In Memorium To The Little Ones.....

[Terry Allan Hall]

 

Originally Posted by Chordchunker

As you probably know most firearm break-throughs have been militarily driven. The center fire cartridge is actually a good example. My old .30-.06 Enfield is great for any large game around these parts (deer/Black Bear/Elk) and more than likely it was issued during WW1, but it`s been completely sporterized. Lever action/bolt action rifles, semi-auto pistols, etc were all military weapons in their beginnings.

 

True...what I meant to convey is modern military weaponry.

[Sangemon]

 

Originally Posted by poppytater

Is this you or not?

 

He imagines himself as R Lee Ermy but he reminds me more of Julia Child. It's kind of sad, actually. He must not think much of himself to act the way he does.

[FretFiend.]

Originally Posted by Terry Allan Hall

Your claims are utter BS...I'm not a "Liberal", I'm not anti-gun, and I'm not interested in feeding your need for attention further. And do hope, for both your sake, and the sake of anyone who chooses to be around you, that you get some psychiatic help soon....

I'll continue to bug you as time allows.
[ATTACH]350889[/ATTACH]

[Hoddy]

Originally Posted by Hoddy

Here's TAH's solution...

Terry's moving his own goal posts.

Originally Posted by Terry Allan Hall

Responsible gun owners are now advocating just such an idea.

We understand that laws limiting the kinds of guns available, to civilians, to non-automatic (semi- and otherwise) hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols, that hold 10 rounds or less, in no way violates the 2nd Amendment.

[Bobby1Note]

Originally Posted by Neal

So far, only one poster has advocated going all Canada-no-guns, out of a few of us others that really would like to see some healthy dialogue regarding the legal sale of certain types of arms. I haven't said, nor have the other few, that guns should be outlawed, only that there's a problem, and it needs to be discussed, and perhaps certain sorts of weapons should be in the hands of the military, not the general population. ..

And yet you lump us all together? What sort of dialogue can we have like that?

And what about this "well formed militia" thing the 2nd amendment is about? Am I reading it wrong?

Neal. if that's what you're thinking, I'd suggest you re-read what I said. I never once said "no guns" I in fact, have 23 guns, and I'm a ranked "Master" hand-gunner, by the Quebec Shooting Federation. I've competed in Falling Plates, Metallic Shillouette, I.P.S.C. and PPC tournaments. I've won the Provincial championshio Expert Class, and I've been offered a job training R.C.M.P. recruits on how to shoot, at their main training base in Saskatchewan. ( I declined btw). I'm also a re-loader; both shot-shell, and multiple gauges of center-fire and I've also shot Trap & Skeet. Veryyyyy few of the people who know me, even know I have guns. I don't talk about 'em, and I keep them locked up, and out of sight.

I've never felt "restricted" by the gun laws up here,,,,, never. We have common-sense gun laws, and for the most part, our guns are in the hands of responsible people who care about gun safety. Sure we have back-ground checks; why the heck wouldn't we? If the waiting period can reduce crimes of passion by even a slight amount, what responsible, sensible individual wouldn',t want that? We have our share of NRA-extremist types up here too, and for the most part, I can't stand being around those folks. Most of the ones I've met, are better at shooting their mouths off, than they are at shooting guns.

What I'm against is unrestricted access, especially to people with a predisposition for using them in a violent manner.

That said; these guys who say "Oh' the killer COULD have used a car, or a knife, etc", well, they didn't. In Tucson, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown, they used assault weapons, Period. Them's the facts. And, they did so because it was easy for them to do. Even if you ignore these particular events, there is still the statistic of 32,000-35,000 gun deaths a year in the U.S. Yeah, they could'a used cars and knives too,,,,, but they didn't. They used GUNS, because it's a free-for-all out there.

The guys who talk about "founding fathers' intentions",,,, what a joke. Did the founding fathers support gun-crime too?

The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, was rendered by the Bush-era U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Bobby1Note

Neal. if that's what you're thinking, I'd suggest you re-read what I said.

