Al Qaeda Tells US Jihad To Buy AR's From Gun Shows

Run time: 01:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfj7OxwDIU4   Posted on YouTube: June 04, 2011 By YouTube Member: livinthegoodlife101 Views on YouTube: 14   Posted on DU: June 05, 2011 By DU Member: Grassy Knoll Views on DU: 7026

 

Way to go, NRA.

And what station was this broadcast on?

Wanted for treason, defected from USA, and a cheerleader for Al Queda.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/78916,news-comment,news-politics,adam-gadahn-americas-next-assassination-target
and probably soon to be a mini cloud (piff)

But in some ways no different than your typical "Born Again" Christian

Why do we buy this crap?

How is it that we let this guy continue writing Al Qeida website and nobody is targeting him for assassination. Heck, Bill Mayer even interviewed him for his religious documentary. At least make an attempt at his life and I may start believing he is really Al Qeida and not a CIA puppet

Try making an an argument for how one NRA position has helped keep arms from terrorists.

What a joke. :rofl:

although it makes sense to shut those shows down anyway

The "gun show loophole" is a myth. Licensed dealers have to perform a background check on every sale no matter where they are. And pretty much everything else this idiot said is just wrong. You can't buy a weapon without ID, you can't buy an automatic weapon, etcetera.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Selling firearms for profit, without a federal firearms license, is illegal. People are routinely arrested for it. The image of a booming back room trade in no-questions-asked guns and automatic weapons is the fictional invention of Hollywood.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Footage that by their own admission it took them weeks to get, so they could put enough together to make one 2 minute video to "prove their point."

Do you also trust James O'Keefe to accurately represent the content of his videos before he edited them, or that anyone saying something dubious on tape automatically represents all reality everywhere?

The truth remains: the idea that you can walk into any gun show and walk out with an Uzi paid in cash, no background check, is a total fiction.

whether or not you like the people who made that video, is that not a gun seller telling a potential customer that he is a private seller and thus does not need to make an NICS check?

You are wrong as the day is long.

The truth remains: the idea that you can walk into any gun show and walk out with an Uzi paid in cash, no background check, is a total fiction.

You were caught bending the truth, so now you move the goalposts. An Uzi is a specific weapon, not mentioned specifically on this thread if I remember right.

The truth remains. You can walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm without passing a background check.

FACT.

"You were caught bending the truth, so now you move the goalposts. An Uzi is a specific weapon, not mentioned specifically on this thread if I remember right."

What a lovely red herring you have there. I take it they've never invented colorful metaphor where you come from?

"The truth remains. You can walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm without passing a background check."

Actually, yes. Just like you can walk into a garage and purchase a firearm without passing a background check. Or a supermarket parking lot. There has never been a federal restriction on individuals selling their personal property, any more than you are forced to sell your car through a car dealership. However, contrary to what you keep claiming, there is NO exceptions, laws, loopholes, or conditions which make a gun show different in this way.

A licensed firearms dealer is required to perform a background check on all their sales. An unlicensed person, acting as a dealer, is committing a federal felony. Also, an unlicensed person selling to someone they know or have reason to believe is a prohibited purchaser is ALSO committing a federal felony. All those things are the case whether you're at a gun show, or in the middle of the woods. No exceptions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry, but you continually saying I was wrong, while being completely unable to cite any factual information, doesn't make it so. You have this faith-based assumption that at every gun show, there are hundreds of tables of "private sellers" lined up ready to sell all their wares to anyone who wanders along. In actuality, very few people bring many guns to a gun show, and they're more likely to use them for buying accessories or trading with other owners than just sitting down and selling them. You have a completely unrealistic image of what a gun show is, like expecting a drug dealer to be a shady guy in a trenchcoat and fedora hiding in the bushes outside a school, or a gay man to be dresssed like one of the Village People. It's ludicrous.

