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.
Prohibition SHOULD have been an object lesson to EVERY American.
Banning objects DOES NOT WORK....and even if it did...banning a Constitutional Right is the path to madness.
They are getting a handle on drinking..after 90 years...by PUNISHMENT OF THE GUILTY...no less.
Not banning liquor in the home...or in the car...but drinking PEOPLE...individuals....
What a concept.
And we have gun owners perfectly willing to punish EVERYBODY for the misdeeds of the few.....go figure.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Prohibition SHOULD have been an object lesson to EVERY American.
Banning objects DOES NOT WORK....and even if it did...banning a Constitutional Right is the path to madness.
They are getting a handle on drinking..after 90 years...by PUNISHMENT OF THE GUILTY...no less.
Not banning liquor in the home...or in the car...but drinking PEOPLE...individuals....
What a concept.
And we have gun owners perfectly willing to punish EVERYBODY for the misdeeds of the few.....go figure.
Prohibition did not work. Agreed. Just as prohibition on drugs is not working. So total prohibition is not a workable solution.
But a minimual level of control could work. We have it with liquor, labor laws, building codes, behavior of your neighbors (i.e. no dogs barking outside your window at midnight, etc), ownership and property rights, etc.
A minimual amount of control is not always a bad thing. Without it you could not drive your vehicle on the street without someone bigger and/or stronger than you (or with a bigger gun) taking your car. My point is that even property rights is a form of "government control". So all government control is not always bad.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
Ok, fox,
How do you feel about the prospect of grabbing your rifle to defend yourself, and fire it in an area that acoustically reverberates at you enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
How do you feel about the prospect of being backstabbed because the person wanting your wallet wasn't interested in drawing too much attention to himself?
How do you feel about the idea that, despite your greatest intentions, that silencer technology exists, and is easy enough to construct that it can be done with hand tools and some hardware supplies.
You see, where we differ here is that I believe that the propspect of criminal misuse of anything should not be justification to ban it.
And as long as a silencer or suppressor is designed solely for use on a firearm, it is as much covered by the 2nd Amendment as the firearm it is on. No one doubts a scope is covered by the 2nd Amendment, as it is an accessory to a rifle or pistol, so why should a suppressor be any different? Because you say so?
In regards to complete, total silencers (if such exist on other than .22s) either outlaw them entirely or make the sentence for illegally having one to be life imprisonment. Then I believe you and I can have at least some agreement on this issue.
Hopeful the "life in prison" law can be written in such a way that if a person like me, for just one example, accidently and temporarily comes into possession of a total silencer (if they exist) and the ATFE breaks down my door that day, I will not take a permenent vacation in the gray bar resort.
fox-
Don't mistake me, here, I don't think you understand enough about silencer technology to know that a firearm creates several types of noise when it is shot. A silencer only deals with one type, and it is not 100% effective. The idea that a person who wants you dead without the noise would choose a silenced firearm is highly in error. I believe that poisoning would be the most effective way to off someone without drawing too much attention to yourself. A person could be miles away by the time the poison works (depending on the type used). Stabbing would also be a way. the mind is not limited to creativity if this is what someone truly wants to do.
Besides, what will people do if someone is shot, anyway? Look for the person who shot the other, or run like a bunch of panicked animals? Banking on the fact that a gun makes noise to being the thing that catches a bad guy doesn't always work, and for that matter, is a weak belief, as there are many many gun shot victims that have no leads on them, because, despite the noise, it didn't matter, as all the other factors made potential witnesses hit the dirt and run for cover, rather than serve as an eyewitness.
But the fact that a suppressor on my CAR-15 would make me not become deaf upon shooting a home invader is the full intention of the 2nd Amendment. And it will still make noise, oh yes, but not enough to cause deafness, nor would the pressure at the business end of the barrel cause powder burns to me or people standing around me. If it's good enough for the gov't, it's good enough for us.
And I really frown on the "illegal suppressor" thing. Reason being, that being in possession of anything does not show ill intent. It may be useful in court when attempting to bust a robber on the premise that he had fulfilled a crime using a suppressor, but additional penalty for robbery, murder or rape should be unnecessary, when the punishment for two of them should be death, while robbery should be life at hard labor.
Time to bust people for their deeds, not for imagined misdeeds.
I say let the citizens have what ever they want Ithink if every one was able to have and carry what they wish too then that would make a downward turn in crime!!!!
And make it legal to use it if you are threatened and the streets would be a lot more peaceful
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
1. I've never seen a suppressor on any military weapon, except for use by SF and SEALS for the purpose of silent entry.
2,3,5. Suppressors deteriorate after only a few shots. If you were to use one for target practice, you would be spending lots and lots of money to replace them at least once per outing.
I cannot think of a useful purpose of a suppressor for pistols. For rifles, they might be an advantage in sport hunting. Mostly they'd be good for people-hunting, i.e. sniping.
PS - What's with the "silencers"? The only silencer I know of is the one on my dog tags. Never heard of one for a firearm.
I think we are getting away from the point... let's imagine that a gun was invented that was completely invisible, could not be detected by any sort of infrared or metal detector, and was completely silent when fired.
Should it be illegal for anyone to possess such a firearm, even if they have no criminal background, no history of mental illness, and are an all-around upstanding citizen?
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
let's imagine that a gun was invented that was completely invisible, could not be detected by any sort of infrared or metal detector, and was completely silent when fired.
I misplace stuff all the time.........now THIS. [:0][:0][B)][}:)][:D]
quote:Originally posted by SSGRex
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
1. I've never seen a suppressor on any military weapon, except for use by SF and SEALS for the purpose of silent entry.
It ain't because of "silent entry". It's so your team can shoot in groups, in buildings without going deaf. They will become more used, now that a true value has been found for them.
2,3,5. Suppressors deteriorate after only a few shots. If you were to use one for target practice, you would be spending lots and lots of money to replace them at least once per outing.
The home made kind, perhaps, but not the ones available from reputable dealers. I've seen suppressors used on AR-15's before, personally, that kept going after hundreds of rounds without losing the benefit. The benefit goes away once the wet suppressor dries, or the baffles blow out, but if they're still intact, they will continue to work.
I cannot think of a useful purpose of a suppressor for pistols. For rifles, they might be an advantage in sport hunting. Mostly they'd be good for people-hunting, i.e. sniping.
The beautiful thing about this country is that we do not, and of right, ought not own something solely out of need. What you're describing is Communism.
