Trump, The Nothing President

“Trump has called for “extreme vetting” of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries in response to terrorist incidents. But he has resisted any action on gun laws in response to the deadly mass shootings that have occurred during his time in office.”
 
See Trump dismisses question on extreme vetting for gun ownership
Some people feel “all or nothing” is the right approach to situations. Gun Control is not like that. While any particular measure at regulating acquisition and usage of firearms may or may not prevent some particular outrageous event, reasonable measures are sure to prevent some event. How many dead bodies have to pile up before the US Congress understands that?

Do seatbelts save lives? Are they an imposition on free will? Yes. Do the lives saved justify the measure of requiring seatbelts? YES! The same could apply to restrictions on kinds of firearms, magazine capactiy, licensing of people to own and use firearms, and prohibiting legal transfers of firearms in parking lots. USA does a lot of these things now at the state, local and federal level. They just have to do a bit more.

The Second Amendment to the US constitution does not guarantee the right to own machine-guns, or huge magazines or body-armour. That’s an extrapolation to the absurd. One needs to interpret a right befitting the era of muzzle-loading firearms in the modern era. A nut-case with a muzzle-loader could not rush in and slaughter dozens of people in a few minutes. Ordinary people could defend themselves or flee while the nut was reloading. The Second Amendment was about the right to own weapons that could be used to defend against a tyrant. The tyrant now is not the government (except for Trump) but criminals and murdering bastards. It only takes one shot to defend against those guys, not hundreds. The murdering bastard at Sutherland TX was stopped by a good guy with a rifle who shot him twice with well-aimed bullets. The good guy used an AR-15 but could have done the job with a Mauser 98 or even a muzzle-loader.

Even NRA members agree that more has to be done to prevent some or ameliorate some of the outrageous mass shootings. It’s time Congress got off its butt and did something about that with or without Trump’s approval.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in firearms, politics, technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Trump, The Nothing President

  1. oiaohm says:

    Grece a person who name calls at those parties it would fun to invite you. Particularly in a location with diplomatic immunity from prosecution. Because I can see you as a source of free beers and not living out the night.

  2. Grece says:

    Hey Hammy, tell us more about this “A-10 worthog people party”

    I would like to attend and will bring the beer.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Really one of the reasons to avoid being a foot solider with a full automatic weapon and using it full auto is aircraft and particular anti aircraft weapons. Turns out something in the M60 class of weapon on full auto has a big enough heat signature for aircraft based heat seekers to lock on-to.

    Plastic firing pins to be correct they are part plastic part metal. The plastic bit melts when you cross into heat seeker lockable temperatures. So they are a training device for modern day battle fields. The pin melts after firing 4 to 5 bullets in a row or doing you 2/3 bullet burst too close together. Also when you can only fire the weapon in short bursts you do kind of need accuracy. Please note being able to operate the weapon this way is helpful when you have air superiority so if you enemy is using weapon full auto and you are not your own aircraft can use more of the missiles they carry to blow them out the ground and get a quicker aircraft machine gun lock on to hostile.

    Most T-72 tanks in the gulf war where not taken out by aircraft machine gun but by aircraft based missile even from the T-10. They were T-72M. What is the nasty little problem for the A-10 facing that. T-72M has 2 anti-aircraft machine guns with more range the the A-10 built in machine gun because they were designed to counter the A-10.

    Grece like it or not machine guns are becoming more and more limited usage on the battle fields. As I said there are other ways to do defilade other than suppressive fire from a machine gun. Other methods don’t see you at as much risk and harder for airborne assistance to work out what side is what so more likely to let you fight it out.

    Most vehicle mounted anti-air capable machine guns do have advantage compared to the ones you can carry in the fact they have enough metal to heat sink the barrel that they do not come heat seeker targets. Every machine gun a human can directly carry and use turns out if used in full auto out in the open is fairly much a invite to be hit by a heat seeker.

    The reality is having a personal full auto weapon is making less and less sense as use of missiles on battle fields increase.

    Grece does not understand why current day A-10 worthog people party when they got to machine gun a T-72 these days. It is a rarity for them to be order to-do that any more and its normally because the modern T-72 has been damaged by other attacks and does not have it air defense any more.

    So Grece the fifi is back again talking out is ass and talking to a person who is not here.

