Where do you draw the line???

[Dom Pedro II]

How about the "War of the States" or the "War Between the States"? Settled? Good.

[Boris Godunov]

Civil War. The South was not a separate country, as secession was illegal. I would actually call it the Southern Rebellion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH
A civil war is within one country. The south had seceded therefore whatever you call it, by definition, it wasnt a civil war.

You Southerners have a strange, twisted, sense of humor that I have yet to learn to appreciate.


The War of Southern Stupidity was a civil war. The Confederacy was an illegal establishment of a new nation, thus, it was not legitimate in the first place.

[devilmunchkin]

You Southerners have a strange, twisted, sense of humor that I have yet to learn to appreciate.

you'll learn to love us, sirh

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
The Confederacy was an illegal establishment of a new nation, thus, it was not legitimate in the first place.

There was a law against secession?

[MrFun]

Just because there were Southern leaders who whined that they could not get their way within the legitimacy of a majoritarian government, does not justify secession.

There was no explicit law against it --- but just as there is no written law against murder, it is still illegal.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
There was no explicit law against it --- but just as there is no written law against murder, it is still illegal.

I was under the impression that "illegal" literally means that "there is a written law against it." F'rinstance, last time I checked, murder was illegal because there was a written law against it.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Oh, is that so? Got any evidence to back it up?

Take a look at places where the gun laws are strictest in the U.S. (hint: They are large urban areas and states which include a high proportion of their population in large urban areas), and then note their crime rates. There is a very obvious connection to the two stats. That connection is that strict gun laws have been passed in many of the most dangerous parts of the country as a reaction to their high murder rates. Conversely much of the country has less strict gun laws, more guns and less crime. I rate the reactive factor (momentum for gun restrictions based upon high crime rates) as more important than the reluctance of criminals to do their business where their victims are more likely to be armed, though I think both factors are in play.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun

Oh, and Sikander --- is it your usual tactic to simply call all arguments that you disagree with, as merely based on propaganda??

If you make a stupid argument, I'll call you on it. If you lie, I'll call you on that. If you base your opinion on an orchestrated campaign to whip up political support on an issue that is at best completely tangential and unimportant (but sounds good) then I will call you a victim of propoganda. Is it your usual tactic to claim that someone you disagree with is using tactics rather than arguing genuinely?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The point is not whether rifle ammunition can penetrate a bullet proof vest, but whether there are legitimate uses for AP ammunition for handguns. I really cant think of any (many).

The answer to Schumer and his ilk, is for the NRA to request that the manufacturers stop making such ammunition. It pulls Schumers horns and may save the life of a few policemen.

I haven't ever seen AP ammo made for handguns (in fact just the opposite with non-penetrating rounds popular for home defense), though of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The vast majority that I have seen was military surplus ammo, and it isn't all that useful for hunting to be sure. The only reasons I could see in making it for handguns are:

1) To give someone the capability of taking on armored foes with a handgun. Which begs the question, why aren't you arming properly for this in the first place?

2) To give outfitters / guides / others who work outdoors in Alaska a capability to defend themselves and their clients from grizzlies, kodiaks and polar bears without having them have to haul a rifle or one of those super-magnum handguns around.

These uses are so limited that they only appear significant in comparison to the complete lack of a problem with AP ammunition in the first place. My problem with this whole episode is the disingenuineness with which it was created by the strident anti-gun lobby. Aren't they supposed to have a real issue to champion? If so, then they shouldn't have any need to create a smear campaign against their own straw man.

[TCO]

Sikander,

I'm intrigued with the Alaska guide comment. Could see how a side hostlered handgun might be convenient. I recently turned down a guiding job offer (no discussion of firearms though.)

Would a .45 (standard military side arm) be sufficient to deal with a bear? They have a heck of a kick. Way more than a 9 mm. I never saw a round in a person, but remember in training hearing that the .45 can blow limbs off. (is that true?) The bullet is honking big. Lots thicker than M-16 round.

[TCO]

Interesteing side note. Submarines that surface at the Pole have to pst a rifle watch for polar bears. They roam the ice all over. And have not free or hesitancy to attack humans. None of that silly stuff about needing ot learn to be man killers. They see a man as the easy food that he is. We used an M-14 (didn't have M-16 on my boat.)

Buddy of mine said that they had to kill 5 bears in a little over a day at one location. They decided to move the sub at that point.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MrFun
Oh, and Sikander --- is it your usual tactic to simply call all arguments that you disagree with, as merely based on propaganda??

Are you implying that there are people here who don't do that?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GP
Sikander,

I'm intrigued with the Alaska guide comment. Could see how a side hostlered handgun might be convenient. I recently turned down a guiding job offer (no discussion of firearms though.)

Would a .45 (standard military side arm) be sufficient to deal with a bear? They have a heck of a kick. Way more than a 9 mm. I never saw a round in a person, but remember in training hearing that the .45 can blow limbs off. (is that true?) The bullet is honking big. Lots thicker than M-16 round.

GP,

I wouldn't use a .45, though I'm sure someone has taken down a bear with one. It's a fat round with not a lot of velocity, which makes it a poor penetrator on an animal the size of a bear. It kills and stops humans very effectively through shock, but again this is greatly diminished on large bears. The pistols and (mostly) revolvers I have seen with this idea in mind are truly huge near wildcats type cartridges, many of them 50+ caliber. Check out Guns and Ammo (IIRC they have a web site), they have one of these monsters highlighted every second or third issue.

If you think the .45 has a kick, try one of these things sometime. I don't have a problem personally with the kick of a .45, but I admit that I wouldn't be jumping at the chance to shoot one of these supermags. Ouch! As for the .45 shooting off arms and such, I can't say that I have heard this. My uncle killed a Japanese soldier with a .45 during WWII, and he was impressed with it's instant lethality (he still has one). IIRC the .45 is the second most effective round at stopping someone with one shot (91%) to the newer .40 S&W. (marginally better)

[TCO]

Thanks.

It's not like I can't handle the kick. But I definitely have to shoot the weapon with both hands. And it moves upwards dramatically after shooting. (Seems like this happens to everybody. at least form watching at firing range.)

9 mm is really different. It's like "tink, tink, tink".