And they wouldn't be near as useful for "sniping" as you think. Rifles are supersonic rounds, and the bullet can be well heard, despite what you see on TV. The subsonic rounds suck, and one would need to be nearly on top of their target in order to score a good fatal hit.
PS - What's with the "silencers"? The only silencer I know of is the one on my dog tags. Never heard of one for a firearm.
3.im all for open carry everywhere (would make men more civilized i hope)ccw should be applied for.
4.why the heck would you need to limit how many guns i can buy in any period of time. its my money,i worked for it i can figure out how to spend it.
5.see #4 and using tax laws and refusing to collect the taxes to stop the production of machine guns certainly hasnt done squat about crime.
6. ok heres where i differ from most, you commit a crime, you get caught and sentenced...serve your sentence(pay your debt to society) you should have all your rights restored as it were before.now if the crimeyou committed was so bad that we cant trust you ever again with the rights of a citizen, you should never be freed again and thats life without parole.period. so if we feel that wife beating rates only a 10 year sentence then after ten years felon should be free to vote, own guns, drink..etc.
7. a gun is a gun is a gun rifle, pistol, shotgun.we can differentiate between whether it has 16" 14" 7.5" or 20" it does the same thing. fires a projectile and can cause injury if not used responsibly. for the same reason i dont think that allowing a 16 year old to own a 22 and 18 to buy a rifle or a shotgun. then going to 21 for handgun purchases makes much sense. if we applied the same logic to cars 16 years would only be able to drive 2 cylinder rubberized cars, 4 bangers when your 18 and 21 would allow you to get into a big rig. we dont do that with cars we shouldnt with guns.
9.against, say we ban 50 cal, will a 45 be next on the list because its pretty close in diameter or are the assclowns thats worry about these things figuring the whole shell is launched to punch through an airplane[xx(].....i wont answer because the antis dont even know what end the bullet goes in from.
10.gun show loophole, brady, nics are all backdoor registration. say you buy a tec9 when youre 19 because its a cool looking gun. by 20 you realize its a piece of crap and sell it on the private market 3 years later its in a crime and someone can check the serial number and viola ,you now need to come up with how you disposed of it legally. the gun show loophole just makes sure that when you get a large group of people together that have guns in common its easier to trace anything they do.so now if you sell a weapon you usually should get a copy of the buyers drivers license and a signed statement saying that he is legally allowed to own said weapon. follow that and it is a backdoor form of registration.
Colonel Plink, how are you to the right of Ted Nugent. He's pretty good. Granted I don't believe in laws regulating guns, explosives or rocket launchers, but he's about as good as the NRA gets.
While it matters little what I say. I must still speak out. Our government no longer fears us or things like this would not happen. I fear that the only solution is to force them to fear the people. The right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. At any rate I hope that those of us who understand this issue do something prior to the 11th hour.
While I dread it and would fight it if I could. I fear what is coming is well earned.
The fact that there is argument like this, among men and women who supposedly support the right of self defense, reveals that this website has been penetrated by those posing as supporters of the Second Amendment, but are not, and or there is an alarming amount of ignorance among those who claim fealty to a right that is under assault like no other.
The Constitution, drafted by men who were but delegates of States, and then ratified by States (Jefferson was in France) does NOT grant rights. It recognizes the rights claimed by people irrespective of what government exists, says, or does. The Second Amendment simply recognizes the God-given right to keep and bear arms. A waiting period and so forth is actually a government imposed infringement on that right. If it is a right in the true sense of the word, it cannot be infringed upon. If there are among us those who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...we are truly in trouble, or see other theory above.
quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
The fact that there is argument like this, among men and women who supposedly support the right of self defense, reveals that this website has been penetrated by those posing as supporters of the Second Amendment, but are not, and or there is an alarming amount of ignorance among those who claim fealty to a right that is under assault like no other.
The Constitution, drafted by men who were but delegates of States, and then ratified by States (Jefferson was in France) does NOT grant rights. It recognizes the rights claimed by people irrespective of what government exists, says, or does. The Second Amendment simply recognizes the God-given right to keep and bear arms. A waiting period and so forth is actually a government imposed infringement on that right. If it is a right in the true sense of the word, it cannot be infringed upon. If there are among us those who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...we are truly in trouble, or see other theory above.
I'll go one further than that.....
If there are any among us who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...then you are an enemy to that life, and your own. If you believe this way, may your vision be instituted against you when it is your turn.
Here is the reason I continue to argue, plead, and discuss....the all-too-rare occurance of someone that gets it...right down to the bone.
Witness the thrust at the so-called Second Amendment 'suporter'..that supports waiting periods, back-ground checks...or some other goverment intrusion into a 'Right'.....a far greater danger then ANY loud=mouthed anti-gunner.....
NOTPARS
Senior Member
1185 Posts
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 11:59:14 AM
The fact that there is argument like this, among men and women who supposedly support the right of self defense, reveals that this website has been penetrated by those posing as supporters of the Second Amendment, but are not, and or there is an alarming amount of ignorance among those who claim fealty to a right that is under assault like no other.
The Constitution, drafted by men who were but delegates of States, and then ratified by States (Jefferson was in France) does NOT grant rights. It recognizes the rights claimed by people irrespective of what government exists, says, or does. The Second Amendment simply recognizes the God-given right to keep and bear arms. A waiting period and so forth is actually a government imposed infringement on that right. If it is a right in the true sense of the word, it cannot be infringed upon. If there are among us those who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...we are truly in trouble, or see other theory above.
quote:Originally posted by eboydell
I AM AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIMITATIONS TO GUN OWNERSHIP! GUN LIMITATIONS ARE THE WAY THE "EVIL EMPIRE" CAN CONTROL ITS CITIZENS...THEY DON'T TRUST US! GUN ARE THE ONLY WAY WE REALLY HAVE TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT. WITHOUT GUNS, THE GOV'T CAN DO ANYTHING IT WISHES, ANYTIME! THE .50 BMG IS THE ONLY DEFENSE WE HAVE AGAINST THEIR AIR POWER!
Then we have lost already since a .50 BMG is a poor defense from a fast moving aircraft that has armor and a large amout of offensive wepons onboard.
I hate to see tha idea circulate on the internet since it will be used against us by the anti-gunners looking for reasons to outlaw certain guns.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by eboydell
I AM AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIMITATIONS TO GUN OWNERSHIP! GUN LIMITATIONS ARE THE WAY THE "EVIL EMPIRE" CAN CONTROL ITS CITIZENS...THEY DON'T TRUST US! GUN ARE THE ONLY WAY WE REALLY HAVE TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT. WITHOUT GUNS, THE GOV'T CAN DO ANYTHING IT WISHES, ANYTIME! THE .50 BMG IS THE ONLY DEFENSE WE HAVE AGAINST THEIR AIR POWER!
