health history, etc. If the accuser lies to the judge, they face up to a year in jail. A person's guns can not be removed just on the word of the accuser. There must be clear evidence they pose a real risk. If their guns are removed the accused has the ability to challenge the judges order and review material evidence used to determine risk. You have to admit, after someone goes on a homicidal rampage, we have said "Why didn't someone turn this nut case in?" In all reality, there is no judge needed to be '5150ed' (72 hour involuntary psychiatric observation) and that is far more invasive in terms of lost rights. If one of my clients tells me they intend to do harm to themselves or others, I'm mandated by law to report them to authorities. At that point according to federal law, that person is held for a minimum of 3 days and max of 14 days, their right to own guns is revoked and their guns can be taken for ever. If I fail to report them, I lose my license, can be sued for negligence, and face criminal charges. 2 Link to comment
john510 Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 I think the sky is blue, but it might not be.... Yes,especially at night. 1 Link to comment
john510 Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 The most dangerous part in the whole incident was the finger that pulled the triggers. Not the guns, the ammo, the hotel room and so on. I all comes down to the person pulling the trigger. Simple as that This is one of my biggest gripes with the gun people.Always 100% the shooters fault.And i AGREE for the most part.But you never hear the gun people say "damn what if he wouldn't have had that weapon" ? Maybe less people would have been killed or injured.That crazy fucker was just a crazy fucker if he wouldn't have had a gun.Oh and thanks Jesse for the pro gun propaganda picture with the less scary gun missing the clip.I didn't realize it until somebody pointed it out.Carry on and flame away. Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 At first I was thinking dude there's no way Oregon would pass a law like that. I've spent a fare amount of time in Ashland, and as liberal as that place is, because it's in the emerald triangle there's a huge gun culture. Especially for a little PNC college town. Then I remembered Oregon's Gov. Kate Brown. Has to be related to Jerry, right. If Jerry is Moonbeam, Kate would have to be Uranusbeam. After looking this up, although I totally agree this is State Government overreaching BS, flyerdan seems to be exaggerating a bit. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/fact_check_did_kate_brown_real.html Yes, family members or law enforcement can petition the court for an order. If the order is granted, that person's guns are removed and held for up to a year than returned. The accuser must make a statement under oath showing how the person poses a threat to themselves or others. The judge reviews the person's legal, domestic violence, mental health history, etc. If the accuser lies to the judge, they face up to a year in jail. A person's guns can not be removed just on the word of the accuser. There must be clear evidence they pose a real risk. If their guns are removed the accused has the ability to challenge the judges order and review material evidence used to determine risk. You have to admit, after someone goes on a homicidal rampage, we have said "Why didn't someone turn this nut case in?" In all reality, there is no judge needed to be '5150ed' (72 hour involuntary psychiatric observation) and that is far more invasive in terms of lost rights. If one of my clients tells me they intend to do harm to themselves or others, I'm mandated by law to report them to authorities. At that point according to federal law, that person is held for a minimum of 3 days and max of 14 days, their right to own guns is revoked and their guns can be taken for ever. If I fail to report them, I lose my license, can be sued for negligence, and face criminal charges. Oregon is California's fucktarded little brother. 2 Link to comment
Ratwagon1600 Posted October 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 And the award to the thread with the highest current post count goes to.................... RW's "Cuz Merica" 6 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 I wonder who's the top poster in this thread.... Link to comment
john510 Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 I wonder who's the top poster in this thread.... Probably you. Link to comment
Jesse C. Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 This is one of my biggest gripes with the gun people.Always 100% the shooters fault.And i AGREE for the most part.But you never hear the gun people say "damn what if he wouldn't have had that weapon" ? Maybe less people would have been killed or injured.That crazy fucker was just a crazy fucker if he wouldn't have had a gun.Oh and thanks Jesse for the pro gun propaganda picture with the less scary gun missing the clip.I didn't realize it until somebody pointed it out.Carry on and flame away. Oh sorry, let me "Scary" that up for you! Look away, scary black gun! 1 Link to comment
Jesse C. Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Yeah, the gun came to life and forced him to shoot everyone! And the more he had the more tempting it was!!! Yeah, the big what if, but, we sadly don't live in that world and the guy had guns that are very real and exist on our planet. So there. Pro Gun!!! Yeee haww! :rolleyes: 1 Link to comment
DRIVEN Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 This is one of my biggest gripes with the gun people.Always 100% the shooters fault.And i AGREE for the most part.But you never hear the gun people say "damn what if he wouldn't have had that weapon" ? Maybe less people would have been killed or injured.That crazy fucker was just a crazy fucker if he wouldn't have had a gun.Oh and thanks Jesse for the pro gun propaganda picture with the less scary gun missing the clip.I didn't realize it until somebody pointed it out.Carry on and flame away. Great point, John. Gun people do frequently make that point. Here's the reason why. Because every time some crazy person uses guns to kill people every anti comes out of the woodwork with a list of restrictions on what the rest of us law abiders should be able to own (mostly not own). They always focus on guns falling into the hands of crazy people in the streets. So here's my question. Why are there so many crazy people in the streets? We don't need better laws. We need better people. 3 Link to comment
racerx Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 This is one of my biggest gripes with the gun people.Always 100% the shooters fault.And i AGREE for the most part.But you never hear the gun people say "damn what if he wouldn't have had that weapon" ? Maybe less people would have been killed or injured.That crazy fucker was just a crazy fucker if he wouldn't have had a gun.Oh and thanks Jesse for the pro gun propaganda picture with the less scary gun missing the clip.I didn't realize it until somebody pointed it out.Carry on and flame away....I hear you john but Paddock bought all of his 47 guns legally. At this time, we don't know what made him cause these atrocities. Lots of speculations and theories. 1 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 I assure you there's more unqualified and crazy people behind the wheel and killing others than crazy gun owners!, Cars don't spit out bullets, let's not talk about it. Link to comment
datzenmike Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 And the award to the thread with the highest current post count goes to.................... RW's "Cuz Merica" Mostly opinion and little facts but if it was factual, there wouldn't be any need for opinions. Great time waster though... 4 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Mostly opinion and little facts but if it was factual, there wouldn't be any need for opinions. Great time waster though... Oh there's lots of facts in this thread, you just don't like them and so dismiss them as opinions. 1 Link to comment
tr8er Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Okay, the cars vs guns thing is silly. Cars are much more critical to daily function of our society as it is set up. guns are important in many respects but not to a level approaching vehicles. Also, cars require a driving test, often driving school, insurance, eye tests, safety checks, etc. cars are highly regulated and licenses are highly restricted if compared to the less purposeful gun. I'm against removing guns from the public, but I'm also against stupid arguments. 3 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Oh there's lots of facts in this thread, you just don't like them and so dismiss them as opinions. There's facts, but lost under a preponderance of bullshit. Facts are almost impossible to agree on or defend. Every 'fact' posted here came from someone or somewhere else. You would have to chase down everything for months if not years to find out if reliable. What's left is relying on the internet or the media for your facts while you sit at home plucking them from the computer. 1 Link to comment
john510 Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Okay, the cars vs guns thing is silly. Cars are much more critical to daily function of our society as it is set up. guns are important in many respects but not to a level approaching vehicles. Also, cars require a driving test, often driving school, insurance, eye tests, safety checks, etc. cars are highly regulated and licenses are highly restricted if compared to the less purposeful gun. I'm against removing guns from the public, but I'm also against stupid arguments. Very well said ! Link to comment
Recommended Posts