Someone looking to buy a gun might be able to find another private person willing to sell them one if they ask around, which draws no particular distinction between a gun show and the classifieds section of a newspaper, or almost any workplace. Someone sitting down with a big table of guns to sell as a private individual will be arrested and prosecuted, which the ATF does on a regular basis. 147 seconds of heavily edited video, scraped out of who knows how many hundreds of hours recorded by a team which was being paid to support an preconceived notion, is about as valid a piece of evidence as Shirley Sherrod calling someone "whitey."

Me: "The truth remains. You can walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm without passing a background check."

You. "Actually, yes."

Thank you for admitting you were wrong. Good on ya.

However, contrary to what you keep claiming, there is NO exceptions, laws, loopholes, or conditions which make a gun show different in this way.

Where did I claim that? The difference between a garage and a gun show is that the unscrupulous arms dealer can't do enough volume out of his garage. He needs a gun show in order to bring more customers in.

Please do your homework if you want to discuss this topic.

I never mentioned automatic weapons. Wraith did, when he started talking about Uzis, but then he explained that was just a colorful metaphor (evidently he does not know what a metaphor is).

Please learn to listen?

The OP is FUD. Complete and total FUD. Probably a honeypot too.

I never referenced automatic weapons. When you attack me, try to be sure its about something I said.

If the OP is an issue, then you can defend the position, yes?


I find it ironic that the media also trumpets this issue, while arguably selling MORE un-checked firearms via classified section of the paper. Do you find that ironic as well?

I was responding to wraith as he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I'm not going to be defending Adam Gadahn or whatever his Al-Qaeda name is again. He gets some facts wrong, which isn't all that surprising given the source.

I don't really view "duhr mediah" as a monolithic entity. That's something that right wing zombies do.

Every time the Seattle Times runs a 'gun show loophole' article I laugh.

Especially since Washington Arms Collectors gun shows require membership to buy or sell and membership requires a background check.

Anyone buying or selling without a membership is kicked out, immediately.

Not without committing a felony. And not without the seller going to jail as well.

It becomes increasingly clear you have very little idea what gun laws are already on the books. Which probably explains why you keep calling for more, when they already exist.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your post was deleted, so you can hardly fault me for not reading it.

The VIDEO in the op clearly DOES talk about obtaining automatic weapons without background checks. Which is a total lie.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So do you accept that fully automatic weapons are non-existent as a problem in this private seller/no background check scenario?

fully automatic weapons, manufactured as such, are covered under the 1934 NFA. I also know that semiautomatic rifles can be converted by those with some knowledge and equipment.

I also know that some private sellers sell weapons to persons who state clearly that they can't pass a background check. I have video evidence of same. I also know that gun shows are an excellent place to make straw purchases, since private sellers pay no tax on the sale and most likely keep no records.

I can provide this video evidence AGAIN if you like. Would you like that?

With varying levels of danger to the operator.

Those private sellers should be prosecuted. This is one area where I advocate increased funding to the BATFE, or a mandate requiring they spend more effort on this issue. I've seen the bloomberg video.

if you have seen the gun show stings (one done in '09, the other in '11), then you know...for a fact...that goons posing as private sellers are selling dozens of guns at these events.

We need to close this very real loophole. Instead of playing semantic games or stuffing your fingers into your ears, admit there is a problem here. We could take steps to correct that problem, except that the NRA and its irascible zombie army are standing in the way.

Or any other number of sources. Gun shows, specifically and by themselves, are not a huge problem.

And again, you have not shown the NRA would oppose opening up NICS to all customers. I think the NRA would support it, especially if you took the carrot/stick approach to it, with either requiring it for free via nics, or put another law on the table to consider, that requires all private transfers go through an FFL.

Either or, and the NRA will surely pick free NICS. If the only option on the table is free NICS, I think the NRA would support it, but cannot be sure with the recent leadership changes.

A crazy man shot 30 shots into a crowd in under a minute. Do you think that should be permitted in our country? Do you think anyone needs a semi-automatic weapon for self defense?

The fact is that someone who does not have an FFL (license to deal in firearms) is unable to make a NICS check even if he/she wanted to. The system is only available to FFLs. Shall we talk about changing that?


