This speaks volumes about our Dear Leader's Ambitions
Can there be any doubt at all that Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm...), The One, feels closer to the Mullahs of Iran than Bibi Netanyahu and the people of Israel?
Is his end-game to have a nuclear Iran? It would certainly seem that way...
Is his end-game to have a nuclear Iran? It would certainly seem that way...
I think that part of the problem is that the Repubicans have excelled at giving the cold shoulder to anyone who did not fit into a shrinking pigeonhole. I have actually been informed (by a liberal) that I can not possibly be a Republican because I am not a born-again Christian. If this accurately reflects what conservatives are portraying, then the Jewish community may feel it has no choice but to stay with the Democrats.
Jan
Jan
Jan
--an enigma.
There is much confusion about the policies and direction of the Obama presidency. Pundits and politicians alike flounder when trying to explain the actions of President Obama. The reason for this confusion and misunderstanding is the lack of courage to identify and integrate the unmistaken evidence of what they are dealing with.
The recent defense of Islam at the prayer breakfast was a central clue to what is going on in Obama’s mind. Searching for some way to downplay the role of other religions and therefore equivocate atrocities performed today with those of other religions in the past can only be described as evasion of context. Denying the words Islamist terrorists and constantly referring to Islam as a religion of peace only confirms his basic premise that translates into action to promote Islam consistently and almost openly. When you look at the words of the Koran and Obama’s actions you see a pattern that cannot be misinterpreted.
First take the Islamic tenet that lying to promote Islam is perfectly acceptable. This includes such practices as evading and distorting. We know the man is a liar from his claims on healthcare, his shovel ready jobs and “ You didn’t build that”. Why would we accept that he was truthful when he swore to defend the Constitution. That has been an obvious lie.
Now consider that what if a man with Muslim proclivities decides that his contribution to Muslim dominance can best be served by using his oratorial talents to become President of the United States and then undermine the county with weak leadership, massive debt and doing all that he can to diminish America and her defenses? Could not a person’s intent on Muslim dominance accomplish this mission to some extent? It was pointed out by Laura Ingram that Obama seems well qualified to accomplish what he wants to accomplish and she pointed to his elections, his free college program, his stimulus , etc. But when it comes to dealing with ISIS he seems feckless. Is this because he doesn’t know what to do or is it because his agenda is far different than an American President who would want to protect and promote the American Dream?
President Obama seems to have little interest in his legacy as an American President. No one would want their country to become more mediocre, weak, and debt ridden if they had a spark of rationality in them. Yet these destructive avenues keep being advocated and reflect only a mission to boost Muslim stature and diminish America. His foreign apologist speeches can only point to such a mission.
In Obama’s mind where he displays many of the attributes identified by Patai in his book ,” The Arab Mind”, we see the notion that speech is more potent than action, lying to promote Islam is perfectly acceptable and a central drive to avoid denouncing Islam is evident by the weak leadership regarding national defense. Releasing terrorist leaders and attempting to close Gitmo also fit with the overall objective of a Muslim legacy.
At the end of his term of office he will be able to say to his Islamic cohorts, “ See what I have done to promote your case and diminish the power and stature of the nation of infidels as asked by the Prophet. Such a legacy will sit well with the Muslims who will see a path to dominance they had not envisioned. Infiltration will be the strategy of the Muslim future and although simple bombing will continue, infiltration into the institutions and government will play a major part. Identifying and challenging this invasion will require more than simple vigilance. A lock step party will only accelerate the invasion as we have already seen. If no one is willing to identify this mission for what it is America will be degraded to the status the Muslim religion seeks. The land of the free without the home of the brave will cease to exist.
: “Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
The winds have shifted and his perception is ugly. The deeper meaning of the above is clear - except to the Kool Aide drinkers.
The o has spit in the face of all Israelis and Jews. What I have NEVER been able to wrap my mind around, is why the Jewish community by and large votes for democrats. It's not logical, and the utter contempt that is being shown to Prime minister Netanyahu is embarrassing and beyond bad form. It's shameful, and I am disgusted by these cowards who think O is some sort of great leader.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150225...
So, forgive me, if I think it's kind of horse-pucky.
First, 'ball ammo' in my experience, relates to Russian military service arms - I have a lot of that stuff, at least 5000 rounds each of 7.62x54R for my Archangel (Mossin Nagant sniper with modern stock), and 7.62x39mm for my Yugoslav SKS. The ball ammo has a unique crack-sound to it (it's the shape of the powder grain used).
US sporting spec uses a cylindrical shape, and the .223 Remington round is definitely that type. 5.56 mil spec "may" be a ball powder, it does sound slightly different when I fire it, but I have not had 5.56, its also corrosive for the barrel, and I'm an avid collector so condition is a serious issue for me. An AR-15 can chamber/fire either one. M855 only refers to 5.56 mil spec surplus rounds.
Now, there is a 'green tip' penetrator series in M855/5.56 spec that was manufactured in bulk for anticipated sale to NATO. I seriously doubt it could really do much, but it was too slow in flight and NATO rejected the contract. Without the velocity, it was very inaccurate. That stuff has been for sale rather cheap for years, but comes in 100 round bandoliers, which are a pain in the rear to take down and put in a conventional sporting mag (limited to 10 rounds here).