Then we have lost already since a .50 BMG is a poor defense from a fast moving aircraft that has armor and a large amout of offensive wepons onboard.
I hate to see tha idea circulate on the internet since it will be used against us by the anti-gunners looking for reasons to outlaw certain guns.
Well, consider that it can * a helicopter if it is aimed at the right spot. It probably will not be able to take down an Apache.
I highly doubt a tyrannic air strike is nearly as big a concern as a jack-booted Gestapo coming to arrest people by absolute surprise.
Still, I have no problem with people owning .50BMG's, or for that matter SMG's, Automatic rifles, suppressors, grenade launchers, stinger missile systems, LAW's, grenades, or flamethrowers. A properly armed citizen would no doubt have these things among the populace, and our feds would not pull the crap they do, and criminals would be in terror.
For Highball: You have no argument from me. I salute you...I work gunshows for the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance and am always shocked, to some degree, to encounter pro-Second Amendment folks who support all sorts of self imposed limits on that right. Sometimes I think it makes them feel more "reasonable" and maybe the gun-prohibitionists will then, if we give in here and there, leave us alone. I know better.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but I was under the understanding that the silencer was created for target shooting so as to not annoy others around when target shooting. By the way, it really dosent silence anything, it suppress the sound. A 30-06 suppressed will sound about like 22WMR.quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
For Highball: You have no argument from me. I salute you...I work gunshows for the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance and am always shocked, to some degree, to encounter pro-Second Amendment folks who support all sorts of self imposed limits on that right. Sometimes I think it makes them feel more "reasonable" and maybe the gun-prohibitionists will then, if we give in here and there, leave us alone. I know better.
Sir, you have my highest respect for the above in red. Although I live in KS I am well aware of the tremendous good the WMSA has done for gun rights. I wish we had a Eastern Kansas Shooters Alliance here in KS. If I wasn't so old and tired and already overextended (or if I was rich) I would start such an organization.
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy lives
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but I was under the understanding that the silencer was created for target shooting so as to not annoy others around when target shooting. By the way, it really dosent silence anything, it suppress the sound. A 30-06 suppressed will sound about like 22WMR.quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
My two cents, FWIW.
Consider also that it is an excellent training device.
1. You can hear range commands.
2. No ear plugs necessary.
3. Less of a flinch reaction.
4. Can encourage a person to shoot.
I don't care what your opinion may be on the uses of suppressors, fire can be useful for real things; heating, cooking, cultivation of raw materials, but under no circumstances should fire be banned because it can be summoned against someone, like say, an arsonist. Suppressors are no different.
I have run my course. I stood before many men and SWORE to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I will not allow my children to be subjected to a homeland with out the right to keep and bear arms.....
That is all.
quote:I will not allow my children to be subjected to a homeland with out the right to keep and bear arms.....
That is all.
Sir...that is quite enough, thank you.
As eloquent a statement as I have ever heard or read, over these 40-odd years of watching "Men" waffle, squirm, and crawl away from this question...
Encapsulated within that simple statement is a promise and a terrible resolve...at least for the enemies of freedom...there, gentlemen, is yet another of the 3% I speak of.
quote:Originally posted by shotdoctr
I have run my course. I stood before many men and SWORE to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I will not allow my children to be subjected to a homeland with out the right to keep and bear arms.....
That is all.
Good sentiments of course. But many of us have stood before men and swore to defend the constitution. So may I politely ask what you are doing in regards to activiely helping us gun owners save our gun rights, as well as our childrens?
2) This is a tough one. While I feel the government should not infringe on my right to own a firearm, I do feel registration is necessary in regards to crime prevention or to solve a crime. For example, let's say a violent crime occured with an AR15, LEO can turn to registration records of AR15 owners & thereby have a starting point for their investigation.
3) Once I put a gun inside a storage case in my vehicle, it is then concealed & I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get permission to do so.
4) There should not be any limits. I am a collector & if I want to buy 20 guns this year or just 2, it should be my decision & should not be governed & controlled by government
5) Personally, I see no reason why an average citizen would need a machine gun, however, they are fun to shoot, & there are people that collect them. If someone wants one, they should be allowed to own one unless they're a violent criminal or terrorist.
6) I have a serious problem with this & am very against it.
While violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, I do think this should be handled on a case by case basis. Say Joe Schmoe drove drunk 15 years ago, but hasn't done anything wrong since. He should be allowed to own a gun if he wants. It's his right. I take this issue personal. I made bad judgement calls in my youth & it haunts me today even though I never was & am not a violent criminal nor a criminal of any sort.
7) I really don't have an opinion on this one, but suppose the government should not infringe on our rights
8) If they ban .50 cal, then they'll have to ban larger bore as well & I don't think the government should ban anything.
9) I'm not really sure what the question is? Last gun show I went to, they were checking peoples papers prior to allowing a sale. I guess the assumption is that if you have your LTC, CCW, FID, C&R03, FFL, etc, then you already passed the background check therefore there is no need to do another one.
There's just so much confusion & so many different scenarios, but I am all for the 2nd ammendment & the right to bear arms & am pro gun all the way
It's good to see that you are pro-gun to a large extent. I must argue against the support you had for registration of firearms, as government having a list of people's guns is a bad thing. Too many times in the past these lists have been abused by Nazis and Communists alike, and with disastrous results for the targeted citizenry.
Nevertheless, it is good to have you as a member on this forum. Hope you stick around.
I think those in favor of registration had a single history lesson withheld from them in civics class pertaining to the way the Nazi's registered firearms, and then had the Gestapo confiscate them, just prior to sending millions to the gas chambers.
