In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Highball, thank you for clarifying your position on the vending machines. In your very latest post, it sounds like you are saying that the Castle Doctrine is not only a right but also an obligation... which I must say I tend to agree with you on that.
And fideau, excellent comments. I hope you stick around.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
If it makes you feel any better, I would support selling them out of vending machines..
...but that doesn't change the fact that nobody will do it.
Well it does make me feel better. You have clearly stated you are in favor of no gun control and I certainly don't hold that against you because if I had to chose which side to be on, strict gun control or no gun control, I would chose your side.
Now, we still need to get that "some firearms are more deadly/dangerous in the wrong hands than are others" thing resolved.
Say you have a single shot rifle, 6 shot revolver, 7 shot semi-auto handgun and an AK-47 with a 30 round mag all loaded and laying in your closet at home. Late one night your are awakend by a loud disturbance on your front porch and it sounds like several people are trying to break in. Would it matter to you which firearm you grabbed on your way to your front door? If you want to grab the AK, then you have just admitted some firearms are/can be more deadly/dangerous than other firearms.
During all this debate, I am only trying to demonstrate that we gunners will probably make more progrress in saving our gun rights if we at least try to understand how the anti-gun crowed (at least the ones who are somewhat reasonable) think and act.
I don't see why my position has angered so many people towards me.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
If it makes you feel any better, I would support selling them out of vending machines..
...but that doesn't change the fact that nobody will do it.
Well it does make me feel better. You have clearly stated you are in favor of no gun control and I certainly don't hold that against you because if I had to chose which side to be on, strict gun control or no gun control, I would chose your side.
Now, we still need to get that "some firearms are more deadly/dangerous in the wrong hands than are others" thing resolved.
Say you have a single shot rifle, 6 shot revolver, 7 shot semi-auto handgun and an AK-47 with a 30 round mag all loaded and laying in your closet at home. Late one night your are awakend by a loud disturbance on your front porch and it sounds like several people are trying to break in. Would it matter to you which firearm you grabbed on your way to your front door? If you want to grab the AK, then you have just admitted some firearms are/can be more deadly/dangerous than other firearms.
During all this debate, I am only trying to demonstrate that we gunners will probably make more progrress in saving our gun rights if we at least try to understand how the anti-gun crowed (at least the ones who are somewhat reasonable) think and act.
I don't see why my position has angered so many people towards me.
It is not the firearm that is dangerous or a certain type of firearm that is more dangerous...
The upgraded platform of my CAR-15 versus my shotgun, vs. and of my Glock handguns vs. my .338 Lapua Magnum B/A rifle. In home or personal defense, the best tool for the job is the CAR-15. The shotgun would be best used against multiple opponents in 25 yards, or for riot dispusion. Where the other weapons can't reach, a .338 Lapua Magnum will. But none of these are good choices for everyday carry, which is why I own Glocks.
But it is the tactics of the user that make these things dangerous. A limp-wrister shooting a Glock isn't very good at his purpose. Neither would be a person sniping with a rifle that has not been sighted in. The use of an AK-47 or an AR-15 is a liability if you won't shoulder the damn thing.
But if you want maximum killing potential, I suggest a little home grown Chemistry, Uncle Fester style.
In my world, dangerous is a word that lacks any meaning for me, simply because it indicates lack of precaution, misuse, and insufficient ability to be responsible. I tend to replace that word with "effective". And it is just as effective in my hands as it is in the cops' hands, the criminals' hands or the blue helmets' hands.
quote:But it is the tactics of the user that make these things dangerous.
I agree with gunphreak on this point. If "several" people were breaking into my home, I would probably be barracading myself in the bedroom and arming myself, the wife, and the cat.
I usually have two loaded firearms at my bedside, a Ruger GP-100 .357 (6-shots) and a Remington 1100 20 gauge (5-shots). These guns have two different purposes. The shotgun is for defense, like if we need to barracade ourselves in the bedroom. The revolver is for offense, like if I need to go investigate a noise downstairs.
I don't have an SKS or AK, although I have seriously been contemplating one. However, I would not use either for a home defense situation as I don't feel it would be the correct tactical choice for the situations above. A battle rifle would be too clumsy to carry around the house for offense and would not be as effective at short range defense as the shotgun. However, for outdoor mid-range defense (25 - 100 yards) it would be ideal. This is what would be required in a social breakdown situation.
If the single shot rifle is all that I had, then I would be grabbing that. Not very tactically effective, but equally as deadly/dangerous as all the others.
The idea that the gun-grabbers cling to, that any gun is "more dangerous" than another, is pure illogic.
Please remember I am not wanting or asking for more gun control. I'm just trying to establish some truth here that I think we should quit ignoring. In fact by admitting it, at least to ourselves, perhaps we gunners can more easily battle the anti-gun crowd.
So let me try yet one more example.
Say an evil kidnapper has taken you and your entire family to the middle of a field in some large wooded area. The perp decides to play an evil game. He tells you that if you and your family can run and make it to the woods before he shoots you, then you can go free. Having no better options, you agree. As you get ready to run, you notice the perp has on the ground a single shot rifle, a revolver, a high cap semiauto handgun, and a semi-auto AR-15 with a 30 round mag. As all of you start your run, out of the corner of your eye you see the perp bend and start to select one of those firearms in order to start shooting at you.
DOES IT MATTER TO YOU, even a little bit, WHICH ONE HE PICKS?
And we all already agree that the perp is the dangerous element here and that any one of his guns, all by themselves cannot/will not harm you. However, depending on the firearm the perp selects, I contend that he can do more or less harm depending upon the type of firearm.
WHY,Fox.....WHY ???
Does it matter so much to you ?
Continue to insist upon your 'logic'...it aids the gun grabbers. EXACTLY what they dream about.
The CONSTITUION is what you should be reading and promoting...NOT what some half-wit might 'worry about !!
Dammit..the CONSTITUTION is what says we shall have MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS...NOT some damn anti-gunner !!
Why do you suppose I dispise the NRA so much ?? Because they are infested with people that promote what YOU are promoting...that somehow that AK/AR/FAL is going to jump off the table and kill everybody.
RAM THE CONSTITUTION DOWN THEIR THROATS...and let the Devil take the Hindmost
PLEASE...DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION...instead of the anti-gunners and the NRA !!!
ONCE AGAIN...I don't give a rats butt about the anti-gunners...MOLON LABE !!!
Okay, I know I can probably dodge and weave my way out of handgun range within about 10 seconds, so I would hope the kindnapper would pick up the semi-auto handgun or the revolver first.
He could be deadly with the single shot rifle, he would probably get one of us. With the AR he might get 2 or 3 of us depending how fast he can pick up targets. I'm thinking that in 30 seconds I would be at least 100 yards out, dodging and weaving, so I think his hit percentage just went way down.
