Hey, Greg, here you go!

[Value Buy]

The official new state rifle of Tennessee!

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tennessee%E2%80%99s-new-official-state-rifle-is-so-powerful-it-can-destroy-commercial-aircraft/ar-BBq2wti?li=BBnbfcL

Take this one squirrel hunting, and you might be able to take a pelt home without any skinning involved!  

[billisonboard]

Official gun of Billtopia

[gregintenn]

Ronnie Barrett has brought a lot to the economy here in Middle Tennessee!

I'm guessing his rifles have saved a lot of American lives on the battlefield as well.

[fishy999]

Damn fine weapon- but why in the hell does a state need to have an official rifle?  Sounds dumb to me- just a bunch of legislators trying to piss off some people.

[gregintenn]

Feb 26, 2016 22:01:05 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Damn fine weapon- but why in the hell does a state need to have an official rifle?  Sounds dumb to me- just a bunch of legislators trying to piss off some people.

You're not from Tennesse, huh?

[Value Buy]

Feb 26, 2016 22:04:39 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Feb 26, 2016 22:01:05 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Damn fine weapon- but why in the hell does a state need to have an official rifle?  Sounds dumb to me- just a bunch of legislators trying to piss off some people.

You're not from Tennesse, huh?

Davey, Davey, Crockett, King of the wild frontier.........

[Deleted]

Feb 26, 2016 21:48:18 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Ronnie Barrett has brought a lot to the economy here in Middle Tennessee!

I'm guessing his rifles have saved a lot of American lives on the battlefield as well.

I have a model 95 (.50cal/bolt action).  It's lighter than the 82a1, but still 23+ pounds.  At long ranges it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[dondub]

No fish and chips for you!

[fishy999]

Mar 3, 2016 13:07:33 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Feb 26, 2016 21:48:18 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Ronnie Barrett has brought a lot to the economy here in Middle Tennessee!

I'm guessing his rifles have saved a lot of American lives on the battlefield as well.

I have a model 95 (.50cal/bolt action).  It's lighter than the 82a1, but still 23+ pounds.  At long ranges it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Why?  Do you just have a lot of disposable income and like the idea you can take out an engine block?  Isn't this a little beyond the intent of the 2nd amendment?  Have to ask- how much for one cartridge? $5 a shot?  Expensive hobby- probably why nobody is being killed by them.

[gregintenn]

Mar 3, 2016 23:47:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 3, 2016 13:07:33 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I have a model 95 (.50cal/bolt action).  It's lighter than the 82a1, but still 23+ pounds.  At long ranges it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Why?  Do you just have a lot of disposable income and like the idea you can take out an engine block?  Isn't this a little beyond the intent of the 2nd amendment?  Have to ask- how much for one cartridge? $5 a shot?  Expensive hobby- probably why nobody is being killed by them.

Because he can. What business is it of yours?

[OldCoyote]

I would love to have a couple of them!!

[Deleted]

Mar 3, 2016 23:47:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 3, 2016 13:07:33 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I have a model 95 (.50cal/bolt action).  It's lighter than the 82a1, but still 23+ pounds.  At long ranges it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Why?  Do you just have a lot of disposable income and like the idea you can take out an engine block?  Isn't this a little beyond the intent of the 2nd amendment?  Have to ask- how much for one cartridge? $5 a shot?  Expensive hobby- probably why nobody is being killed by them.

It had nothing to do with the second amendment.  At the opposite end of the spectrum I have a .22LR single action revolver with a 10" barrel for small game/varmints while open carry fence walking.  A Savage .22LR bolt action rifle for the same also.  Size matters as the property I live on is over 100 acres.  Freedom munitions sells .50 ball for a little over $2 a round for 150 loose.  That's not bad since factory 30.06 goes for a little over $1 a round.  I got a deer out the window at over 300 yards 2 years ago with the .50 cal.  I have a custom made sill pad for the .50 and it fits the Savage stainless/synthetic bolt action 30.06 and a adjustable stool to sit on.  We all have hobbies, you should get one.  You might seem less frustrated with others.  I was fully retired in 2000 at 43 years old.  Yes, I have a lot of disposable income.  I never considered "taking out an engine block".  I'm taking my DW out on a hot dinner date tonight though.     Edit; She conceal carries a .38 cal. S&W airweight revolver.  Do you have any angst over that ?