1 no
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 double jeperdy laws should kick in on this, you should not be punished twice for the same crime. but you can have your voting rights back. just so you can vote my A** back in office to restrict
you rights more. but just keep voting me me back in office and i promise to do better next time [:o)] and on #6 think about it this way, you go out hunting for the day and you get back to you truck and it won't start so you call your buddy/or bother that you have known for 15 years to come and pick you up, and you load all of you hunting gear in his truck after having your's towed to a shop and when you get back home and unload, you forget a box of shell's and he get's pulled over on the way back to his home and the police see the shells and arrest him for having them because he had a felony charge 20 years ago and they give him 15 years for them. how are you going to fell about that. just food for thought. sorry this is a little long
7 no
8 no
9 no
and on the antique's you can own them but not the ammo. give me a break the only ammo you can own and not get 15 years for having is
58 musketfire, 58 carbine centerfire and 43 egyptian and the only reason is the atf was facing a lawsuit on them, and gave in to the
reloading companies bufflo arms and a few others. and there are 150 other rounds that fall into this class
and you can have the ammo for them if you do a few things, you need to find a Reg. atf reloader in your state, and have them reload your antique loads and you do not let them be shipped you pick them up in person. as there is no interstate shipping involded so the reloads do not come in to play under the intersate comm. laws but just don't take them out of state with you, as this would fall into one of there so much known gray area's that they want to give 15 years for
guy's you need to think back at some of the dumm A** stuff you did when you where kids and think i got away with that but my freind didn't and look what happened to him. so most of you on # 6 should
just get off of your high horse's and just think back. wife beaters
i could see it as a lot of them end up killing there wife's and/or kids after so long of a time frame.
thank you, i started hunting at about 9 years old and grew up reloading with my father. and my family fought and died for these rights ever since WW1 up until the marine embassy bombing in beruit
one of my family members walked out of it 3 minutes before it blew up
and they where sent over there with there hands tied behind there back's with empty clips and he was a staff sargent, had 3 more go in
last year and no body in the family know's where there at. country boy's just don't know better some say, most of my family where front line gunners and spec. ops one uncle was black op's and 1 behind the line's re-con, grand father did tour's in ww1 in france and germany and ww2 as a prison guard in st. louis and his son went to the pacific, son in-law to the navy in the pacific and had 3 ships shot out from under him. so i don't take these right's for granted. most people don't know what gaurding the wall mean's
where my family does
quote:Originally posted by aahomerepair
1 no
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 double jeperdy laws should kick in on this, you should not be punished twice for the same crime. but you can have your voting rights back. just so you can vote my A** back in office to restrict
you rights more. but just keep voting me me back in office and i promise to do better next time [:o)] and on #6 think about it this way, you go out hunting for the day and you get back to you truck and it won't start so you call your buddy/or bother that you have known for 15 years to come and pick you up, and you load all of you hunting gear in his truck after having your's towed to a shop and when you get back home and unload, you forget a box of shell's and he get's pulled over on the way back to his home and the police see the shells and arrest him for having them because he had a felony charge 20 years ago and they give him 15 years for them. how are you going to fell about that. just food for thought. sorry this is a little long
7 no
8 no
9 no
and on the antique's you can own them but not the ammo. give me a break the only ammo you can own and not get 15 years for having is
58 musketfire, 58 carbine centerfire and 43 egyptian and the only reason is the atf was facing a lawsuit on them, and gave in to the
reloading companies bufflo arms and a few others. and there are 150 other rounds that fall into this class
and you can have the ammo for them if you do a few things, you need to find a Reg. atf reloader in your state, and have them reload your antique loads and you do not let them be shipped you pick them up in person. as there is no interstate shipping involded so the reloads do not come in to play under the intersate comm. laws but just don't take them out of state with you, as this would fall into one of there so much known gray area's that they want to give 15 years for
guy's you need to think back at some of the dumm A** stuff you did when you where kids and think i got away with that but my freind didn't and look what happened to him. so most of you on # 6 should
just get off of your high horse's and just think back. wife beaters
i could see it as a lot of them end up killing there wife's and/or kids after so long of a time frame.
In red above. Not sure what you mean here, but such "killing" can easily be done even without the killer having any gun ownership rights. Such killing can be done with other weapons or, if the killer has decided to violate laws against murder, he surely won't worry about violating laws against his right to own a gun.
If that is what you were meaning. BTW, welcome to the forum.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by aahomerepair
1 no
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 double jeperdy laws should kick in on this, you should not be punished twice for the same crime. but you can have your voting rights back. just so you can vote my A** back in office to restrict
you rights more. but just keep voting me me back in office and i promise to do better next time [:o)] and on #6 think about it this way, you go out hunting for the day and you get back to you truck and it won't start so you call your buddy/or bother that you have known for 15 years to come and pick you up, and you load all of you hunting gear in his truck after having your's towed to a shop and when you get back home and unload, you forget a box of shell's and he get's pulled over on the way back to his home and the police see the shells and arrest him for having them because he had a felony charge 20 years ago and they give him 15 years for them. how are you going to fell about that. just food for thought. sorry this is a little long
7 no
8 no
9 no
and on the antique's you can own them but not the ammo. give me a break the only ammo you can own and not get 15 years for having is
58 musketfire, 58 carbine centerfire and 43 egyptian and the only reason is the atf was facing a lawsuit on them, and gave in to the
reloading companies bufflo arms and a few others. and there are 150 other rounds that fall into this class
and you can have the ammo for them if you do a few things, you need to find a Reg. atf reloader in your state, and have them reload your antique loads and you do not let them be shipped you pick them up in person. as there is no interstate shipping involded so the reloads do not come in to play under the intersate comm. laws but just don't take them out of state with you, as this would fall into one of there so much known gray area's that they want to give 15 years for
guy's you need to think back at some of the dumm A** stuff you did when you where kids and think i got away with that but my freind didn't and look what happened to him. so most of you on # 6 should
just get off of your high horse's and just think back. wife beaters
i could see it as a lot of them end up killing there wife's and/or kids after so long of a time frame.
In red above. Not sure what you mean here, but such "killing" can easily be done even without the killer having any gun ownership rights. Such killing can be done with other weapons or, if the killer has decided to violate laws against murder, he surely won't worry about violating laws against his right to own a gun.
If that is what you were meaning. BTW, welcome to the forum.
I've always said, there are plenty of laws out there, when the laws against murder, rape and robbery should have been enough.
quote:Originally posted by aahomerepair
the most deadly weapon any one can have is there brain if they know how to use it or not, hope this clears up in red
In answer to your many questions, I will never agree to any form of gun ban! Our founding fathers never did either. I have read many writings from Thomas Jefferson and this is one that I think stands out. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms,disarm only those who neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make it worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man maybe attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. This came from the Common Place Book (1774-1776). also if a felon wishes to play by the rules and be reinstated to vote then this person should be able to own a firearm, depending on the level of crime commited. I have no wish arm future criminal actions with out proper guidelines.
Your earlier statements in your posts covers this nicely, actually, Any person not fit to carry a gun OUGHT to be in jail..or executed...or VOLUNTARILY 'not carrying'.