In most states, yes. You can also walk into a garage, a back yard, a MacDonald's parking lot, or someone's home and do the same thing. If the seller is not an FFL holder, he/she cannot, repeat, cannot do a NICS check. This does not, however, remove all legal liability from the seller. If the seller knows that the buyer is ineligible, then it is against the law to sell to him/her. How the seller is supposed to know that without the ability to access the NICS system is beyond me.

What do you propose?

there may be laws, but trust me they arent enforced.

ive seen people walk in, show ID, have a gun that day ... at shows/conventions.

Of course you can have a gun the same day. That's the "instant" part of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you'd care to do a Google search, you will see that yes, licensed dealers are required by law to perform background checks on every sale, no matter where it happens. Acting as a dealer, without a license, is a federal felony. If you try to do this, you will be arrested. People still do it now and then, and they get arrested for it. That's the bottom line.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Pretty funny to watch.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

check at a gun show.

A store much like Sports Authority.


He didn't buy it a gun show, please stop spreading lies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/

Those who knew him knew he was cracked and he had been removed from classes but there was never anything official. You would do well to learn the facts before you start and anti-gun rant. And he did NOT have an automatic gun.

The exact nature of his care is shielded from our view due to medical privacy, but in all likelihood, he was technically disqualified, but the state did not report him.

He had more history than just the removal from school.

Without knowing his personal history with better resolution, we can also infer this from other states that are known to under-report, such as Virginia before the VT shootings, Idaho state and a couple others. They simply aren't reporting. Why isn't clear.

Which means that the system is inadequate. and needs fixing.

people.

And the difference between standard semi-auto weapons which have been popular for a century, and machine guns, is not "semantics." Semi-automatics ARE "normal guns." They're also not going away. The belief that they're super-dangerous murder machines is at best the misunderstandings of people who know nothing about weapons.

You referred to semi-auto as "semantics," when it's not. Many people who treat semi-autos as super scary murder machines do so because they don't know the difference between the two, or believe that semi-autos can me made automatic, etcetera. Having an accurate understanding of what's being talked about is necessary for understanding.

the hell out of me. It is not a "regular gun". A regular gun can not shoot 30 bullets all at once.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=589260&mesg_id=589339

"automatic weapon, yes he had one."

And again, you're confusing automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapons. A semi-automatic does not "shoot 30 bullets all at once." It shoots one bullet at a time, one bullet per trigger pull, just like a revolver. Semi-autos have been around for over a hundred years. They've been the preferred weapon of law enforcement for three decades. They are hardly something new or worth being scared of.

Being afraid of something is not a good basis for rational decisions, particularly not being afraid of something that you don't understand.

He bought the gun from a Commercial Store.
A background check was performed.
His mental health history had NOT BEEN REPORTED by the state, to the federal NICS database.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/MaryfromIL/jared-loughner-murder-charges_n_806467_73359657.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/09/AR2011010901912.html
http://robdoar.com/jared-loughner-did-not-legally-obtain-a-gun/
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/jared_lee_loughner/index.html

Loughner also committed a felony right then and there when he filled out the application for the firearm. He lied on the form. But one does not expect a criminal to admit guilt right? It's just one more crime tacked onto his list of crimes.

He should have been prohibited, and failed by the NICS check. He wasn't, because Arizona failed to report his mental health disqualification to the Federal Government.

The mechanism to prohibit this exists. The state just has to comply. This would NOT have happened in my state. Chances are, Arizona is doing it now, so crimes in the future may not occur, but that does Giffords and the other victims no good at all.

Why is it possible that you do not know this?

witnessed it.

theres nothing you can say that can change what IVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES.

so, keep trying to defend your arguement, but with me you have NO chance.


ope, i decided to see if i was the only one who had seen this happen


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2u7l8rKrQ


nope. and its not even my state.

and another i found

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q

First off, you can buy firearms like that out of YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER. This was not a firearms dealer. There is no material difference between selling a gun at a gun show, as a non-dealer, from the newspaper, from a family member, from a friend, from a garage sale, from an estate sale, and the list goes on and on.