[gregintenn]

Mar 4, 2016 13:39:52 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Mar 3, 2016 23:47:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Why?  Do you just have a lot of disposable income and like the idea you can take out an engine block?  Isn't this a little beyond the intent of the 2nd amendment?  Have to ask- how much for one cartridge? $5 a shot?  Expensive hobby- probably why nobody is being killed by them.

It had nothing to do with the second amendment.  At the opposite end of the spectrum I have a .22LR single action revolver with a 10" barrel for small game/varmints while open carry fence walking.  A Savage .22LR bolt action rifle for the same also.  Size matters as the property I live on is over 100 acres.  Freedom munitions sells .50 ball for a little over $2 a round for 150 loose.  That's not bad since factory 30.06 goes for a little over $1 a round.  I got a deer out the window at over 300 yards 2 years ago with the .50 cal.  I have a custom made sill pad for the .50 and it fits the Savage stainless/synthetic bolt action 30.06 and a adjustable stool to sit on.  We all have hobbies, you should get one.  You might seem less frustrated with others.  I was fully retired in 2000 at 43 years old.  Yes, I have a lot of disposable income.  I never considered "taking out an engine block".  I'm taking my DW out on a hot dinner date tonight though.     Edit; She conceal carries a .38 cal. S&W airweight revolver.  Do you have any angst over that ?

My wife has similar tastes. She carries an old flat latch model 37 Smith and Wesson.

[gregintenn]

Mar 4, 2016 10:30:54 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

I would love to have a couple of them!!

I'd be interested in firing one a few rounds. The jury is still out on whether I'd like to own one.

[Deleted]

Mar 4, 2016 14:15:55 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Mar 4, 2016 10:30:54 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

I would love to have a couple of them!!

I'd be interested in firing one a few rounds. The jury is still out on whether I'd like to own one.

The last time (Two months ago?) I was in a resale shop near me (PG+W) where they had a used .50 cal. with bipod for the price of a good 30-06.   I think it was about $1,000/1,100 with no wear at the back end of the barrel.  Like new!  No muzzle brake though.

[verrip1]

Mar 4, 2016 8:35:33 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Mar 3, 2016 23:47:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Why?  Do you just have a lot of disposable income and like the idea you can take out an engine block?  Isn't this a little beyond the intent of the 2nd amendment?  Have to ask- how much for one cartridge? $5 a shot?  Expensive hobby- probably why nobody is being killed by them.

Because he can. What business is it of yours?

It's none of his business at all. 

Smells pretty fishy to me. 

[fishy999]

Mar 4, 2016 8:35:33 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Mar 3, 2016 23:47:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Why?  Do you just have a lot of disposable income and like the idea you can take out an engine block?  Isn't this a little beyond the intent of the 2nd amendment?  Have to ask- how much for one cartridge? $5 a shot?  Expensive hobby- probably why nobody is being killed by them.

Because he can. What business is it of yours?

Not my business at all just asked a question- that ok?

As I said- .50 BMGs as far as I know have not been involved in any mass shootings and probably never will be- not worried about nutbar mass shooter wannabes buying one- they cant afford it.

But in relation to the second amendment- what is the civilian limit?  Anti-aircraft weaponry?  High explosives?  Where is your line or do you have one?  I argue the .50 Barret should be restricted to the military- make your case why a civilian needs it- want to turn a deer into ground meat with one shot?

[gregintenn]

Mar 5, 2016 19:03:39 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 4, 2016 8:35:33 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Because he can. What business is it of yours?

Not my business at all just asked a question- that ok?

As I said- .50 BMGs as far as I know have not been involved in any mass shootings and probably never will be- not worried about nutbar mass shooter wannabes buying one- they cant afford it.

But in relation to the second amendment- what is the civilian limit?  Anti-aircraft weaponry?  High explosives?  Where is your line or do you have one?  I argue the .50 Barret should be restricted to the military- make your case why a civilian needs it- want to turn a deer into ground meat with one shot?

