gun nuts

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
gun nuts

I do enjoy my right to bear arms and ran across this today, I would not have hazarded a guess.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The EOTec sights are sweet, I don't own any but have used them from time to time and have really liked them.  

 

  When you used the EOTec was it mounted on a rifle that had "Property of US Government" stamped into the receiver ? 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I wonder if you can fire .410 slugs from the Judge ?  I assume that a single projectile of that mass would transfer some serious kinetic energy.   If not the alternate .45 Long Colt can be loaded up to 250 gr which is nothing to sneeze at, so to speak.

A 410 slug is only around 90 gr and even the 3" only get up to about 115 gr so if you are going to go the slug route you might as well use the .45LC because your going to get a lot more stopping power. The 410 MIGHT work but if I need to shoot a person, might isn't good enough for me. I don't see it as having an advantage over any other gun that can shoot .45LC unless you are in the car and have a serious desire to do some squirrel hunting (for which a .410 is a great gun).

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The EOTec sights are sweet, I don't own any but have used them from time to time and have really liked them.  

 

  When you used the EOTec was it mounted on a rifle that had "Property of US Government" stamped into the receiver ? 

 

Indeed it was.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

  When you used the EOTec was it mounted on a rifle that had "Property of US Government" stamped into the receiver ? 

 

Indeed it was.

    Wicked !!!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:None of my

robj101 wrote:

None of my three employee's at work are allowed to own or be caught carrying a cartridge gun. The best they can have is a single shot muzzle loader (yea they can't even have a black powder revolver). All three are convicted felons, one was over dwi's ..and he can't have a gun. Seem's to me there is "some" regulation going on and it's fine to me. The only other way to regulate who can and can't own a gun would be to try to guess the serial killer or something and people would scream about profiling or some such. I think as far as gun laws and fairness we are doing the best we can.

If you have any legitimate idea's on how to make it better express them by all means.

edit: Drinking and shooting being punishable sounds reasonable enough, like a dwi but I would make it a bit harsher and take away their guns on the first offense say for at least a year, a second offense would lose their gun rights period. Sounds fine, got any more suggestions?

 

 

How can you be so reasonable on this issue but totally off the mark on others?

You lefty, you don't want a bunch of drunk people shooting guns at a party.

You just want to take guns away from people.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

None of my three employee's at work are allowed to own or be caught carrying a cartridge gun. The best they can have is a single shot muzzle loader (yea they can't even have a black powder revolver). All three are convicted felons, one was over dwi's ..and he can't have a gun. Seem's to me there is "some" regulation going on and it's fine to me. The only other way to regulate who can and can't own a gun would be to try to guess the serial killer or something and people would scream about profiling or some such. I think as far as gun laws and fairness we are doing the best we can.

If you have any legitimate idea's on how to make it better express them by all means.

edit: Drinking and shooting being punishable sounds reasonable enough, like a dwi but I would make it a bit harsher and take away their guns on the first offense say for at least a year, a second offense would lose their gun rights period. Sounds fine, got any more suggestions?

 

 

How can you be so reasonable on this issue but totally off the mark on others?

You lefty, you don't want a bunch of drunk people shooting guns at a party.

You just want to take guns away from people.

Guns are not a touchy personal subject really. They are inanimate objects with no desire or will of their own, they can only react to that of their owners will.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
My biggest concern with the

My biggest concern with the .410 judge would be bystanders. I think of things that happen in life that are close to me. A white supremacist ass walked into hastings with a shotgun and started unloading about 2 miles from my house last year. I think about things like what if I had been there, suppose I had a ccl. If I had a judge loaded with .410 and im more than 10 feet from the guy I might be worried about also hitting someone else. The spread on that gun is crazy..

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The rifle I really

The rifle I really want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40 would go great with my little russian collection.

Another I would like to have, very neat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Y8QrKhtEw

 

Dream pistol here, lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA6cInTTLlc

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:My biggest

robj101 wrote:

My biggest concern with the .410 judge would be bystanders. I think of things that happen in life that are close to me. A white supremacist ass walked into hastings with a shotgun and started unloading about 2 miles from my house last year. I think about things like what if I had been there, suppose I had a ccl. If I had a judge loaded with .410 and im more than 10 feet from the guy I might be worried about also hitting someone else. The spread on that gun is crazy..

