Gun nuts only

[Rass922captain of 100]

AR for Zombies

DGMzombies.jpg (41.59 KiB) Viewed 312 times

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

AR for Zombies

DGMzombies.jpg

Nice!

[Rass922captain of 100]

It takes 43 muscles to frown and 17 to smile, but only 3 for proper trigger squeeze

DGMATTITUDE.jpg (50.28 KiB) Viewed 302 times

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Drones shot down over Texas? Looked and and sounded to me like all the shooters were drunk! That's a lot of shooting for two kiddie model airplanes? Is that what Alex Jones is trying to sell as fact today?

Thanks Mooner, got a good laugh!

Bob

[dlbwwcaptain of 100]

Since no one responded to my previous request I'll ask again. I claim neophyte status in the world of guns. I do own a .303 Lee Enfield jungle carbine and a Remington 870 wingmaster, both were given to me years ago. I think I need a .22 rifle for target practise, etc. and have considered the Marlin 39a, Model 60, 70PSS, Ruger 10/22 and a Savage Mark II FV with the heavy barrel and accutrigger (see: http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/MARKIIFV/). I'm leaning towards the bolt action Savage and a second .22 rifle in semi-auto would be nice. Perhaps I've overlooked something, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

Since no one responded to my previous request I'll ask again. I claim neophyte status in the world of guns. I do own a .303 Lee Enfield jungle carbine and a Remington 870 wingmaster, both were given to me years ago. I think I need a .22 rifle for target practise, etc. and have considered the Marlin 39a, Model 60, 70PSS, Ruger 10/22 and a Savage Mark II FV with the heavy barrel and accutrigger (see: http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/MARKIIFV/). I'm leaning towards the bolt action Savage and a second .22 rifle in semi-auto would be nice. Perhaps I've overlooked something, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

My buddy's dad just picked up one of those Savages. It's a fine .22 rifle. I wouldn't mind having one. I have a pretty basic 10/22 and love it. I don't think you could go wrong with any of the firearms you listed. For me, the ability to have a detachable magazine was a must since I like throwing lots of lead and quick reloads. The Ruger has been around forever and magazines are cheap and plentiful. I have 10, 25, and 50 rd capacity magazines. The trick with any .22 rim-fire is to keep them clean. .22 ammo is dirty and the semi-autos especially will start having issues if not kept clean.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Since no one responded to my previous request I'll ask again. I claim neophyte status in the world of guns. I do own a .303 Lee Enfield jungle carbine and a Remington 870 wingmaster, both were given to me years ago. I think I need a .22 rifle for target practise, etc. and have considered the Marlin 39a, Model 60, 70PSS, Ruger 10/22 and a Savage Mark II FV with the heavy barrel and accutrigger (see: http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/MARKIIFV/). I'm leaning towards the bolt action Savage and a second .22 rifle in semi-auto would be nice. Perhaps I've overlooked something, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

Wow, I went back and looked, I thought sure I answered your post! Guess I forgot to hit submit, sorry!

Anyway, the best .22 on the market is the Ruger 10/22, there are none better. My second choice would be the Marlin, but in semi-auto, not the lever action, although the model 39 is a fine gun, but in an emergency situation, the extra sound a lever action makes might prove to be critical. The single Marlin semi-auto I've ever owned was extremely accurate. But so is my Ruger, a few weeks ago firing as fast as my feeble fingers could pull the trigger I put ten rounds in the black at 20 yards, open sights, no scope! I thought it was pretty good for an old man with failing eyesight. Didn't do any better with my glasses on, guess that says something!

The 870 is a fine shotgun, the Lee Enfield is a fine weapon, the .303 cartridge leaves a wee bit to be desired (among us gun nuts) but helped win a war, and would suffice!

The addition of a good .22 would almost complete your arsenal, you would still need a larger cal pistol, 9mm, .40 S&W, .45. And plenty of ammunition!

Bob

[M249Gunnercaptain of 100]

Since no one responded to my previous request I'll ask again. I claim neophyte status in the world of guns. I do own a .303 Lee Enfield jungle carbine and a Remington 870 wingmaster, both were given to me years ago. I think I need a .22 rifle for target practise, etc. and have considered the Marlin 39a, Model 60, 70PSS, Ruger 10/22 and a Savage Mark II FV with the heavy barrel and accutrigger (see: http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/MARKIIFV/). I'm leaning towards the bolt action Savage and a second .22 rifle in semi-auto would be nice. Perhaps I've overlooked something, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

I would buy the Ruger 10/.22. It is a really good rifle. It is simple enough you can do your own trigger job. I did a trigger job and polished the paint overspray out of the receiver with some fine steel wool and it is a great functioning little rifle. There are youtube videos about how to do the trigger job. I like the short carbine 10/22. Ruger is now making their own 20 or maybe it is 30 round magazines that are supposed to be very reliable.