The 'voluntary' comes about because they understand that if they are in a public place, brandishing a firearm dangerously...SOME responsibile citizen wil shoot them dead on the spot...right now.
quote:person should be able to own a firearm, depending on the level of crime commited. I have no wish arm future criminal actions with out proper guidelines.
quote:person should be able to own a firearm, depending on the level of crime commited. I have no wish arm future criminal actions with out proper guidelines.
I have spent the last hour reading this post and a couple things are clear.
1. I agree with Highvolumeoffire top to bottom.
2. There are some serious paranoid people out there. Some would make perfect argument for the Brady Campaign.
3. Felons should never have the opportunity to have guns. If you can't abide by the rules, you don't get to play.
4. In the end, background checks don't scare me because one thing is for sure. If tomorrow they decide that certain or all guns are illegal and that SWAT team is at my door because I'm on some list, the guns are theirs. That includes my class III's as well. Call me a whimp, liberal, or whatever but I also know that 99.9 percent of you folks out there will be doing the same thing. People tend to talk big until that big moment comes and then I've found that it is only the quiet kid in the back of the class that surprises everyone and makes a stand. Usually the blowhards that talk big cower the fastest. Oh, and if your not on the list, the've got a gun to my head, and I know you have guns, I'm outing your a--. Human nature, and this scenario has been played out all throughout history.
Bottom line, take what the defense gives you boys and have as much fun as you can for as long as you are breathing working that ball down the field. Don't sweat the small stuff. Everything is small stuff. Life's too short to worry about what might come around.
Comments
Banning objects DOES NOT WORK....and even if it did...banning a Constitutional Right is the path to madness.
They are getting a handle on drinking..after 90 years...by PUNISHMENT OF THE GUILTY...no less.
Not banning liquor in the home...or in the car...but drinking PEOPLE...individuals....
What a concept.
And we have gun owners perfectly willing to punish EVERYBODY for the misdeeds of the few.....go figure.
Prohibition SHOULD have been an object lesson to EVERY American.
Banning objects DOES NOT WORK....and even if it did...banning a Constitutional Right is the path to madness.
They are getting a handle on drinking..after 90 years...by PUNISHMENT OF THE GUILTY...no less.
Not banning liquor in the home...or in the car...but drinking PEOPLE...individuals....
What a concept.
And we have gun owners perfectly willing to punish EVERYBODY for the misdeeds of the few.....go figure.
Prohibition did not work. Agreed. Just as prohibition on drugs is not working. So total prohibition is not a workable solution.
But a minimual level of control could work. We have it with liquor, labor laws, building codes, behavior of your neighbors (i.e. no dogs barking outside your window at midnight, etc), ownership and property rights, etc.
A minimual amount of control is not always a bad thing. Without it you could not drive your vehicle on the street without someone bigger and/or stronger than you (or with a bigger gun) taking your car. My point is that even property rights is a form of "government control". So all government control is not always bad.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
Ok, fox,
How do you feel about the prospect of grabbing your rifle to defend yourself, and fire it in an area that acoustically reverberates at you enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
How do you feel about the prospect of being backstabbed because the person wanting your wallet wasn't interested in drawing too much attention to himself?
How do you feel about the idea that, despite your greatest intentions, that silencer technology exists, and is easy enough to construct that it can be done with hand tools and some hardware supplies.
You see, where we differ here is that I believe that the propspect of criminal misuse of anything should not be justification to ban it.
And as long as a silencer or suppressor is designed solely for use on a firearm, it is as much covered by the 2nd Amendment as the firearm it is on. No one doubts a scope is covered by the 2nd Amendment, as it is an accessory to a rifle or pistol, so why should a suppressor be any different? Because you say so?
In regards to complete, total silencers (if such exist on other than .22s) either outlaw them entirely or make the sentence for illegally having one to be life imprisonment. Then I believe you and I can have at least some agreement on this issue.
Hopeful the "life in prison" law can be written in such a way that if a person like me, for just one example, accidently and temporarily comes into possession of a total silencer (if they exist) and the ATFE breaks down my door that day, I will not take a permenent vacation in the gray bar resort.
fox-
Don't mistake me, here, I don't think you understand enough about silencer technology to know that a firearm creates several types of noise when it is shot. A silencer only deals with one type, and it is not 100% effective. The idea that a person who wants you dead without the noise would choose a silenced firearm is highly in error. I believe that poisoning would be the most effective way to off someone without drawing too much attention to yourself. A person could be miles away by the time the poison works (depending on the type used). Stabbing would also be a way. the mind is not limited to creativity if this is what someone truly wants to do.
Besides, what will people do if someone is shot, anyway? Look for the person who shot the other, or run like a bunch of panicked animals? Banking on the fact that a gun makes noise to being the thing that catches a bad guy doesn't always work, and for that matter, is a weak belief, as there are many many gun shot victims that have no leads on them, because, despite the noise, it didn't matter, as all the other factors made potential witnesses hit the dirt and run for cover, rather than serve as an eyewitness.
But the fact that a suppressor on my CAR-15 would make me not become deaf upon shooting a home invader is the full intention of the 2nd Amendment. And it will still make noise, oh yes, but not enough to cause deafness, nor would the pressure at the business end of the barrel cause powder burns to me or people standing around me. If it's good enough for the gov't, it's good enough for us.
And I really frown on the "illegal suppressor" thing. Reason being, that being in possession of anything does not show ill intent. It may be useful in court when attempting to bust a robber on the premise that he had fulfilled a crime using a suppressor, but additional penalty for robbery, murder or rape should be unnecessary, when the punishment for two of them should be death, while robbery should be life at hard labor.
Time to bust people for their deeds, not for imagined misdeeds.
And make it legal to use it if you are threatened and the streets would be a lot more peaceful
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
1. I've never seen a suppressor on any military weapon, except for use by SF and SEALS for the purpose of silent entry.
2,3,5. Suppressors deteriorate after only a few shots. If you were to use one for target practice, you would be spending lots and lots of money to replace them at least once per outing.
I cannot think of a useful purpose of a suppressor for pistols. For rifles, they might be an advantage in sport hunting. Mostly they'd be good for people-hunting, i.e. sniping.
PS - What's with the "silencers"? The only silencer I know of is the one on my dog tags. Never heard of one for a firearm.
Should it be illegal for anyone to possess such a firearm, even if they have no criminal background, no history of mental illness, and are an all-around upstanding citizen?
let's imagine that a gun was invented that was completely invisible, could not be detected by any sort of infrared or metal detector, and was completely silent when fired.