  4. Grece wrote, “Full auto has limited use? You’re a idiot!”

    As far as I know, no military organization has ever used full-auto everywhere all the time. Therefor it’s limited. Full-auto has its place but it also has its limits. In war, managing resources: territory, manpower, weapons, ammunition, food, water… all matter. A technology that demands an order of magnitude more ammunition to get the job done is a burden without even considering the unintended consequences of sending more stuff downrange. Militaries everywhere have worked to get more done with less and full-auto badly used can get less done with more. In combat, one of the greatest difficulties is to locate a hidden enemy firing at oneself. A machine gun firing is like a flashing neon light and provides an aiming point for fire, bombing and artillery. It’s not always an asset to fire more rounds per second. Full-auto weapons may also be less mobile because of the weight of the weapon and its ammunition.

  5. Grece wrote, ” its sole purpose and for suppressive fire on a beaten zone firing from defilade.”

    My late father who had been there and done that believed they were about overwhelming firepower in ambushes and defensive positions, not just areal denial.

  6. Grece says:

    Plastic firing pins, Fifi?

    Machine gun accuracy isn’t that important, as its sole purpose and for suppressive fire on a beaten zone firing from defilade.

    Full auto has limited use? You’re a idiot! Tell that to the A-10 jocks when they hammer a T-72.

    Fifi go back to your silly war-games.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Something else here when Australian mil used the M60 and now for the FN MAG and F89 Minimi plastic firing pins are made for training. They are designed to melt on the 4 or 5 bullet fired in a row. To train people to burst fire machine guns. Why would this be so critical.

    M60 no matter the model at full auto is going to be losing accuracy at under 1500 rounds down barrel. Same gun type burst fired between 3000-4000 rounds down barrel before losing accuracy. Some of the reason for Australian military success in combat is changing barrels when they go out of accuracy instead of using them until they are absolutely worn out. The other is training to know how to use weapons in ways that are more gentle on barrel.

    So full auto used as full auto has very limited usage particularly when you take into account how fast full auto is turning your rifle into not much better than a smooth bore musket for accuracy and how fast it consuming up the limited supply of ammo you can carry.

    Full autos used on full auto are suppression weapons suitable when you are facing off against a crowd of enemies. But there are ways of performing suppression without them. There fairly much no case for full auto weapons for general self defense or hunting. You think about it how many cases is it a person facing off against a crowd for self defense.

    A lone gunman problem coming after you a full auto is not going to be any help. Semi auto or bolt action where you can use ammo effective may be some usage. If you can get inside 12 feet of lone gunman with decent blade length knife/baton object and rush them at the right point and know what you are doing you will also most likely be successful. In close combat its only 1 hit to kill. Gun give effect ranged power very limited close combat.

    Something that is kind of a scary fact is most bullet proof vests are not knife proof and have limited suppression against baton objects. So a person with a vest might take multi bullet hits while remaining fighting and be dead or dropped after a single baton or knife usage. Due to the USA myth of don’t take a knife to a gun fight most people don’t under stand that this is for a duel and the like when you are greater than 12-18 feet apart when you are closer than that the knife/baton can in fact hold the advantage due to being simpler and faster to aim. This is part of the problem why I question do you need guns for self defense in cities as most combat in cites is in the knife/baton range.

  8. oiaohm says:

    That might be true for the very best rifles but the typical mass-produced rifle increases in accuracy as bullets polish the barrel and fouling decreases. Many barrels are just “broken in” at ~1000 rounds.
    This does not change the figures that the highest accuracy of the rifling will be before 1500-5000 rounds down the barrel.

    Robert the issue is the bullets polishing the barrel soon enough the bullets are sliding over rifling instead of being spun by them.

    Hey grece, the current spec is 15-25K on the newest M60E6. Go ahead and google it. Because he was talking no body I will insert Grece name.

    You will see people claiming a barrel does like 10000 rounds that is to breach failure and other complete functionality failures. Rifle barrels have lost their accuracy well before breach failure due riffling being worn away.
    Did you not read this bit. Yes M60E6 has a mechanical operational failure of barrel 15-25K on barrel. M60E6 outside UN fixed mounting accuracy tests by 1500 rounds full auto and just progressively getting worse until barrel failure.

    You are after two figures from barrel life. How many rounds does the barrel rifling effectively assist accuracy. If the barrel is cheap and not properly cleaned you could have a barrel with 1500 rounds of accuracy and having to waste 1000 rounds out of that 1500 cleaning the crud out the barrel so only giving you 500 rounds in fact in the accuracy sweet spot before the barrel starts progressively losing accuracy with no hope of it every improving again.