    Concern for bystanders would have to be a issue regardless of the type of projectile ( bullets that follow a more linear path or shot that is intended to disperse, even a bolt from a cross bow ) , if you miss your target they will continue to travel.   

  All weapons are design to operate within their effective range.  Those are the distances at which the weapon has it greatest potential in terms of accuracy and effectiveness.  A .308 rifle can fire it's projectile well beyond 800-1000 yards ( it's effective range ) but once the bullet travels beyond that distance it has lost most its hit probability and lacks much energy.  Attempting to destroy targets beyond that distance would be highly improbable.  The solution is to simply use any weapon within its inherent design limitations where the results are the most predictable, which in turn decreases the risk of stray projectiles.

  Shotguns are designed to be effective only at close ranges ( excluding the use of slugs ) , rifles and hand guns extend that range even further but a miss is still a miss which entails the risk of hitting unintended targets.  Marksmanship is the best way to counter that.   

  PS, I realize that you probably already know a lot about marksmanship since you shoot your guns regularly, so sorry if this is redundant ( you know, like lecturing a porn star about how to have sex )

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Oh boy,

Yet another thread where pointing out that life is a range and not black and white will get me falsely screamed at over mere paranoia.

Damn you, I was enjoying a non-political, non-religious, non-argumentative thread....sigh.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You want a gun, own one.

Or a dozen

 

Brian37 wrote:

If it is about protection and you have training and you obey the law, fine. But if it is merely about collecting and guns are merely another form of art, then just like art, shouldn't it be merely on display in a non functional way? And wouldn't it be ok to insist, that if you insist on shooting something outside self defense that a firing range would be a good compromise instead of simply "wherever the fuck I want"?

I do have training, collecting pieces that don't work is a waste of time imo, and who said fire your gun wherever you want? I will fire it in my backyard, which I own and is set up as a firing range in a very safe manor (far safer than many public ranges). Who on here (or anywhere) has argued we should be allowed to randomly shoot in public?

 

Brian37 wrote:

The ownership of guns, outside the extreme left, IS NOT the problem for most people. Certainly not me. It is the mass production and the easy access to them, not the fact people own them.

Except all those people who supported the Brady Bill, the "assault weapons ban" etc?

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you own an assault riffle, how can you claim it is for hunting, for example. If you are merely a collector then you should keep it in your house unloaded and locked up. If you insist on firing it go to a shooting range.

Is hunting the only reason to own a gun? I think not. I believe I am the only one in this thread (forum?) who owns guns primarily for hunting. Shooting guns is fun, you should try it sometime.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

But also, no matter how rare, how would gun advocates suggest police take on something like Virgina Tec if students are armed? Instead of focusing on one person with a gun, they would now have to treat everyone as a potential threat because they don't know initially who the shooter is.

Anyone with a carry permit is trained to drop their weapon and identify themselves as soon as police are on the scene. In reality, most gunfights last a matter of seconds- by the time the police arrive it is over one way or the other. In the VT case, it is likely that the shooter would have been neutralized long before police arrived. Then you simply have the problem of determining whether the shooter was justified. Even when you kill a person in legitimate self defense you have to be prepared for a long legal experience. It isn't something to be done lightly as it can easily cost you $7000+ to push your defense even in a clear case of self defense. That is a slight problem, but it is important that people can't easily get away with murder by claiming self defense. Personally, if I ever shoot a person, I will have full knowledge of how much it could cost and even that I could be found guilty of excessive force and make my decision accordingly. That is where I have to agree with Prozac that the bigger caliber is better- it is much easier to present your case if the person you shot can't present a different story. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Whereas I would be for uniformed security guards and campus police which already exist.

And they will arrive 10 minutes after you are dead....well more like 20, have you seen how fat campus police are? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

And guns and alcohol don't mix. PERIOD. That is asking for disaster. Personal ownership in a house where someone has the maturity to keep their bottle and gun activity separate, is one thing. I know what I went through as a teen and in college and all the fights with mere fists that would happen, that is bad enough.

And it is illegal to carry while drinking anything- at least it is in Ohio and I would assume most if not all other states. I am not aware of anyone pushing a movement against such laws and I am active in several gun groups. Once again, you are making up phantom extremists.   

I would be quite nervous with a neighbor with that many guns. MAYBE you are mentally sane, but conspiracy nuts can collect them just as easily as you. Bible thumpers love guns too. You think it as simple as "I can control myself" But not all people can.

