burbleflyer

EWWWW! That SUCKS! Oh, trust me, I don't grip anywhere near the cylinder. I have my dominant right hand on the grip, and I cup the left hand around the lower front of the right (index and middle finger over the pinkie and ring finger of the right hand) for stability. Nothing is near the cylinder. I was convinced that there's a mechanical deficiency when the range operator examined the gun, dry fired it, held the trigger down, and was able to wiggle the cylinder to another chamber! He said that is not good. The cylinder should remain locked until the trigger is released, according to him. In fact, on most of the chambers, it does. I have not yet identified whether there is a specific one that goes free. If there is, I will point it out to the warranty service people at Taurus. Maybe the cylinder simply is defective, not machined right, and needs replacement. I just have to get my butt down to Miami sometime (but I suppose I'll call first to verify that I can bring a gun in to them in person.) - Taurus has a lifetime warrantee. Call them they should make it right.

Jeffery. All revolvers do that but there may be an issue like you say, I dont know. I think you need to look at how you grip it. Be very carefull where you put your left hand when shooting a revolver, people have lost fingers shooting the SW .50.

Yep. Didnt have to even click the link. Been there.

Your comparison is... well dumb. Hook turns have a purpose and there is a way to learn to learn to do them safely. There is no way to learn to catch a cutaway main safely and there is no real purpose.

Repack cycles are bullshit. Pure and simple. Holdovers from the days of silk canopies. Check the repack cycles on ballistic recovery systems or ejection seats. Its years.

For every use of a gun in a crime I can state that had the victims been armed the crime may have been prevented. If you disarm everyone, we will all become victims. The fact that I have guns makes people around me safer because the criminals only know that some of us have guns but not who. 90% of inmates surveyed said they feared encountering an armed victim more than the police.

Geez, I feel like I should go back to the "penis" analogy.... IT'S A JOKE, JEFFREY!!!!! Those terms are taken from gun control websites.

If I want to own an evil looking bullet hose with more thrusts per squeeze why should anyone care as long as I use it in a lawful and safe manner? If guns are being used by criminals, punish the criminals not me. Why should I pay his dues? Guns are just tools. No more no less. They are highly regulated. Far too much IMHO and if you dont think I have to jump through enough hoops to by a gun you're mistaken. People who think mere possession of a gun makes me more likely to commit a crime are transfering their own fears about themselves onto me and I take offense at that. You see, its all about power and control. The people who want to take away our guns want to do it because they know as long as we have them they cant have total control over us and that scares them. As it should. If you think its not about incremental prohibition and confiscation of all guns, just look at England and Australia. Australia is now banning swords. Soon it be illegal to pick up a rock. Thats what the second amendment is all about. Giving us the ability to take back control from those who govern us should they abuse that power. If you want to own a GSXR1100 go ahead. You have absolutely NO NEED for all that power and speed but hey, suit yourself, go nuts. All I ask is that grant me the same courtesy even though your poison is not in the BOR and mine is, thank you very much. Gun control doesnt work. 20,000 failed gun control laws prove that. Easier access to guns reduces crime as lower violent crime rates in shall issue states proves. Guns are used far more for peaceful and defensive purposes than they are used in crime but the media doesnt want you to know that. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY BULLET HOSE!!!

I agree with this completely. I think the current standard is misleading and arbitrary. This is a democracy/republic, I think EVERYTHING is open for debate among the involved parties. The only real reason that I would give would be that the need for 1000 PJ's (who are responsible, safety conscious gun owners) to be able to enjoy their (however they are defined) assault weapons for their fun and fascination is outweighed by the one kook who will use the capabilities of that weapon to inflict massive damage on innnocent men, women, and children. It's the same reason you can't go into a hardware store and buy dynamite. Is this enough of a reason? I am not sure, but I would love to hear the open debate instead of the shrill screaming from both sides. Ban cars. They are used many more times for illegal activities each year than guns are.

This Republic was never about the common good. It was about individual freedom. Its not a democracy, its a Constitutional Republic. Its not about majority rules. Its about individual freedom. The Constitution IS written in stone. Its not up for interpretation. It is what it says it is. The "common good" thingy is communism. Pure and simple. Sorry to ruin your night.

NAME CALLING INTELLECTUALLY INSECURE NARROW MINDED SHITHEAD. Moderators, go back and look at the attacks I have endured and tried to maintain a polite discourse, and if you think I should be banned, knock yourself out. Glad I stayed to read this one. Do you need a Whambulance? A bit sensitive here are we? I think your views spell communist or at best socialist. Remember you said "for the common good" not me. This Republic was never about the common good. It was about individual freedom. Its not a democracy, its a Constitutional Republic. Its not about majority rules. Its about individual freedom. The Constitution IS written in stone. Its not up for interpretation. It is what it says it is. The "common good" thingy is communism. Pure and simple. Sorry to ruin your night.

I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Really? Drunk driving is illegal and they haven't come for my beer. I can't drive 90, but I can still go 65. I can't bang a 16 year old, but I am still fine with a college girl. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It's a cop-out. You ramble and I dont see your point here. And if you dont get the "slippery slope" thingy you're beyond hope. Goodnight commie! Read a few chapters of the manifesto before you nod off. Any thoughts on repealing ONE gun law? I thought not. Poser. Take your Glock and Browning to the next buy back. Good night.

