A misfiring, feeble, corrosive, 5 shot SA pain in the butt cap and ball revolver, (with essentially useless "sights") just wasn't that much of a weapon. Colt was out of it before the SAA cartridge revolver got big enough to matter. Stoner's AR 15, in 223, paired with the .22lr converion unit (by Atchisson) luminous sight inserts and Maxim's baby (the silencer) makes for a profoundly versatile and effective weapon. This is especially true of the folding stock, 11.5" barreled variant, which takes down in 5 seconds, to conceal in a backpack, gymbag, attache case or even a grocery sack. It reassembles to fire in 10 seconds. So you can move amongst among the sheeple, whack the warlord and escape easily, with plenty of firepower to bust you clear if need be. A little pocket 9mm will cover you while the rifle is concealed, you see.. Scoped, this unit will snipe effectively to 1/4 mile, yet is more compact and lighter than an Uzi smg (submachinegun). Now THAT is an "equalizer", about 100x more so than Colt's invention, even after Sam Walker showed Colt how to improve his (fragile pos) early Paterson design. in 1997, the AR in 223 began winning all the 600 yd matches, due to Berger offering his 80 gr VLD match bthp design of bullet for it. Today, some AR 223 users are fully competitive with 308 autos at the 1000 yd matches. As unlikely as that seems, given the diminutive little 223 cartridge. Such rifles have 26" long barrels, with a 1 in 6.5" rifling twist, for use with 90 gr bullets started at 2800 fps (feet per second). That's 1850 mph, folks. 1500+ ft lbs of power, which is slightly more power than the .30AK offers, from a 20" barrel. So it's plenty effective enough, and many times more accurate and able to reach long range than that AK is able to do. AR's can be bought a $100 pc at a time. the lower receiver can be shipped to you in the mail (as an "80% finished product". and the rest of the parts can be bought by mail, too. There's even a 3D printer model of the basic receiver fo the AR, which is made of plastic and has proven capable of firing 1000's of rds, if you "beef up" the weak spots with plastic "welding". So it really is "everyman's freedom gun". It is perfectly legal to make your own gun, without any sort of check or serial number or license, as long as you dont sell or trade it. Such a rifle costs about $600, the .22 unit runs $200 from Ciener (30 rd box mag). The Feds require a $200 tax stamp and background check for the silencer, which takes about 6 months to complete. Silencers for 223's run about $800, but with some handwork and $100 spent on local shops, you can make your own, quite legally, in about 35 states. For taking deer and hogs to 150 yds (with the short barreled variant) and to be certain of man-stopping effect, the bullet to use is the 60 gr Nosler Partition softpoint. For BB gun quiet use, the .22 conversion unit and the Aquila 60 gr subsonic load is the way to go. this load is limited to an effective range of 100 yds, tho. The 223 loads are supersonic, so they give off a whiplike 'crack" as they are fired thru the silencer, audible to about 1/2 mile. But without the "can", the 223 can be heard for nearly 2 miles. With the can in place on the rifle, there's no flash at night with the 223, which is a real lifesaver. The lack of a muzzleblast (due to the silencer) helps you hit what you are shooting at, since there's no reason to flinch away from said blasts. the luminous sights make the rifle effective to 50-100 yds at night, depending upon how much light is present and with a set of NVD goggles, the range is extended to about 300 yds, on an erect, fully exposed, stationary torso. that is a real game changer that is helping our troops overseas.
The .22 unit and spare mag total a lb, the silencer and bipod a lb, the scope and mount a lb. 223 rds (62 gr variants) are 35 rds to the lb, and 60 gr, subsonic 22 rimfire Aquila rds are 100 to the lb. So it's feasible to carry 60 rds of 223 and 100 rds of .22 total, 10 lbs. A 1 lb pocket 9 and a couple of mags, and the rig, total a bit under 2 lbs. Say 12 lbs, counting a spare bolt and firing pin, with cleaning gear. Given the stealth mode assumed by the silencer, the BB gun quiet .22 unit (thru the 223 silencer) should mean lots of dead enemies by the time you fire even 50 rds in such a manner. They'll have guns and ammo, so why burden yourself further? The military and N Guard armories will be breeched if shtf, and there's not a single rd of 3006, 30-30, nor AK ammo in those arsenals. So what chance that you'll recover or trade for such ammo, hmm? The 60 gr Aquila subsonic ammo has the same 120 ft lbs out of a rifle barrel, which normal .22lr ammo has. In other words, it will drop a man, deer, hog, horse or cow when the brain is hit, to 50 yds or less. That is a lot of jerky and pemmican with just one silent shot. if you choose the 9 lb m1a in 308 and the 2.5 lb .45 1911, you get some spare mags, and that's it, for the 12 lb total. By the time you get 60 rds of 308 and 100 rds of .45 (which aint quiet) your total weight is 21 lbs. and you still won't have a silencer, scope or bipod, which for 308, will add another 3 lbs. since the .45 aint quiet, nor as common as .22, you'll need more of it, too. Better get the single shot conversion, 308 to .32 ACP, and have much less .45 ammo. but you still end up lugging around an "extra" 10 lbs, and you haven't gained a thing, really.