YEA maybe you can, but you seem to, just about on every issue, think you are the only person in this country.

I hate getting falsely accused of "you hate wealth", "nanny state" "you want to take my guns away" "you liberals are PC"

You are like the guy driving the car when the passenger notices you are about to run a red light and shout "Why wont you let me drive the car the way I want", when all I say on any one of these issues is "maybe you need to slow down and think ahead without blindly saying I can do whatever I want".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I can play darts without

I can play darts without destroying things. And if I want to watch things blow up, I can watch Mythbusters, when they destroy things, they are doing something constructive. You can release tension in other hobbies as well. I don't find guns fun at all. They are designed to kill.

They ARE needed for self protection AND military, sure. But FOR MYSELF I do not find anything FUN about them. I have shot rifles and guns when I was kid and teen, and all I could think when doing such is the damage it does to the human body.

If you find them fun, that is your thing. They simply are not for me. But there are plenty of people who are drunks, criminals, and mentally ill, and conspiracy nuts, who can get guns as easy as the law abiding sane people. Gun ownership is not my problem, the easy access to them is.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I would be

Brian37 wrote:

I would be quite nervous with a neighbor with that many guns. MAYBE you are mentally sane, but conspiracy nuts can collect them just as easily as you. Bible thumpers love guns too. You think it as simple as "I can control myself" But not all people can.

YEA maybe you can, but you seem to, just about on every issue, think you are the only person in this country.

I hate getting falsely accused of "you hate wealth", "nanny state" "you want to take my guns away" "you liberals are PC"

You are like the guy driving the car when the passenger notices you are about to run a red light and shout "Why wont you let me drive the car the way I want", when all I say on any one of these issues is "maybe you need to slow down and think ahead without blindly saying I can do whatever I want".

 

I can play darts without destroying things. And if I want to watch things blow up, I can watch Mythbusters, when they destroy things, they are doing something constructive. You can release tension in other hobbies as well. I don't find guns fun at all. They are designed to kill.

They ARE needed for self protection AND military, sure. But FOR MYSELF I do not find anything FUN about them. I have shot rifles and guns when I was kid and teen, and all I could think when doing such is the damage it does to the human body.

If you find them fun, that is your thing. They simply are not for me. But there are plenty of people who are drunks, criminals, and mentally ill, and conspiracy nuts, who can get guns as easy as the law abiding sane people. Gun ownership is not my problem, the easy access to them is.

You have far easier access to guns if you are willing to break the law. Buying firearms can be a pain in the ass if you do so legally, especially in the case of handguns- which for some reason get extra regulations even though they are far less deadly. Just saying, if I was planning on murdering someone, a rifle from a long distance is far more effective and easier to get away with than a pistol. I can walk out on the streets of Columbus or Cincinnati tonight and purchase a good gun with cash cheaper and quicker than I can go purchase one from a legal firearm store. If you are planning on murdering someone, I doubt you are going to hesitate at breaking some gun law.

 

I just got back from Mexico where personal gun ownership is illegal for any reason... in Mexico there are a lot of guns in the hands of people who were willing to kill people for looking funny, while the average law abiding Mexican is completely defenseless. The government can no longer control what happens within its own borders and the only thing that prevents the drug cartels from establishing a dictatorship is that they are too busy killing one another. 

 

You have no rational reason to be more afraid of a person with a dozen guns than a person with one gun. It is very difficult to shoot two guns at once, and impossible to shoot three without some kind of weird contraption and sacrificing all accuracy. You are far more likely to be killed by a single thug holding one gun than your neighbor who collects dozens. Already, anyone with a felony cannot purchase a firearm. That law has been on the books for over 50 years. You can't own a gun if you are found mentally incompetent. If you are a citizen who has not been found guilty of any violent crimes and you are mentally competent you ought to be able to purchase as many guns as you desire.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 ProzacDeathWish wrote: I

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I wonder if you can fire .410 slugs from the Judge ? I assume that a single projectile of that mass would transfer some serious kinetic energy. If not the alternate .45 Long Colt can be loaded up to 250 gr which is nothing to sneeze at, so to speak.

 

I would wonder why you would want to do that? I found a table of relative sizes on wikipedia and that tells me that .410 would be the same as 67 ga. In that regard, a slug is pretty much the same as a bullet. Well technically, all slugs are bullets but face facts, a 12 ga. is a mighty bullet to deal with.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
edit: from what I've read about actual handgun shootings most confrontations are engaged within twenty feet or so. That's really close. If the first chamber was loaded with shot and fired at the attackers face in order to destroy his vision, ( no eyeballs ) then perhaps if he's still able to attack ( not likely ) then your .45 rounds could be brought to bear. I'm just kind of brainstorming about the best use of thus gun.