He also mis-identified the rifle. It is not an assualt rifle. I would bet you my left testicle that weapon is NOT fully automatic. Period, end of story.

just keep telling yourself whatever ya gotta tell yourself. make it about whether its an assualt rifle or not, not the fact that IVE PERSONALLY WITNESSED it with my grandmother who was an advid gun owner.

i personally have no problem with gun ownership, but keeping your head under the sand isnt going to change the fact that it happens... whether you like it or not.

Because until you deal with 'private transfers', railing about gun shows is pissing in the wind.

By the way, you can't buy or sell a gun at a gun show in my state without a background check. Period. Try it and they throw you out. What's wrong with your state?

You also can't spit at our gun shows without hitting 2-5 police officers. The guys at the tables, are often off duty or retired police. The buyers are, to a large degree, off duty or retired police. And the show is aggressively patrolled by on-duty cops. Not exactly a criminal-friendly environment.

It doesn't matter what you saw, or what you think you saw. If you're not going to be honest about it, you'll get nothing done, because it gives the opposition ammo to shoot down your idea with.

was performed on the man who shot the congresswoman? really? nope. automatic weapon, yes he had one.

A background check was performed on the man who shot the congresswoman? really? nope. Yes, an NICS check was run, and he passed it.

automatic weapon, yes he had one. No, he did NOT have a machine gun.

I linked you an MSNBC article earlier. You apparently didn't read it.
I linked 5 more articles above. I doubt you'll read those as well.

The firearm was semi-auto ONLY.
The MAGAZINE was made for the Glock 18, a select-fire weapon. That's why it holds more rounds. But the firearm loughner purchased only fired one shot per pull of the trigger. Period. End of story. You can't buy a new Glock 18 in the United States anyway, after 1986. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200$.

Please start actually reading the news.

1. He did NOT have an automatic weapon.

2. He did have an NICS background check. He simply wasn't in the system as a prohibited possessor, since his mental state hadn't been properly reported as required by law.

The bill for background checks at gun shows is bottled up in the Senate. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.35:

The myth is in your mind.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Specifically the United States. The only sales conducted at gun shows without a background check are PRIVATE TRANSFERS. From joe citizen A to joe citizen B.

Open up your daily newspaper, or sunday paper. Turn to the classsified section. Under "Firearms"? Yeah, THERE'S your gun show loophole. Its in your newspaper. It's in your garage sales. It's in your estate sales. It's around your water cooler at work. It's in your family.

What I'm getting at, is that it ISN'T A GUN SHOW ISSUE AT ALL.

The issue is PRIVATE TRANSFERS from one non-gun-dealer citizen to another. How is this confusing to anyone? It doesn't require any knowledge of firearms at all to understand this.

The rules on background checks at gun shows are exactly the same as they are everywhere else. Period. There are no exceptions.

One born every minute.

I know in Israel so many people own and carry weapons, and if they see a Palestinian firing a gun or wearing a bomb, everybody is killing that mutha f....r and getting medals. What about in downtown SF, would I get a medal?

Typical of the way money (NRA) runs things.

Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden are having a big laugh in Hell right now.

And I am a good person too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

F'n GOP. Bullets 1-10 I fault the lunatic. Bullets 11-32 I fault the GOP. (and a few Dems.)

So I guess it was ok that he couldn't fire more than 10 rounds at a time without reloading.

Kinda a sick premise, isn't it?

well, at least gun sellers and manufacturers make more money.... hey, maybe this will help our ailing economy.

Two homeless bums with an old clunker and a high powered rifle terrorized the east coast. This is the soft underbelly of homeland defense and everybody with 1/2 a cent of common sense knows it. Spreading terror does not take an automatic or a semi-automatic or an extended clip, it can and has been done with simple rifles. With single shots.

I'm a lifelong gun owner.

The store was closed down by the feds, and the owner is in jail IIRC.

It is a low to intermediate power. 7.62 or 30.06 would be the beginning of high-power.

