Watch the gun grabbers go after any rifle with a scope on it next because it’s a s****r r***e.
No 2A Right to Train to Shoot to 1000 Yards?
- Thread starter Longshot231
- Start date
I can shoot to 1000 yards with my old 1903 Springfield, using open sights.
Just wait until there is someone who pulls a Ukraine move, and drops something interesting from a drone onto a crowd.
Just wait until there is someone who pulls a Ukraine move, and drops something interesting from a drone onto a crowd.
I am surprised this hasn't already happened. It's just a matter of time before someone does it.
With the shit they are pulling they are terrified to be out and about even with security.They know he or she is out there somewhere.You know who I mean the person with nothing to live for or nothing to lose.The person who feels its all aimed at them.Yeah they are out there alright and it scares the hell out of them.
Well, the are already wanting to disallow some muzzle brakes if they can be an integral part of a suppressor later. Well, doesn't that describe every threaded barrel, where you just spin one on? Every single rule they come up with needs to be slapped down hard, without exception.
I said this years ago at F class match. Topic came up about AR-15's and Dems always never missing opportunity to ban the evil black rifle. I said wait until they figure out we are shooting 10's and X's in this sport at 1000 yards and they would lose their mind.
By banning everything, just in case.
Or like California did in the late 80's, looked at gun magazines and catalogs and banned everything that looked scary.
'No foul' , as my LRF reported the training target at 999 yard.
.
I shoot a 308, so I dont give a shit....
They''ll be no restrictions on them till one is actually used in a serious crime. The only exception presently, to my knowledge, is the limit of space/distance they can be flown in near D.C.
The guys owning that land must live next to a karen.
The county I hunt in has both public and private land. The sound of rifle fire is as right as Sunday Morning.
The county I hunt in has both public and private land. The sound of rifle fire is as right as Sunday Morning.
Remember this when you vote for Biden in November. He is coming for you Fudd guns too.
They are easy to over come.
All of them are remote controlled via some sort of radio signal, be it analog or digital.
The .guv has plenty of devices to bombard an area with random radio signals across a wide spectrum which will jam the controls causing a crash.
They haven't demonstrated that yet (to my knowledge) but I'm sure most of you guys can see how simple it really is.
VT has already tried to ban “training”.
It won’t stand in court as training is a first amendment issue. Can’t suppress the transfer of knowledge or ideas.
But that doesn’t mean the lawfare wont cost millions to defend a fundamental right.
Lawfare needs to come with financial consequences. Like disbarment, financial penalties, jail, tribunals and guillotine.
Just ‘sayin.
Sirhr
It won’t stand in court as training is a first amendment issue. Can’t suppress the transfer of knowledge or ideas.
But that doesn’t mean the lawfare wont cost millions to defend a fundamental right.
Lawfare needs to come with financial consequences. Like disbarment, financial penalties, jail, tribunals and guillotine.
Just ‘sayin.
Sirhr
That just empowers it.
There is only one solution that will stop all of this nonsense, and end all these issues across the board.
If they are scared this type of training will be use against them, they don't have a clue. They would be much better off by stopping all chemistry classes, computer & RF teachings. Shelf items & a brain will always trump a hard dick with a gun, no matter how good one is with that tool.
There are already lots of restrictions including tracking of the drone and the operator.
They aren't capable of linear thinking. So any sort of multi-dimensional thinking or wargaming any scenario involving multiple facets or courses of action using various weapon systems, communications or cyber-warfare are out of the question for them.
Then again, I could be underestimating them. When it comes to politics, the leftists democrats play chess while the republicans play chutes & ladders.
But that thought aside, people that have no experience in a certain subject tend to look at it with an air of superior knowledge.
Talk to anyone who has never been in a fist fight and ask them how they would fight back if physically attacked by a sucker punch. They don't even think about how they would recover from the blurred vision, throbbing pain from a busted nose, or a jaw that's felt like a glass vase shattered in dozens of pieces, let alone how they would get off the ground. They don't address the fact that is from one punch when many more are inbound.
These leftists are no different. Then again, they will attack whatever seems to be an easy target at the time. This gun club in Michigan is one example. The state has deep pockets while the folks starting this gun club lack the unlimited resources.
That's one thing the left is good at. They go after weak targets in arenas that have favorable conditions, like leftists courts.
I agree with you. There are multiple ways to fight, whether it's with guns, poker games, labor negotiations or divorce court.
I never thought much of him as a person. IMHO, he's a POS but did get one thing right...
Last I checked (and much to everyone’s surprise) we are still a state.
So the I doesn’t apply. Except maybe if some Snow Beaners asked for training.
But they are more interested in Ann Murray Sing Alongs, The Beachcombers and sucking Trudeau off.
So no worries there.
Sirhr
Take a drive up to a mountain.....
and go for 1200.
Which will be like having every gun registered.... while the bad guys steal them and murder for sport while the legal citizen is harassed at every turn.
I was worried the gun grabbers would go after this hobby during the DC sniper shootings, but they instead got tunnel vision on the AR-15 used.
At the time, I had to explain to a few people who asked, that "sniper rifles" are closer to basic hunting rifles and that no fancy equipment was required for those shootings anyway.
Of course the AR-15 looked scary so they promptly discarded this information from their minds because learning is hard. It shouldn't be long before the human condition is identified as the true threat and they want to force society to numb themselves with mandated drugs like in Equilibrium.