 

Well yes, most self defense shootings are at close range. If you think about likely scenarios, what is going to come up is going to be across a small store or if you are backed into a corner. Longer range shootings do happen but not very often.

 

I know that in CT, I can shoot to defend another person and that is where a longer range shot might come up (if I saw someone being chased by a rottweiler or something). In that case, the usefulness of shot gun rounds would be more questionable.

 

Then too, I really wonder about the whole “Judge” type of revolver. According to the Taurus web site, they are named for the number of judges who carry them in the court room for self defense (and not for the Stallone movie which was my first thought on the matter). Um, pardon me but a shot gun round at, say, 25~30 feet with a background of the general public somehow seems like not the best idea on the planet. Especially out of a really short barrel.

 

That and the really long wheel seems like kind of a visual thing. If you are in a situation where you can display a weapon to see if that makes the attacker back down, then yes, it looks like a real “mess you up bad” type of gun. However, in the video, that is not how the gun would be used.

 

Also, they already make snake rounds for revolvers. If you really want to do that, you don't practically need to buy another gun for the purpose.

 

Why not just get a regular revolver such as a .357 with a 4 inch barrel? You would have about the same clearance if used in a car and if you hit a man at 4 ft with a .357, you don't really have to aim for the eyes. One shot will fuck him up but good. If I remember the FBI stats correctly, that is about a 98% one shot kill.

 

Past that, if you do have a shotty round next up, I am not sure if the face is a good idea. A moving target at that range moves through you field of view quickly and you are under shoot/no shoot stress. A shotty round that is an inch low will pepper the nose and jaws. I don't have any idea if there is data on that situation but probably a different outcome will be at hand. A bullet that goes an inch low is still a major shot.

 

I can't even see that it is practical to train for that shot but why not go for the throat if you can? An inch off and you still destroy so many blood vessels that the attacker's brain will bleed out guillotine fast.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I can play

Brian37 wrote:

I can play darts without destroying things. And if I want to watch things blow up, I can watch Mythbusters, when they destroy things, they are doing something constructive. You can release tension in other hobbies as well. I don't find guns fun at all. They are designed to kill.

They ARE needed for self protection AND military, sure. But FOR MYSELF I do not find anything FUN about them. I have shot rifles and guns when I was kid and teen, and all I could think when doing such is the damage it does to the human body.

If you find them fun, that is your thing. They simply are not for me. But there are plenty of people who are drunks, criminals, and mentally ill, and conspiracy nuts, who can get guns as easy as the law abiding sane people. Gun ownership is not my problem, the easy access to them is.

 

I enjoy shooting (for me it's fun and challenging as I noted already). I also happen to enjoy the history behind the guns I own (they are all military but 2). A guy came in where I work who travels around the country bench rest shooting. He complains about how the young people have better eyesight ..lol but says his experience gives him an edge at times like on windy days. It's kind of a sport for a lot of people but it can cost a lot of cash if you want to do serious stuff like the guy I mentioned. He is retired and draws a nice check apparently.

Many things are easy for people criminals to get, guns are just an easy target /cough. Methamphetamine processing comes to mind rather quickly as are the components to make all kinds of bombs and probably many other things that can cause great harm and fuck up people's lives.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If you own an

Brian37 wrote:

If you own an assault riffle, how can you claim it is for hunting, for example. If you are merely a collector then you should keep it in your house unloaded and locked up. If you insist on firing it go to a shooting range. 

Do you care to hazard a guess as to the primary reason the Second Amendment is in the Constitution? Who did the founders intend for you to potentially shoot? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with hunting, trap shooting, collecting or even shooting a random assailant.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

 

 

I would wonder why you would want to do that? I found a table of relative sizes on wikipedia and that tells me that .410 would be the same as 67 ga. In that regard, a slug is pretty much the same as a bullet. Well technically, all slugs are bullets but face facts, a 12 ga. is a mighty bullet to deal with. 