But fox, using the gun-grabbers logic, the most "dangerous" gun the evil kidnapper could have is a Thompson .45 sub-machine gun. A "deadly" full-auto firearm. Yet I feel that I would have a better tactical advantage evading a Tommy gun than an AR-15 at any reasonable distance. So then why is a Tommy gun a Class 3 firearm and an AR-15 is not? Because there is no logic to this arguement. Some guns can kill better in some situations than others.
Another example for you. A bad guy is six feet away from you on the other side of a table. On the table is a fully loaded 30 round M-16 and a 2-shot .357 Mag derringer. The bad guy is ADVANCING, so you have about one second to grab the gun, aim, and fire. Which gun will you grab?
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
THIS IS FUN! LOL!
Okay, I know I can probably dodge and weave my way out of handgun range within about 10 seconds, so I would hope the kindnapper would pick up the semi-auto handgun or the revolver first.
He could be deadly with the single shot rifle, he would probably get one of us. With the AR he might get 2 or 3 of us depending how fast he can pick up targets. I'm thinking that in 30 seconds I would be at least 100 yards out, dodging and weaving, so I think his hit percentage just went way down.
But fox, using the gun-grabbers logic, the most "dangerous" gun the evil kidnapper could have is a Thompson .45 sub-machine gun. A "deadly" full-auto firearm. Yet I feel that I would have a better tactical advantage evading a Tommy gun than an AR-15 at any reasonable distance. So then why is a Tommy gun a Class 3 firearm and an AR-15 is not? Because there is no logic to this arguement. Some guns can kill better in some situations than others.
Another example for you. A bad guy is six feet away from you on the other side of a table. On the table is a fully loaded 30 round M-16 and a 2-shot .357 Mag derringer. The bad guy is ADVANCING, so you have about one second to grab the gun, aim, and fire. Which gun will you grab?
to be fair to you I will answer. If both firearms are ready to go (chamber loaded, safety off) I would grab the AR-15. Reason being that even with both rounds to the center mass of the attacker, the weak derringer may not stop the attacker. In addition, ANY TIME there is an armed altercation between two indivduals, things you cannot even imagine can and probably will go wrong. The one thing I do not want to go wrong is for me to be standing there with an empty firearm and the bad guy is still advancing.
OK, OK, one final and last try. Really. This is gonna be it. In answer to Highball's question, and it is fair to examine this fact, in the hands of a criminal/careless person, some guns are more deadly/dangerous than others. THIS DOES NOT mean that such firearms should be banned. Instead, just as with some medications that can help us, some medications put us at much greater risk than others. I merely want all parties to acknowledge that, even though some things put us at more risk than others, in a free society that is no reason to start banning them. I see no conflict or reason to accuse me of ignoring the 2A or helping the gun grabbers or anything else that I could be criticized for on this.
OK, say you have a chance to see the future (dream, crystal ball, genie, who knows) and you see that whenn you and your family are at the range tomorrow and all standing on/close to the firing line, a newbie shooter (here is the "only dangerous in someone's hands part starts) is shooting a rifle on the firing line. After the first shot, the trigger hangs up and sticks back against the trigger guard. The newbie shooter freaks out and starts jumping around, widely swinging the rifle every which way (including towards you and your family). This is the part where maybe, just maybe, we should try to understand how the anti-gun crowd feels about some firearms being more dangerous than other. Understand them not so we can all agree on banning them, but so that we can better present our case of why no firearms should be banned or all firearms should be banned. One or the other.
Now the weird part. When you saw the future, you were given the chance to make only one change in that future event. You were allowed to determine just what kind of firearm that newbie shooter would go nuts with. Now, would you arm him with a single shot rifle or a fully automatic M-16?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Please remember I am not wanting or asking for more gun control. I'm just trying to establish some truth here that I think we should quit ignoring. In fact by admitting it, at least to ourselves, perhaps we gunners can more easily battle the anti-gun crowd.
So let me try yet one more example.
Say an evil kidnapper has taken you and your entire family to the middle of a field in some large wooded area. The perp decides to play an evil game. He tells you that if you and your family can run and make it to the woods before he shoots you, then you can go free. Having no better options, you agree. As you get ready to run, you notice the perp has on the ground a single shot rifle, a revolver, a high cap semiauto handgun, and a semi-auto AR-15 with a 30 round mag. As all of you start your run, out of the corner of your eye you see the perp bend and start to select one of those firearms in order to start shooting at you.
DOES IT MATTER TO YOU, even a little bit, WHICH ONE HE PICKS?
And we all already agree that the perp is the dangerous element here and that any one of his guns, all by themselves cannot/will not harm you. However, depending on the firearm the perp selects, I contend that he can do more or less harm depending upon the type of firearm.
Now, does it matter to you which one he picks?
If I'm disarmed and unable to shoot back, not really....
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, OK, one final and last try. Really. This is gonna be it. In answer to Highball's question, and it is fair to examine this fact, in the hands of a criminal/careless person, some guns are more deadly/dangerous than others. THIS DOES NOT mean that such firearms should be banned. Instead, just as with some medications that can help us, some medications put us at much greater risk than others. I merely want all parties to acknowledge that, even though some things put us at more risk than others, in a free society that is no reason to start banning them. I see no conflict or reason to accuse me of ignoring the 2A or helping the gun grabbers or anything else that I could be criticized for on this.
OK, say you have a chance to see the future (dream, crystal ball, genie, who knows) and you see that whenn you and your family are at the range tomorrow and all standing on/close to the firing line, a newbie shooter (here is the "only dangerous in someone's hands part starts) is shooting a rifle on the firing line. After the first shot, the trigger hangs up and sticks back against the trigger guard. The newbie shooter freaks out and starts jumping around, widely swinging the rifle every which way (including towards you and your family). This is the part where maybe, just maybe, we should try to understand how the anti-gun crowd feels about some firearms being more dangerous than other. Understand them not so we can all agree on banning them, but so that we can better present our case of why no firearms should be banned or all firearms should be banned. One or the other.
Now the weird part. When you saw the future, you were given the chance to make only one change in that future event. You were allowed to determine just what kind of firearm that newbie shooter would go nuts with. Now, would you arm him with a single shot rifle or a fully automatic M-16?
Just asking.
This is really stemming on imagined and trifling complications of malfunctioning weapons, and is warned against by Cesare Baccaria that it is not a good thing to be concerned with. Personally, I wouldn't be as unnerved about that as I would be about having to face down someone who is armed with myself not being armed. I don't care if they have a knife, a gun or anything else.