At the time, I had to explain to a few people who asked, that "sniper rifles" are closer to basic hunting rifles and that no fancy equipment was required for those shootings anyway.
Of course the AR-15 looked scary so they promptly discarded this information from their minds because learning is hard. It shouldn't be long before the human condition is identified as the true threat and they want to force society to numb themselves with mandated drugs like in Equilibrium.
Well I guess we will have to start just shooting our harmless 22 rimfire rifles out to 250yds........
have always been afraid that the the dems would use the same process they use to call and AR an "assault rifle". use to call any standard hunting rifle a "sniper rifle" and carry on from there. wouldn't surprise me at all.
After the Clinton AWB in the next bill was a ban on high precision long range rifles. They defined anything from .50 BMG to most .308 Win Deer Rifles as dangerous to trains, aircraft, and infrastructure. The Dems decided not to try it because they were told by their polling staff it would cost them the White House.
PS: A iron sight National Match AR-15 will hold an X ring at 600 yards and an 8 or better at 1K.
Maybe if folks would stop training and just go shooting.
I mean, you can do the exact same thing, you can even receive instruction on how to maximize your enjoyment. But "training" has scary evil connotations for certain folks. People especially sensitive to words. (oddly though, they have no problem changing or ignoring the meaning of words)
"Oh my, what are they training for? Mass shootings? Murder for hire? Insurrection? Oh dear!"
Half in jest, half sincere unfortunately. Sad, but here we are.
I mean, you can do the exact same thing, you can even receive instruction on how to maximize your enjoyment. But "training" has scary evil connotations for certain folks. People especially sensitive to words. (oddly though, they have no problem changing or ignoring the meaning of words)
"Oh my, what are they training for? Mass shootings? Murder for hire? Insurrection? Oh dear!"
Half in jest, half sincere unfortunately. Sad, but here we are.
The imported snowturds got Big Ivy shut down here. Which is ridiculous as it was there long before the housing developments, and on private property. If they can do it here in the country, they'll try to do it everywhere.
That's always been my issue with people that move here. They leave whatever flat, featureless shithole they came from to come live in the mountains, then they want us to change our ways to suit them. And they want strip malls and Starsucks on every corner. I don't remember sending you a fucking invitation. Feel free to pack your shit and go back where you came from since it was so great.
That's always been my issue with people that move here. They leave whatever flat, featureless shithole they came from to come live in the mountains, then they want us to change our ways to suit them. And they want strip malls and Starsucks on every corner. I don't remember sending you a fucking invitation. Feel free to pack your shit and go back where you came from since it was so great.
.300 H&H mag. The guys shoulder had to be hamburger…From 1938.
Probably not. I have a Bull Gun in .30-06. It's a pleasure to shoot. It's obviously not going to have the recoil of a .300 H&H but given the weight of the Bull Gun, I would say it's not going to kick as much as a lighter weight rifle designed to be carried.
"To the extent that Plaintiffs suggest that other zoning restrictions in the amended ordinance functionally prohibit shooting ranges within the Township, they forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in their opening brief."
It is difficult to imagine a situation where accurately firing from 1,000 yards would be
necessary to defend oneself; nor have Plaintiffs identified one. To the extent that historical
evidence is probative of the scope of a right derived by necessary implication, like the right to
train, the historical evidence Plaintiffs present—a handful of examples of rifleman making shots
from 600 to 900 yards during the Revolutionary War—is not convincing. Assuming these
examples show that the Founding-era public understood military proficiency to include accuracy
at these long distances, they do not establish that the Second Amendment right—which is
unconnected to “participation in a structured military organization,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584—
was similarly understood. And beyond this historical evidence, Plaintiffs make no real argument
that long-distance training is necessary for the effective exercise of the right to keep and bear
arms for self-defense, other than briefly noting that the federally chartered Civilian
Marksmanship Program offers 1,000-yard training. We cannot conclude, based on these
arguments, that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the second formulation of
Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct—the right to commercially available sites to train to
achieve proficiency in long-range shooting at distances up to 1,000 yards.
necessary to defend oneself; nor have Plaintiffs identified one. To the extent that historical
evidence is probative of the scope of a right derived by necessary implication, like the right to
train, the historical evidence Plaintiffs present—a handful of examples of rifleman making shots
from 600 to 900 yards during the Revolutionary War—is not convincing. Assuming these
examples show that the Founding-era public understood military proficiency to include accuracy
at these long distances, they do not establish that the Second Amendment right—which is
unconnected to “participation in a structured military organization,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584—
was similarly understood. And beyond this historical evidence, Plaintiffs make no real argument
that long-distance training is necessary for the effective exercise of the right to keep and bear
arms for self-defense, other than briefly noting that the federally chartered Civilian
Marksmanship Program offers 1,000-yard training. We cannot conclude, based on these
arguments, that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the second formulation of
Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct—the right to commercially available sites to train to
achieve proficiency in long-range shooting at distances up to 1,000 yards.
The decision may be 2-1, but the dissent would not rule for a 2A right to shoot at 1000 yards, either.
So all three judges disagreed with any right to train out to 1000 yards.
So all three judges disagreed with any right to train out to 1000 yards.
Just like nobody needs an excuse to own a weapon, nobody needs an excuse to shoot out to 1000 yards and beyond.
Similar threads