Ooops, I'm sorry! The dangers of skimming posts! I stand corrected and am sorry, because you were the guy I was referring to.

Let's face it, you gun proponents. I think we all can agree with gun ownership being in the hands of those capable and prepared and sane enough to use them. How do we make sure that happens?

From Bobby- and it's pretty relevant...

We have our share of NRA-extremist types up here too, and for the most part, I can't stand being around those folks. Most of the ones I've met, are better at shooting their mouths off, than they are at shooting guns.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by Nabisco

The framers of the Constitution had just fought a war against an oppressive government. They recognized that it would be necessary for any new state which would be established to have an armed force (a well-regulated militia) in order to maintain some order and security. However, given their experience with the oppressive tendencies of governments in general (thus the need to establish the Bill of Rights before the Constitution would be ratified) they made sure that the right of THE PEOPLE; not the militia, the PEOPLE "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It was an armed citizenry who formed the army that threw out the British. Those folks had guns because they already needed them in order to hunt and to defend themselves.

This right guaranteed in the second amendment is an inherent right which the Bill of Rights recognizes as pre-existing and inviolate.



Finally, the Liberals posting here have never answered the question as to whether you would use a gun to defend a loved-one from attack if you could. If you wouldn't, maybe you should re-think just how much you really love them. If you would, then where do you get off denying the rest of us the same right?

That's your interpretation, and others as well, but not what I get. So... because I'm not on board with yours, shouldn't there be some sort of dialogue to get to the bottom of it?

But wait, in your second paragraph, you already dismiss us "liberals" as beneath talking to civilly .

And the answer to your question is "I don't know". Have you ever talked to anyone that has killed another in self defense? Have you? It's not something one does naturally. Sometimes killing has all sorts of implications, look at the two recent killings in Florida by the "stand your ground" crowd. Not a pretty thing, and lots of regrets, but those weren't REAL self-defense killings. Head on down to the local Veterans Hospital and talk to a few of those guys about killing. It ain't easy to fire a gun at someone, no matter the circumstance. So all the bravado you put out is straw.

No, I'm not against it, I'm just curious if you could really pull the trigger. Many wouldn't because they can't. Sure call 'em pussies for that attitude, but until you're in that situation, you have no effing idea if you could or not. Guns are serious, and easy to talk big about.

[Nabisco]

Originally Posted by Neal

That's your interpretation, and others as well, but not what I get. So... because I'm not on board with yours, shouldn't there be some sort of dialogue to get to the bottom of it?

But wait, in your second paragraph, you already dismiss us "liberals" as beneath talking to civilly .

And the answer to your question is "I don't know". Have you ever talked to anyone that has killed another in self defense? Have you? It's not something one does naturally. Sometimes killing has all sorts of implications, look at the two recent killings in Florida by the "stand your ground" crowd. Not a pretty thing, and lots of regrets, but those weren't REAL self-defense killings. Head on down to the local Veterans Hospital and talk to a few of those guys about killing. It ain't easy to fire a gun at someone, no matter the circumstance. So all the bravado you put out is straw.

No, I'm not against it, I'm just curious if you could really pull the trigger. Many wouldn't because they can't. Sure call 'em pussies for that attitude, but until you're in that situation, you have no effing idea if you could or not. Guns are serious, and easy to talk big about.

I believe that I have remained civil and I know that I have never called anyone who wouldn't want to defend themselves or loved ones "pussies." That is your term, not mine. I say live and let live. If you don't want to defend yourself or a loved one, then don't. It is no skin off my nose. Just don't try to restrict my right to self-defense as guaranteed by the Constitution. And I have spoken with people who have used a gun to defend themselves. As for the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case, let's see how it all plays out. For now, I would say that it looks like a case of justified self-defense, but let's see if any new information emerges in court. Meanwhile, there is an immense archive of instances of citizens successfully using guns to defend life and property.

