←back to thread

628 points nodea2345 | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.334s | source | bottom
Show context
nvahalik ◴[] No.21125093[source]
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator

This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

replies(26): >>21125127 #>>21125139 #>>21125892 #>>21126027 #>>21126073 #>>21126084 #>>21126204 #>>21126397 #>>21126398 #>>21126638 #>>21126890 #>>21126892 #>>21127286 #>>21127513 #>>21127874 #>>21127880 #>>21128227 #>>21128793 #>>21129412 #>>21129418 #>>21129526 #>>21129658 #>>21130063 #>>21130220 #>>21131181 #>>21131653 #
cwkoss ◴[] No.21128793[source]
I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story.

Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that without the second amendment, the Civil Rights Act would not have been passed, and we would still be living in an institutionally segregated society.

I don't own a gun and don't feel I need one because I'm a privileged urban white. Gun control has historically been used as a tool to disarm Black Americans: the NRA supported gun control in response to the Black Panthers! (https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...)

Any discussion of gun control in America must account for the self-defense rights of Americans who do not have adequate protection from the police.

replies(6): >>21129340 #>>21129509 #>>21129684 #>>21130401 #>>21131110 #>>21131185 #
mav3rick ◴[] No.21129684[source]
Most people want stricter background checks. If you pass the checks it's fine. No one is taking away your guns.
replies(4): >>21129993 #>>21130096 #>>21130656 #>>21131554 #
kube-system ◴[] No.21130096[source]
> No one is taking away your guns.

You're right, but it's not due to a lack of trying. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Beto O’Rourke all support mandatory buybacks.

replies(1): >>21130274 #
mikeyouse ◴[] No.21130274[source]
Of specific guns, namely rifles designed for military use. Shotguns, pistols, and low-capacity rifles are still fine.
replies(2): >>21130338 #>>21130655 #
kube-system ◴[] No.21130338[source]
I don't think the military uses too many small caliber semi-auto rifles. Any modern military rifle I can think of was banned for new sale in 1986.
replies(2): >>21130905 #>>21131098 #
ethbro ◴[] No.21130905[source]
5.56x45mm? Aka .223 Remington?

7.62x51mm? Aka .308 Winchester?

Only two of the most common NATO standards.

replies(2): >>21131642 #>>21132437 #
1. galkk ◴[] No.21131642[source]
This is incorrect. 5.56 != .223 Remington, same for 7.62

It's actually very dangerous to former in civilian guns, designed for latter.

replies(1): >>21133113 #
2. ethbro ◴[] No.21133113[source]
Citation for 5.56 vs .223?

Fact: The external case and bullet dimensions are functionally identical

Fact: The chamber dimensions in respective rifles are close enough, +/- machining tolerances, that "very dangerous" is inaccurate fearmongering

Fact: 5.56 max pressures exceed .223 pressures (to the tune of ~12.5%), but both are subject to the vagaries of exact loading

So while it's not a good idea to fire 5.56 out of a cheap .223 rifle, it's not a death wish to do so out of a .223 engineered to accept the additional pressure.

Curious where you're getting your information?

replies(1): >>21133179 #
3. galkk ◴[] No.21133179[source]
> Citation for 5.56 vs .223?

> Curious where you're getting your information?

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Unsafe-Arms-and...

page 8:

In Firearms Chambered For: 223 Remington

Do Not Use These Cartridges:

5.56mm Military

---

Also literally first entry in FAQ on SAAMI site: https://saami.org/faqs/#ammunition-firearm-chambered

Can I use 5.56x45mm, 5.56 or 5.56 NATO ammunition in a firearm chambered for 223 Remington (223 Rem)?

NO!

It is not safe to shoot “5.56” “5.56 NATO” or “5.56x45mm” (“5.56”) ammunition in a firearm with barrel marked as being chambered in 223 Remington for a number of reasons. The main reason being that a barrel marked as chambered in 223 Remington will have a shorter throat into the rifling than a “5.56” barrel which may cause increased pressure when the “5.56” ammunition is fired in it. This can result in serious injury or death to the user and/or bystanders, as well as damage to the firearm.

However, it is safe to use SAAMI-compliant 223 Remington ammunition in firearms with a barrel marked as chambered in “5.56.”

If you are unclear about which ammunition is appropriate to safely use in your firearm, consult the firearm owner’s manual or contact the firearm manufacturer for further guidance.

> So while it's not a good idea to fire 5.56 out of a cheap .223 rifle, it's not a death wish to do so out of a .223 engineered to accept the additional pressure.

I can't find the manual online, but I'm sure that in my previous, not quite cheap, Tikka T3 Super Varmint manual it was written the same. It's only truly safe only when manufacturer says so (like it was with now discontinued Ruger Precision 223/5.56, if I recall correctly)

replies(1): >>21136026 #
4. ethbro ◴[] No.21136026{3}[source]
5.56 isn't SAAMI-standardized in the first place, so they legally shouldn't say anything other than their wording there. Which you also see on many .223 rifles as you noted.

But that's a legal perspective.

From an engineering perspective, you can certainly shoot it.

With risks somewhere between "It will behave exactly like .223" and "It will explosively disassemble your gun."

But we're not talking about rocket science here.

Machining dimensions / tolerances + chamber / barrel design + round pressure = risk

All of which are variable enough in practice to make this a grey area.

replies(1): >>21141987 #
5. galkk ◴[] No.21141987{4}[source]
Dude, this is insane. I sincerely hope that you don't apply this logic in public shooting ranges. You asked for citation, got it, and choose to ignore it.

What you're saying is equivalent that you could go on a car that weighs 5.65 tons on a bridge that can carry only 5 tons, (given that for such bridges the both standard body and constructor explicitly says: "do not do that").

Is it possible? Of course. You even could reload your ammo with nitroglycerin and it still will fit into the rifle.

Yes, there could be some protection built into construction, but this risk worth it?

replies(1): >>21145870 #
6. ethbro ◴[] No.21145870{5}[source]
Depends on the scenario.

People know the facts and make informed choices.

That's the differences between engineers and sheep.