I misplace stuff all the time.........now THIS. [:0][:0][B)][}:)][:D]
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
1. I've never seen a suppressor on any military weapon, except for use by SF and SEALS for the purpose of silent entry.
It ain't because of "silent entry". It's so your team can shoot in groups, in buildings without going deaf. They will become more used, now that a true value has been found for them.
2,3,5. Suppressors deteriorate after only a few shots. If you were to use one for target practice, you would be spending lots and lots of money to replace them at least once per outing.
The home made kind, perhaps, but not the ones available from reputable dealers. I've seen suppressors used on AR-15's before, personally, that kept going after hundreds of rounds without losing the benefit. The benefit goes away once the wet suppressor dries, or the baffles blow out, but if they're still intact, they will continue to work.
I cannot think of a useful purpose of a suppressor for pistols. For rifles, they might be an advantage in sport hunting. Mostly they'd be good for people-hunting, i.e. sniping.
The beautiful thing about this country is that we do not, and of right, ought not own something solely out of need. What you're describing is Communism.
And they wouldn't be near as useful for "sniping" as you think. Rifles are supersonic rounds, and the bullet can be well heard, despite what you see on TV. The subsonic rounds suck, and one would need to be nearly on top of their target in order to score a good fatal hit.
PS - What's with the "silencers"? The only silencer I know of is the one on my dog tags. Never heard of one for a firearm.
Yeah, I'll bet you haven't, wise *.
1. against but you expected that
2.against and you should have expected that
3.im all for open carry everywhere (would make men more civilized i hope)ccw should be applied for.
4.why the heck would you need to limit how many guns i can buy in any period of time. its my money,i worked for it i can figure out how to spend it.
5.see #4 and using tax laws and refusing to collect the taxes to stop the production of machine guns certainly hasnt done squat about crime.
6. ok heres where i differ from most, you commit a crime, you get caught and sentenced...serve your sentence(pay your debt to society) you should have all your rights restored as it were before.now if the crimeyou committed was so bad that we cant trust you ever again with the rights of a citizen, you should never be freed again and thats life without parole.period. so if we feel that wife beating rates only a 10 year sentence then after ten years felon should be free to vote, own guns, drink..etc.
7. a gun is a gun is a gun rifle, pistol, shotgun.we can differentiate between whether it has 16" 14" 7.5" or 20" it does the same thing. fires a projectile and can cause injury if not used responsibly. for the same reason i dont think that allowing a 16 year old to own a 22 and 18 to buy a rifle or a shotgun. then going to 21 for handgun purchases makes much sense. if we applied the same logic to cars 16 years would only be able to drive 2 cylinder rubberized cars, 4 bangers when your 18 and 21 would allow you to get into a big rig. we dont do that with cars we shouldnt with guns.
9.against, say we ban 50 cal, will a 45 be next on the list because its pretty close in diameter or are the assclowns thats worry about these things figuring the whole shell is launched to punch through an airplane[xx(].....i wont answer because the antis dont even know what end the bullet goes in from.
10.gun show loophole, brady, nics are all backdoor registration. say you buy a tec9 when youre 19 because its a cool looking gun. by 20 you realize its a piece of crap and sell it on the private market 3 years later its in a crime and someone can check the serial number and viola ,you now need to come up with how you disposed of it legally. the gun show loophole just makes sure that when you get a large group of people together that have guns in common its easier to trace anything they do.so now if you sell a weapon you usually should get a copy of the buyers drivers license and a signed statement saying that he is legally allowed to own said weapon. follow that and it is a backdoor form of registration.
(Edited for spelling)
While I dread it and would fight it if I could. I fear what is coming is well earned.
The Constitution, drafted by men who were but delegates of States, and then ratified by States (Jefferson was in France) does NOT grant rights. It recognizes the rights claimed by people irrespective of what government exists, says, or does. The Second Amendment simply recognizes the God-given right to keep and bear arms. A waiting period and so forth is actually a government imposed infringement on that right. If it is a right in the true sense of the word, it cannot be infringed upon. If there are among us those who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...we are truly in trouble, or see other theory above.
The fact that there is argument like this, among men and women who supposedly support the right of self defense, reveals that this website has been penetrated by those posing as supporters of the Second Amendment, but are not, and or there is an alarming amount of ignorance among those who claim fealty to a right that is under assault like no other.
The Constitution, drafted by men who were but delegates of States, and then ratified by States (Jefferson was in France) does NOT grant rights. It recognizes the rights claimed by people irrespective of what government exists, says, or does. The Second Amendment simply recognizes the God-given right to keep and bear arms. A waiting period and so forth is actually a government imposed infringement on that right. If it is a right in the true sense of the word, it cannot be infringed upon. If there are among us those who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...we are truly in trouble, or see other theory above.
I'll go one further than that.....
If there are any among us who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...then you are an enemy to that life, and your own. If you believe this way, may your vision be instituted against you when it is your turn.
Witness the thrust at the so-called Second Amendment 'suporter'..that supports waiting periods, back-ground checks...or some other goverment intrusion into a 'Right'.....a far greater danger then ANY loud=mouthed anti-gunner.....
NOTPARS
Senior Member
1185 Posts
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 11:59:14 AM
The fact that there is argument like this, among men and women who supposedly support the right of self defense, reveals that this website has been penetrated by those posing as supporters of the Second Amendment, but are not, and or there is an alarming amount of ignorance among those who claim fealty to a right that is under assault like no other.
The Constitution, drafted by men who were but delegates of States, and then ratified by States (Jefferson was in France) does NOT grant rights. It recognizes the rights claimed by people irrespective of what government exists, says, or does. The Second Amendment simply recognizes the God-given right to keep and bear arms. A waiting period and so forth is actually a government imposed infringement on that right. If it is a right in the true sense of the word, it cannot be infringed upon. If there are among us those who fail to recognize that protecting the most precious right of all...life...we are truly in trouble, or see other theory above.
I AM AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIMITATIONS TO GUN OWNERSHIP! GUN LIMITATIONS ARE THE WAY THE "EVIL EMPIRE" CAN CONTROL ITS CITIZENS...THEY DON'T TRUST US! GUN ARE THE ONLY WAY WE REALLY HAVE TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT. WITHOUT GUNS, THE GOV'T CAN DO ANYTHING IT WISHES, ANYTIME! THE .50 BMG IS THE ONLY DEFENSE WE HAVE AGAINST THEIR AIR POWER!
Then we have lost already since a .50 BMG is a poor defense from a fast moving aircraft that has armor and a large amout of offensive wepons onboard.