I certainly wouldn't worry about a sticking trigger on an M16 either. If it sticks back, the trigger spring broke and the hammer will catch on the disconnector, meaning it will not reset for another shot, period. This is the safeguard on them that makes a trigger sticking not a concern, to me.
If a gun was going to malfunction, the far worse malfunction would be a gun detonating, as it will be an explosion, and throw hardened steel shrapnel everywhere.
Now, would I hit the dirt? Yes. Would it be any different what was a single shot? No. Would I be shoving the gun up his * for sweeping me? Yes I would.
Fox, I applaude you for trying your hardest to make this point, but I think you are spiraling into the stratosphere.
I will conceed that there are guns that are more dangerous than others. Bryco-Jennings comes to mind, not because of the functionality of the gun but because of the poor manufacturing and quality control.
Among quality firearms, that work the way they are supposed to, if you follow the 10 Commandments of Firearm Safety then you should be equally safe around a single shot rifle or a full-auto machine gun.
If a maniac is going to kill someone (or a bunch of people) then banning firearms from law abiding citizens will not prevent that maniac from killing the people he wants to kill. He will find a way, unless someone is there to stop him.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You're right and I see it now.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
I'd pay to see someone use a rifle to hit 100 mannequins each one time in 1 minute. The odds of that are like the odds of a person throwing a nickel in the air, hip shooting it with a .22 and putting a hole in the middle of it. Unless they are on top of their target, it would require about 1.75 shots per second.
When anti's like to throw around "dangerous" we need to be countering with "effective". If it is as effective for 1 criminal to mow down 100 people with a beta mag, it is just as effective for me equipped with the same thing to mow down 100 criminals.
We shouldn't have to justify it, but if we do have to do it, it requires full reversal, not concessions.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You're right and I see it now.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
I'd pay to see someone use a rifle to hit 100 mannequins each one time in 1 minute. The odds of that are like the odds of a person throwing a nickel in the air, hip shooting it with a .22 and putting a hole in the middle of it. Unless they are on top of their target, it would require about 1.75 shots per second.
When anti's like to throw around "dangerous" we need to be countering with "effective". If it is as effective for 1 criminal to mow down 100 people with a beta mag, it is just as effective for me equipped with the same thing to mow down 100 criminals.
We shouldn't have to justify it, but if we do have to do it, it requires full reversal, not concessions.
OK, so change my "60" seconds to "180" seconds. or even "360" seconds. Even that figure, used as nothing but propaganda by the anti-gun crowd, will shock and frighten the average, non-gun owning citizen.
And if you were ever in a debate at the town hall or whatever, about whether or not the average gun owner should be allowed to own such guns (you know I am in favor of such ownership) and you mention to the crowd about how it would be just as effective for you to be so equipped so that you could mow down 100 criminals, I predicate the anti-gun crowd will counter your argument by asking you how likely is it that you, or anyone you know, will ever need to mow down 100 criminals in a matter of seconds?
They will then go on to mention that there are plenty of nut cases out there that would love to mow down 100 innocent civilians and all they have to do is to go the nearest shopping mall.
Call me an anti-gunner or what ever you want, I am just trying to get our side to recognize what a great case the anti-gun side has to present against us and some of our firarms. My goal is that if we recognize that great case, then we can hopefully take counter-measures to block their attack. It is far better to do that than to argue among ourselves.
But maybe we enjoy arguing among ourselves while our gun rights erode.
Fox, we are all friends here. You know that, I know that, Gunphreak knows it, Highball knows it, etc.
I recall a thread from about 2 or 3 years ago where you and I were both arguing on the same side of this point; that the full-auto/no compromise crowd was just too shocking to the average public sheeple. And that therfore a harsh no compromise stance would only push people away from the pro-gun movement.
Back then I agreed with the "nice 'n easy" approach too. But what I have seen develop over the last couple of years is that "nice 'n easy" usually turns into "let's make a deal". Then inevitably we end up sacrificing even more of our gun rights so that things won't be so "scary" for the pansies out there.
I think the time for "nice 'n easy" is over. Let's deal with harsh reality, which most of these drug-addicted psycho babblers have never been exposed to. And they probably won't ever get it, except maybe when a Persian is slicing a knife across their throat. I'm all for the granite approach. Let the pansies, the media, and even our own politicians make us out as demons. When Washington and New York are burning due to their own ineptness, that is when they will be beggin us for help.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You're right and I see it now.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
I'd pay to see someone use a rifle to hit 100 mannequins each one time in 1 minute. The odds of that are like the odds of a person throwing a nickel in the air, hip shooting it with a .22 and putting a hole in the middle of it. Unless they are on top of their target, it would require about 1.75 shots per second.
When anti's like to throw around "dangerous" we need to be countering with "effective". If it is as effective for 1 criminal to mow down 100 people with a beta mag, it is just as effective for me equipped with the same thing to mow down 100 criminals.
We shouldn't have to justify it, but if we do have to do it, it requires full reversal, not concessions.
OK, so change my "60" seconds to "180" seconds. or even "360" seconds. Even that figure, used as nothing but propaganda by the anti-gun crowd, will shock and frighten the average, non-gun owning citizen.
Well now. I see you have less faith in the logical human being than I do. I can't blame you for feeling that way, but consider that there is always the possibility that you can present a better argument if you come prepared.
And if you were ever in a debate at the town hall or whatever, about whether or not the average gun owner should be allowed to own such guns (you know I am in favor of such ownership) and you mention to the crowd about how it would be just as effective for you to be so equipped so that you could mow down 100 criminals, I predicate the anti-gun crowd will counter your argument by asking you how likely is it that you, or anyone you know, will ever need to mow down 100 criminals in a matter of seconds?
Simple. It's a matter of potential. If these things were not useful for personal defense or for repeling terroists, looters or foreign or domestic armies, why do the police have them? Why does the military use them? Why is it not good enough for us? We are the ones referred to in the 2nd Amendment, not the police, and damned sure not a mercenary standing army.
They will then go on to mention that there are plenty of nut cases out there that would love to mow down 100 innocent civilians and all they have to do is to go the nearest shopping mall.
Let me draw your attention to the LA Roiots. The Koreans who used their rifles to repel looters managed to have their stores saved while others burned to the ground around them. Now look at New Orleans. Civil emergency causes officials to confiscate legal firearms when people need them the most, resulting in mass rapes, several murders, and tons of looting and pillaging.
What made the difference???
Call me an anti-gunner or what ever you want, I am just trying to get our side to recognize what a great case the anti-gun side has to present against us and some of our firarms. My goal is that if we recognize that great case, then we can hopefully take counter-measures to block their attack. It is far better to do that than to argue among ourselves.