[M249Gunnercaptain of 100]

If you would like a .22 pistol, I heartily recommend the Ruger MK III pistols. I really like the one with the bull barrel. If I buy another, I would like to buy the one with the heavy tapered barrel. I think it is really cool that they have a heavy tapered barrel now.

If you buy a Ruger pistol, just remember that they seem to like to be well oiled.

[dlbwwcaptain of 100]

Thanks for the information. Perhaps a Ruger 10/22 semi-auto would be a good addition (after that Savage I keep drooling over). And hand guns are a restricted weapon here in Canada; I would require another course, which is easy enough, however under Canadian law a hand gun can only be transported between home and the range and back again where it must reside in a locked box. In a shtf scenario I suspect these laws would be moot but until then my weapon of defense is the 12 gauge with 00 buckshot.

[Rass922captain of 100]

Thanks for the information. Perhaps a Ruger 10/22 semi-auto would be a good addition (after that Savage I keep drooling over). And hand guns are a restricted weapon here in Canada; I would require another course, which is easy enough, however under Canadian law a hand gun can only be transported between home and the range and back again where it must reside in a locked box. In a shtf scenario I suspect these laws would be moot but until then my weapon of defense is the 12 gauge with 00 buckshot.

Many twenty-two rifles are built as a replica of a larger-caliber gun, but overtake the original in popularity. A good case in point is the very popular Ruger 10-22. It was initially introduced as an understudy to Ruger’s larger .44 Magnum carbine, but the 10-22 is today probably the most popular .22 Long Rifle carbine on the market, even though the original .44 Carbine was discontinued several years ago. A new .22 Long Rifle carbine that is being built as a replica of the H&K 9mm carbine is the subject of this review; the GSG-5 as imported into the United States by American Tactical Imports. Already, the GSG-5 has developed a cult-like following, and I believe that the GSG-5 will become very popular in the US as more shooters discover this little carbine.

DGM300px-GSG-5_rifle.jpg (8.25 KiB) Viewed 241 times

[M249Gunnercaptain of 100]

Looks interesting, however can you buy it without the silly fake suppressor? I hate fake suppressors.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Looks interesting, however can you buy it without the silly fake suppressor? I hate fake suppressors.

A 10/22 is a better gun! However, a fake suppressor can be replaced easily with a real------

Bob

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Nervy, or a right? Do police have the right to take down citizens carrying a sidearm?

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

Nervy, or a right? Do police have the right to take down citizens carrying a sidearm?

Police should NOT have the power to take down citizens carrying a sidearm. If there is a complaint the police DO have the power to investigate, maybe even examine the weapon, but that is it.

As a military vet and a current law enforcement officer for the past twelve years when I see a citizen with a sidearm I don't think of them as a threat, I think of them as back-up.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

Nervy, or a right? Do police have the right to take down citizens carrying a sidearm?

Police should NOT have the power to take down citizens carrying a sidearm. If there is a complaint the police DO have the power to investigate, maybe even examine the weapon, but that is it.

As a military vet and a current law enforcement officer for the past twelve years when I see a citizen with a sidearm I don't think of them as a threat, I think of them as back-up.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Nervy, or a right? Do police have the right to take down citizens carrying a sidearm?

Police should NOT have the power to take down citizens carrying a sidearm. If there is a complaint the police DO have the power to investigate, maybe even examine the weapon, but that is it.

As a military vet and a current law enforcement officer for the past twelve years when I see a citizen with a sidearm I don't think of them as a threat, I think of them as back-up.

My kind of cop, sure hope your in Utah!

Bob

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

Nervy, or a right? Do police have the right to take down citizens carrying a sidearm?

Police should NOT have the power to take down citizens carrying a sidearm. If there is a complaint the police DO have the power to investigate, maybe even examine the weapon, but that is it.

As a military vet and a current law enforcement officer for the past twelve years when I see a citizen with a sidearm I don't think of them as a threat, I think of them as back-up.

My kind of cop, sure hope your in Utah!