I can only selectively use 7.62x54R because of the composition of it - its very dry here and it can spark and cause a forest fire. It has a steel core and jacket, unlike the lead/FMJ that you normally see on US ammo. There is a decent argument for limiting its use because of that.
If they did ban it, no big deal, I have thousands of rounds of .308 for my hunting rifles, I'll just switch out my upper & lower receivers on the AR to a .308 chamber, and I'll be back in business tomorrow.
Fortunately, between my dad's lifetime accumulation that I inherited (and he had over 100 firearms) and my own obsession with collecting, I really don't have to worry about a disruption in the sale of ammo... without breaking out the reloading gear, I seriously doubt I'll be able to use all I have in my lifetime.
Is any of it armor piercing? Not a snowball's chance in h*ll. An AR-15 is high velocity, but it's a very small round, and it tumbles in flight. There is no way it could pierce a bullet proof vest. It's nowhere nearly as effective (or lethal) as an AR-15 chambered for the .308, or my Archangel. Heck, my Archangel will destroy a cinder block at 50 yards.
Either way, the court system is definitely in the mood to overturn gun laws right now, I don't see this going anywhere. Especially when it can't stand up to scrutiny.
From what I'm looking at though, M855 only refers to mil spec. There definitely is a performance difference, but I don't really think many people buy the 5.56 - I've only seen it online and by the time you pay the shipping charges, it's not worth the bulk savings, so I just buy .223 by the brick locally.
Every time there is something like this... the NRA turns it into a membership drive. I always have to look at it through that lens.
Most AR-15s in the sporting market are 16" barrels, you definitely want .223 for that, for accuracy, as the 5.56 was designed for the M16's 20" barrel. You don't actually see many of those (20") setups around.
1. "Ball ammo" is full-metal jacket (sans the base) bullet versus a hollow-point bullet or other types of bullet construction. It has nothing to do with the shape of powder granules.
2. A 5.56 round does NOT tumble in flight (urban legend time). It spirals just like any other round and you will see this on any paper target that you put a round through.
3. There is a HUGE difference between an armor-piercing round designed to penetrate metallic and ceramic armor and a round that can penetrate body armor (usually made of woven Kevlar). Certain types of high velocity smaller caliber ball ammunition can penetrate body armor.
1.) http://ultimatereloader.com/reloading-10...
Russians use spherical gunpowder grains (ball ammo). Or at least I asked a gunsmith once about the unique sound that my AK / SKS / Mosin make, and that was the answer he gave - I've seen it confirmed regularly. I have AR's as well, and many other rifles & handguns, but the sound of the SKS in particular is very unique.
2.) It's a very small projectile, and everything I've read seems to indicate it tumbles and fragments on impact, which is why it does an extreme amount of damage for otherwise being not much larger than a .22 (other than a higher velocity). I did a new Google search, and seems to confirm. Shooting through paper won't be enough resistance to send it out of flight, but compared to say a 30-06 or .308 round or 7.62x54... it's an extremely tiny projectile (55 grains versus 165 for example). My 300 magnum looks like a nuclear warhead compared to a .223. It's a popular sporting rifle, but is not designed for stopping power against a significant target (like a bear, elk, moose, boar, etc.). They are illegal to hunt deer with in Minnesota actually (where I grew up) because they tend to maime rather than kill the game.
3.) agreed... but I wouldn't pick an AR15 for that. I do some boar hunting in Arizona on occasion... I wouldn't dream of using an AR for that, I'd be scared to death it wouldn't have the stopping power.
I've handled enough ammo cans to verify that. And for that matter, fired enough military ammo.
1). You've demonstrated that there are several types of powder that may be used to reload a cartridge, including "ball powder" (I'm pretty sure they sell it outside Russia :) ) but that it not where the term "ball ammo" comes from. Not that Wikipedia is the authoritative source on all things gun, but they do get it right when they say "Full metal jacket or "ball" bullets (cartridges with ball bullets (which despite the name are not spherical) are called ball ammunition) are completely encased in the harder metal jacket, except for the base."
2). Your note above states that "An AR-15 is high velocity, but it's a very small round, and it tumbles in flight". I assume you are referring to the 5.56mm variant of the AR, but note that there are others including the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .308, and .458 SOCOM (wouldn't that be a hoot to shoot?). 5.56mm is indeed a small diameter round, but it does not tumble in flight. This round is no different than any other round in that it spirals once it leaves the barrel, and once it strikes a target of mass physics takes over and the kinetic energy is dissipated inside (and possibly outside) the target.
3). AR does not automatically mean 5.56mm. As I mentioned, ARs can be had in multiple calibers, some of which would be quite suitable for boar hunting.
I probably read too much into it, but whenever I hear 'ball ammo' I'm basically thinking of ball/spherical powder design - lower flashpoint, faster rate of burn, higher velocity and the yield is a very distinctive crack.