I hate to see tha idea circulate on the internet since it will be used against us by the anti-gunners looking for reasons to outlaw certain guns.
quote:Originally posted by eboydell
I AM AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIMITATIONS TO GUN OWNERSHIP! GUN LIMITATIONS ARE THE WAY THE "EVIL EMPIRE" CAN CONTROL ITS CITIZENS...THEY DON'T TRUST US! GUN ARE THE ONLY WAY WE REALLY HAVE TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT. WITHOUT GUNS, THE GOV'T CAN DO ANYTHING IT WISHES, ANYTIME! THE .50 BMG IS THE ONLY DEFENSE WE HAVE AGAINST THEIR AIR POWER!
Then we have lost already since a .50 BMG is a poor defense from a fast moving aircraft that has armor and a large amout of offensive wepons onboard.
I hate to see tha idea circulate on the internet since it will be used against us by the anti-gunners looking for reasons to outlaw certain guns.
Well, consider that it can * a helicopter if it is aimed at the right spot. It probably will not be able to take down an Apache.
I highly doubt a tyrannic air strike is nearly as big a concern as a jack-booted Gestapo coming to arrest people by absolute surprise.
Still, I have no problem with people owning .50BMG's, or for that matter SMG's, Automatic rifles, suppressors, grenade launchers, stinger missile systems, LAW's, grenades, or flamethrowers. A properly armed citizen would no doubt have these things among the populace, and our feds would not pull the crap they do, and criminals would be in terror.
Gun Rights: Where do you stand?
Behind my guns; If I had guns, of course
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
My two cents, FWIW.
For Highball: You have no argument from me. I salute you...I work gunshows for the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance and am always shocked, to some degree, to encounter pro-Second Amendment folks who support all sorts of self imposed limits on that right. Sometimes I think it makes them feel more "reasonable" and maybe the gun-prohibitionists will then, if we give in here and there, leave us alone. I know better.
Sir, you have my highest respect for the above in red. Although I live in KS I am well aware of the tremendous good the WMSA has done for gun rights. I wish we had a Eastern Kansas Shooters Alliance here in KS. If I wasn't so old and tired and already overextended (or if I was rich) I would start such an organization.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but I was under the understanding that the silencer was created for target shooting so as to not annoy others around when target shooting. By the way, it really dosent silence anything, it suppress the sound. A 30-06 suppressed will sound about like 22WMR.quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
My two cents, FWIW.
Consider also that it is an excellent training device.
1. You can hear range commands.
2. No ear plugs necessary.
3. Less of a flinch reaction.
4. Can encourage a person to shoot.
I don't care what your opinion may be on the uses of suppressors, fire can be useful for real things; heating, cooking, cultivation of raw materials, but under no circumstances should fire be banned because it can be summoned against someone, like say, an arsonist. Suppressors are no different.
That is all.
That is all.
Sir...that is quite enough, thank you.
As eloquent a statement as I have ever heard or read, over these 40-odd years of watching "Men" waffle, squirm, and crawl away from this question...
Encapsulated within that simple statement is a promise and a terrible resolve...at least for the enemies of freedom...there, gentlemen, is yet another of the 3% I speak of.
I have run my course. I stood before many men and SWORE to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I will not allow my children to be subjected to a homeland with out the right to keep and bear arms.....
That is all.
Good sentiments of course. But many of us have stood before men and swore to defend the constitution. So may I politely ask what you are doing in regards to activiely helping us gun owners save our gun rights, as well as our childrens?
2) This is a tough one. While I feel the government should not infringe on my right to own a firearm, I do feel registration is necessary in regards to crime prevention or to solve a crime. For example, let's say a violent crime occured with an AR15, LEO can turn to registration records of AR15 owners & thereby have a starting point for their investigation.
3) Once I put a gun inside a storage case in my vehicle, it is then concealed & I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get permission to do so.
4) There should not be any limits. I am a collector & if I want to buy 20 guns this year or just 2, it should be my decision & should not be governed & controlled by government
5) Personally, I see no reason why an average citizen would need a machine gun, however, they are fun to shoot, & there are people that collect them. If someone wants one, they should be allowed to own one unless they're a violent criminal or terrorist.
6) I have a serious problem with this & am very against it.
While violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, I do think this should be handled on a case by case basis. Say Joe Schmoe drove drunk 15 years ago, but hasn't done anything wrong since. He should be allowed to own a gun if he wants. It's his right. I take this issue personal. I made bad judgement calls in my youth & it haunts me today even though I never was & am not a violent criminal nor a criminal of any sort.
7) I really don't have an opinion on this one, but suppose the government should not infringe on our rights
8) If they ban .50 cal, then they'll have to ban larger bore as well & I don't think the government should ban anything.
9) I'm not really sure what the question is? Last gun show I went to, they were checking peoples papers prior to allowing a sale. I guess the assumption is that if you have your LTC, CCW, FID, C&R03, FFL, etc, then you already passed the background check therefore there is no need to do another one.
There's just so much confusion & so many different scenarios, but I am all for the 2nd ammendment & the right to bear arms & am pro gun all the way
It's good to see that you are pro-gun to a large extent. I must argue against the support you had for registration of firearms, as government having a list of people's guns is a bad thing. Too many times in the past these lists have been abused by Nazis and Communists alike, and with disastrous results for the targeted citizenry.
Nevertheless, it is good to have you as a member on this forum. Hope you stick around.
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 double jeperdy laws should kick in on this, you should not be punished twice for the same crime. but you can have your voting rights back. just so you can vote my A** back in office to restrict
you rights more. but just keep voting me me back in office and i promise to do better next time [:o)] and on #6 think about it this way, you go out hunting for the day and you get back to you truck and it won't start so you call your buddy/or bother that you have known for 15 years to come and pick you up, and you load all of you hunting gear in his truck after having your's towed to a shop and when you get back home and unload, you forget a box of shell's and he get's pulled over on the way back to his home and the police see the shells and arrest him for having them because he had a felony charge 20 years ago and they give him 15 years for them. how are you going to fell about that. just food for thought. sorry this is a little long
7 no
8 no
9 no
and on the antique's you can own them but not the ammo. give me a break the only ammo you can own and not get 15 years for having is
58 musketfire, 58 carbine centerfire and 43 egyptian and the only reason is the atf was facing a lawsuit on them, and gave in to the
reloading companies bufflo arms and a few others. and there are 150 other rounds that fall into this class
and you can have the ammo for them if you do a few things, you need to find a Reg. atf reloader in your state, and have them reload your antique loads and you do not let them be shipped you pick them up in person. as there is no interstate shipping involded so the reloads do not come in to play under the intersate comm. laws but just don't take them out of state with you, as this would fall into one of there so much known gray area's that they want to give 15 years for
guy's you need to think back at some of the dumm A** stuff you did when you where kids and think i got away with that but my freind didn't and look what happened to him. so most of you on # 6 should
just get off of your high horse's and just think back. wife beaters
i could see it as a lot of them end up killing there wife's and/or kids after so long of a time frame.