Bob

Yes Bob, I'm in Utah. There are a lot of officers who share the same belief as me. Problem is society has created a divide between the community and law enforcement. Many do not realize that when I'm off duty I go back to my home with my wife and my children and my neighbors and my ward members. Many also do not realize that when I put on my uniform I am still a husband, a father, a neighbor, and a fellow ward member. Both sides need to realize this.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

Yes Bob, I'm in Utah. There are a lot of officers who share the same belief as me. Problem is society has created a divide between the community and law enforcement. Many do not realize that when I'm off duty I go back to my home with my wife and my children and my neighbors and my ward members. Many also do not realize that when I put on my uniform I am still a husband, a father, a neighbor, and a fellow ward member. Both sides need to realize this.

My experience is that all LEOs help perpetuate this divide as well. I have never met anyone in law enforcement who has even hinted at liking the idea of officers being limited in their power. Two of my best friends are LEOs. There are 4 LEOs in my ward - only 1 doesn't give everyone the stink eye all the time, but he says he has to act like a thug while on duty so people take him seriously. The "Us vs. Them" mentality is alive and well among all these people.

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

My experience is that all LEOs help perpetuate this divide as well. I have never met anyone in law enforcement who has even hinted at liking the idea of officers being limited in their power. Two of my best friends are LEOs. There are 4 LEOs in my ward - only 1 doesn't give everyone the stink eye all the time, but he says he has to act like a thug while on duty so people take him seriously. The "Us vs. Them" mentality is alive and well among all these people.

I agree with you but officers are a victim of society. Everyone sees a LEO and then wants to know who's he going to harrass today. When I saw the video I was responding to what I saw were two young pups unsure what to do about a man with a gun. Sadly, they even had to call it in for 'advisement'.

The issue should have been handled better. The two officers should have received better training, know their department's policy and procedure, and worked with the citizen, instead of creating a wall between them. Sadly, most agencies train their officers for liability reasons and not to make them better officers and community servants.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

Yes Bob, I'm in Utah. There are a lot of officers who share the same belief as me. Problem is society has created a divide between the community and law enforcement. Many do not realize that when I'm off duty I go back to my home with my wife and my children and my neighbors and my ward members. Many also do not realize that when I put on my uniform I am still a husband, a father, a neighbor, and a fellow ward member. Both sides need to realize this.

Don't take this the wrong way, Tribunal. I respect you and I'm sure you're a conscientious law enforcer. The problem is it's hard not to have a divide when every encounter with law enforcement makes members of the community feel like sheep being circled by wolves. Sure, the wolves can complain about the sheep fearing and distrusting them, but at what side of the line does the fault lie?

Most law enforcement officers I've met, heard about, or read testimony from seem to be of the opinion that the reason people fear them is because everyone's guilty of breaking some law and they don't want to be caught. Perhaps that allows them to shift the guilt onto the victims when they lament being stigmatized for working for an oppressive government and watch their fellow officers go far past their lawful authority without fear of consequences.

And I don't think it's usually the fault of the law enforcement officers themselves. It's what their job has become, and while a few wholeheartedly embrace the chance to abuse their authority most are probably decent and in a situation where they think they're doing right.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

Yes Bob, I'm in Utah. There are a lot of officers who share the same belief as me. Problem is society has created a divide between the community and law enforcement. Many do not realize that when I'm off duty I go back to my home with my wife and my children and my neighbors and my ward members. Many also do not realize that when I put on my uniform I am still a husband, a father, a neighbor, and a fellow ward member. Both sides need to realize this.

My experience is that all LEOs help perpetuate this divide as well. I have never met anyone in law enforcement who has even hinted at liking the idea of officers being limited in their power. Two of my best friends are LEOs. There are 4 LEOs in my ward - only 1 doesn't give everyone the stink eye all the time, but he says he has to act like a thug while on duty so people take him seriously. The "Us vs. Them" mentality is alive and well among all these people.

This divide is sometimes perpetuated by police for sure... the whole thin blue line concept. And there are certainly lots of people that don't trust police... don't trust them to correctly identify victims (or at least apologize and drop charges when in error instead of trying desperately to find something to charge them with), don't trust them to only enforce good laws, don't trust them to tell the truth and get facts straight in official reports or in court, and don't trust them to appropriate use force (or be punished when they go too far). Some of these are based on experience, some on bad press from bad cops and not really fair to others.

How did all of this start, or where is the root of the problem? IMO it lies with legislatures, and to some extent with courts (especially with the few judges whose fragile egos are surpassed only by their intellectual laziness).

We live with a system where lobbyists and special interests help fund politicians, on all levels of government (federal, state, county, city, etc), and those politicians help get laws passed in the name of protecting the public that really just protect those special interests to the detriment of everyone else (well, except the govt that has more excuses to increase taxes/fees/etc, hire people, buy equipment, etc, etc).