Let's not split hairs. If you get hit by one it's high powered enough and deadly.

Victims Killed:

Claudine Parker
James Martin
James Buchanan
Premkumar Walekar
Sarah Ramos
Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera
Pascal Charlot
Dean Harold Meyers
Kenneth Bridges
Linda Franklin
Conrad Johnson

Wounded:

Caroline Seawell
Iran Brown
Jeffrey Hopper
Paul LaRuffa
John Gaeta
Kellie Adams


The attacks were carried out with the firearm found in the vehicle, a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle equipped with a reflex sight at ranges of between 50 and over 100 yards. This is an extremely close range for the .223 Remington cartridge. The sniper shots were taken from the trunk of the car through a small hole created for that purpose.<17> source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

Calling a 5.56 hi-powered is like calling a Toyota Corolla a race car. It will still go fast enough to kill you in an accident, but it is by no stretch a race car.

.22LR is an extremely low powered cartridge but it is causes more deaths than any other round. The reason is that it is so common. You were using the phrase "hi-powered" as a scare term.

Any round or rifle that can produce muzzle velocities in excess of 3100 FPS and muzzle energy north of 1200 ft lbs. is hi-powered in my book and in my opinion, in the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans. You can keep splitting hairs and spewing techno talk, that will not change the fact that these weapons are deadly lethal. And as long as you keep replying I'll keep posting more links and stats so that people can judge for themselves.

Let me re-post the following: "When loaded with a bullet that expands, tumbles, or fragments in tissue, this cartridge is capable of delivering devastating terminal performance." Key word, "devastating," ='s hi-power.

link to a Bushmaster model and specs: http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_xm15_BCWA3F16M4.asp


Thread snippet from discussion board on the DC Snipers:

Don't Tread On Me
May 22, 2006, 09:33 AM
If you can't hit COM with ANYTHING at 50 yards from a rested slow fire position, you suck. The "snipers** " were terrible marksmen. That's a good thing as it resulted in a few victims surviving. Had they been better shots, none would have survived.
Unfortunately for the others, even 55gr Wal*Mart .223rem is pretty devistating and most of the victims died. (End of snip) http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-201747.html

?


Life Long Gun Owner, mike kohr

5.56 muzzle energy = 1,200 fp (I will accept your figure.)
7.62 NATO muzzle energy = 2,700 to 3,000 fp depending upon bullet type
30.06 = 2,800 to 3,300 fp depending upon bullet type
.300 Wby. Mag. = 4,200 fp

Even the venerable .30-30, first marketed in 1894, comes in at around 1800 to 2,00 fp. No one accuses it of being a hi-powered rifle. It is commonly fired from a lever action rifle with a bolt that does not lock to the breech because the round is not hi-powered.

Above that one gets into big game rifles, sometimes called elephant guns, with muzzle energies of 5,000 to 7,000 fp. The .50 BMG comes in at 12,600 fp. But those aren't common deer rifles so I won't include them. As you can see the .223 is rather anemic.

LINK for my stats:http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm

A bullet of lower power can still be quite lethal. No one disputes that. But you are trying to use the hi-power term on lower powered rounds because you are aware that most people are ignorant about guns. You simply want to scare people, likely for ideological purposes.

I have no ideological purposes to either scare people nor reflexive desires to defend the gun industry or any of it's products. I've grown up and lived all my life in homes with guns in them. Deflecting the message of this thread by clinging onto semantics and technical/industry definitions does no one any good.

I'll state it once again, "the soft underbelly of Homeland Security" is small arms, from single shot hunting rifles, to auto/semi-auto extended clip assault rifles, to 50 caliber sniper guns. Those are the facts.

As to your claim of the .223 being "anemic" here is what the experts in the field have to say about its lethality.
view source on .223 wounding characteristics@
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26
(beginning of clip)
.223 Wounding Characteristics
Ballisticians and Forensic professionals familiar with gunshot injuries generally agree that high velocity projectiles of the .223 genre produce wounds in soft tissue out of proportion to their calibers, i.e. bullet diameter. This phenomenon is primarily attributed to the synergistic effects of temporary stretch cavity (as opposed to the relatively lower velocity stretching which typifies most pistol rounds) and bullet fragmentation on living tissue.