I prefer my Springfield Armory M21 with a Krieger stainless steel barrel, shooting Federal .308 Match Grade boat tailed hollow points with a SA 6X30 range finding scope shooting out to 800 meters. Wind is less of a factor than with the lighter .223 round.
The modern-day control-freak progressive does not believe people should be equal. They want all the guns in the hands of certain people designated by the government. And if anyone else is found with one, they will be carted off to prison for many years. The belief in democracy is inextricably tied to the belief in equality— that all men have the right to defend themselves, and secure the means to do so, should the need ever arise. When we start saying that some men have the right to exert force to defend themselves and others do not... seems a like we are beginning to head down the road to tyranny.
If equality is what you desire, why not alter the Second Amendment to say something like "No agent of the state shall carry firearms which are prohibited to citizens, and all laws regarding firearms will apply equally to agents of the state?" You probably don't want to do that though, because you want to remove democratic control over gun policy, specifically by setting it up as a right. I might also add that the Second Amendment doesn't actually protect your right to defend yourself - it protects your right to own a gun. The distinction is actually quite large - witness the fact that a person can be convicted of resisting arrest even if the accompanying charge was not valid, or the arrest was illegal.
The 2nd Amendment SHOULD read "every citizen over the age of 18 shall be free to carry any firearm, anywhere, any time, concealed or openly, just because they can". If you "think" a noisy gun is preferable to a quiet one, you're a fool. Put an adequately sized/weight silencer (ie, 10" and 1.5 lbs) on a Spld M1A, and what you'll have is a bipod-only clunk (which is what it nearly is without the silencer). worthless at night, nearly worthless in a vehicle, or thick cover, too.
also, the rifle often needs to be concealable in order to enable the freedom fighter to get into position to whack the war lord, and certainly needs to be either concealable or abandoned if the shooter is to escape from that shot (ie be free to whack the next pos who needs it badly). The shorty AR15 takes down in 5 seconds, to conceal in a backpack, gym-bag, attache case, even a grocery sack. Today, even, that's handy when you ride a bike or a horse, or if you don't have an attached garage to your house. Being seen with a gun is an invitation to trouble with cops and with thieves.
So when associates of criminals start carrying guns into court rooms during trials, what then? When a shoutout occurs on an airplane, what then?
then everyone else will shoot them. or the plane will come down and kill them. Small losses, actually, cause the punks will know this will be the result. it sure beats letting things go the way of stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, which IS where they go. The rest of the world doesn't have dictators like that, beause WE spend the money to have the sort of military that we have. We should stop wasting our money on that. Let them have to defnd themselves and SEE how much money they have left for other things.
What are you planning here, galant? There is one error in your OP, and a big one, but I'll leave that alone, because I feel that a lot of this should remain a mystery to those who would use such knowledge for nefarious ends.
What level of weaponry would you want to restrict? Almost everybody agrees on weapons of mass destruction, it seems. Where do you draw the line for private ownership?
Not letting people carry guns on airplanes or in courtrooms is going "the way of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler"?
I got a news flash for you, there's LOTS more restrictions on our freedoms, (not just gun rights) than merely being unable to carry on a plane. We USED to be free to carry on planes, you know. And it wasn't US citizens that created the problems, or at least, not with guns. The second amendment is the ONLY place in the Constitution where the govt is proscribed from even TOUCHING a right. Infringment means the SLIGHTEST MEDDLING AT ALL. I'd draw the line at modern firearms. That is all we need to be able to resist gov't. If we have to resort to using sabotage (by means of fire, explosives, etc) to stop tyrants, I don't really expect such resistance to be legal. Howver, a military STYLE (but semi auto) box mag fed rifle should be perfectly legal, as should any handgun. The govt or citizenry that fears such arms (to any positive degree) is one that doesn't deserve any respect or conformity to their rules.
