Blogger is showing me this error on the blog home page:
In general, the argument for gun control comes down to this.Indeed, anti-rights activists ignore the aspect of who is doing the confiscating. The implicit statement is that the government has the authority to do all of this, "for the greater good".
Guns are used to commit crimes.
A crime is defined as the initiation of violence against a peaceful citizen.
Thus guns must be restricted or banned, in order to reduce crime.
It is easy to see the illogic of this argument. How does the government go about banning guns? Why, by initiating violence against those who possess them “illegally.” Thus there is no way to ban guns without initiating the use of force – in other words, a certain crime must be committed for the sake of possibly preventing an unknown crime at some point in the future. We might as well jump off a cliff when we are 20 to prevent the possibility of falling off a cliff when we are 70.
Truckers in Alaska have used coffee cans with a roll of toilet paper inside that is drenched with rubbing alcohol. Burns clean puts off heat. Whatever works.I'll have to give both these methods a try. Also, the Knowledge Weights Nothing site looks quite intriguing.
What’s going to be really interesting is when he’s presented with the historical information about crew served weapons. He thinks that cannons are not covered. He’s going to be shocked when he learns that at the founding of this country to well past the writing of the Constitution, cannons and warships were privately owned. In fact, we can prove that the writers of the Constitution considered cannon and warship ownership by private citizens to be normal.I'm all for it!
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
We don’t issue Letters of Marque anymore. While we are not a signatory to the treaty forbidding them, we generally follow that treaty. What is a letter of Marque? It’s basically an official commission from the government for a private person to attack enemy shipping without being branded a pirate. What do you think that a person would have to have in order to attack enemy ships with? You guessed it, a ship, armed with weapons appropriate to naval combat.
So there you have it. The very text of the Constitution tells us that it was not considered wrong for private citizens to own a ship nor to fill that ship with cannons.
Makes it pretty tough to argue that the Government has the power to prevent people from having cannons without running afoul of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it.
I like mine: from sandbags I was getting 3" at 200yds (1.5 MOA) with old Australian surplus using a Hensoldt 4x scope (with temps in the 30s, so I was probably getting a cold-bore shot every string...). The recoil is heavier than an AR-15, but you get used to it. Especially if you put the wide handguard and Magpul PRS stock on there, which makes it really heavy!I still despise CTD, though....
Downsides to the HK91-style rifle are two: it beats the hell out of brass, and it doesn't have a last round hold open. The former is only an issue if you reload (which is why I only feed mine surplus). The latter is a serious demerit, IMO, as I'm not going to stick tracers in for my last couple rounds. Still, as Boston T. Party opines in his "Gun Bible", it'll pretty much always work, which is what you want in an SHTF rifle.
CDNN has the best price on the gun. RTG has good prices on surplus accessories; buy new at HKParts if you're rich ;-)