1)I have no personal limit as to what is protected by the second amendment.
2)It is called the "bill of RIGHTS", not the "bill of needs".

Who gives a damn why he "needs" one? He wanted one, and that's good enough for me.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 5, 2016 19:03:39 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 4, 2016 8:35:33 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Because he can. What business is it of yours?

Not my business at all just asked a question- that ok?

As I said- .50 BMGs as far as I know have not been involved in any mass shootings and probably never will be- not worried about nutbar mass shooter wannabes buying one- they cant afford it.

But in relation to the second amendment- what is the civilian limit?  Anti-aircraft weaponry?  High explosives?  Where is your line or do you have one?  I argue the .50 Barret should be restricted to the military- make your case why a civilian needs it- want to turn a deer into ground meat with one shot?

Naa, prairie dogs.

[fishy999]

Mar 5, 2016 19:06:32 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Mar 5, 2016 19:03:39 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Not my business at all just asked a question- that ok?

As I said- .50 BMGs as far as I know have not been involved in any mass shootings and probably never will be- not worried about nutbar mass shooter wannabes buying one- they cant afford it.

But in relation to the second amendment- what is the civilian limit?  Anti-aircraft weaponry?  High explosives?  Where is your line or do you have one?  I argue the .50 Barret should be restricted to the military- make your case why a civilian needs it- want to turn a deer into ground meat with one shot?

1)I have no personal limit as to what is protected by the second amendment.
2)It is called the "bill of RIGHTS", not the "bill of needs".

Who gives a damn why he "needs" one? He wanted one, and that's good enough for me.

Not for me- you ask for a rocket launcher I ask what for.  But you didn't answer the question- where is the line?  Nuclear weapon ok?  That's "arms" right?

[zibazinski]

I have a Smith and Wesson M and P. I'm probably going to have to leave it in Michigan. I intend to replace it in Florida

[OldCoyote]

Mar 5, 2016 19:26:57 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 5, 2016 19:06:32 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

1)I have no personal limit as to what is protected by the second amendment.
2)It is called the "bill of RIGHTS", not the "bill of needs".

Who gives a damn why he "needs" one? He wanted one, and that's good enough for me.

Not for me- you ask for a rocket launcher I ask what for.  But you didn't answer the question- where is the line?  Nuclear weapon ok?  That's "arms" right?

What difference does it make if any weapon is not used for , say evil purposes?

[gregintenn]

Mar 5, 2016 19:26:57 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 5, 2016 19:06:32 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

1)I have no personal limit as to what is protected by the second amendment.
2)It is called the "bill of RIGHTS", not the "bill of needs".

Who gives a damn why he "needs" one? He wanted one, and that's good enough for me.

Not for me- you ask for a rocket launcher I ask what for.  But you didn't answer the question- where is the line?  Nuclear weapon ok?  That's "arms" right?

I didn't realize he had a rocket launcher or a nuclear weapon. I thought he had a 50 caliber rifle.

You asked why he needed a 50 caliber rifle.

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2016 19:03:39 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 4, 2016 8:35:33 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Because he can. What business is it of yours?

Not my business at all just asked a question- that ok?

As I said- .50 BMGs as far as I know have not been involved in any mass shootings and probably never will be- not worried about nutbar mass shooter wannabes buying one- they cant afford it.

But in relation to the second amendment- what is the civilian limit?  Anti-aircraft weaponry?  High explosives?  Where is your line or do you have one?  I argue the .50 Barret should be restricted to the military- make your case why a civilian needs it- want to turn a deer into ground meat with one shot?

The 30-06 does more damage at 100 yards than the .50 at 300 yards, it's a range capability thing.  It was a one shot knockdown though, with the .50 cal.  I argue that I should be able to have a ballistic mortar (cannon) as DJ suggests.  There should be no restrictions on weapons that fire inert projectiles.  If that's to much for you, I have a nice gun free zone where you can bury your head in the sand. 

[fishy999]

Mar 6, 2016 9:22:04 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Mar 5, 2016 19:26:57 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Not for me- you ask for a rocket launcher I ask what for.  But you didn't answer the question- where is the line?  Nuclear weapon ok?  That's "arms" right?