Sporting rifles use cylindrical gun powder, burns a little slower, but is probably more reliable in adverse weather or something, might be why it is popular for American hunting rifles. All of the .308's, .300's 30-30 / 30-06, etc. all have cylindrical powder. If you buy black powder for reloading, unless you know what you are doing and special order, I'm 99.9% certain you get cylindrical over the counter.
I think the designation of "M855" is more to eliminate a large source of inexpensive ammo that people can buy for their AR-15s... a few years ago, Dear Leader had DHS buying billions of rounds of .223 / 9mm / .45 ACP to basically take supply out of the market and drive prices up.
This is really just an extension of that it seems like. If you took 5.56 out of the surplus ammo market, it would constrain supply for the .223 and probably double/triple prices again.
.223 is a Remington round, and was designed from the nearly identical preexisting .222 and .224 rounds. The .223 was developed as a commercial alternative for the consumer-grade AR-15, as opposed to the M-16 / M4 which the 5.56mm is intended for.
The 5.56mm is designed in projectile weight and charge to be optimized for a 20 inch barrel. you do not see those (very rare) in the consumer Ar-15 market. Most are 16's, you see a few 17's, etc. 5.56 is designed for a 1:19 twist ratio, whereas .223 is for a 1:7 to 1:9. If you fire a 5.56 out of a short-length AR-15 barrel, it will probably wobble a little. When either of them strike the target, these are basically projectiles not much bigger than a pellet gun shoots, it will absolutely tumble & fragment. It's relatively high velocity, but it's a 150 yard weapon, not a 1000 or 2000 yard weapon. (My Archangel is pretty effective out to about 500 meters and can be sighted & fired out to 2000 if you really want to spend a few thousand on a scope).
If you google M855 and differences between the 5.56 mm and .223 round, I think you will see what I'm trying to get across.
The point is, M855 references the 5.56 mil-spec surplus ammunition, which really doesn't have a place in the sporting / consumer market because the characteristics are different. It's cheap.. maybe 15 cents a round in bulk, but beyond that, it behaves differently.
You can also switch the upper on an AR for 50 caliber by the way... the Beowulf rounds.
All of it is like driving a model T though compared to a Tesla.. This is the next generation of weaponry.
http://tracking-point.com
*IF* there is a propensity for the 5.56 to fragment, it is likely due to its relatively low mass and high kinetic energy - the lead core of the bullet may simply strip through its jacket. I have heard people claim that the 5.56 "tumbles in flight" but that is patently false. The drag of anything tumbling would make it ineffective and inaccurate, which is not how I'd describe this round.
I agree that the M-16 was designed to be a "spray and pray" weapon. Clearly your long gun is more aligned for sniping. And I'm with you - I'd prefer a .308 BTHP any day for precision shooting.
.50 Beowulf would be fun but expen$ive to shoot.
Even if someone were to melt Iran's people and buildings into the sand afterwards -- maybe an Israeli doomsday device? -- it wouldn't repair anything. It would only give some people the satisfaction of revenge, probably on both sides of the issue.
The only upside is that this might confirm that mankind is contributing to global warming after all. I suppose the detonation of a thermonuclear device above oil-rich territory would undoubtedly heat things up. The part of that which is good, is that the GWCL's (Global Warming Chicken Littles) would have something else to worry about for a long, long time.
Iran? . it seems that her influence is undersold. -- j
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/N...
My reaction? Know liars say Obama never moved his lips that way.
Bibi, if you want your fighter strike force, you can keep it.
None of that is reducing America's stance toward Israel as a most-favored nation. Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs. Iran has none. Do you people understand the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons? Iran wants to develop its clean energy programs to generate electricity, to build up for when the oil runs out or the pollution flows over.
Iran has not attacked any country in hundreds of years, and has no interest in doing so. Their eight-year war with Iraq was forced on them and instigated by the U.S. encouraging the late Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, the U.S.'s way of payback for getting kicked out when the Shah was overthrown in 1979. At that time there were about 60,000 Iranian students in American colleges, all liking American values.
Normalizing relations with Iran is the surest way to get peace in the area, returning to relationships based on trade, not hate. The mullahs do not have an irreversible stranglehold on the country. Contrary to demonizing efforts, they do not have a mission to wipe Israel off the map. And the Persian diaspora in the U.S. and Europe, like the Cubans, would love to see a return to a more secular Iran. And just in case anyone still does not know this, the Persians (Iranians) are NOT Arabs. They are Aryans.
(I lived in Iran from 1975-1979.)
Israel daily? -- j
Uh, beg to differ there. They are the ones overtly supporting many of the terror groups in the Middle East. They were pretty brazen in offering the families of Palestinian suicide bombers salaries. And they were linked to arms shipments headed for those territories. One shouldn't forget the Iran hostage crisis either. When a sovereign nation holds citizens of another hostage, that's an act of war.
And yes, they have been overtly calling for the destruction of Israel. Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad was very outspoken against both Israel and the United States- calling for their destruction in open forum.
Does that mean the people of Iran are all monsters? No. I've met some who left intentionally to get away from the atmosphere there. And we saw the student uprisings of about four years ago. But to say that the people in charge of Iran are peaceful is a about ten bridges too far for me.