They don't have a "great case" to ban guns. They use emotionally charged, hysterical lies to further advance their position. That isn't a firm base for assault on other people's rights. Too many people are shooting their arguments full of holes, and calling them on their lies. Gun kontrollers are constantly put in the fetal position, pissing their pants when confronted with outright lies.
If we are arguing among ourselves, it is because, unlike anti's, we are not of the same mind. the only luxury we have is sheer numbers of people who represent our point, even if on differing degrees.
If suddenly, hunters woke up tomorrow with the knowledge that a ban on one sort of gun is an incremental step to confiscation of theirs later, and that the 2nd Amendment wqas not about hunting, and grew a pair, ready to defend their rights, all gun kontrol laws could be reversed tomorrow.
But maybe we enjoy arguing among ourselves while our gun rights erode.
Maybe we need to screw our heads on the right way before we end up fighting the hard war. No one will be exempt from the onslaught.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
Fox, we are all friends here. You know that, I know that, Gunphreak knows it, Highball knows it, etc.
I recall a thread from about 2 or 3 years ago where you and I were both arguing on the same side of this point; that the full-auto/no compromise crowd was just too shocking to the average public sheeple. And that therfore a harsh no compromise stance would only push people away from the pro-gun movement.
Back then I agreed with the "nice 'n easy" approach too. But what I have seen develop over the last couple of years is that "nice 'n easy" usually turns into "let's make a deal". Then inevitably we end up sacrificing even more of our gun rights so that things won't be so "scary" for the pansies out there.
I think the time for "nice 'n easy" is over. Let's deal with harsh reality, which most of these drug-addicted psycho babblers have never been exposed to. And they probably won't ever get it, except maybe when a Persian is slicing a knife across their throat. I'm all for the granite approach. Let the pansies, the media, and even our own politicians make us out as demons. When Washington and New York are burning due to their own ineptness, that is when they will be beggin us for help.
Yes, we are all friends, and I am glad about that.
In red above. When that happens, instead of the general public, anti-gun groups, some polilticians and the liberal media blaming the criminals for the "burning" they will instead blame the availabiltiy of firearms in American society. Indirectly they will be wanting to lay the blame on peaceful, lawfu gun owners like us.
Which is odd because everytime there is, for example, a large scale drive by shooting, and the media gathers on the scene to report on the shooting, it is odd how they report/portray the different groups that are represented.
One group is the violent criminals who ignore any and all gun laws they choose as they go about their business of violent crime. Oddly, the media never lays much blame on those criminals nor does the media or anti-gun groups holler for stiffer sentences, directed only at the violent criminals, for gun crimes.
Another group is the police. The media and the anti-gun groups never, ever place any blame on the police for not stopping all, or at least most, gun crime. And strangely, the police never speak out and reinforce the idea that the gun crimes are commited by the gun law ignoring violent criminals and NOT by the peaceful, lawful citizens.
The last group is us peaceful, lawful gun owning citizens. Strangely, anytime the police, anti-gun groups or the liberal media holler for more laws, they only holler for more laws that effect ONLY THE PEACEFUL., LAWFUL GUN OWNERS.
Sorry I'm so late to respond. Posted Friday morning then shutdown for the weekend to take care of business around here. Really getting behind on my chores. I got back on-line Monday to find my inter-net security had not been renewed even though I had paid in advance for a two-year renewal. Had to wait 24 hours so they could hand enter my renewal and up-grade my system.
I feel compelled to respond to bast since I've obviously offended him. Although I'm not sure how to proceed, I'll just wing it as usual.
bast: Congratulations on your Scouting Proficiency and Thank You for your Military Service. I guess I got your back up with my reply to your first post. You will find that I speak my mind and only responded with words drafted from my first impression of the words YOU used to express yourself. I do not apologize for that. You may be a gun owner (you didn't say) but you are obviously in favor of gun control and misinformed as to their targets (Gun Control Bills) and purpose.
For the most part, your 2nd response was incoherent babble, lacking continuality of thought. I don't think I have a reading comprehension problem but it took far to long to decipher your post than I care to admit. Quite possibly your brain was working faster than your fingers. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If I can read between the lines and missing words, I do agree with you on one or two points.
"Knowledge is power. . and knowledge can be spread very easy."
BUT - So it is with mis-information, especially by the Left Wingers and MSM.
"Is knowing gun safety really optional in owning a gun?
NO. Firearm owners should have basic training and proficiency with said firearm. It is called personal responsibility. (It should NOT be a requirement of some Law, nor a reason to deny ownership.)
"More ranges should be available."
BUT - Constructed without imposing additional taxes. (See Next Point.)
Hunting and Fishing Licenses ARE a Tax; and "we don't know where all the money really goes." (Shooting Ranges are supposed to be funded with some of this money.) Just another reason to OPPOSE any further taxes and especially taxes on guns and gun owners. In my state for example, 30 years ago a combo hunting and fishing was $5.00. A place to hunt - No Problem. Today $60.00 minimum and fewer and fewer places to hunt. The increased License Fees were supposed to be partially utilized for land acquisition. Didn't Happen!! Less land available now.
"they could simply be part of the sales tax much like the current one on cigs,"
And look what that did to the Tobacco Industry in the U. S.!
Further Points In Your Response I would like to address:
"I'm mis-informed because what I'm saying is not what you want to hear. I do think that most of this country needs to have their hand held, until common sense becomes more common."
And it takes a village.. Right?
"I'm not asking for gun control but that every one lacking in common sense be required to show they understand how a deadly tool works before being given one."
And what is this if not a form of gun control? Especially in the manner you suggest!!
"My views are harsh and I do know the road to Germany is paved with bodies, yet just because he said something does not mean it was evil, some the worse things were good ideas that were corrupted."
Are you actually implying that Hitler was not an evil man?
"FYI do not try and tell someone that you are not calling them a dumb a__ when the tone of the post is clearly defined by such statements as the final sentence in your post."
I'm sorry you took it that way. I'm just a sarcastic old man and would have said that right to your face, BECAUSE there is something there you do not understand!
"When I first read your post I wrote a very sarcastic response but when I looked at it, it served no purpose other than a gut reaction to assumption that has to be driven by a dead horse, so much so that you clearly did not read the post past a certain point."
Actually, I probably would have enjoyed it!
"Oh and I'm not new I just could not figure out how to reset my password on my other user name, as it has been a while since I've posted and with such a warm welcome to new comers I'm surprised you have any."
Grow up! If you've been here before you should know what to expect here and that I do not represent or speak for all the members here. I welcomed you at the beginning and end of my post. If my sarcasm is all it takes to drive you off, this is no place for you anyway. I do regret it was I, because you could have been fun and enlivened the debate/comments. You would probably get better and worse responses later. Thin skin just won't do here.