one of my family members walked out of it 3 minutes before it blew up
and they where sent over there with there hands tied behind there back's with empty clips and he was a staff sargent, had 3 more go in
last year and no body in the family know's where there at. country boy's just don't know better some say, most of my family where front line gunners and spec. ops one uncle was black op's and 1 behind the line's re-con, grand father did tour's in ww1 in france and germany and ww2 as a prison guard in st. louis and his son went to the pacific, son in-law to the navy in the pacific and had 3 ships shot out from under him. so i don't take these right's for granted. most people don't know what gaurding the wall mean's
where my family does
1 no
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 double jeperdy laws should kick in on this, you should not be punished twice for the same crime. but you can have your voting rights back. just so you can vote my A** back in office to restrict
you rights more. but just keep voting me me back in office and i promise to do better next time [:o)] and on #6 think about it this way, you go out hunting for the day and you get back to you truck and it won't start so you call your buddy/or bother that you have known for 15 years to come and pick you up, and you load all of you hunting gear in his truck after having your's towed to a shop and when you get back home and unload, you forget a box of shell's and he get's pulled over on the way back to his home and the police see the shells and arrest him for having them because he had a felony charge 20 years ago and they give him 15 years for them. how are you going to fell about that. just food for thought. sorry this is a little long
7 no
8 no
9 no
and on the antique's you can own them but not the ammo. give me a break the only ammo you can own and not get 15 years for having is
58 musketfire, 58 carbine centerfire and 43 egyptian and the only reason is the atf was facing a lawsuit on them, and gave in to the
reloading companies bufflo arms and a few others. and there are 150 other rounds that fall into this class
and you can have the ammo for them if you do a few things, you need to find a Reg. atf reloader in your state, and have them reload your antique loads and you do not let them be shipped you pick them up in person. as there is no interstate shipping involded so the reloads do not come in to play under the intersate comm. laws but just don't take them out of state with you, as this would fall into one of there so much known gray area's that they want to give 15 years for
guy's you need to think back at some of the dumm A** stuff you did when you where kids and think i got away with that but my freind didn't and look what happened to him. so most of you on # 6 should
just get off of your high horse's and just think back. wife beaters
i could see it as a lot of them end up killing there wife's and/or kids after so long of a time frame.
In red above. Not sure what you mean here, but such "killing" can easily be done even without the killer having any gun ownership rights. Such killing can be done with other weapons or, if the killer has decided to violate laws against murder, he surely won't worry about violating laws against his right to own a gun.
If that is what you were meaning. BTW, welcome to the forum.
quote:Originally posted by aahomerepair
1 no
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 double jeperdy laws should kick in on this, you should not be punished twice for the same crime. but you can have your voting rights back. just so you can vote my A** back in office to restrict
you rights more. but just keep voting me me back in office and i promise to do better next time [:o)] and on #6 think about it this way, you go out hunting for the day and you get back to you truck and it won't start so you call your buddy/or bother that you have known for 15 years to come and pick you up, and you load all of you hunting gear in his truck after having your's towed to a shop and when you get back home and unload, you forget a box of shell's and he get's pulled over on the way back to his home and the police see the shells and arrest him for having them because he had a felony charge 20 years ago and they give him 15 years for them. how are you going to fell about that. just food for thought. sorry this is a little long
7 no
8 no
9 no
and on the antique's you can own them but not the ammo. give me a break the only ammo you can own and not get 15 years for having is
58 musketfire, 58 carbine centerfire and 43 egyptian and the only reason is the atf was facing a lawsuit on them, and gave in to the
reloading companies bufflo arms and a few others. and there are 150 other rounds that fall into this class
and you can have the ammo for them if you do a few things, you need to find a Reg. atf reloader in your state, and have them reload your antique loads and you do not let them be shipped you pick them up in person. as there is no interstate shipping involded so the reloads do not come in to play under the intersate comm. laws but just don't take them out of state with you, as this would fall into one of there so much known gray area's that they want to give 15 years for
guy's you need to think back at some of the dumm A** stuff you did when you where kids and think i got away with that but my freind didn't and look what happened to him. so most of you on # 6 should
just get off of your high horse's and just think back. wife beaters
i could see it as a lot of them end up killing there wife's and/or kids after so long of a time frame.
In red above. Not sure what you mean here, but such "killing" can easily be done even without the killer having any gun ownership rights. Such killing can be done with other weapons or, if the killer has decided to violate laws against murder, he surely won't worry about violating laws against his right to own a gun.
If that is what you were meaning. BTW, welcome to the forum.
I've always said, there are plenty of laws out there, when the laws against murder, rape and robbery should have been enough.
Any object, including your hands, can be misused.
the most deadly weapon any one can have is there brain if they know how to use it or not, hope this clears up in red
Consider it cleared up.
The 'voluntary' comes about because they understand that if they are in a public place, brandishing a firearm dangerously...SOME responsibile citizen wil shoot them dead on the spot...right now.
quote:person should be able to own a firearm, depending on the level of crime commited. I have no wish arm future criminal actions with out proper guidelines.
Prosecuting thoughtcrimes is not a good idea.
1. I agree with Highvolumeoffire top to bottom.
2. There are some serious paranoid people out there. Some would make perfect argument for the Brady Campaign.
3. Felons should never have the opportunity to have guns. If you can't abide by the rules, you don't get to play.
4. In the end, background checks don't scare me because one thing is for sure. If tomorrow they decide that certain or all guns are illegal and that SWAT team is at my door because I'm on some list, the guns are theirs. That includes my class III's as well. Call me a whimp, liberal, or whatever but I also know that 99.9 percent of you folks out there will be doing the same thing. People tend to talk big until that big moment comes and then I've found that it is only the quiet kid in the back of the class that surprises everyone and makes a stand. Usually the blowhards that talk big cower the fastest. Oh, and if your not on the list, the've got a gun to my head, and I know you have guns, I'm outing your a--. Human nature, and this scenario has been played out all throughout history.
Bottom line, take what the defense gives you boys and have as much fun as you can for as long as you are breathing working that ball down the field. Don't sweat the small stuff. Everything is small stuff. Life's too short to worry about what might come around.