The Right To Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.

For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.

You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.

At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.

For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.

I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.

I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.

I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.

Son listen this is the master speaking with you, you are clueless about the AK variant Rifle

 

[westwall]

A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.

For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.

You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.

At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.

For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.

I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.

I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.

I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.

You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.

At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.

For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.

I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.

I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.

I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
Who started the Klan
Who was the first form of gun control used against
and this one, firearms and the AK variant rifle.

 

[Dubya]

For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.

You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.

At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.

For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.

I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.

I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.

I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.

Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.

 

[Dubya]

You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.

At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.

For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.

I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.

I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.

I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
Who started the Klan
Who was the first form of gun control used against
and this one, firearms and the AK variant rifle.

If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
Who started the Klan
Who was the first form of gun control used against
and this one, firearms and the AK variant rifle.

If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.

Isn't it bad to be shown how stupid you are from a person you consider an idiot?
THREE TIMES I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW STUPID AN MORONIC YOUR POSITION IS
ON THE KLAN, GUN CONTROL USED AGAINST BLACK, AND FIREARMS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[Dubya]

Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
Who started the Klan
Who was the first form of gun control used against
and this one, firearms and the AK variant rifle.

If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.

Isn't it bad to be shown how stupid you are from a person you consider an idiot?
THREE TIMES I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW STUPID AN MORONIC YOUR POSITION IS
ON THE KLAN, GUN CONTROL USED AGAINST BLACK, AND FIREARMS

Gun control predate the KKK, fool. There were two KKKs, fool. You have to make every post wrong, don't you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.

Isn't it bad to be shown how stupid you are from a person you consider an idiot?
THREE TIMES I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW STUPID AN MORONIC YOUR POSITION IS
ON THE KLAN, GUN CONTROL USED AGAINST BLACK, AND FIREARMS

Gun control predate the KKK, fool. There were two KKKs, fool. You have to make every post wrong, don't you?

Gun control predate the KKK, fool.

Idiot never said that it didn't again fail on your part.

There were two KKKs, fool.

Nope

You have to make every post wrong, don't you?

You have yet to be right so how can I be wrong?

 

[Dubya]

First KKK

The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[17] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλο&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]

Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

Second KKK

In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21] Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[22]

The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[23] Klan organizers also operated in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan in 1926-28, where it attacked immigrants from Eastern Europe.[24]

Third KKK

The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Today, researchers estimate that there may be 150 Klan chapters with upwards of 5,000 members nationwide.[2]

Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization".[2][26][27][28] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[29] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[30] In 2004, a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization in order to ban it from campus.[31]

First Klan 1865–1874

Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First KKK

The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[17] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλο&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]

Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

Second KKK

In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21] Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[22]

The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[23] Klan organizers also operated in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan in 1926-28, where it attacked immigrants from Eastern Europe.[24]

Third KKK

The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Today, researchers estimate that there may be 150 Klan chapters with upwards of 5,000 members nationwide.[2]

Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization".[2][26][27][28] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[29] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[30] In 2004, a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization in order to ban it from campus.[31]

First Klan 1865–1874

Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.

It's still the same fucking Klan you moron.
What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
Damn dude stop making this so easy.

 

[Dubya]

First KKK

The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[17] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλο&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]

Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

Second KKK

In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21] Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[22]

The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[23] Klan organizers also operated in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan in 1926-28, where it attacked immigrants from Eastern Europe.[24]

First Klan 1865–1874

Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.

It's still the same fucking Klan you moron.
What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
Damn dude stop making this so easy.

Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.

It's still the same fucking Klan you moron.
What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
Damn dude stop making this so easy.

Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.

OH for crying out loud there is no new klan because wiki says so. the klan is still the klan since the day it was created., It has had a few rebirths but still the same klan with the same agenda.

Why do you like to be shown how stupid you really are?

 

[Dubya]

It's still the same fucking Klan you moron.
What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
Damn dude stop making this so easy.

Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.

OH for crying out loud there is no new klan because wiki says so. the klan is still the klan since the day it was created., It has had a few rebirths but still the same klan with the same agenda.

Why do you like to be shown how stupid you really are?

The original Klan died in 1874. Encyclopedias say so and only a fool like you says it's the same Klan. You don't anything about the Klan, so shut the fuck up!

 

[westwall]

You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.

At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.

For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.

I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.

I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.

I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.

Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons. Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well. And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip. The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches. The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS. If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.

My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting. And no, you don't know a fucking thing about any of this. There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting. Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.

So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so. Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.

OH for crying out loud there is no new klan because wiki says so. the klan is still the klan since the day it was created., It has had a few rebirths but still the same klan with the same agenda.

Why do you like to be shown how stupid you really are?

The original Klan died in 1874. Encyclopedias say so and only a fool like you says it's the same Klan. You don't anything about the Klan, so shut the fuck up!

The klan has always existed since it creation it never went away, just like now there is a klan but you don't hear much from them. It never went away or died it never disbanded the same agenda from 1866 still exist.

 

[Dubya]

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.

Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons. Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well. And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip. The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches. The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS. If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.

My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting. And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this. There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting. Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.

So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so. Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.

Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!

Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.

All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.

 

[Triton]

What a clown. You clearly don't know shit about any firearm. The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand. The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed. The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is. It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak. In other words you are the typical lib troll.

That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.

Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons. Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well. And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip. The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches. The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS. If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.

My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting. And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this. There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting. Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.

So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so. Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.

Wow, the AR is that good at long range, huh? I was under the impression an M1a could outreach an AR and was more accurate at long range.

 

[westwall]

That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.

Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons. Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well. And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip. The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches. The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS. If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.

My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting. And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this. There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting. Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.

So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so. Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.

Wow, the AR is that good at long range, huh? I was under the impression an M1a could outreach an AR and was more accurate at long range.

The M1A is better at 800-1000 yards. Out to 800 however, a properly built AR will out perform it. Even the Marines have gone to the AR for a lot of their competitions. The AMU built AR's were outshooting them on a regular basis.

The max reach for the 80 grain VLD projectiles is right at 900 meters, the 175 grain Sierra's are good to 1300 meters. After that both projies drop out of supersonic and they fall apart accuracy wise at that point.

 

[westwall]

That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.

Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons. Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well. And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip. The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches. The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS. If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.

My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting. And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this. There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting. Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.

So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so. Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.

Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!

Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.

All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.

No problem. Here is the G3 series. It's not even gas operated. Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod. And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week. Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR. Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars. You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.

Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.

The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard). The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.