-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
What sniper rifle is this?
- Thread starter ArmedGinger
- Start date
No one is comparing him to the man in the photo. King said, "it's like coming into a room full of jews and asking what oven they used at Auschwitz." I tend to agree.
sorry, I dont disagree. I can see that this was explained and that cultural differences were noted. The comment I felt uneasy about was this one.
While I don't know his background with the incident I don't think its right to put them on the same level in any regard. I in no way intend to downplay what happened. The OP was simply ignorant as to what he was looking at and what he posted. if he was trolling or his intent could be determined as anything other than innocent then I may agree with the above post.
Not trying to stir the pot, this just hit me wrong because I can relate to the OP on a few levels.
I guess I have to agree that cultural differences are prevalent here. Most non-U.S. Citizens have no concept of the level of freedoms our Constitution gives us.
AGAIN! I never said SHIT about Hughes, I said, exactly, point blank, that Reagan was the one, who when he signed it off, said, we don’t need machine guns.
Apparently you GAF more about defending a dead president that wronged us more than you care about the truth. You obviously like not being able to buy a ‘new’ machine gun. That is what you got called out on. I don’t give a shit who put he legislation forward and who didn’t fight it afterward. Reagan signed the fucking thing and said, while he signed it, that WE (the people) don’t need machine guns.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
You can spin the blame or fact twist all you want, he still signed it and said that. No blaming congress, or anyone else.
Stop making excuses. You look/sound like the rest of those pieces of shit in Washington.
Added: FWIW, the rest of the issues in that bill haven’t amounted to shit. People still get pulled over all the time and have their guns confiscated. The only part of that bill that is religiously enforced is “No new Machine guns”! Spin it any way you like, that’s what that bill was intended to do.
Last edited:
Ahem....
That's the Hughes Amendment. You brought it up first, but made it sound like it was a standalone bill. I assume that your comment about "we don’t need machine guns." is in reference to this...
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
That quote is from 1989, AFTER he'd left office. I've also read accounts that he was in the early stages of dementia at that time, and that his declining mental health had a lot to do with some of his post-presidency anti-gun statements.
Your statements like "Apparently you GAF more about defending a dead president that wronged us more than you care about the truth. You obviously like not being able to buy a ‘new’ machine gun. That is what you got called out on." are also 100% wrong, and I never made any such statements to that effect. You're trying to build a strawman.
For the record, I'd love to see Hughes repealed so I can buy or build MGs for myself. However, you never asked my personal opinion, you just assumed.
" Reagan signed the fucking thing and said, while he signed it, that WE (the people) don’t need machine guns.
Is that too hard for you to understand?"
Please cite your source for this supposed statement at the time the bill was signed.
"People still get pulled over all the time and have their guns confiscated."
Every single case I have seen like you described was due to someone NOT following the provisions outlined in FOPA, such as moving to a state and not complying with state law, stopping overnight, etc. You might want to read the Wikipedia link I posted earlier. You can also thank FOPA for the following - "Among the reforms intended to loosen restrictions on gun sales were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service, removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal.[2]"
FOPA is why you can buy a rifle in a neighboring state, and don't have to worry about federal logs of what you bought and where - for firearms or ammo.
"“No new Machine guns”! Spin it any way you like, that’s what that bill was intended to do."
Too bad you're flat wrong on this one. Once again, the machine gun ban was added to FOPA 1986 despite FAILING a voice vote in the house, but it was rammed in anyway by none other than the most corrupt member of the House, Charlie Rangel himself. Even Wikipedia discusses the blatant shenanigans (some would say illegal) that were used to add the MG ban to an otherwise pro-gun bill.
"In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, H.Amdt.777 Amendment passed the House by voice vote, and the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74.[9][10][11] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act. "
Edit: Here's a second link with the transcript of Hughes being rammed into FOPA. Again, shenanigans.
You seem to think everything is black and white when it comes to law and politics, and the motivations for the same. My entire original statement was simply to point out that the 1986 machine gun ban is a whole lot more grey than you tried to make it sound like.
Last edited:
To anyone else, doughnuts cost about $12 per dozen? So it would make sense that Turdeau would spend double the amount, as far as he's concerned it's not his money.
The root of the problem is that he thinks it IS his money.
I could definitely go for a xl double double and a Canadian maple right now..
I don't see where Hughes signed the bill into law and said, "you don't need machine guns." I just see where you posted the picture of the guy who did. I didn't spin anything, you did.
I didn't post the picture of Reagan. Someone else did.
Show me where Reagan said "you don't need machine guns" when he signed FOPA.
You're probably not old enough to remember watching him on TV saying that right after he signed it.
But, if you do a search on him, you'll find he was nowhere near as "gun friendly" as the NRA and the media make him out to be. In California, a lot of the restrictions put in place when he was governor in the 1960's is still in place. Because he didn't like "the other side" having guns.
He signed FOPA. He could have vetoed it, but he did not. After his presidency, he worked with the Brady's to further their agenda and help pass the Brady bill. He also helped get the "assault weapons" ban enacted. He publicly applauded it when it was passed.