"I wish I had seen the last post so I could tack on two comments but I wrote the post in the morning and had to walk away, so I ask so I'm un-informed because I think any spin is still spin?"
You lost me here. I have no clue as to what you are referring to with this post.
"Oh and wagon if you live in the US you don't live in a democratic country you live in a republic. Greece was a democratic country, where every man had a voice."
A very astute Observation. I most certainly do live in the U. S. and I've explained this statement before. Look me up.
"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."
Comments
And fideau, excellent comments. I hope you stick around.
...but that doesn't change the fact that nobody will do it.
If it makes you feel any better, I would support selling them out of vending machines..
...but that doesn't change the fact that nobody will do it.
Well it does make me feel better. You have clearly stated you are in favor of no gun control and I certainly don't hold that against you because if I had to chose which side to be on, strict gun control or no gun control, I would chose your side.
Now, we still need to get that "some firearms are more deadly/dangerous in the wrong hands than are others" thing resolved.
Say you have a single shot rifle, 6 shot revolver, 7 shot semi-auto handgun and an AK-47 with a 30 round mag all loaded and laying in your closet at home. Late one night your are awakend by a loud disturbance on your front porch and it sounds like several people are trying to break in. Would it matter to you which firearm you grabbed on your way to your front door? If you want to grab the AK, then you have just admitted some firearms are/can be more deadly/dangerous than other firearms.
During all this debate, I am only trying to demonstrate that we gunners will probably make more progrress in saving our gun rights if we at least try to understand how the anti-gun crowed (at least the ones who are somewhat reasonable) think and act.
I don't see why my position has angered so many people towards me.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
If it makes you feel any better, I would support selling them out of vending machines..
...but that doesn't change the fact that nobody will do it.
Well it does make me feel better. You have clearly stated you are in favor of no gun control and I certainly don't hold that against you because if I had to chose which side to be on, strict gun control or no gun control, I would chose your side.
Now, we still need to get that "some firearms are more deadly/dangerous in the wrong hands than are others" thing resolved.
Say you have a single shot rifle, 6 shot revolver, 7 shot semi-auto handgun and an AK-47 with a 30 round mag all loaded and laying in your closet at home. Late one night your are awakend by a loud disturbance on your front porch and it sounds like several people are trying to break in. Would it matter to you which firearm you grabbed on your way to your front door? If you want to grab the AK, then you have just admitted some firearms are/can be more deadly/dangerous than other firearms.
During all this debate, I am only trying to demonstrate that we gunners will probably make more progrress in saving our gun rights if we at least try to understand how the anti-gun crowed (at least the ones who are somewhat reasonable) think and act.
I don't see why my position has angered so many people towards me.
It is not the firearm that is dangerous or a certain type of firearm that is more dangerous...
The upgraded platform of my CAR-15 versus my shotgun, vs. and of my Glock handguns vs. my .338 Lapua Magnum B/A rifle. In home or personal defense, the best tool for the job is the CAR-15. The shotgun would be best used against multiple opponents in 25 yards, or for riot dispusion. Where the other weapons can't reach, a .338 Lapua Magnum will. But none of these are good choices for everyday carry, which is why I own Glocks.
But it is the tactics of the user that make these things dangerous. A limp-wrister shooting a Glock isn't very good at his purpose. Neither would be a person sniping with a rifle that has not been sighted in. The use of an AK-47 or an AR-15 is a liability if you won't shoulder the damn thing.
But if you want maximum killing potential, I suggest a little home grown Chemistry, Uncle Fester style.
In my world, dangerous is a word that lacks any meaning for me, simply because it indicates lack of precaution, misuse, and insufficient ability to be responsible. I tend to replace that word with "effective". And it is just as effective in my hands as it is in the cops' hands, the criminals' hands or the blue helmets' hands.
That is my criticism....
I agree with gunphreak on this point. If "several" people were breaking into my home, I would probably be barracading myself in the bedroom and arming myself, the wife, and the cat.
I usually have two loaded firearms at my bedside, a Ruger GP-100 .357 (6-shots) and a Remington 1100 20 gauge (5-shots). These guns have two different purposes. The shotgun is for defense, like if we need to barracade ourselves in the bedroom. The revolver is for offense, like if I need to go investigate a noise downstairs.
I don't have an SKS or AK, although I have seriously been contemplating one. However, I would not use either for a home defense situation as I don't feel it would be the correct tactical choice for the situations above. A battle rifle would be too clumsy to carry around the house for offense and would not be as effective at short range defense as the shotgun. However, for outdoor mid-range defense (25 - 100 yards) it would be ideal. This is what would be required in a social breakdown situation.
If the single shot rifle is all that I had, then I would be grabbing that. Not very tactically effective, but equally as deadly/dangerous as all the others.
The idea that the gun-grabbers cling to, that any gun is "more dangerous" than another, is pure illogic.
So let me try yet one more example.
Say an evil kidnapper has taken you and your entire family to the middle of a field in some large wooded area. The perp decides to play an evil game. He tells you that if you and your family can run and make it to the woods before he shoots you, then you can go free. Having no better options, you agree. As you get ready to run, you notice the perp has on the ground a single shot rifle, a revolver, a high cap semiauto handgun, and a semi-auto AR-15 with a 30 round mag. As all of you start your run, out of the corner of your eye you see the perp bend and start to select one of those firearms in order to start shooting at you.
DOES IT MATTER TO YOU, even a little bit, WHICH ONE HE PICKS?
And we all already agree that the perp is the dangerous element here and that any one of his guns, all by themselves cannot/will not harm you. However, depending on the firearm the perp selects, I contend that he can do more or less harm depending upon the type of firearm.
Now, does it matter to you which one he picks?
Does it matter so much to you ?
Continue to insist upon your 'logic'...it aids the gun grabbers. EXACTLY what they dream about.
The CONSTITUION is what you should be reading and promoting...NOT what some half-wit might 'worry about !!
Dammit..the CONSTITUTION is what says we shall have MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS...NOT some damn anti-gunner !!
Why do you suppose I dispise the NRA so much ?? Because they are infested with people that promote what YOU are promoting...that somehow that AK/AR/FAL is going to jump off the table and kill everybody.
RAM THE CONSTITUTION DOWN THEIR THROATS...and let the Devil take the Hindmost
PLEASE...DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION...instead of the anti-gunners and the NRA !!!
ONCE AGAIN...I don't give a rats butt about the anti-gunners...MOLON LABE !!!
Okay, I know I can probably dodge and weave my way out of handgun range within about 10 seconds, so I would hope the kindnapper would pick up the semi-auto handgun or the revolver first.
He could be deadly with the single shot rifle, he would probably get one of us. With the AR he might get 2 or 3 of us depending how fast he can pick up targets. I'm thinking that in 30 seconds I would be at least 100 yards out, dodging and weaving, so I think his hit percentage just went way down.