 

Actually I've never owned a shotgun smaller than .12 gauge so I was unaware that the .410 slug was so light weight.    A .12 gauge is what I keep for home defense but as a long gun it's not feasible ( or legal ) to function as a full time carry weapon as it is not concealable.  In Texas keeping your side arm concealed is emphasized by instructors to an extreme degree and there are legal penalties if a CHL owner fails to keep weapon out of view of the general public.  No ifs ands or buts.

 

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
  Well yes, most self defense shootings are at close range. If you think about likely scenarios, what is going to come up is going to be across a small store or if you are backed into a corner. Longer range shootings do happen but not very often.

    Right.  That's my information so far.  Up close and personal.

 

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
  Why not just get a regular revolver such as a .357 with a 4 inch barrel? You would have about the same clearance if used in a car and if you hit a man at 4 ft with a .357, you don't really have to aim for the eyes. One shot will fuck him up but good. If I remember the FBI stats correctly, that is about a 98% one shot kill.
  

  

   The only thing that seem to matter in ensuring a one shot kill is correct bullet placement and sufficient penetration.  Magnum rounds are no more effective than any other round if you fail to hit a vital organ. 

 

   In aimed fire magnum rounds can actually work against you in a self defense scenario as the extra recoil causes the average shooter to expend more time in shot recovery ( ie, how quickly a shooter can bring the gun back on target ).  It can be done, but why choose a round that can actually detract from your ability to deliver accurate fire in a rapid fashion ?  

 

  Plus, if most handgun engagements are at relatively close range why is a magnum even needed ?   I love magnums as much as you do but when defending my life I don't want my gun's massive recoil working against me, so to speak.  There are plenty of Texans with CHL's who carry .357's but I prefer to take the path of least resistance ( no magnums ) to ensure that I am able to make most if not all of my rounds hit my opponent's vitals.  It's just my preference but it makes sense to me. 

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If you own an assault riffle, how can you claim it is for hunting, for example. If you are merely a collector then you should keep it in your house unloaded and locked up. If you insist on firing it go to a shooting range. 

Do you care to hazard a guess as to the primary reason the Second Amendment is in the Constitution? Who did the founders intend for you to potentially shoot? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with hunting, trap shooting, collecting or even shooting a random assailant.

No I haven't a clue. *Cough cough*

But your rightful argument has been twisted by paranoid groups who don't want the Constitution we have. What they want is a monopoly on the Constitution where they get to decide what it means. I doubt the founders wanted citizens armed just so they could destroy the very thing they set up.

As violent as our society is comparatively speaking, the good thing about armed citizens is that it DOES make it much harder for the government to oppress it's citizens. They might be able to oppress us, but the citizens being armed, even today. If the government tried it, it would turn it into one giant Iraq. It would be too messy to deal with.

China can oppress it's citizens because they are not armed.

Japan, right now is westernized and unlikely to go back to it's imperial days, BUT, long term if powers shift, their government could easly become something oppressive.

That DOES NOT mean I buy into any of the bullshit mentality sold by the militia groups today. These people are paranoid delusional nutcases full of xenophobes whom the right wing have sold "the sky is falling".

I doubt very seriously if the militia movements around today were able to overthrow the government, that you and I would end up having the same rights we do now. You might get a few uncle toms, but I am damned sure McCarthism would run rampant and dissenters would be treated like criminals.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Do you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you care to hazard a guess as to the primary reason the Second Amendment is in the Constitution? Who did the founders intend for you to potentially shoot? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with hunting, trap shooting, collecting or even shooting a random assailant.

 In reply to Brian :    The current situation in Libya is an excellent example of why the 2'nd Amendment was authored by James Madison.  It takes more than words to throw off a tyrannical government.  The world wide plea from the Libyan freedom fighters is the need for more weaponry.  They are begging for more military assistance and the object of their desire is to sufficiently armed...otherwise they will fail in their bid for freedom and those who have already died will have died for nothing.  

 As distasteful as it seems, the rebel's ability to inflict lethal damage on the Libyan government's soldiers is the single most decisive factor in whether the freedom fighters win or lose.  Those are the rules of violent conflict, like it, love it, or hate it.  That's how the "game" is played.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you care to hazard a guess as to the primary reason the Second Amendment is in the Constitution? Who did the founders intend for you to potentially shoot? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with hunting, trap shooting, collecting or even shooting a random assailant.