Distinguished forensic pathologist Dr. Martin L. Fackler, observed when he was conducting wound research for the U.S. Army several years ago ("Wounding Patterns of Military Rifles," International Defense Review, Volume 22, January, 1989), that in tissue simulants such as ballistic gelatin, , the 55-grain, M-193 military bullet lost stability, yawed (turned sideways) 90 degrees, flattened and broke at the cannelure (groove around the bullet into which the cartridge case is crimped) after penetrating about four to five inches. The forward portion of the bullet generally remained in one piece, accounting for 60% of its originally weight. The rear, or base portion of the bullet, broke into numerous fragments that may also penetrate tissue up to a depth of three inches. Dr. Fackler also noted that a relatively large stretch cavity also occurred, violently stretching and weakening tissue surrounding the primary wound channel and its effect was augmented by tissue perforation and further weakening by numerous fragments. An enlarged permanent cavity significantly larger than the bullet diameter resulted by severing and detaching tissue pieces. (end of clip)

The 5.56 has far less muzzle energy that common cartridges used to hunt deer. Muzzle energy is what defines power. Since it has so little muzzle energy it is anemic, by defination. Lethality is a function of other aspects of a round as well as power. That you choose to conflate different aspects of cartridges strongly suggests that you seek to confuse those readers who would be unfamiliar with firearms. Such deliberate conflation is commonly seen here by those who seek to restrict RKBA freedoms.

Speed Kills. High muzzle velocity, that is a hallmark of the .223, is what causes the massive damage to soft tissue another hallmark of the .223. That is the same concept behind hi-tech rail guns. A small projectile travelling at very high speed can cause terrific destruction. A small round like the .223, cast at high velocity, can be and is lethal.

I am not in favor of banning any caliber, including the .50 caliber. Nor do I believe that being afraid of the facts helps gun rights advocates.

I was a physics minor. Power has a very specific meaning. It is the amount of energy delivered over a unit of time. In guns it is used to mean the muzzle energy. Lethality is a function of several different aspects of a cartridge, including the design of the bullet itself. You are trying to claim that lethality and power are the same thing and they aren't. I am not afraid of facts as I have listed facts. You do appear to want to muddy the waters by confusing different terms.

Rail guns have extremely high energy. Energy = mass X velocity(squared). However the 5.56 doesn't have such an increase in velocity that it makes up for the low mass so the total muzzle energy is low. With a rail gun the velocity is so high that when it is squared you get a rather large amount of energy into a small mass.

I left out the 1/2 in the energy formula. Correct formula is E = 1/2 MV^2. When I was typing I was concentrating on the relationship of mass (linear) and velocity (exponential)and forgot to put in the 1/2. It is a linear coefficient so it doesn't change the relationship between mass and velocity with regard to energy.

The entire theory of "hydrostatic shock" causing damage due to bullet speed is unproven. And generally in my experience, the people found advocating it the loudest are usually the ones who are, not to put it too finely, fanboys of the AR style design, and feel the need to "prove" that ARs are superior to larger caliber weapons. I have nothing against ARs, but I don't believe that they're as magically perfect a weapon as some folks think. Even the US military has been reconsidering them, since they've been having serious problems with lethality and effective range in Iraq and Afghanistan. As noted downthread, a full third of military personnel think that they should be replaced; it's the entire reason for the development of the 6.8 SPC cartridge for use by US special forces, something that's more powerful than a standard 5.56.

Also, what you fail to account for is that larger bullets like a .308 can and do achieve the same velocity as a .223 bullet out of a typical 16 inch AR barrel, while carrying much more mass (at least 2x a .223 round), and thus maintaining their speed longer. .223 only has a clear velocity advantage when it's fired out of a 20 or 24 inch barrel, which are fairly rare these days on everything but dedicated target shooting ARs.