But fox, using the gun-grabbers logic, the most "dangerous" gun the evil kidnapper could have is a Thompson .45 sub-machine gun. A "deadly" full-auto firearm. Yet I feel that I would have a better tactical advantage evading a Tommy gun than an AR-15 at any reasonable distance. So then why is a Tommy gun a Class 3 firearm and an AR-15 is not? Because there is no logic to this arguement. Some guns can kill better in some situations than others.
Another example for you. A bad guy is six feet away from you on the other side of a table. On the table is a fully loaded 30 round M-16 and a 2-shot .357 Mag derringer. The bad guy is ADVANCING, so you have about one second to grab the gun, aim, and fire. Which gun will you grab?
THIS IS FUN! LOL!
Okay, I know I can probably dodge and weave my way out of handgun range within about 10 seconds, so I would hope the kindnapper would pick up the semi-auto handgun or the revolver first.
He could be deadly with the single shot rifle, he would probably get one of us. With the AR he might get 2 or 3 of us depending how fast he can pick up targets. I'm thinking that in 30 seconds I would be at least 100 yards out, dodging and weaving, so I think his hit percentage just went way down.
But fox, using the gun-grabbers logic, the most "dangerous" gun the evil kidnapper could have is a Thompson .45 sub-machine gun. A "deadly" full-auto firearm. Yet I feel that I would have a better tactical advantage evading a Tommy gun than an AR-15 at any reasonable distance. So then why is a Tommy gun a Class 3 firearm and an AR-15 is not? Because there is no logic to this arguement. Some guns can kill better in some situations than others.
Another example for you. A bad guy is six feet away from you on the other side of a table. On the table is a fully loaded 30 round M-16 and a 2-shot .357 Mag derringer. The bad guy is ADVANCING, so you have about one second to grab the gun, aim, and fire. Which gun will you grab?
to be fair to you I will answer. If both firearms are ready to go (chamber loaded, safety off) I would grab the AR-15. Reason being that even with both rounds to the center mass of the attacker, the weak derringer may not stop the attacker. In addition, ANY TIME there is an armed altercation between two indivduals, things you cannot even imagine can and probably will go wrong. The one thing I do not want to go wrong is for me to be standing there with an empty firearm and the bad guy is still advancing.
OK, say you have a chance to see the future (dream, crystal ball, genie, who knows) and you see that whenn you and your family are at the range tomorrow and all standing on/close to the firing line, a newbie shooter (here is the "only dangerous in someone's hands part starts) is shooting a rifle on the firing line. After the first shot, the trigger hangs up and sticks back against the trigger guard. The newbie shooter freaks out and starts jumping around, widely swinging the rifle every which way (including towards you and your family). This is the part where maybe, just maybe, we should try to understand how the anti-gun crowd feels about some firearms being more dangerous than other. Understand them not so we can all agree on banning them, but so that we can better present our case of why no firearms should be banned or all firearms should be banned. One or the other.
Now the weird part. When you saw the future, you were given the chance to make only one change in that future event. You were allowed to determine just what kind of firearm that newbie shooter would go nuts with. Now, would you arm him with a single shot rifle or a fully automatic M-16?
Just asking.
Please remember I am not wanting or asking for more gun control. I'm just trying to establish some truth here that I think we should quit ignoring. In fact by admitting it, at least to ourselves, perhaps we gunners can more easily battle the anti-gun crowd.
So let me try yet one more example.
Say an evil kidnapper has taken you and your entire family to the middle of a field in some large wooded area. The perp decides to play an evil game. He tells you that if you and your family can run and make it to the woods before he shoots you, then you can go free. Having no better options, you agree. As you get ready to run, you notice the perp has on the ground a single shot rifle, a revolver, a high cap semiauto handgun, and a semi-auto AR-15 with a 30 round mag. As all of you start your run, out of the corner of your eye you see the perp bend and start to select one of those firearms in order to start shooting at you.
DOES IT MATTER TO YOU, even a little bit, WHICH ONE HE PICKS?
And we all already agree that the perp is the dangerous element here and that any one of his guns, all by themselves cannot/will not harm you. However, depending on the firearm the perp selects, I contend that he can do more or less harm depending upon the type of firearm.
Now, does it matter to you which one he picks?
If I'm disarmed and unable to shoot back, not really....
OK, OK, one final and last try. Really. This is gonna be it. In answer to Highball's question, and it is fair to examine this fact, in the hands of a criminal/careless person, some guns are more deadly/dangerous than others. THIS DOES NOT mean that such firearms should be banned. Instead, just as with some medications that can help us, some medications put us at much greater risk than others. I merely want all parties to acknowledge that, even though some things put us at more risk than others, in a free society that is no reason to start banning them. I see no conflict or reason to accuse me of ignoring the 2A or helping the gun grabbers or anything else that I could be criticized for on this.
OK, say you have a chance to see the future (dream, crystal ball, genie, who knows) and you see that whenn you and your family are at the range tomorrow and all standing on/close to the firing line, a newbie shooter (here is the "only dangerous in someone's hands part starts) is shooting a rifle on the firing line. After the first shot, the trigger hangs up and sticks back against the trigger guard. The newbie shooter freaks out and starts jumping around, widely swinging the rifle every which way (including towards you and your family). This is the part where maybe, just maybe, we should try to understand how the anti-gun crowd feels about some firearms being more dangerous than other. Understand them not so we can all agree on banning them, but so that we can better present our case of why no firearms should be banned or all firearms should be banned. One or the other.
Now the weird part. When you saw the future, you were given the chance to make only one change in that future event. You were allowed to determine just what kind of firearm that newbie shooter would go nuts with. Now, would you arm him with a single shot rifle or a fully automatic M-16?
Just asking.
This is really stemming on imagined and trifling complications of malfunctioning weapons, and is warned against by Cesare Baccaria that it is not a good thing to be concerned with. Personally, I wouldn't be as unnerved about that as I would be about having to face down someone who is armed with myself not being armed. I don't care if they have a knife, a gun or anything else.
I certainly wouldn't worry about a sticking trigger on an M16 either. If it sticks back, the trigger spring broke and the hammer will catch on the disconnector, meaning it will not reset for another shot, period. This is the safeguard on them that makes a trigger sticking not a concern, to me.
If a gun was going to malfunction, the far worse malfunction would be a gun detonating, as it will be an explosion, and throw hardened steel shrapnel everywhere.
Now, would I hit the dirt? Yes. Would it be any different what was a single shot? No. Would I be shoving the gun up his * for sweeping me? Yes I would.
I will conceed that there are guns that are more dangerous than others. Bryco-Jennings comes to mind, not because of the functionality of the gun but because of the poor manufacturing and quality control.