 In reply to Brian :    The current situation in Libya is an excellent example of why the 2'nd Amendment was authored by James Madison.  It takes more than words to throw off a tyrannical government.  The world wide plea from the Libyan freedom fighters is the need for more weaponry.  They are begging for more military assistance and the object of their desire is to sufficiently armed...otherwise they will fail in their bid for freedom and those who have already died will have died for nothing.  

 As distasteful as it seems, the rebel's ability to inflict lethal damage on the Libyan government's soldiers is the single most decisive factor in whether the freedom fighters win or lose.  Those are the rules of violent conflict, like it, love it, or hate it.  That's how the "game" is played.

Did you READ my post or were you formulating this when I posted my last post?

Do you think all "liberals" think guns are only for hunting?

And are you willing, for example, to use those guns against Republicans who in Michigan rewrote law to take over a city and attempt to kick elected officials out to TURN OVER a state park to developers for a golf course community?

It will be a bunch of rich white guys kicking out a 99percent black population.

Or are these Militias only there to protect corporate interests?

http://michiganmessenger.com/48333/benton-harbor-takeover-sparks-furious-reaction

http://michiganmessenger.com/48319/maddow-on-benton-harbor-efm-takeover

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If you own an assault riffle, how can you claim it is for hunting, for example. If you are merely a collector then you should keep it in your house unloaded and locked up. If you insist on firing it go to a shooting range. 

Do you care to hazard a guess as to the primary reason the Second Amendment is in the Constitution? Who did the founders intend for you to potentially shoot? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with hunting, trap shooting, collecting or even shooting a random assailant.

No I haven't a clue. *Cough cough*

But your rightful argument has been twisted by paranoid groups who don't want the Constitution we have. What they want is a monopoly on the Constitution where they get to decide what it means. I doubt the founders wanted citizens armed just so they could destroy the very thing they set up.

As violent as our society is comparatively speaking, the good thing about armed citizens is that it DOES make it much harder for the government to oppress it's citizens. They might be able to oppress us, but the citizens being armed, even today. If the government tried it, it would turn it into one giant Iraq. It would be too messy to deal with.

China can oppress it's citizens because they are not armed.

Japan, right now is westernized and unlikely to go back to it's imperial days, BUT, long term if powers shift, their government could easly become something oppressive.

That DOES NOT mean I buy into any of the bullshit mentality sold by the militia groups today. These people are paranoid delusional nutcases full of xenophobes whom the right wing have sold "the sky is falling".

I doubt very seriously if the militia movements around today were able to overthrow the government, that you and I would end up having the same rights we do now. You might get a few uncle toms, but I am damned sure McCarthism would run rampant and dissenters would be treated like criminals.

 

I'm pretty sure the way this country started was in escaping an oppressive religious government. The right to bear arms was given to the citizens as a way to "correct" things if the government got out of hand. It has and we haven't corrected anything so I don't know how it's working.

Dictatorial and totalitarian countries always ban the common people from possessing firearms for obvious reasons.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Some good news for Brian:

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: That DOES

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

 

That DOES NOT mean I buy into any of the bullshit mentality sold by the militia groups today. These people are paranoid delusional nutcases full of xenophobes whom the right wing have sold "the sky is falling".

 

 

                                 Does anyone see the irony ?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Did you READ

Brian37 wrote:

Did you READ my post or were you formulating this when I posted my last post?

 

   Uh, sorry.  Lately I just scroll past your rants .       Now I remember why. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

 

That DOES NOT mean I buy into any of the bullshit mentality sold by the militia groups today. These people are paranoid delusional nutcases full of xenophobes whom the right wing have sold "the sky is falling".

 

 

                                 Does anyone see the irony ?

What irony?

The founders didn't intend for any armed correction to rip up the Constitution. They intended armed correction TO protect it. The fearmongers who buy into the right wing's "sky is falling" WOULD shred the Constitution in that they would simply monopolize it for their own power base.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  They

Brian37 wrote:

 

 They intended armed correction TO protect it.

 

Now your gettin' it! I think.

Protect it from whom though, please clarify.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
A very important note about

A very important note about the constitution, it begins with "We the people" not "We the government"

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

 

That DOES NOT mean I buy into any of the bullshit mentality sold by the militia groups today. These people are paranoid delusional nutcases full of xenophobes whom the right wing have sold "the sky is falling".

 

 

                                 Does anyone see the irony ?

What irony?

The founders didn't intend for any armed correction to rip up the Constitution. They intended armed correction TO protect it. The fearmongers who buy into the right wing's "sky is falling" WOULD shred the Constitution in that they would simply monopolize it for their own power base.