[Neal]

Well bud, have you ever killed anyone? I suppose we can start with that question. If the answer is no, I suggest going down to your VA hospital and talking to the vets that have.

This is a difficult subject. Which is why I suggest talking about it with minimal chips on our shoulders. Let's keep the "Liberals" and "Right Wing" out, as it's no longer a partisan subject. Though if you wish to be the ideologue, feel free I suppose.

Your freedom, Nabisco, to own a gun is not in question. It's how far. Is it ok to have a fully automatic machine gun, shoulder mounted missile? (that last bit was a tad of an exaggeration, but I hope you can get the idea of the problem we have defining "what's ok" for the general population to have in their pantry)

I ain't the bad guy, I'm just the guy trying to talk about the problem we have with guns and the types of guns we have.

[FretFiend.]

You know, reading all the stuff TAH, Bobby1Note, and Neal have posted on here has been stimulating. I found it so stimulating and motivating that I sent a nice contribution to the NRA ILA.

[Neal]

 

Originally Posted by FretFiend.

You know, reading all the stuff TAH, Bobby1Note, and Neal have posted on here has been stimulating. I found it so stimulating and motivating that I sent a nice contribution to the NRA ILA.

 

Good for you! Exercising your first amendment rights is a good thing. I support you fully. (in a mental sort of way).

[Neal]

How much was the contribution, if I may ask? Enough to buy a round of Starbucks at their next sit-down I hope!

[Chordchunker]

Originally Posted by Bobby1Note

That said; these guys who say "Oh' the killer COULD have used a car, or a knife, etc", well, they didn't. In Tucson, Virginia Tech,

VA Tech shooter used two semi-auto handguns. a .22 Walther and a Glock .9mm (race gun).

[Bobby1Note]

delete,,, double post.

[Bobby1Note]

I'd consider those assault weapons, and they should come under the restricted weapon category.

Have you ever handled either of those guns? I had a Glock 17 9mm. 17 shot clip, plus one up the pipe. I hated that gun, and couldn't wait to get rid of it. The action was crude, and it felt awkward in the hand. A POS IMO. Those guns aren't designed for accuracy,,,, they're designed for piss-poor shooters, who think that firing a hail of bullets indiscriminately, is a good thing. One well-placed shot is worth more than 18 poorly-placed shots, any day of the week.

I also have a Walther PPK in 32 ACP. It's worse than the Glock. Absolutely useless on a shooting range. I don't know what the hell I was thinking, buying that POS. I bought it "used", and it was more out of curiosity than anything else. It sits in a case, and never gets used. Waste of money IMO.

I'm a wheel-gun man myself. Give me a good double-action Smith & Wesson J.,K. or L-frame revolver, with a polished action, chamfered cylinders (for speed-loading), a "bobbed" hammer (to prevent hang-ups), and a trigger-stop (helps accuracy by preventing trigger over-travel). Add a good after-market rear sight, and you're really in business.

I've got a bunch of highly customized competition handguns, with competition holsters from Ted Blocker and Ernie Hill, and the gun that I enjoy shooting most, is my 2 1/2" snub-nosed L-frame S&W. The last club-matches I shot, I scored 1487 and 1492 points, out of a possible 1500 points. I don't recall how many "X's" there were.

An "X", is in the center of the bulls-eye. The highest score on a target, is the "10" ring, and in the center of the 10 ring, is an X-ring. A perfect 10-shot score, with all bullets in the X-ring, would give you a score of 100-10X.

[Chordchunker]

Originally Posted by Bobby1Note

I'd consider those assault weapons, and they should come under the restricted weapon category.

Have you ever handled either of those guns?

You are entitled to your opinion as I am, the main difference is I can actually vote here.

Yes I have shot both of those and neither are my thing. I`m not a cop (Glock) or James Bond (Walther). I have also fired many of the weapons the "Anti`s" are pontificating during my military service. Ever shot an M-60, a Browning M2 or a M-79 (grenade launcher)?