Among quality firearms, that work the way they are supposed to, if you follow the 10 Commandments of Firearm Safety then you should be equally safe around a single shot rifle or a full-auto machine gun.
If a maniac is going to kill someone (or a bunch of people) then banning firearms from law abiding citizens will not prevent that maniac from killing the people he wants to kill. He will find a way, unless someone is there to stop him.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
You're right and I see it now.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
I'd pay to see someone use a rifle to hit 100 mannequins each one time in 1 minute. The odds of that are like the odds of a person throwing a nickel in the air, hip shooting it with a .22 and putting a hole in the middle of it. Unless they are on top of their target, it would require about 1.75 shots per second.
When anti's like to throw around "dangerous" we need to be countering with "effective". If it is as effective for 1 criminal to mow down 100 people with a beta mag, it is just as effective for me equipped with the same thing to mow down 100 criminals.
We shouldn't have to justify it, but if we do have to do it, it requires full reversal, not concessions.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You're right and I see it now.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
I'd pay to see someone use a rifle to hit 100 mannequins each one time in 1 minute. The odds of that are like the odds of a person throwing a nickel in the air, hip shooting it with a .22 and putting a hole in the middle of it. Unless they are on top of their target, it would require about 1.75 shots per second.
When anti's like to throw around "dangerous" we need to be countering with "effective". If it is as effective for 1 criminal to mow down 100 people with a beta mag, it is just as effective for me equipped with the same thing to mow down 100 criminals.
We shouldn't have to justify it, but if we do have to do it, it requires full reversal, not concessions.
OK, so change my "60" seconds to "180" seconds. or even "360" seconds. Even that figure, used as nothing but propaganda by the anti-gun crowd, will shock and frighten the average, non-gun owning citizen.
And if you were ever in a debate at the town hall or whatever, about whether or not the average gun owner should be allowed to own such guns (you know I am in favor of such ownership) and you mention to the crowd about how it would be just as effective for you to be so equipped so that you could mow down 100 criminals, I predicate the anti-gun crowd will counter your argument by asking you how likely is it that you, or anyone you know, will ever need to mow down 100 criminals in a matter of seconds?
They will then go on to mention that there are plenty of nut cases out there that would love to mow down 100 innocent civilians and all they have to do is to go the nearest shopping mall.
Call me an anti-gunner or what ever you want, I am just trying to get our side to recognize what a great case the anti-gun side has to present against us and some of our firarms. My goal is that if we recognize that great case, then we can hopefully take counter-measures to block their attack. It is far better to do that than to argue among ourselves.
But maybe we enjoy arguing among ourselves while our gun rights erode.
I recall a thread from about 2 or 3 years ago where you and I were both arguing on the same side of this point; that the full-auto/no compromise crowd was just too shocking to the average public sheeple. And that therfore a harsh no compromise stance would only push people away from the pro-gun movement.
Back then I agreed with the "nice 'n easy" approach too. But what I have seen develop over the last couple of years is that "nice 'n easy" usually turns into "let's make a deal". Then inevitably we end up sacrificing even more of our gun rights so that things won't be so "scary" for the pansies out there.
I think the time for "nice 'n easy" is over. Let's deal with harsh reality, which most of these drug-addicted psycho babblers have never been exposed to. And they probably won't ever get it, except maybe when a Persian is slicing a knife across their throat. I'm all for the granite approach. Let the pansies, the media, and even our own politicians make us out as demons. When Washington and New York are burning due to their own ineptness, that is when they will be beggin us for help.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You're right and I see it now.
But sadly, some of us pro-gun people will cross our arms and claim all guns are of equal dangerness while the anti-gun crowd will claim tha some guns are made for nothing but killing lots of people in as short a time as possibe. And the general public, the huge mass of people who are fairly neutral on gun rights, will be pushed into being anti-gun, at least against some guns, when they see a shooting demonstration using a 100 round Beta Drum in a AR-15 put 100 holes in 100 manikins in about 60 seconds.
When the general public, judges, juries, legislators see enough of that type of firearms demonstrations, they will be stampeded into becoming against ALL gun ownship, just in an effort to keep those 100 round Beta drum AR-15's away from them and their children.
I'd pay to see someone use a rifle to hit 100 mannequins each one time in 1 minute. The odds of that are like the odds of a person throwing a nickel in the air, hip shooting it with a .22 and putting a hole in the middle of it. Unless they are on top of their target, it would require about 1.75 shots per second.
When anti's like to throw around "dangerous" we need to be countering with "effective". If it is as effective for 1 criminal to mow down 100 people with a beta mag, it is just as effective for me equipped with the same thing to mow down 100 criminals.
We shouldn't have to justify it, but if we do have to do it, it requires full reversal, not concessions.
OK, so change my "60" seconds to "180" seconds. or even "360" seconds. Even that figure, used as nothing but propaganda by the anti-gun crowd, will shock and frighten the average, non-gun owning citizen.
Well now. I see you have less faith in the logical human being than I do. I can't blame you for feeling that way, but consider that there is always the possibility that you can present a better argument if you come prepared.
And if you were ever in a debate at the town hall or whatever, about whether or not the average gun owner should be allowed to own such guns (you know I am in favor of such ownership) and you mention to the crowd about how it would be just as effective for you to be so equipped so that you could mow down 100 criminals, I predicate the anti-gun crowd will counter your argument by asking you how likely is it that you, or anyone you know, will ever need to mow down 100 criminals in a matter of seconds?
Simple. It's a matter of potential. If these things were not useful for personal defense or for repeling terroists, looters or foreign or domestic armies, why do the police have them? Why does the military use them? Why is it not good enough for us? We are the ones referred to in the 2nd Amendment, not the police, and damned sure not a mercenary standing army.
They will then go on to mention that there are plenty of nut cases out there that would love to mow down 100 innocent civilians and all they have to do is to go the nearest shopping mall.
Let me draw your attention to the LA Roiots. The Koreans who used their rifles to repel looters managed to have their stores saved while others burned to the ground around them. Now look at New Orleans. Civil emergency causes officials to confiscate legal firearms when people need them the most, resulting in mass rapes, several murders, and tons of looting and pillaging.
What made the difference???
Call me an anti-gunner or what ever you want, I am just trying to get our side to recognize what a great case the anti-gun side has to present against us and some of our firarms. My goal is that if we recognize that great case, then we can hopefully take counter-measures to block their attack. It is far better to do that than to argue among ourselves.
They don't have a "great case" to ban guns. They use emotionally charged, hysterical lies to further advance their position. That isn't a firm base for assault on other people's rights. Too many people are shooting their arguments full of holes, and calling them on their lies. Gun kontrollers are constantly put in the fetal position, pissing their pants when confronted with outright lies.