 

 

   The irony is that you have to be one of the most paranoid individuals to ever visit this message board,  the additional irony is that you are completely oblivious to this blatant reality. 

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

......but why not go for the throat if you can? An inch off and you still destroy so many blood vessels that the attacker's brain will bleed out guillotine fast.

 

  AiGS,  if you want to examine a very influential real life gun battle that influenced the FBI to take a serious look at their previous ammo choices ( and how/why the 10mm was born and eventually morphed into the .40 caliber ) then check out this link.  It's about the 1986 Miami FBI Shoot Out.  Two elite ex-military hard asses who were bank robbers ( Matix and Platt ) engaged a swarm of FBI agents and continued firing even after receiving multiple, serious gunshot wounds.   Platt continued to function and return fire after receiving bullet hits that would have at least mentally taken the fight out of most adversaries.  He was a real life Terminator, the dude would not go down and post mortem examinations showed that both men were completely free of any substances (  pcp, meth, etc ) that would have enhanced their resistance to gun fire. 

   This gun battle served to shine a bright light on the realities of hangun wound ballistics.

 

         Here it is if you want to peruse it is:      http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86b.html


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

......but why not go for the throat if you can? An inch off and you still destroy so many blood vessels that the attacker's brain will bleed out guillotine fast.

 

  AiGS,  if you want to examine a very influential real life gun battle that influenced the FBI to take a serious look at their previous ammo choices ( and how/why the 10mm was born and eventually morphed into the .40 caliber ) then check out this link.  It's about the 1986 Miami FBI Shoot Out.  Two elite ex-military hard asses who were bank robbers ( Matix and Platt ) engaged a swarm of FBI agents and continued firing even after receiving multiple, serious gunshot wounds.   Platt continued to function and return fire after receiving bullet hits that would have at least mentally taken the fight out of most adversaries.  He was a real life Terminator, the dude would not go down and post mortem examinations showed that both men were completely free of any substances (  pcp, meth, etc ) that would have enhanced their resistance to gun fire. 

 

         Here it is if you want to peruse it is:      http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86b.html

Seems like I vaguely remember this back when it happened. There was a similair incident which prompted the police to carry rifles in their trunks I think.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  The "North Hollywood

  The "North Hollywood Shoot Out" is probably what you're remembering` as it was very high profile crime and received extensive coverage at the time.  It's on Youtube I imagine.  


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  The

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  The "North Hollywood Shoot Out" is probably what you're remembering` as it was very high profile crime and received extensive coverage at the time.  It's on Youtube I imagine.  

Might have been, was it two guys with full auto rifles?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Yup.  The footage shows

  Yup.  The footage shows them pretty much covered up ( I think ) in home made body armor.  One of the guys was a Romanian national if I remember correctly.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Yup.  The footage shows

 Double Post.

  ( removed satirical remarks )      


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Yup.  The footage shows them pretty much covered up ( I think ) in home made body armor.  One of the guys was a Romanian national if I remember correctly.

Yea that was the one I mentioned that convinced the police to keep a rifle in the trunk.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Double Post.

  ( removed satirical remarks )      

why for =)

I thought about adding that their big comp was a bit slow about it because the right are stuck on aol dial up lol.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No I haven't a

Brian37 wrote:

No I haven't a clue. *Cough cough*

But your rightful argument has been twisted by paranoid groups who don't want the Constitution we have. What they want is a monopoly on the Constitution where they get to decide what it means. I doubt the founders wanted citizens armed just so they could destroy the very thing they set up.

As violent as our society is comparatively speaking, the good thing about armed citizens is that it DOES make it much harder for the government to oppress it's citizens. They might be able to oppress us, but the citizens being armed, even today. If the government tried it, it would turn it into one giant Iraq. It would be too messy to deal with.

China can oppress it's citizens because they are not armed.

Japan, right now is westernized and unlikely to go back to it's imperial days, BUT, long term if powers shift, their government could easly become something oppressive.

That DOES NOT mean I buy into any of the bullshit mentality sold by the militia groups today. These people are paranoid delusional nutcases full of xenophobes whom the right wing have sold "the sky is falling".

I doubt very seriously if the militia movements around today were able to overthrow the government, that you and I would end up having the same rights we do now. You might get a few uncle toms, but I am damned sure McCarthism would run rampant and dissenters would be treated like criminals.