A .223 can certainly be very lethal, even to animals much larger than people, given proper shot placement. But it isn't immune to the laws of physics. There's a reason that it's considered too weak to hunt deer, and much too weak for any kind of large game.

complaining that this cartridge sucks donkey dick.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.

M16 users demanded the M4, M4 users wanted a more lethal round. Unfortunately, to do so, you need an expanding bullet, which is prohibited by law for the armed forces.

http://defensetech.org/2007/05/25/soldiers-want-a-bigger-bang/comment-page-4/


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/736699/hunting_with_the_223_remington_not.html?cat=11
If it can't reliably take a 250lb deer, how do you expect it to fare against a 250lb deer that may be wearing body armor, and shoots back?

Yes, it can be lethal with excellent shot placement. However it leaves no margin for error, and there is significant risk of 'bad luck'.

You can call it high-velocity, sure. That would be technically and factually correct.

High powered, it is not.

It makes up for lack of mass, and diameter, with velocity. And it does a pretty bad job of it.


Edit: For reference, they have had to develop special bullets for use in the .223 cartridge so the police could shoot people through 'hard cover'. You know, like car doors. Two thin layers of sheet metal and some upholstery. Shit that .308 wouldn't even notice.

It is too under-powered to kill a deer humanely. .240 is the bare-ass minimum.

By all means, keep pulling adjectives out of your ass.

http://223cal.com/

http://223cal.com/catalog.php?prod=G38359?

?

?

?

The .223 Remington is a sporting cartridge with almost the same external dimensions as the 5.56x45mm NATO military cartridge. The name is commonly pronounced either two-two-three or two-twenty-three. It is loaded with a 0.224-inch (5.7 mm) diameter, jacketed bullet, with weights ranging from 40 to 90 grains (2.6 to 5.8 g), though the most common loading by far is 55 grains (3.6 g). When loaded with a bullet that expands, tumbles, or fragments in tissue, this cartridge is capable of delivering devastating terminal performance. Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that this includes remote wounding effects known as hydrostatic shock.<2><3><4>
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington?

A dead enemy soldier is 1 person down. A wounded enemy soldier down, is potentially 3 people down, as they try to evac the wounded.

Which leads us to the battlefield of today, where soldiers are clamoring for something more powerful (hence the 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm Remington SPC).

The DC snipers shot a 10 year old boy in the chest. He did not die.


I'm not saying I would be indifferent if someone shot at me with .223, I would be very concerned. But if I had a choice between .308 NATO (a good deer hunting round) and .223, I'd take the .223.


Development

The 6.8mm SPC cartridge was designed to address the deficiencies of the terminal performance of the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge currently in service with the U.S. Armed Forces.<4> The cartridge was the result of the Enhanced Rifle Cartridge program. Participating in the program were U.S. Special Operations soldiers, as well as armorers and other technicians from the United States Army Marksmanship Unit.<5> The development of this cartridge is unusual and interesting in that it was designed by actual shooters in the armed forces, instead of by industry professionals. The goal was to create a cartridge that would bridge the gap between 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm NATO.

The is a saying: "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." The precisely aimed shot at a longer range is a rarity in combat. Most soldiers point-shoot and don't hit much, especially at 100+ meters. The basic combat load of 7.62 was 100 rounds. With the smaller, lighter 5.56 a soldier could carry 300 for the same weight. More shots available means more staying power in combat. The terrain kept most combat well inside 200 meters.

Today, in the open spaces of the middle east the Taliban have learned to engage NATO troops from further away where the 5.56 loses effectiveness. So troops are wanting to have some longer range rifles in the squad mix.

NRA policies make it easier for terrorists to buy arms. Just ask Al Queda.

But in Florida they absolutely run background checks at gun shows unless you have a CWP. Spouse and I have been to several here and have made purchases. You can't get a fully automatic without a class 3 license. Gabby was not shot with a fullly automatic she was shot with a Glock 19 semiautomatic with a 30 round clip. Those are legal.

"Hey! Where all the fully-auto's at!"

That will go over well at a gun show.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.