The result is police officers are in a tough position of having to enforce laws they don't agree with, and that most of the people they encounter don't agree with, and that breeds resentment and contempt on both sides. With so many and a growing number bad laws on the books, and so many and a growing number of overzealous folks in govt (found in every role in govt, even if not every individual), this divide is only likely to get wider over time.

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

Fairminded and jonesde, I totally agree with you both and that's why I posted that soldiers have become the police in foreign lands and local police have been soldiers. Criminals have become so bad, and 'normal' people have become so confrontational, LEOs have evolved into soldiers in their own community. Legislatures are also at fault with crazy laws and too many regulations. And, again, agencies no longer train their officers to do their job, just train them so they aren't a liability to sue-happy citizens. This is a very dangerous world we live in!

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

Fairminded and jonesde, I totally agree with you both and that's why I posted that soldiers have become the police in foreign lands and local police have been soldiers. Criminals have become so bad, and 'normal' people have become so confrontational, LEOs have evolved into soldiers in their own community. Legislatures are also at fault with crazy laws and too many regulations. And, again, agencies no longer train their officers to do their job, just train them so they aren't a liability to sue-happy citizens. This is a very dangerous world we live in!

Agreed.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

Fairminded and jonesde, I totally agree with you both and that's why I posted that soldiers have become the police in foreign lands and local police have been soldiers. Criminals have become so bad, and 'normal' people have become so confrontational, LEOs have evolved into soldiers in their own community. Legislatures are also at fault with crazy laws and too many regulations. And, again, agencies no longer train their officers to do their job, just train them so they aren't a liability to sue-happy citizens. This is a very dangerous world we live in!

That is an interesting perspective, that the training and objectives are so driven by legal liability.

In a good law enforcement system it actually makes sense for officers and departments to have liability for their actions. Every position in government has potential for abuse, but the types of abuse that law enforcement is susceptible to are particularly onerous given that it is the force behind every threat that government makes (with dozens of different agencies enforcing different sets of law... but all of which we are liable for).

However, it seems like (and your comments seem to align with this) that the legal liability that law enforcement has is not really intended to encourage "protecting" or "serving" the public. I guess this goes back to the legislation and court problems too.

That reminds me of another thing I've heard about defense in court against bad charges: always blame it on the cop. Don't blame it on the "system", on the law, or on the court... blame it on the cop or you'll get slammed.

What a shame... like literally, what a shameful thing.

Any judges or legislators following this thread that care to comment?

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

I would like to know if I have a right to bear a gun on my own property IN UTAH. If so, does it have to be in the open like in a holster on my belt or in my hands? or what conditions make it OK?

How about while driving my car or truck?

Also, does a police officer have a right now to enter my home OR MY PROPERTY without having a search warrant? The Constitution says something about protection of citizens against "unlawful searches and seizures" -- does this really apply today?

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

The title of the video doesn't fit the message. Nevertheless, be aware that the slightest thing can and will be used against you. Even gun owners may find this helpful if detained for questioning.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

I would like to know if I have a right to bear a gun on my own property IN UTAH. If so, does it have to be in the open like in a holster on my belt or in my hands? or what conditions make it OK?

How about while driving my car or truck?

Also, does a police officer have a right now to enter my home OR MY PROPERTY without having a search warrant? The Constitution says something about protection of citizens against "unlawful searches and seizures" -- does this really apply today?

Check this out.




Utah
Main article: Gun laws in Utah
Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Relevant Statutes Notes
State Permit to Purchase? No No - Private sales legal, no waiting period.
Firearm registration? No No – None
"Assault weapon" law? No No – None
Owner license required? No No - None
Carry permits issued? Yes Yes - Open carry allowed without permit and concealed carry allowed with permit.
State Preemption of local restrictions? Yes Yes - None
NFA weapons restricted? No No - Possession of NFA firearms in violation of federal law is a third degree felony under state law. However, possession and ownership of NFA firearms and items is legal under state law if federal requirements and laws are followed.
Peaceable Journey laws? Yes Yes 76-10-523 Persons exempt from weapons laws.

(g) a nonresident traveling in or through the state, provided that any firearm is: unloaded; and securely encased as defined in Section 76-10-501. Handguns may be loaded in any vehicle under the person's control.
Castle Doctrine? Yes Yes 76-2-402 Force in defense of person—Forcible felony defined.

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Utah

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

Thanks, Freedomfighter.

I also came across this --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsoY9Vx ... ure=relmfu

-- advice from a lawyer -- exercise your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. He explains that the officer may lie to you and trick you into a confession... Hmmmmm.... I can see why the Founders put the fifth amendment into the Bill of Rights!