I didn't realize he had a rocket launcher or a nuclear weapon. I thought he had a 50 caliber rifle.

You asked why he needed a 50 caliber rifle.

I asked where do you draw the line for what civilians should be allowed to own- still waiting on that answer.  Not expecting one.

[fishy999]

Mar 9, 2016 14:06:41 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Mar 5, 2016 19:03:39 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Not my business at all just asked a question- that ok?

As I said- .50 BMGs as far as I know have not been involved in any mass shootings and probably never will be- not worried about nutbar mass shooter wannabes buying one- they cant afford it.

But in relation to the second amendment- what is the civilian limit?  Anti-aircraft weaponry?  High explosives?  Where is your line or do you have one?  I argue the .50 Barret should be restricted to the military- make your case why a civilian needs it- want to turn a deer into ground meat with one shot?

The 30-06 does more damage at 100 yards than the .50 at 300 yards, it's a range capability thing.  It was a one shot knockdown though, with the .50 cal.  I argue that I should be able to have a ballistic mortar (cannon) as DJ suggests.  There should be no restrictions on weapons that fire inert projectiles.  If that's to much for you, I have a nice gun free zone where you can bury your head in the sand. 

No gun free zone here- I own a Remington 742 BTW.

So you draw the line at inert rounds- so the .50 BMG should be available to anyone that hasn't fucked up enough to have a police record.......wow.  Or in your case cannons are fine, armor piercing depleted uranium rounds are fine, rounds that run through vests are just fine, right?  I doubt even the cops would be on the side of selling this crap to the average idiot.  But you would allow it

[djAdvocate]

Mar 5, 2016 19:26:57 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 5, 2016 19:06:32 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

1)I have no personal limit as to what is protected by the second amendment.
2)It is called the "bill of RIGHTS", not the "bill of needs".

Who gives a damn why he "needs" one? He wanted one, and that's good enough for me.

Not for me- you ask for a rocket launcher I ask what for.  But you didn't answer the question- where is the line?  Nuclear weapon ok?  That's "arms" right?

reducio ad absurdum to perfection.  well done.  but greg has already answered that.  you are welcome to have nuclear arms, as far as he is concerned.  have at it.

[dondub]

Missed you man.

[gregintenn]

Mar 11, 2016 0:53:36 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Quote removed as post quoted has been removed. - mmhmm, Administrator

Classy!

[Deleted]

Mar 9, 2016 23:07:59 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Mar 9, 2016 14:06:41 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The 30-06 does more damage at 100 yards than the .50 at 300 yards, it's a range capability thing.  It was a one shot knockdown though, with the .50 cal.  I argue that I should be able to have a ballistic mortar (cannon) as DJ suggests.  There should be no restrictions on weapons that fire inert projectiles.  If that's to much for you, I have a nice gun free zone where you can bury your head in the sand. 

No gun free zone here- I own a Remington 742 BTW.

So you draw the line at inert rounds- so the .50 BMG should be available to anyone that hasn't fucked up enough to have a police record.......wow.  Or in your case cannons are fine, armor piercing depleted uranium rounds are fine, rounds that run through vests are just fine, right?  I doubt even the cops would be on the side of selling this crap to the average idiot.  But you would allow it

I know you dislike my continual comparisons to powered vehicles, but 700 horsepower Dodge Challengers are available to drivers with no experience as a first car if they have the money, or their parents do.  People who wish to kill do not need special types of firearms to accomplish their goal.  They just kill, because in their twisted minds they need to.  The ballistic cannon I was referring to is a new mortar type the lobs shells in a high ballistic arc.  In some previous thread, DJ had a link about it. Pretty sad that someone who used to be in the weapons business can get out of date so fast.   I don't think depleted uranium is feasible as a small arms bullet due to the physics involved, it's actually too heavy for existing guns as manufactured, and therefore too slow as a body armor piercing round. You can currently purchase it (depleted uranium).  High velocity with a lighter, less ductile material (than lead) is required to pierce body armor.  Jacketed lead works fine.   None of the gun owners I know are idiots, so if they own a .50cal. I'm not against it.