 

And remind me again exactly how many people were killed in the last ten years by all these crazy right wing militias that are apparently running around everywhere?

 

Once again, you take the most radical extreme minority and use it to paint everyone you disagree with. The current militia movements don't pose the slightest threat to the government and are mostly made up of crazy old bastards who dress up and play military. That doesn't change the fact that it is important to have an armed populace to protect our freedoms. Which means weapons that are comparative to weapons wielded by government police and troops- ie assault weapons. There is no reason that guns like the HK UMP, M4 or M-16 should be illegal. 

 

Whether you agree with militia members or not, until they actually commit some crime or at least conspire to commit some crime they have the same rights to own guns that anyone else does. 

 

Of course, the interesting question has always been when to start shooting government agents. I have not been able to arrive at a clear line myself. Obviously, when they come to confiscate your firearms you need to start shooting but by that time it is probably too late. On one hand, there is a desire to solve everything peacefully, on the other, freedoms have been constantly eroded away by an ever increasingly powerful government. Which freedom is the straw that breaks the camels back? I have argued this topic with many people and have not arrived at a satisfactory conclusion myself. I am curious as to what others might think. When do you start shooting?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101

robj101 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Double Post.

  ( removed satirical remarks )      

why for =)

I thought about adding that their big comp was a bit slow about it because the right are stuck on aol dial up lol.

  Well, yeah.  There was absolutely nothing profane about my remark but I removed it anyway because I am beginning to believe he has trouble understanding the difference between humor and reality.  Perhaps I should give him the number of my psychiatrist.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

robj101 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Double Post.

  ( removed satirical remarks )      

why for =)

I thought about adding that their big comp was a bit slow about it because the right are stuck on aol dial up lol.

  Well, yeah.  There was absolutely nothing profane about my remark but I removed it anyway because I am beginning to believe he has trouble understanding the difference between humor and reality.  Perhaps I should give him the number of my psychiatrist.

A line from wiki on the subject of sarcasm: Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism,[11] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.[

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I have a

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have a Taurus Raging Bull .454 that I use as a backup sidearm in serious bear country, it is a good basic gun. When loaded with a .454 casull that thing is a beast capable of taking down pretty much anything. And imo Taurus has always been good at making their guns look extra intimidating from the barrel end.

 

 

   Before I allowed myself to be distracted by Brian I was going to mention that I once owned a Stainless Raging Bull chambered for .44 magnum with the 8 3/8" barrel.  Great gun with a lot of heft to it.    The only .454 Casull that I've ever fired was a former co-worker's ( ex Army Ranger ) that was a Ruger Super Red Hawk.

   In fact the first day I shot the .454 Casull was the very first time that I shot my Smith and Wesson Model 500.  

 

We had three magnums ( 44, .454, and 50 cal. ) for comparison.  My S&W Model 629 V Comp with 5" inch barrel, My friend's Ruger Super Red Hawk, and my S&W Model. 500 with 6.5" barrel.  It was a lotta fun.

                                                               


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Of

Beyond Saving wrote:


 

Of course, the interesting question has always been when to start shooting government agents. I have not been able to arrive at a clear line myself. Obviously, when they come to confiscate your firearms you need to start shooting but by that time it is probably too late. On one hand, there is a desire to solve everything peacefully, on the other, freedoms have been constantly eroded away by an ever increasingly powerful government. Which freedom is the straw that breaks the camels back? I have argued this topic with many people and have not arrived at a satisfactory conclusion myself. I am curious as to what others might think.    When do you start shooting ?

                                                                             As soon as they are within range ?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

Of course, the interesting question has always been when to start shooting government agents. I have not been able to arrive at a clear line myself. Obviously, when they come to confiscate your firearms you need to start shooting but by that time it is probably too late. On one hand, there is a desire to solve everything peacefully, on the other, freedoms have been constantly eroded away by an ever increasingly powerful government. Which freedom is the straw that breaks the camels back? I have argued this topic with many people and have not arrived at a satisfactory conclusion myself. I am curious as to what others might think.    When do you start shooting ?

                                                                             As soon as they are within range ?

Lol, so if you own a McMillan Tac-50  you can start shooting as soon as they come within 2400 meters? Sounds like a good safe distance to keep all government goons at. I need to go shopping.... 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  ....pick one up for me

  ....pick one up for me while your at it.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  ....pick one up for me while your at it.

qft