This is the Ruger 10/22 rifle. Five million of these have been made since 1964 in a variety of modifications. They are all basically the same gun. It is made in .22 LR caliber. Is this one of the guns you anti-gun people want to ban? It is semi-automatic. The one I used to own had a heavy barrel and a scope.
This gun
is the Keltec SU 22. Bad assed looking, right? An "assault weapon?" No. It is a semi-automatic .22 LR rifle just like the Ruger 10/22. I prefer a 10 or 15 round magazine with this rifle rather than the one shown. This one just gets in the way. The rifle itself is really no different than the 10/22.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_10/22
http://www.guns.com/reviews/kel-tec-su-22/
My understanding is that very few people nowadays hunt out of necessity for food/survival. Anyway, outside of rabbits and, perhaps, feral hogs, isn't it illegal to hunt wildlife during various periods of the year, and don't hunters require licenses to do so?
Posted by: nemerinys | 05 January 2013 at 06:16 AM
nemerins
Are you calling me a liar? If you are you are gone from here. People in the country here all own one or more freezers that contain a steer, a pig or two and deer, rabbits, etc. Local butchers will cut and wrap anything you bring them. You "understand" about hunters, eh? No, you don't. You know city people. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 January 2013 at 08:40 AM
'few people nowadays hunt out of necessity'? Really? I guess they don't count when it comes to rights.
Posted by: Fred | 05 January 2013 at 09:41 AM
Tyler:
I have a hard time wrapping my
limited cortex around the term
nanny state. Is this the same
entiy that sends its citizen
soldiers to far away climes to
pacify and then rectify the locals
non-compliance with the above men-
tioned all knowing all seeing hege-
monic policies of exceptionalism?
Do many of these same citizen sol-
diers return from said expeditions
and embrace the state in another
but similiar capacity? Enforcing
the states laws in certain areas but
not embracing all of them. I know
many retired 25 to 30 year local
law enforement people. Almost to a
man they espouse small state or lim-
ited government intervention in all
aspects of its citizenry. Yet they
were the states force projection.
Is it me or is there a dichotomy
hidden somewhere. Respectfully.
Please enlighten me.
Posted by: steve g | 05 January 2013 at 11:49 AM
If that hypothetical and hopefully rare gun owner has to obtain a license for owning those inherited guns, he may not be given one. Thus, the detective can arrest him for being unlicensed. Should he, for some reason, obtain a license, it could be taken away from him and then the prior scenario would apply.
Posted by: Lars | 05 January 2013 at 11:56 AM
Like Washington's farewell address, Eisenhower's more important one is also ignored. Some of it has to do with living in a much different times. The main problem has more to do with the personal and financial ties between Big Biz and Big Gov. Break that and we may get a much better and possibly smaller government that is more concerned with the common good.
Posted by: Lars | 05 January 2013 at 12:19 PM
When did I ever talk about big business? You're the one going on about the magic of big government. Big business and big government are two sides of the same coin.
Posted by: Tyler | 05 January 2013 at 12:36 PM
Who else would you trust with violence? Those skilled in its application and who see what the worst excesses of power lead to?
Or professors in "gender studies" and "community activists" who haven't even been punched in the head and blithely order the deaths of millions because they're not the ones fighting the war?
Why do they espouse small governments? Because a large empire and this insane globalist crusade we've been on for the last twenty plus years go hand in hand. The best way to prevent 20 somethings from trying to shove their guts back into their torsos on the battlefield is shrink the apparatus of the nation state.
I also imagine for your friends, and know for myself, that there was always a desire to serve the needs of the greater good and be part of something awesome and majestic (my beloved Army).
Posted by: Tyler | 05 January 2013 at 12:47 PM
Fred
That information is online. There's no reason to go to the court house, only to show your age, young man.
Posted by: optimax | 06 January 2013 at 12:09 AM
Lars,
The situation described occurred last year, not 150 yards from where I sit. It was not a hypothetical situation. Fortunately, the gun owner was "encouraged" to surrender the long guns to the PD.
Posted by: Tigershark | 06 January 2013 at 12:51 AM
Prepaid lawyers is insurance too.
http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/
Posted by: Kevin | 06 January 2013 at 11:19 PM
I wasn't intending to call you a liar, but I was pointing out that subsistence hunting - as in needing to hunt to feed one's family - is rare in the US outside Alaska, and there are regulations even there. I was merely taking issue with your last sentence. I have family and friends who hunt, and I have eaten and enjoyed the fruits of their labors. They hunt, however, more for sport than out of necessity, although they always eat the meat. Only one of them doesn't live in a rural area, and for the others, they chiefly depend on poultry and livestock. My father was a country boy who lived most of his life in cities or suburbs. Enjoying one lifestyle doesn't preclude being familiar with another.
Posted by: nemerinys | 07 January 2013 at 10:17 AM
Apologies if this comment is on the wrong thread re weapons, but what if instead of being concerned with ownership, we think about tracking.
If designated classes of weapons had factory installed RFID chips, the presence of those weapons near schools, airports, etc. would be more readily detected.
http://www.skyrfid.com/RFID_Weapons_Solution.php
Posted by: Bob Bernard | 14 January 2013 at 10:52 AM