    The hard reality here is a machine gun is not built for accuracy they are built to be weapons to spit out a lot of ammo in an approx area. Means when you are hunting, police work… most of your general stuff they are totally not suitable. In fact you will see in military units that a machine gunner is never deployed alone.

    One of the historic facts of World War II is machine gunner by self had risk of being taken out by a knife attack quite a high one if person if fired at would drop to the ground and run forwards when their was a gap in fire and drop to ground again repeating cycle. Mostly due to the machine guns low accuracy so machine gunner was guessing they shot the person so ended up stabbed to death. This is the reason why machine gunner is normally deployed in combination with normal semi auto/bolt action personal because semi auto/bolt action weapons have some chance at accuracy and can be more sure who they have shot and who they have not.

    I will say this, the colonials “assaulted” the British effectively with their rifles at the time.
    This is because history was rewritten by the winners. Both rifles on both sides had the same effective accuracy and firing range. Of course this does not help you if your commander is a idiot. Most of the British forces with their rifles would close into 100 yards before firing basically mixing them in with their musket class. Yes both weapons are 300 yard effective with roughly the same accuracy. Where the Colonials put their rifles in sniper like usage more often.

    Lot of people in the USA believe it was because of better weapons that the colonials won when the reality is one side used the weapons they had correctly more of the time than the otherside. Yes there are different battles that the Colonials lost and it was because they made the same mistake as the British forces.

    In fact you can have superior weapons with numbers and still lose to better tactics. Kokoda Track battle from Australian history is a clear example of this Japan forces had everything more weapons, better weapons, more men, more everything bar tactics the result was a win for the Australian forces. There are a few examples in the USA civil war as well.

  9. Grece wrote, “the colonials “assaulted” the British effectively with their rifles at the time.”

    Rifles were an innovation at that time and few were used. Most firearms were smooth bored.

  10. Grece says:

    Well Robert, skimming through your blob of text, stating nothing of importance. I will say this, the colonials “assaulted” the British effectively with their rifles at the time.

  11. Grece wrote, “All he has is a few shotguns, 22 long-rifles and some WW2 beaters to pick from.”

    I’ve shot a lot of firearms over the years. For hunting, the usual shot is ~100 yards, perhaps to 300 yards in openings. Any old bolt-action in good condition will do the job. There’s no need for anything else. I have bought a few NIB rifles over the years and with scopes some of them do shoot better than the mil-surp iron-sighted rifles but when deer season comes I choose the mil-surp. I’ve never seen a deer run away from a good hit with 8X57 170RN. In decades I’ve never seen a poor hit from 8X57 170 RN either. Why choose anything else? We have modern 308/7mm Rem Mag that are tack-drivers and some deer have been taken with them but the deer are just as dead with the muzzle-loader or the old rifles. My poorest rifle is an ancient 8X57JS with rifling that comes and goes down the barrel. Still shoots 2 MOA. Our deer are much bigger than that in the bush. My best rifle is … Can’t decide. I have several which are tack-drivers and they all can kill gophers, coyotes, deer, moose, but probably not elk. I’ve never tried. I’m pretty sure the big ones could if I wanted to head west to hunt. No, I’m not short of firepower and I have quite a variety, way more than a minimalist should have. I’m not a one, two or three firearm kind of guy. I have one or more for just about any situation I’m likely to encounter. My biggest problem is which one to take out. That’s why I usually take out a Mauser 98k. It’s almost always the right answer. TLW has even fired one of our rifles. She had the best group that day and quit while she was ahead… I don’t often win any competition with her and it’s not about the size/price/beauty of the firearm.

  12. oiaohm wrote, “Every bullet down the barrel is in fact reducing the accuracy of the barrel.”

    That might be true for the very best rifles but the typical mass-produced rifle increases in accuracy as bullets polish the barrel and fouling decreases. Many barrels are just “broken in” at ~1000 rounds. Many machine-guns are designed to keep going by swapping barrels as they wear or heat up. A single machine-gun might fire ~20K rounds in a battle with well-defined fronts. Some firearms use a soft “sabot” to carry the bullet down the barrel. While this is normally used to increase muzzle-velocity, it can also reduce wear. It may also require more frequent cleaning which may be the ultimate cause of wear. In WWII, my father operated a 20mm Bofors gun and at the Rhine they fired until the barrels turned red hot and rounds started to cook off before swapping them. They fired truck loads of ammunition across the Rhine in 3 days. Of course, with indirect fire and explosive ammunition, accuracy was of little account. Weight of fire was all that mattered to deny German counter-attacks and attrit forces. In 3 days only one German bomb came back to them. It damaged all their equipment but they were back in operation in an hour.