If we are arguing among ourselves, it is because, unlike anti's, we are not of the same mind. the only luxury we have is sheer numbers of people who represent our point, even if on differing degrees.
If suddenly, hunters woke up tomorrow with the knowledge that a ban on one sort of gun is an incremental step to confiscation of theirs later, and that the 2nd Amendment wqas not about hunting, and grew a pair, ready to defend their rights, all gun kontrol laws could be reversed tomorrow.
But maybe we enjoy arguing among ourselves while our gun rights erode.
Maybe we need to screw our heads on the right way before we end up fighting the hard war. No one will be exempt from the onslaught.
Fox, we are all friends here. You know that, I know that, Gunphreak knows it, Highball knows it, etc.
I recall a thread from about 2 or 3 years ago where you and I were both arguing on the same side of this point; that the full-auto/no compromise crowd was just too shocking to the average public sheeple. And that therfore a harsh no compromise stance would only push people away from the pro-gun movement.
Back then I agreed with the "nice 'n easy" approach too. But what I have seen develop over the last couple of years is that "nice 'n easy" usually turns into "let's make a deal". Then inevitably we end up sacrificing even more of our gun rights so that things won't be so "scary" for the pansies out there.
I think the time for "nice 'n easy" is over. Let's deal with harsh reality, which most of these drug-addicted psycho babblers have never been exposed to. And they probably won't ever get it, except maybe when a Persian is slicing a knife across their throat. I'm all for the granite approach. Let the pansies, the media, and even our own politicians make us out as demons. When Washington and New York are burning due to their own ineptness, that is when they will be beggin us for help.
Yes, we are all friends, and I am glad about that.
In red above. When that happens, instead of the general public, anti-gun groups, some polilticians and the liberal media blaming the criminals for the "burning" they will instead blame the availabiltiy of firearms in American society. Indirectly they will be wanting to lay the blame on peaceful, lawfu gun owners like us.
Which is odd because everytime there is, for example, a large scale drive by shooting, and the media gathers on the scene to report on the shooting, it is odd how they report/portray the different groups that are represented.
One group is the violent criminals who ignore any and all gun laws they choose as they go about their business of violent crime. Oddly, the media never lays much blame on those criminals nor does the media or anti-gun groups holler for stiffer sentences, directed only at the violent criminals, for gun crimes.
Another group is the police. The media and the anti-gun groups never, ever place any blame on the police for not stopping all, or at least most, gun crime. And strangely, the police never speak out and reinforce the idea that the gun crimes are commited by the gun law ignoring violent criminals and NOT by the peaceful, lawful citizens.
The last group is us peaceful, lawful gun owning citizens. Strangely, anytime the police, anti-gun groups or the liberal media holler for more laws, they only holler for more laws that effect ONLY THE PEACEFUL., LAWFUL GUN OWNERS.
To me that is strange.
I feel compelled to respond to bast since I've obviously offended him. Although I'm not sure how to proceed, I'll just wing it as usual.
bast: Congratulations on your Scouting Proficiency and Thank You for your Military Service. I guess I got your back up with my reply to your first post. You will find that I speak my mind and only responded with words drafted from my first impression of the words YOU used to express yourself. I do not apologize for that. You may be a gun owner (you didn't say) but you are obviously in favor of gun control and misinformed as to their targets (Gun Control Bills) and purpose.
For the most part, your 2nd response was incoherent babble, lacking continuality of thought. I don't think I have a reading comprehension problem but it took far to long to decipher your post than I care to admit. Quite possibly your brain was working faster than your fingers. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If I can read between the lines and missing words, I do agree with you on one or two points.
"Knowledge is power. . and knowledge can be spread very easy."
BUT - So it is with mis-information, especially by the Left Wingers and MSM.
"Is knowing gun safety really optional in owning a gun?
NO. Firearm owners should have basic training and proficiency with said firearm. It is called personal responsibility. (It should NOT be a requirement of some Law, nor a reason to deny ownership.)
"More ranges should be available."
BUT - Constructed without imposing additional taxes. (See Next Point.)
Hunting and Fishing Licenses ARE a Tax; and "we don't know where all the money really goes." (Shooting Ranges are supposed to be funded with some of this money.) Just another reason to OPPOSE any further taxes and especially taxes on guns and gun owners. In my state for example, 30 years ago a combo hunting and fishing was $5.00. A place to hunt - No Problem. Today $60.00 minimum and fewer and fewer places to hunt. The increased License Fees were supposed to be partially utilized for land acquisition. Didn't Happen!! Less land available now.
"they could simply be part of the sales tax much like the current one on cigs,"
And look what that did to the Tobacco Industry in the U. S.!
Further Points In Your Response I would like to address:
"I'm mis-informed because what I'm saying is not what you want to hear. I do think that most of this country needs to have their hand held, until common sense becomes more common."
And it takes a village.. Right?
"I'm not asking for gun control but that every one lacking in common sense be required to show they understand how a deadly tool works before being given one."
And what is this if not a form of gun control? Especially in the manner you suggest!!
"My views are harsh and I do know the road to Germany is paved with bodies, yet just because he said something does not mean it was evil, some the worse things were good ideas that were corrupted."
Are you actually implying that Hitler was not an evil man?
"FYI do not try and tell someone that you are not calling them a dumb a__ when the tone of the post is clearly defined by such statements as the final sentence in your post."
I'm sorry you took it that way. I'm just a sarcastic old man and would have said that right to your face, BECAUSE there is something there you do not understand!
"When I first read your post I wrote a very sarcastic response but when I looked at it, it served no purpose other than a gut reaction to assumption that has to be driven by a dead horse, so much so that you clearly did not read the post past a certain point."
Actually, I probably would have enjoyed it!
"Oh and I'm not new I just could not figure out how to reset my password on my other user name, as it has been a while since I've posted and with such a warm welcome to new comers I'm surprised you have any."
Grow up! If you've been here before you should know what to expect here and that I do not represent or speak for all the members here. I welcomed you at the beginning and end of my post. If my sarcasm is all it takes to drive you off, this is no place for you anyway. I do regret it was I, because you could have been fun and enlivened the debate/comments. You would probably get better and worse responses later. Thin skin just won't do here.
"I wish I had seen the last post so I could tack on two comments but I wrote the post in the morning and had to walk away, so I ask so I'm un-informed because I think any spin is still spin?"
You lost me here. I have no clue as to what you are referring to with this post.
"Oh and wagon if you live in the US you don't live in a democratic country you live in a republic. Greece was a democratic country, where every man had a voice."
A very astute Observation. I most certainly do live in the U. S. and I've explained this statement before. Look me up.
"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."