A while ago an ebay seller had a display model of a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, a warhead for an ICBM.There was apparently no documentation to go with it, so details are pretty much utterly lacking. Still, it does look reasonably likely to have been a “real” display model built by or for the USAF or a defense contractor. It’s simple… a cone with four sides shaved off with four added flaps for control. This basic geometry has been popular for maneuverable warhead concepts for decades; McDonnell-Douglas used a similar shape (explicitly stated as having been derived from their maneuverable MIRV studies) for their Delta Clipper SSTO, and an even closer shape for their X-33 and follow-on concepts.
Want. Want. WANT. WANTWANTWANTWANTWANTWANTWANTWANT,
I was corrected on just what qualifies as “too much gun.” The .460 S&W revolver could at least actually be carried and fired without the shooter suffering sudden structural damage. But the two-bore rifle? 12,000 foot-pounds of recoil, even from a 44-pound rifle, just sounds a tad painful.
Even though the 2-bore rifle *looks* like an antique, it appears that it is a modern product that you can buy, made and sold by Stolzer & Sons Gunsmithing. I wonder if the pieces being auctioned off above are actually those shown below…
Let Joerg show you its features:
This thing really does look like it could be produced as a viable and interesting crossbow. One thing I’d look at to simplify operations is to have the “sled” automatically released to slide forward when the string is drawn back and the trigger locked, rather than having to manually release it.
It’s important to know just what kind of modifications are possible with an AR-15:
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) November 8, 2017
The internets favorite suggested modification:
A chainsaw bayonet. Yup. USA Today suggested that as a serious possibility for the AR-15.
Yes, chainsaw bayonets exist. But they are not exactly practical.
And of course the ultimate in evil: never mind Communism, here’s an AR-15 with a chainsaw bayonet being bump-fired:
Currently being sold on ebay is a display model of a missile, a “Martin ASM.” ASM almost certainly means “Air to Surface Missile,” but otherwise there’s no further info. Seller seems to think it’s related to the Assault Breaker project, but it looks vaguely like a Skybolt-ish air-launched ballistic missile.
Manufacturing the 1911: not exactly brain surgery.
Are they built to proper specifications, using proper materials, properly heat treated? Nope. Will it put a bullet in a target? Almost certainly. Quite possibly several hundred times before something breaks.
A good video to see the differences. Fortunately they use multiple camera angles with good slow motion. Clearly visible is just *how* the bump stock works… and just how much the bullets are sprayed all over from the bump stocked AR-15 compared to the relative stability of the true full auto M-16.
This piece seems to be reasonably well reasoned, and if you are a left-winger or an anti-gunner, or if you know one, I’d suggest giving it a read.
As the title suggests, six reasons are given. But I think the first one is perhaps one of the most important:
The most destructive, divisive response when dealing with Second Amendment advocates is the notion that we aren’t on your side of the issue because we “don’t care” about the tragedy and loss of life. Two years ago at Christmas I had a family member, exasperated that I wasn’t agreeing about gun control, snarl, “It appears that if your [step] daughter was killed because of gun violence you wouldn’t even care!”
Me, I’m a jerk. I’ve long since ceased to really care about convincing people who disagree with me to agree with me, because to a large degree politics has become so stultifyingly polarized that no matter what evidence is produced that there isn’t some phantom wage gap, or that nuclear power is the way to go, or that the United States isn’t the greatest evil in world history, or that the world is more than 6,000 years old or that vaccines aren’t going to give you autism or that a firearm I own isn’t going to jump up and shoot you or that maybe you should be allowed to keep what you earn and control your own stuff and destiny, there will be people who just will not accept it. A few decades of these fights have largely drained the hope from me that many people are even open to understanding anything that even comes close to libertarianism or conservativism or a rational scientific outlook. So I just throw the occasional bomb onto my blog and call it a day.
But if you actually hold out the hope of convincing The Other Side of your viewpoint, coming at them right out of the gate with “you don’t care about victims” is *exactly* the wrong approach. And for two reasons:
1: If the other guy doesn’t believe that you believe what you’re saying, he knows you to be a dishonest and disreputable liar.
2: If the other guy *does* believe what you say when you declare that he doesn’t care about actual victims, he’s going to assume that *you* are the actual sociopath in the situation.
And somethgin that has coem up in the comments section of this blog many times is also discussed:
5. We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries
We really, really don’t.
Most Americans give precisely zero shits about “but everyone else in the world does X.” Whether “X” is:
- Fanatical devotion to soccer
- Disdain for American beer/chocolate/fast food/movies/music/culture
- Acceptance of anti-blasphemy laws and other forms of legal strictures on the expression of unpopular opinions
- What y’all think the US should do about gun laws.
We really, really don’t. Sure, some do, but we tend to sequester them in Hollywood where we can point at them and laugh.