  13. Grece wrote, “my short-barrel AR-15 in 300 Blackout will take an coffee can off your head at 800 meters”.

    That’s pretty poor compared to many 308/7mm Rem Mag/6mm Rem bolt-actions. Mine can take out an apple at 800m. Then again, when are you ever going to have an 800m shot in an urban shoot-out? Rarely, except in case of some standoff. Active shooters often keep moving to find targets and there’s no time to find a suitable shooting position. Police/heroes have to get in close quickly. In a standoff, the need to shoot drops rapidly as hunger/fatigue/fear do the job. Wait ’em out.

  14. Grece wrote, “Who shall define what are acceptable arms and with is not acceptable?”

    Congress or its designee. They can limit the power/capability of any weapons in USA based on defensive/offensive/rate of fire/kill radius/whatever. In many countries licensing is required, courses in safe operation, background checks, magazine capacity, barrel lengths, etc. are all regulated to prevent/reduce the damage some nut-case or murderer can do. It’s all good.

    It’s amazing to me that anyone should think a rapid-firing rifle with a large capacity magazine is a defensive weapon. It can be used defensively but one well-placed shot from a single-shot rifle can do the job just as well. The “hero” of Sutherland hit the bad guy twice or so and that did the job. He didn’t even have a full magazine. Would he have taken more careful aim and done the job with one shot with a single-shot firearm? You bet. At the ranges in question, a shotgun would have been suitable. High rates of fire are actually dangerous to the public and police have a real problem with civilian deaths caused by police emptying their pistols in the direction of some bad guy and having a high rate of misses. An AR-15 just is not necessary even if the bad guys have one. A good repeating bolt-action or pump-action rifle can take out lots of bad guys in seconds much more reliably than a pistol.

  15. Grece says:

    The Second Amendment does not confer the right

    This is true. It only recognizes a fundamental preexistent right to defend on self and country. It was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

    to own an AR-15 and a gazillion 30+ rounds of ammunition. You can keep and bear arms without that.

    The Second Amendment does not define arms Robert. Who shall define what are acceptable arms and with is not acceptable?

    The Second Amendment does not even confer the right to own firearms just weapons.

    More Peter Dolding speak Robert. Our Founding Fathers who wrote the 2nd Amendment were some pretty intelligent people. I’m sure they did not think the musket was going to be the pinnacle of gun technology until the end of time. They wanted the citizens of the US armed the same as the government’s military to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. Members of our military today use real fully auto machine guns. So why is it a problem that citizens own semi-auto versions of those same types of guns if our Founding Fathers goal was to make sure we are protected from tyranny?

    I think Ivan is right, Robert is mad (when is he not these days eh?) that he cannot own cool firearms like we have here in the United States of America. All he has is a few shotguns, 22 long-rifles and some WW2 beaters to pick from.

  16. Grece says:

    Hey Petey, the current spec is 15-25K on the newest M60E6. Go ahead and google it.

    Robert, none of my weapons are ugly, in fact my short-barrel AR-15 in 300 Blackout will take an coffee can off your head at 800 meters.

  17. oiaohm says:

    http://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/facts-about-barrel-life/
    There is a nice shock fact a barrel will only work with in standard UN acceptable accuracy for peace keepers from 1500 to 5000 rounds through the barrel. Every bullet down the barrel is in fact reducing the accuracy of the barrel. Speed of fire is another factor. So gun shooting single shots at a time and the barrel being allowed to cool between shots is more likely to be closer to 5000 rounds something on full auto is more likely to be closer to 1500 rounds and that 1500 rounds works out to 5 mins of firing at 300 rounds per second before the barrel is ruined for accuracy.

    Please note 1500 rounds at full auto its kind of optimistic its presuming that the bullets you use are quality poorly made bullets can reduce this to less than 500 rounds due to impurities of the bullet scraping the riffling and massively accelerating wear. So basically like shooting sand paper down your barrel.

    Robert Pogson they way you use your bolt action is very kind on the barrel. Of course the question also comes how many rounds have been shot down the barrel because barrels have life spans. Yes some people with a new semi-auto shot though 10 years worth of bullets in 2 weeks and of course their guns are stuffed for accuracy.