And yet, you seem to have no compunction about putting him up on a pedestal like he was our pro-gun president. He wasn't.
The phrase about the nine words you should most fear is also a contradiction. The size of our government nearly tripled during his administration. And, the national debt went from just under a trillion, to over three trillion.
He was a good talker and a "not-so-good" doer, IMO
Nowhere in this entire thread have I put him up on a pedestal. Nowhere have I said anything other than your statement about Reagan banning MGs was an overly broad one, when there was much more nuance involved.
Reagan didn't issue any official signing statement when he signed FOPA that I can find. I also cannot find any reference to your claim that he said nobody should have MGs at the time he signed the bill. I CAN find multiple reports that he initially planned to VETO FOPA specifically because he didn't like the MG ban, but the NRA convinced him to sign it due to all of the protections for gun owners, and that the NRA would work to get the ban overturned.
As for Brady and the AWB, all of that was well after his presidency, and many have speculated that his failing mental health (dementia, namely) played a large role in his support for those.
Again, he didn't have a brain. He signed anti-gun legislation. He could have vetoed the legislation, but you make it sound like he was tricked into it. He wasn't tricked. He was anti-gun. He said we didn't need machine guns. It's a known fact. I'm not going to go back on the internet and find it for you. I said, google his anti-gun moves and see how he really was, not gun friendly.
Yet, you defend him to the bitter end. Wake up! Look at history! See who is your friend and who is not and stop going along party lines like they wouldn't sell you under the bridge. They will. He did.
Neat discussion. What guns did the FBI use in one of their classic mass murders? Remember when they wrote an authorization for the exact same group of murderers to kill every adult at Ruby Ridge then shot a lady in the head while she was holding a baby? In front of her family for bonus points. That was funny as hell too.
And here we are three decades later and the FBI is working with leftists to undermine an elected president and overthrow an elected government for the very same communists they once hounded in the 1950's. If this thread does anything it proves that armed goons will work for anyone and do anything to insure they are the ones exercising power of life and death over the rest of us.
I wonder what rifle they will use if Democrats don't win in 2020?
And here we are three decades later and the FBI is working with leftists to undermine an elected president and overthrow an elected government for the very same communists they once hounded in the 1950's. If this thread does anything it proves that armed goons will work for anyone and do anything to insure they are the ones exercising power of life and death over the rest of us.
I wonder what rifle they will use if Democrats don't win in 2020?
Last edited:
Wow... this thread has gone off on a tangent.
Without seeing the action, it is hard to determine what the rifle is. The stock forend does not look like Remington, so could be HS Precision or McMillan. Most likely a M700 barreled action.
Waco siege occurred in 1993; don't think Savage was making Tactical 110s at the time.
It IS shameful that an FBI agent would pose in front of dead children that they are ultimately responsible for. And we will never know the full truth about Waco as they bulldozed the crime scene within a couple of day, destroying all of the evidence. No one ever paid for that crime.
Without seeing the action, it is hard to determine what the rifle is. The stock forend does not look like Remington, so could be HS Precision or McMillan. Most likely a M700 barreled action.
Waco siege occurred in 1993; don't think Savage was making Tactical 110s at the time.
It IS shameful that an FBI agent would pose in front of dead children that they are ultimately responsible for. And we will never know the full truth about Waco as they bulldozed the crime scene within a couple of day, destroying all of the evidence. No one ever paid for that crime.
Not reading all the stuff in the middle, just this one: I was there, there absolutely were sniper units deployed.
We can attempt to distill down a very complex situation into something stupid people and children can understand, but I only see value in doing so when talking to stupid people and children.
Carry on.
They will need a strong outer perimeter if they pull that shit again.
Someone was getting red flagged and a pile of people showed up and they weren’t able to kill him.
80 dead people including a pile of women and children is only complex to a statist
We understand that by our constitution that these rights are "god given". However, 9/10th's of the world thinks we need to subjugate ourselves. I, like you, DON'T think that needs to happen. We are people and citizens of the USA, not SUBJECTS of some other country.
Our constitution, its protections and general governance model is actually unprecedented in human history. All empires, large and small prior to America were monarchies or derivatives where the many were subjected by the few. The word “citizen” as we know it didn’t exist. Modern tyrants hate freedom and want to end this wondrous experiment that is the United States of America. They want to snuff out the light of Freedom.
Whether they succeed or not depends on all of us. The below is especially relevant, given the current trajectory.
What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand?
- Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Archipelago Gulag
Anyone know what brand of radio they had in Hitler's staff car? It's a valid question in this thread. We can love and adore the equipment carried by evil people right?
Well, I'm a big fan of Mauser 98-action rifles. Does that count?
Hitler primarily rode in a Mercedes-Benz 770 W150 which wasn't equipped with any sort of Radio. If one was installed it was probably a Volksempfänger. That being said he did have radio car in his entourage which was a Mercedes-Benz G4 W-131. I haven't gotten to see inside this vehicle since it's in a private collection but the radio might be a Funkgeräte.
Similar threads