Exactly my point. At the time of the authoring of the Declaration Of Independence, the thought was that there should not be a standing army. That has changed. The fact that a standing army is now considered universally acceptable is all the more reason that the people should retain the means to oppose it should it run amok. How do you not see that? - Frankly, I think it is a good point. However, I think you would find that most of the people who tout their "2nd amendment rights" haven't even thought of it that way. Goes to show how naiive you are because thats EXACTLY how we DO look at it. Commie.

I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner.

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature. That is absolutely fucking retarded! Then next week they'd ask for a different kind. You know what? I want new machine guns. New machine were banned in 86. Legal MGs have never been used in a crime except ONCE by a cop. Look it up. Go fuck yourself. You compromise MY WAY for once! Honestly, you lost me. I was referring to the concept of bringing a level of rationality into heated discussions in the interest of resolution rather than hysterics. That being said, I guess I'll go fuck myself. My point was: Anti gunners always want more restrictions calling it "compromise". Offer us gunners one back. Say repeal of the 86 MG ban. How about it? Offer us one anti gun law repeal and then I'll talk compromise. Otherwise you are all full of shit.

Part of a society with laws to promote the common welfare? A citizen of the United States? Sounds like communist to me.

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature. That is absolutely fucking retarded! Then next week they'd ask for a different kind. You know what? I want new machine guns. New machine were banned in 86. Legal MGs have never been used in a crime except ONCE by a cop. Look it up. Go fuck yourself. You compromise MY WAY for once!

This is a good point, though I think you are putting me a bit too far to the "as strictly as possible" side. I just think that there is room for interpretation without blaspheming the original document and intent. Absolutely not, as I said, you raise an important point. When was the last time you saw a pedophilia magazine on the news stands? Or a drug magazine? (No, I am not comparing those things to gun ownership. Not at all.) You don't see those things because they are a perversion of that right. What I am saying is that there is room for restriction in the name of the common good without destroying the original intent. You know what that makes you?

The Constitution is not a "living document" open to interpretation. Its pretty freakin simple. It spells out our God given rights in fairly simple language. Its funny how when interpreting any other amendmendt its real simple and means individuals. When its the Second it means militia and is subject to restriction. Get over it. Its a right to carry arms for individuals and it means any arms the military has that are carried by soldiers.

How can you say that with a straight face? We have a HUGE standing army!

The Supreme Court, in US v Miller asked the question if the weapon in question (a short barreled shotgun) was suitable for military use. It obviously was since in the first world war they were used quite extensively in the trenches. The problem was that Miller nor his lawyers showed up for the argument and the ATF lied that it wasnt. The firearms laws in this country would be far different if Miller had presented a defence. How hard is it for a person to understand "shall not be infringed"?

Oh oh oh I remember now. Back 7 years ago (the last time I lived near a range where I could fire my AR-15) I was pretty good (for a self-taught civilian) at taking down and cleaning my rifle. In about half an hour I could probably be just as good as I was 7 years ago. I seem to recall, though, an admonition to NOT swap parts between rifles, as this could be dangerous. Am I imagining that I remember reading that in the manual? (I have two manuals -- one for the Colt HBAR I have and one for the actual M-16, but they're almost interchangeable.) As I recall that thing was a LOT of fun to fire, and so gentle, too! - They say you shouldnt swap bolts from rifle to rifle but the military does it all the time. If you do, you should recheck headspace. Any other parts are interchangeable.

Correct. Give the man a cigar! I see nothing wrong with limiting certain guns. We can banter all day about which ones should or should not be in the hands of the average citizen all day, but I think even you would agree that the Second Amendment does not refer to -all- weapons. If it does not refer to -all- weapons, then clearly -some- restrictions -are- allowable. Then again, I thought you knew that. Go to the back of the class and stand with your nose in the corner. The SA has nothing to do with hunting. Do some research on US v Miller. What part of "shall not be infringed" dont you understand? Is english your first language? Have you read any history? Sheesh.

You need to get to know your rifle. The AR rifle is a modular rifle. It splits in half very easily by design with two push pins. The top half is the upper receiver, the bottom half is the lower. You can swap uppers from one rifle to another in seconds. You could swap a flat top with a A2 or anything else and believe me "anything else" covers a lot of ground including calibers. For legal purposes, the lower is the "gun".

Could you explain what is meant by "piston-driven upper"? Are you saying an AR that is not gas-operated? I am not sure whatdifferentiates the "upper receiver" from the "lower receiver" on an AR -- and mine is not in front of me to look at. Could you explain that? And if you have time... how the hell does a rifle fire from an "open bolt"?? - NO. An AR is a gas operated rifle as are most semi autos. The difference is that most semi autos and machine guns and assault rifles use a piston to operate the bolt/carrier where the AR does not. The Stoner system uses a gas tube to operate the bolt/carrier which by design deposits the dirty gas in the action. It shits where it eats so to speak. Simply, with a piston driven system, the gas thats taken from the end of the barrel operates a piston near the gas port and the piston operates the bolt way back in the receiver. The AR system uses a tube to carry the gas back to the receiver to act directly on the bolt/carrier. Operating from an open bolt is a little harder for me to explain because I'm not a sub-gun guy but I'll try. I just know you cant have semi-subguns that operate from an open bolt but here goes. First let me say subguns are usually operated by blowback or recoil. On your AR when you are shooting if you stop shooting the bolt is closed and the hammer is back. On most subguns when you stop shooting the bolt is back, chamber empty and hammer back. When you pull the trigger on an open bolt gun the bolt travels forward and strips a round, loads the chamber and trips the hammer. On a closed bolt gun the chamber is loaded and the trigger just trips the hammer. I dont know why this is or why ATF looks at open bolt semis as bad it just is. I am at the edges of my knowledge here.