Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: PDW <username@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:12:16 +0200 (CEST)
clutch@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Jeff R." <contact.me@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"PDW" <username@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PM00042E8060CC1460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>
FWIW I agree with you - Andrew has ignored facts & logic. Trying to
eliminate
firearms has less chance of success than winning the 'war on drugs'.
Anyone
with a modicum of knowledge of machining should know that. Given this, why
bother trying to achieve the unachievable?
PDW
Could you manufacture, at home, from scratch, a boxful of, say, 9mm jacketed
rounds? (or any other calibre/type, for that matter) No fair buying powder
or primers. I specified "from scratch".
Unless we're talking flintlocks, it seems to me that the restrictions being
discussed are aimed at the wrong item.
Sure. For some strange reason handguns seem to be the most hated and
thus first restricted. Usually a rifle or shotgun can still be
obtained.
Now take the powder out of a shotgun shell and use it with a cast lead
bullet. The powders used are generally compatable.
From a rifle, which uses a slower burning powder you can get a primer.
You might need to upgrade your hammer spring to use it since the cup
of a rifle primer is tougher than a pistol primer.
Guns/rifles are just so much inert hardware without ammo.
(Yes, I know its *possible* to home-make ammo - but "practical"? 300 rounds
at a time?)
7 - 10 rounds ought to handle any problem.
I could manufacture ammo from scratch if I needed to. 9mm is a bit fussy, but
say 45 Long Colt loaded with black powder and cast lead, piece of cake.
Lot more lethal than 9mm FMJ too.
Smokeless powder is a bit more tricky but not a lot. Just need a better handle
on chemistry but the basic ingredients aren't that hard to come by. Primers -
mercury is getting tricky to obtain but you don't need much. Silver is dead
common and cheap. If you don't know why I refer to these metals, perhaps you
should do some historical reading.
Pointless discussion - the knowledge is out there, the materials are out
there, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Anyone who thinks passing a
law is equiv to obtaining a result is nutz - the war on drugs being an ongoing
case in point and before that, prohibition. Worked wonderfully well - if your
aim was to enrich crims.
PDW
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Too_Many_Tools
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- References:
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Andrew VK3BFA
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Andrew VK3BFA
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Andrew VK3BFA
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Andrew VK3BFA
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: PDW
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Jeff R.
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: Dave Hinz
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- From: clutch
- Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- Prev by Date: Re: Gunner Lost the Iraq War :: Iraq War chaos in US
- Next by Date: Re: OT: ABC News: magazines equal ammunition
- Previous by thread: Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- Next by thread: Re: The US doesn't need no stinking gun control, yeah right.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|