    You will see people claiming a barrel does like 10000 rounds that is to breach failure and other complete functionality failures. Rifle barrels have lost their accuracy well before breach failure due riffling being worn away.

    The reality here is very nasty. You don’t want someone attempting to save your life by attempting to shot an attacker near you by using a weapon that has been used full auto or close to full auto and the barrel not changed when it should be. Even if they have the skills to shoot with accuracy a worn barrel undermines that so make them more likely to shot you than who they are aiming at.

    Yes a full auto weapon might be cool toy. Full auto have very limit practical usage and to keep correctly functional are expensive.

    Reality here working with movies using blanks if you want the feel of a full auto without major cost in barrel life you use correctly constructed blanks. Of course now a full auto weapon is not as much fun right with blanks.

    Even lot of semi-autos people fail to understand that firing quickly not allowing barrel to cool is massively shortening the life of barrel for accuracy.

    This can get interesting right. There can be a need to have 1 barrel for target practice and 1 barrel for functional usage can come important on semi-auto so when you do hunting/functional usage so you have accuracy. This can be due to range time limits causing you to fire faster than what is good for the barrel or using cheaper/poor grades of ammo for practice.

  18. Ivan wrote, “You sound jealous that you can’t own the cool guns”.

    I don’t find ugly rifles cool. I like hitting what I want, not burning powder for nothing. There are few semiautos that can put more bullets into one hole like a good bolt-action. I’ve fired the ugly rifles and I don’t like them at all. My absolutely favourite rifle is 124 years old and made to be held. Still shoots better than some brand new stinking semi-autos people take to the range with hundreds of rounds to waste.

  19. Ivan says:

    You sound jealous that you can’t own the cool guns, Bob.

  20. Grece wrote, “You should elaborate what the late Scalia was inferring in your quote.”

    The Second Amendment does not confer the right to own an AR-15 and a gazillion 30+ rounds of ammunition. You can keep and bear arms without that. The Second Amendment does not even confer the right to own firearms just weapons. The Second Amendment does not confer the right to own nukes or tanks or machine-guns. The Second Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions in a modern society.

  21. Grece says:

    Robert, that says nothing about what you mentioned, namely, the machine-gun thing. You should elaborate what the late Scalia was inferring in your quote.

  22. Scalia : “we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

  23. Grece says:

    Hmmmmm…

    The Second Amendment to the US constitution does not guarantee the right to own machine-guns, or huge magazines or body-armour….The Second Amendment was about the right to own weapons that could be used to defend against a tyrant.

    Oh year Robert? Care to share the Supreme Court case that states this, or are you just spouting off bar-room hyperbole.

    In the Heller case, the Supreme Court rejected a functionalist interpretation of the Second Amendment premised on the effectiveness of militia service.

    The tyrant now is not the government (except for Trump) but criminals and murdering bastards.

    YAWN, now Robert, here you resorting to Peter Dolding sayings. A tyrant, is an oppressive ruler in a nation and to date, the USA has NOT had a tyrant in office. The closest tyrant that comes to mind is your fat little buddy in Korea.

  24. oiaohm says:

    Really this recent case was pure failure of the USA military. The guy had attempt to kill his superior officers and had brought illegal acquired weapons on to a USA military base. Yet some how this did not get him in the FBI watch lists or jailed instead just dismissed from the military and left free to do what ever he like. He did not serve more than 2 months in military jail for attempted murder.

    So lets kick a known nut case out the military and release him on the public and hope that nothing bad happens then of course something bad happens. Remember he had military training.

    So you cannot say the recent case was unpredictable.

    Keeping proper lists of those who should not have weapons and have acquired illegal weapons in past is key part to the process.

    I always do have a problem with the USA system that the civilian and the military legal system are so independent. If an Australian solider gets charged with something that could be a civilian court case it might be handled by military courts but that event is put in the civilian legal system record for the police to access and take what ever action they think is suitable.

  25. Grece says:

    Robert has gone off the deep-end, say hello to Davey Jones.

  26. Ivan says:

    Really, Bob? A muzzle loader?! Why not use a swiss army knife, a rubber band, a paperclip, and various household chemicals to make a quicky grenade to MacGyver yourself out of the jam? Better yet make the perp read any of Peter Dolding’s comments on your blog…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *