The Gun Debate on October 12th PayPerView

[Geezah]

The Great Gun Debate will be a TV debut for the Library of King's College London. Both Rebecca Peters from the IANSA and Wayne LaPierre from the NRA will speak on the topic of Gun Control. This will be a first in history where strong advocates from both sides come together and speak before a live audience. On Pay per view, Check your local listings.

Yep, it's the NRA versus the UN on global gun control. The topic appears to be focused around the proposed United Nations treaty banning civilian possession of small arms. There's a vote on the topic as well.

Rebecca Peters almost single-handedly brought gun confiscation to Australia and to England, and is now the most feared gun-banner in the world. With more than 500 gun control organizations under her command worldwide, and with the unlimited financial backing of billionaire George Soros, she`s determined to make gun confiscation a reality here in the United States— through a U.N.-backed treaty that would be binding on every American citizen.
You and every American gun owner need to watch this debate—and see first-hand this enormous and very real threat to our Second Amendment rights.

Rebecca Peters: Chief Executive of IANSA (the International Action Network of Small Arms), In 1996 Rebecca was awarded the Australian Human Rights Medal for her work in promoting gun control in Australia... IANSA is the global network of civil society organizations working to stop proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. IANSA brings world attention on the humantarian impact of these weapons and brings the voices and activities of non-government organizations and concerned individuals across the world. Founded in 1998 it now has more than 500 participant groups in nearly one hundred countries. Rebecca Peters works hand-in-hand with the United Nations to ban small arms around the globe. According to the NRA, "Peters engineered the 1996 campaign that banned, confiscated and destroyed 640,000 rifles and shotguns owned by law-abiding Australians.

Wayne LaPierre: Chief Executive of the National Rifle Association of America. The Association of its 4 million members, are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment rights and is a major player in the politcal arena and stands firm in its resolve to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA was founded in 1871.

Wayne LaPierre has been with the NRA since 1978 and became its CEO in 1986 and is now its leading spokesperson on all NRA legislative activities at entry level of government.
Wayne serves on the board of the American Association of Political Consultants. He holds a Master's degree in American Government and Politics and a Bachelor's degree in Education and Political Science.


The U.N. is coming for your guns! :-*$

[Abolith]

"the proposed United Nations treaty banning civilian possession of small arms" Too bad the U.S. CANNOT sign it, as if the pres did it would be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

[moughoun]

strangly I can not find this UN treaty anywhere ;)

[Geezah]

strangly I can not find this UN treaty anywhere ;)

I have some information on this in one of my copies of "America's First Freedom" NRA mag, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Check out the following,

U.N. Informercial (http://www.nrapvf.org/Multimedia/PlayerWindow.aspx?ID=19)

It's quite disturbing :(

[Dennis G]

MOLON LABE BABY!!

[Mark Sman]

http://www.iansa.org/un/index.htm

[Sir Zach of R.]

Now I have another reason to buy an AR-15: To defend it!

[moughoun]

strangly I can not find this UN treaty anywhere ;)

I have some information on this in one of my copies of "America's First Freedom" NRA mag, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Check out the following,

U.N. Informercial (http://www.nrapvf.org/Multimedia/PlayerWindow.aspx?ID=19)

It's quite disturbing :(
It's all nice, but I found it slightly ironic when the reporter said "fact's that don't matter", when they had pretty much done that themselve's, mixing fact's,group's organisation's, selective editing of speech's, in Ireland we have pretty restrictive gun law's because of the North, but both of my family's neighbour's have shotgun's and rifle's, and this thing about the UN's small arm's control treaty, maybe if they had said it involve's, the smuggling and seeling of weapon's to warzone's it wouldn't sound so ominous, but why let little thing's like fact's get in the way of a good bed time story, Jesus the UN barely function's and they think that it's coming to get their gun's, and this notion that an armed population heroically resisting Government oppression is for the walter's, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan ect the Population's are armed alot more heavily then the US but they still have authoritarian Government's, and in all likelyhood if the US military sided with a dictotorial gov against the US population, all, the AR-15's and Barret 50's aren't going to help, it's not the 17th century anymore, just wishful thinking, btw why all the picking on the Canadian's, their a simple people p-)

[moughoun]

Now I have another reason to buy an AR-15: To defend it!
yes that will be a nice trophy for the marine that bag's you after the evil European-like socialist's take over p-)

[moughoun]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

[Geezah]

strangly I can not find this UN treaty anywhere ;)

I have some information on this in one of my copies of "America's First Freedom" NRA mag, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Check out the following,

U.N. Informercial (http://www.nrapvf.org/Multimedia/PlayerWindow.aspx?ID=19)

It's quite disturbing :(
It's all nice, but I found it slightly ironic when the reporter said "fact's that don't matter", when they had pretty much done that themselve's, mixing fact's,group's organisation's, selective editing of speech's, in Ireland we have pretty restrictive gun law's because of the North, but both of my family's neighbour's have shotgun's and rifle's, and this thing about the UN's small arm's control treaty, maybe if they had said it involve's, the smuggling and seeling of weapon's to warzone's it wouldn't sound so ominous, but why let little thing's like fact's get in the way of a good bed time story, Jesus the UN barely function's and they think that it's coming to get their gun's, and this notion that an armed population heroically resisting Government oppression is for the walter's, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan ect the Population's are armed alot more heavily then the US but they still have authoritarian Government's, and in all likelyhood if the US military sided with a dictotorial gov against the US population, all, the AR-15's and Barret 50's aren't going to help, it's not the 17th century anymore, just wishful thinking, btw why all the picking on the Canadian's, their a simple people p-)

Rome wasn't built in a day and they need to start somewhere, if they chip away at our 2nd Amm rights(right to own guns) over a period of time you don't notice as much as if they imposed all their rules and regulations over night.

International Action Network on Small Arms (http://www.iansa.org)

All I can say is f@ck them and f@ck the U.N.

[soma]

Why doesn't someone just kill her, reaffirming her fears.

[Sir Zach of R.]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:

[admar2]

MOLON LABE BABY!!

my sentiments exactly.

[Geezah]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

[moughoun]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:
It won't be me standing in front of you a 5 metre's, just tuffff and down you go p-) , I love my job woot

[Geezah]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:
It won't be me standing in front of you a 5 metre's, just tuffff and down you go p-) , I love my job woot

Just make sure he doesn't live in Kentucky, and you should be good to go ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

I wouldn't shoot a police officer, I would peacefully hand it over and then sue the hell out of the ATF or whoever is enforcing this BS gun control crap. I'm not willing to die for just the 2nd ammendment, but I would fight back at the very least. I hope you meant police by "our boys in blue." Just as long as any laws passed are remanescent of the '94 crime bill, I would still be able to keep my AR with everything I've got on it.

[Sir Zach of R.]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:
It won't be me standing in front of you a 5 metre's, just tuffff and down you go p-) , I love my job woot

Just make sure he doesn't live in Kentucky, and you should be good to go ;)

Nope, Kansas, which is even worse. woot I don't quite know what tufffff means, but it sounds like something Tom of Finland would say. :lol:

[Geezah]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

I wouldn't shoot a police officer, I would peacefully hand it over and then sue the hell out of the ATF or whoever is enforcing this BS gun control crap. I'm not willing to die for just the 2nd ammendment, but I would fight back at the very least. I hope you meant police by "our boys in blue." Just as long as any laws passed are remanescent of the '94 crime bill, I would still be able to keep my AR with everything I've got on it.

I'm not sure if I would hand them over, it's amazing what you can do with a jar of cosmoline, sealed case, sardine cans(ammo) and a shovel ;)

Now if they tried to confiscate all firearms over night, I would say you haven't a chance in hell of sueing anyone because our rights have just gone out the window and at that point "Say 'ello to my little friend!"(guess where I got that?)
I don't know if I would do that but you just never know what could happen.

[Geezah]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:
It won't be me standing in front of you a 5 metre's, just tuffff and down you go p-) , I love my job woot

Just make sure he doesn't live in Kentucky, and you should be good to go ;)

Nope, Kansas, which is even worse. woot I don't quite know what tufffff means, but it sounds like something Tom of Finland would say. :lol:

I think it's in reference to taking you out at a distance, something to do with high powered rifles and taking long shots.

[Sir Zach of R.]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:
It won't be me standing in front of you a 5 metre's, just tuffff and down you go p-) , I love my job woot

Just make sure he doesn't live in Kentucky, and you should be good to go ;)

Nope, Kansas, which is even worse. woot I don't quite know what tufffff means, but it sounds like something Tom of Finland would say. :lol:

I think it's in reference to taking you out at a distance, something to do with high powered rifles and taking long shots.

Ahh hell, I can do that. A Remington 700 in .300 Savage will go out to atleast 700 yds. Anyway, I'm tired of thinking how I can kill moughon. ;)

[moughoun]

actually scratch that, I have first dib's on it, when I bag your ass ;)

Too bad you'd be facing about 15 AR-15 owning NRA members, plus me. :lol:
It won't be me standing in front of you a 5 metre's, just tuffff and down you go p-) , I love my job woot

Just make sure he doesn't live in Kentucky, and you should be good to go ;)

Nope, Kansas, which is even worse. woot I don't quite know what tufffff means, but it sounds like something Tom of Finland would say. :lol:

I think it's in reference to taking you out at a distance, something to do with high powered rifles and taking long shots.

Ahh hell, I can do that. A Remington 700 in .300 Savage will go out to atleast 700 yds. Anyway, I'm tired of thinking how I can kill moughon. ;)
the tuffff is the sound of a round hitting a body, anything over 650 metre's plus you won't hear an accuracy int , I win woot :lol:

[Dennis G]

I don't think raids will come, except for a lot of people who are labeled as wackos and stereotyped, so they will serve as heavily media-covered "examples" to scare everybody else into submission. It's a lot like how the IRS prosecutes people to keep everybody else afraid and complying.

All grandiose talk aside...ask yourself this. Are you willing to go to prison, leave your wife and kids without an income, lose everything, etc. for your guns? Apply this to the reality of your life and your answer might not be the same. For me its simple “YES” This isn't about "guns," but liberty, freedom, and security from tyranny and the eventual genocide it produces. We need to lose our pragmatism, and start valuing ideals above our own lives, and even the lives of our families. Though, when we do so we are TRULY valuing our lives and our families.

Once the law is passed (and we can't count on jack from our "Supreme" court to strike down a ratified treaty as unconstitutional for they are a big part of the current crap state of affairs) and its on the books/becomes public conciousness reality, no new weapons will be manufactured/distributed/bought. Gun owners as a whole will begin to die out over time. This is already happening in our friggin public schools where kids are taught from the time they can toddle that guns are bad and only cops and feds/soldiers should have them. We are an endangered species.

The weapon supply will be frozen by the law. Ask yourself this too, because I am thinking about it a lot: if the law/treaty comes to pass (or lets say it's something less like a nation wide Kalifornia type atmosphere for certain models of semiautos etc.) where will you shoot/practice? Private land in deeply rural areas isn't even a safe bet because anybody with a phone and a TV and ears could turn you in. How will you transport your guns without sweating buckets fearing a traffic stop or a neighbor seeing you putting them in the trunk?

I am afraid it will come down to a few choices, none of them likely if we are to resist: start an offensive war against the oppressors by assassinations/other guerrilla tactics, have firefights with the raid teams, vote fruitlessly, and/or have states secede from the fed gov’t. None of these are likely for various reasons, states won't bolt due to fed money, revolution is just a good sounding word we use with pride but many won't risk giving up their life/freedom/obligations to others, and voting doesn't work much if the courts and pols from the red states dominate everything in Wash.

It is gloomy indeed. I hope so very badly I am wrong about all of this. This pres. election is sooo crucial just for the Supreme court appointments and the pres's attitude toward horror like this at the UN.

If Kerry is in, we'll see 8 years of Socialism that will make Klinton look conservative, and the UN will get a serious grip on us. This man is evil, but making us more like Britain and Australia, (meaning cutting our nuts off) is a good idea to him.

Perhaps the biggest player in all of this is the TV. Most people let the idiot box do their thinking for them, and it isn't called "television programming" for no reason. The media creates most people's perception of the state of reality in our society and the world, and they never speak out publicly against the fed monster as we know it to be. They will make a major effort to sell all of this to the public, and Kobra is right again about how we will be called "terrorists", meaning anyone brazen enough not to bow their knees and head to the fedgov god. We will see a propaganda campaign as never before, and it might even take 50 years for all of this to finally end up where the antis want it to be. But if the laws are passed and there isn't an instant small war started by taking offensive actions, I am afraid we will be crushed one at a time under the steam rolling boot of eternal tyranny.

And a part of freedom in the human spirit and the warrior ethos will be trampled forever amongst civilians.

Again, I hope I am wrong about all this and don't mean to sound radical with the offensive war type talk, for I am not a criminal or out for mayhem, but at some point we have to stop talking about how great it was what our Founding Fathers did and be willing to put action behind our words.



by John A. Sutter
in California

For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality. But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.

The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere. Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business. At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.

The next thing you’ll get from the government is an official looking notice that they think you still have a firearm. Their information will probably include all the information from registration forms, right down to the serial number. That notice will tell you that you’re in violation of the law, subject to prosecution and imprisonment. It will give you some period of time to surrender the gun. It will also give you a very limited number of days to return the form with an explanation of why you don’t have the gun, any proof you have, and your signature that the gun was lawfully disposed of. For many people the idea that the government “knows” they didn’t turn in that pistol or rifle and they have the detailed information about it will be enough to get them to surrender the gun. Some people will ignore the letter, others will scrawl a note that “I sold this in 1982 in a private sale”. After some time, the government will figure out how many guns are still out there and what the “compliance rate” is with the gun ban. More importantly, they’ll start sorting their database by the number of guns someone supposedly has “unaccounted”.

If you think they’ll come at these multiple-gun owners with a swat team, guess again. Their most likely tactic will be yet another letter (maybe two more) that generate what they’ll call “insufficient responses”. That means they can’t track a gun after you owned it. This they’ll use as fodder for a search warrant and/or perjury charges at a later date if they can. My guess is that the time between April and August will be a bad time for a lot of “former” gun owners. Remember that the BATF is an arm of the Treasury department and they control the IRS. You’ll probably get a notice in the mail that the IRS has some questions about your taxes or wants to audit you. When you make the appointment to visit the IRS they will pass that information to the BATF. While you are sweating over your deductions, the BATF and local police will execute a search warrant and search your home looking for guns. With you safely off site and distracted, essentially forced into “the royal presence” of the IRS they will snag your guns. Expect them to use slow-scan and ground penetrating radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc. You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved. Yes, they’ll search your car in the IRS parking lot too.

If you are one of the those people they suspect of having multiple guns and they don’t find any guns at your home, expect them to find and search storage facilities, safety deposit boxes and other places you might use. Warn your relatives who live nearby that they can expect a visit too, even (or perhaps especially) if they never owned a gun. If they are thorough, I’d expect the government agents to check your neighbors to see which of them previously owned a gun and perhaps search their homes, arguing that your neighbor could have held your guns while agents searched your home. Remember that at this point the government authorities don’t have much to fear from the general population. And by the time your complaints are run through the mill, rejected and turned into lawsuits, they’ll have changed the rules.

But you only have one gun you say? Fine. They won’t come looking for it. But they will make sure that possession of ammunition is also a serious crime. Don’t leave any loose cartridges around and where will you hide that case of ammo you rushed out to buy? Expect any “gun parts” to be made illegal at some point in time too. Spare magazines, maybe even old cleaning kits. Anything that says “gun” will be interpreted as “probable cause” to search your entire home. Also expect that you can never use that gun without becoming a serious felon in the eyes of the government. Even if some thug has repeatedly stabbed you with a large knife and threatened to rape your six year old daughter, they won’t forgive you for having the gun. They may even give you extra penalties for using it to save your family. Especially if you are one of the first few hundred people caught this way, they will use you to “set an example”. This will cause people to “bury” their guns away in hiding places, making them all but useless. If the government does come to confiscate it, you won’t be able to get to it fast enough and they will probably find it.

You’ve moved several times since you bought a gun? Remember showing your ID when you bought a gun? Remember writing down your place of birth? Why do you think the government has so many computers? Linking you to your new driver’s license in another state shouldn’t be too hard. Besides, the Treasury folks know where you work. Think you’re safe because you had unregistered guns? Think again. I would expect that the government’s database will contain a lot of old data. Some of it might indicate that a gun was sold to a resident at your address. If they can tie you to ammo sales or range use with your credit card in the previous 2 years you might get a surprise visit. Or that seller might have remembered you bought that gun from him and filled out his gun notice to get “off the hook” for that gun.

The point of this article is that by thinking in limited terms of a “raid” to confiscate guns we lose sight of the alternative methods the government can use. Put yourself in the government’s position and think of your own methods to avoid a conflict. Meanwhile, let’s ensure that every gun owner votes for gun rights this year and the next. You can think of a thousand excuses not to vote, not to help a campaign, not to help another gun owner register to vote. I can think of one important reason to do all of those.

Liberty!

[Geezah]

Wow......I never thought that far into gun confiscation, there goes my idea about burying them. I need to start paying cash for ammo :|

[Secret Squirrel]

Wow......I never thought that far into gun confiscation, there goes my idea about burying them. I need to start paying cash for ammo :|

I sell tinfoil hats; 3 for 5 dollars and I only accept cash. ;)

[Geezah]

Wow......I never thought that far into gun confiscation, there goes my idea about burying them. I need to start paying cash for ammo :|

I sell tinfoil hats; 3 for 5 dollars and I only accept cash. ;)

That's alright I have shares in tinfoil ;)

[Dennis G]

Wow......I never thought that far into gun confiscation, there goes my idea about burying them. I need to start paying cash for ammo :|

I sell tinfoil hats; 3 for 5 dollars and I only accept cash. ;)

Thats all right squirrel you keep them, you need them more then I do. ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

Wow......I never thought that far into gun confiscation, there goes my idea about burying them. I need to start paying cash for ammo :|

I sell tinfoil hats; 3 for 5 dollars and I only accept cash. ;)

Thats all right squirrel you keep them, you need them more then I do. ;)

rofl

[Hot Lips]

I'm sure some of this is just macho posturing, but comments like some of these tank the arguement of "I'm a law abiding citizen therefore they have no reason to take my gun away from me or make me register my weapons". Based on comments like these (and I've heard similar dialogue IRL too) you're only law abiding because the law happens to suit your fancy at the moment. The law is only "American" if it stays in alignment with what you desire. If the law was changed through the normal course of our legal/governing system then you would "fight back" or take up arms in defiance of the law which suggests that you aren't law abiding by virtue, but by happenstance.

Doesn't do a whole lot to fend off the need for gun control, IMO. And by gun control I don't mean eradicating the right to own arms.... just limit the kind of arms and keeping better track of who owns them.

Why does the arguement always have to go to extremes. Does anyone think ALL guns will be banned? I don't see it happening in my lifetime. I personally find it unnerving that people that speak so radically about taking up arms against their own county and enjoy joking about taking each other out and obsess about their weapons... have weapons in the first place.

I realize radicals can not bend one iota on the issue and therefore expect the usual arguements in response. And I'll simply agree to disagree.

[Mark Sman]

The problem with gun control is that it can be a slippery slope. What might be a reasonable gun law can be used as the basis to get people ready for an unreasonable law.

As far as the US goes, I think Howard Dean's original position was right. Federal Gun Law has gone far enough. If states want to go further, so be it.

Then the fraidy cats can ban BB rifles in the states where they live, and the rest of us can still own match target AR-15s. Even if they have (EEEEK!) bayonet lugs.

Even that could be a slippery slope, as more states raise kids to believe that guns are evil.

[Geezah]

I'm sure some of this is just macho posturing, but comments like some of these tank the arguement of "I'm a law abiding citizen therefore they have no reason to take my gun away from me or make me register my weapons". Based on comments like these (and I've heard similar dialogue IRL too) you're only law abiding because the law happens to suit your fancy at the moment. The law is only "American" if it stays in alignment with what you desire. If the law was changed through the normal course of our legal/governing system then you would "fight back" or take up arms in defiance of the law which suggests that you aren't law abiding by virtue, but by happenstance.

Doesn't do a whole lot to fend off the need for gun control, IMO. And by gun control I don't mean eradicating the right to own arms.... just limit the kind of arms and keeping better track of who owns them.

Why does the arguement always have to go to extremes. Does anyone think ALL guns will be banned? I don't see it happening in my lifetime. I personally find it unnerving that people that speak so radically about taking up arms against their own county and enjoy joking about taking each other out and obsess about their weapons... have weapons in the first place.

I realize radicals can not bend one iota on the issue and therefore expect the usual arguements in response. And I'll simply agree to disagree.

It's ok to disagree, we're all entitled to our opinions but with about 80 million legally owned firearms and in comparison not anywhere near as many law abiding citizens going awol, I would say you have nothing to fear but you will find the majority of legal gun owners/NRA members feel the same way, as far as giving up their "rights", as owning firearms is a "right" that shall not be infringed.

[Geezah]

Hot Lips, if you get a chance check out the following SIG Forum (http://sigforum.com/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=674608412) you will find all manner of people over there lots of civilain Sig owners as well as PD also I think one of the top dogs at Sig in NH posts on there from time to time.
If you have no interest I understand.

[Hot Lips]

I'm sure some of this is just macho posturing, but comments like some of these tank the arguement of "I'm a law abiding citizen therefore they have no reason to take my gun away from me or make me register my weapons". Based on comments like these (and I've heard similar dialogue IRL too) you're only law abiding because the law happens to suit your fancy at the moment. The law is only "American" if it stays in alignment with what you desire. If the law was changed through the normal course of our legal/governing system then you would "fight back" or take up arms in defiance of the law which suggests that you aren't law abiding by virtue, but by happenstance.

Doesn't do a whole lot to fend off the need for gun control, IMO. And by gun control I don't mean eradicating the right to own arms.... just limit the kind of arms and keeping better track of who owns them.

Why does the arguement always have to go to extremes. Does anyone think ALL guns will be banned? I don't see it happening in my lifetime. I personally find it unnerving that people that speak so radically about taking up arms against their own county and enjoy joking about taking each other out and obsess about their weapons... have weapons in the first place.

I realize radicals can not bend one iota on the issue and therefore expect the usual arguements in response. And I'll simply agree to disagree.

It's ok to disagree, we're all entitled to our opinions but with about 80 million legally owned firearms and in comparison not anywhere near as many law abiding citizens going awol, I would say you have nothing to fear but you will find the majority of legal gun owners/NRA members feel the same way, as far as giving up their "rights", as owning firearms is a "right" that shall not be infringed.

We'll always disagree if the only option is all or nothing. I believe most matters call for compromise.

"I want --- therefore I should have".

If that were the law of the land there would be no restrictions on anything. Times change and so too must the law from time to time.

We've created a vicious cycle... We need weapons for "self defense" because the world is a more dangerous place... but the world is a more dangerous place because there are too many unneccessary weapons in circulation.

Foreign countries want nuclear weapons... why should we restrict them from owning them? They haven't dropped any on us therefore they won't -- it just makes them feel better to have them, right? I see no difference between that and restricting our domestic neighbors from owning weapons that go well beyond the realm of " personal defense" and "sport".

[Geezah]

I'm sure some of this is just macho posturing, but comments like some of these tank the arguement of "I'm a law abiding citizen therefore they have no reason to take my gun away from me or make me register my weapons". Based on comments like these (and I've heard similar dialogue IRL too) you're only law abiding because the law happens to suit your fancy at the moment. The law is only "American" if it stays in alignment with what you desire. If the law was changed through the normal course of our legal/governing system then you would "fight back" or take up arms in defiance of the law which suggests that you aren't law abiding by virtue, but by happenstance.

Doesn't do a whole lot to fend off the need for gun control, IMO. And by gun control I don't mean eradicating the right to own arms.... just limit the kind of arms and keeping better track of who owns them.

Why does the arguement always have to go to extremes. Does anyone think ALL guns will be banned? I don't see it happening in my lifetime. I personally find it unnerving that people that speak so radically about taking up arms against their own county and enjoy joking about taking each other out and obsess about their weapons... have weapons in the first place.

I realize radicals can not bend one iota on the issue and therefore expect the usual arguements in response. And I'll simply agree to disagree.

It's ok to disagree, we're all entitled to our opinions but with about 80 million legally owned firearms and in comparison not anywhere near as many law abiding citizens going awol, I would say you have nothing to fear but you will find the majority of legal gun owners/NRA members feel the same way, as far as giving up their "rights", as owning firearms is a "right" that shall not be infringed.

We'll always disagree if the only option is all or nothing. I believe most matters call for compromise.

"I want --- therefore I should have".

If that were the law of the land there would be no restrictions on anything. Times change and so too must the law from time to time.

We've created a vicious cycle... We need weapons for "self defense" because the world is a more dangerous place... but the world is a more dangerous place because there are too many unneccessary weapons in circulation.

Foreign countries want nuclear weapons... why should we restrict them from owning them? They haven't dropped any on us therefore they won't -- it just makes them feel better to have them, right? I see no difference between that and restricting our domestic neighbors from owning weapons that go well beyond the realm of " personal defense" and "sport".


I want allot of things but I understand I can't have everything but when you take away what I want and replace with only what I need, then we're one step closer to becoming subjects.
We haven't created a vicious cycle, it's human nature, we're flawed so there will always be some type of conflict going on.
After the death and destruction in Bosnia, Serbia or Croatia you would think that happened hundreds of years ago, it's medieval what took place but this *shouldn't* happen in this day and age, we're supposed to be civilised.
What type of weapons falls within the realm of "personal defense" in your eyes?

Here's a few numbers to help you sleep at night,


DOCTORS VERSES GUNS

Don't worry about the gun you have at home, worry about the doctor you go to see when you are ill. The next time you see or hear some Medical Association or governmental Public Health spokesman calling gun ownership a "Health Problem", you may want to direct their attention to these statistics:

Number of physicians in the USA = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000

Accidental deaths per physician = 0.17100
(US Dept of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the USA = 80,000,000
Accidental gun deaths per year (all ages) = 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner 0.00187
(US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
John Schuessler

Consider yourself well and truly warned. Doctors are approximately 9,000 times more hazardous to your health than gun owners.

[Dennis G]

The way I think it WILL go down is just in line with what they have been doing since the Firearms Act of 1934......little "reasonable" steps at a time.....ban this weapon, require a higher license for that one, tax them high, tax the ammo high, "we don't want your hunting rifle" and so on....."they" know an outright ban will cause a revolution here.....so the frog will get boiled one degree at a time.

That's "their" plan and they are sticking to it. And it's working......minor setbacks like the non-renewal of the AWB aside, they ARE winning folks.

Want proof ?

Did anyone 'revolt' when the 1934 law was passed ?
Did anyone 'revolt' when the 1968 law was passed?
Did anyone 'revolt' when the AWB was passed ?
Did anyone 'revolt' when laws were passed prohibitiing guns on just about every federal property coming and going ?

Nope....all "reasonable" steps.....steps that lead to the cliff where you finally throw your guns over the edge.

That's the plan.

[Hot Lips]

Don't worry Geezah, I "sleep just fine at night" and don't need a gun to accomplish that. I go about my day and give little if any thought to guns and who has them. I only comment here because it is brought up so often.

I never expected to find so much paranoia in a place like this. I tend to think that an intense desire to own bigger more powerful guns is a disturbing extension of short comings in ones personality.

As for your "comforting" statistics.... what are the intentional deaths caused by physicians versus intentional deaths caused by guns?
======================
Here's a conundrum

I should not worry about gun control because the likelihood that something will happen is slim.

But gun owners want to have a gun because they are afraid something will happen.
======================
Like I said before. I see no difference between trying to control other nations from arming themselves with more powerful weapons and trying to control neighbors from arming themselves with more powerful weapons. It's just control on a larger scale. In my eyes, WMD are to a nation what guns/bullets are to lives of loved ones.

If we shouldn't prevent people from owning guns because we truely believe this is right that people should have..... then we have no business trying to disarm other nations.

IMO, it makes us a nation of hypocrites.

[California Joe]

Dammit, most of my flintlocks I build have 42" barrels....... :oops:

[Hot Lips]

Dammit, most of my flintlocks I build have 42" barrels....... :oops:

What size shoe do you wear? ;)

[platform389]

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

[Hot Lips]

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

Because having a gun is more important than human life. :cantbeli:

[sergey31]

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

Good post man :lol:

If they want my guns , well they have to find them and I will distribute to those in need. :D

[sergey31]

In the future...... When it would be that you have to have a human ID tag to purchase or sell or work etc.....Well, HOW in the hell I'm going to assault and rob grocery store in the middle of the night without my guns????? :bash:

[Sir Zach of R.]

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

Good post man :lol:

If they want my guns , well they have to find them and I will distribute to those in need. :D

The only reason I'd go out in a "blaze of glory" would be if the UN were the ones who wanted to take my guns. No one's gonna take away my 2nd Ammendment rights. woot

[Geezah]

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

Because having a gun is more important than human life. :cantbeli:

Unfortunetly, I do not live in a community where there is a gate to the entrance, I do not have security guards patroling 24/7, I'm not in a position where I have Secret Service protecting me where ever I go, so the job falls back onto me.
The presevation of my life and the lives of my loved ones comes first, and if it means I get to own guns to do this then, oh well.

Nothing you can do or say will change my position on that, having mixed with a sordid bunch back in the UK, having been privy to things that have happened but shouldn't have, means I have a bit more of a realistic view on the World and understand what bad people are capable of doing.

Paranoid no, I just think, judging by your comments here I have abit more real life experience ;)

As far as " I only comment here because it is brought up so often." you're on a Pro Military website, what do you expect :cantbeli:

[Hot Lips]

This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

Because having a gun is more important than human life. :cantbeli:

Unfortunetly, I do not live in a community where there is a gate to the entrance, I do not have security guards patroling 24/7, I'm not in a position where I have Secret Service protecting me where ever I go, so the job falls back onto me.
The presevation of my life and the lives of my loved ones comes first, and if it means I get to own guns to do this then, oh well.

Nothing you can do or say will change my position on that, having mixed with a sordid bunch back in the UK, having been privy to things that have happened but shouldn't have, means I have a bit more of a realistic view on the World and understand what bad people are capable of doing.

Paranoid no, I just think, judging by your comments here I have abit more real life experience ;)

As far as " I only comment here because it is brought up so often." you're on a Pro Military website, what do you expect :cantbeli:

rofl Paranoid, definately.

I don't live in a gated community nor have 24x7 protection either. The PD and other law enforcement are available. I have other means of defense within my home since the ex took the gun with him... but I don't anticipate needing "defense" against our own government. And I have a healthy understanding of what bad people are capable of. I'm just not overly paranoid about the world nor extremist about having things my way all the time. I don't begrudge anyone the right to own arms that will satisfy the need for "personal defense" or "sport". I'm talking compromise. I understand that the average citizen does not need certain weapons for "personal defense" nor "sport" and I definately think people should be held more accountable for keeping their weapons secure.

As for "Pro" Military and what I expect of this site --- I think it's funny that every issue has to be "pro" or "anti" with you. No middle ground. Not everyone here talks about taking up arms against their own country if a law gets changed. I think it's funny that someone can be called "unamerican" or "unpatriotic" for not supporting a particular candidate (not saying you did this), but talking about taking up arms against your own country to protect what amount to toys or ***** extentions is somehow "reasonable" or "acceptable".

[Geezah]

[quote=Geezah]
This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

Because having a gun is more important than human life. :cantbeli:

Unfortunetly, I do not live in a community where there is a gate to the entrance, I do not have security guards patroling 24/7, I'm not in a position where I have Secret Service protecting me where ever I go, so the job falls back onto me.
The presevation of my life and the lives of my loved ones comes first, and if it means I get to own guns to do this then, oh well.

Nothing you can do or say will change my position on that, having mixed with a sordid bunch back in the UK, having been privy to things that have happened but shouldn't have, means I have a bit more of a realistic view on the World and understand what bad people are capable of doing.

Paranoid no, I just think, judging by your comments here I have abit more real life experience ;)

As far as " I only comment here because it is brought up so often." you're on a Pro Military website, what do you expect :cantbeli:


rofl Paranoid, definately.

Errh...okay, if you like



I don't live in a gated community nor have 24x7 protection either. The PD and other law enforcement are available. I have other means of defense within my home since the ex took the gun with him... but I don't anticipate needing "defense" against our own government. And I have a healthy understanding of what bad people are capable of. I'm just not overly paranoid about the world nor extremist about having things my way all the time. I don't begrudge anyone the right to own arms that will satisfy the need for "personal defense" or "sport". I'm talking compromise. I understand that the average citizen does not need certain weapons for "personal defense" nor "sport" and I definately think people should be held more accountable for keeping their weapons secure..

I think I've already compromised, I can't own select fire weapons, fire SBRs or Destructive Devices and the list goes on so how much of a compormise do you suggest, it seems like everything falls in your favour at the moment ;)

And who are you to determine what the average citizens NEEDS, and exactly what type of firearms falls within the guidelines you have set for personal defense?



As for "Pro" Military and what I expect of this site --- I think it's funny that every issue has to be "pro" or "anti" with you. No middle ground. Not everyone here talks about taking up arms against their own country if a law gets changed. I think it's funny that someone can be called "unamerican" or "unpatriotic" for not supporting a particular candidate (not saying you did this), but talking about taking up arms against your own country to protect what amount to toys or ***** extentions is somehow "reasonable" or "acceptable".

I asked the question if people would be prepared to do this.....and I find it amazing how you try to belittle our 2nd Amm Rights by refereing to firearms as toys or ***** extensions, I would say that currently you are posting replies based on your emotions rather than logic ;)

As far as pro and anti, there is no middle of the road for the antis, take Fein-Swine, the AWB did nothing to curb crime yet it is her goal as is KERRY'S, BOXER, SCHUEMER and KENNEDY to disarm the law abiding. Please explain to me where is the compromise there :cantbeli:

[Secret Squirrel]

I asked the question if people would be prepared to do this.....and I find it amazing how you try to belittle our 2nd Amm Rights by refereing to firearms as toys or ***** extensions, I would say that currently you are posting replies based on your emotions rather than logic ;)

Lisa: The second amendment is just a remanant from revolutionary periods, it has no real meaning today
Homer: You couldnt be more wrong Lisa. If I didn't have this gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that, well do ya. rofl

[Hot Lips]

[quote=Geezah]
This raises a good question, are you willing to die to protect your/our 2nd Amm Right?
If the boys in blue came for your guns tomorrow would you go out in a blaze of glory?

The plan is already in place. Should they arrive here, they will find the doors unlocked and the frig full of food. The liquor cabinet will be fully stocked with a wide selection. I will be no where in sight.

No doubt my blue helmeted friends will help themselves to the delights, but a number of neat "additives" will have been part of the recipe. I doubt all that come in, will go out walking on their own feet.

As for me, there is 300,000 acres of pine trees extending for miles and miles to the west here. More than enough hiding places.

If they want my guns, they will have to work for them. I may go "out in a blaze of glory", but I plan to set a few blazes myself...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/tongue.gif

Because having a gun is more important than human life. :cantbeli:

Unfortunetly, I do not live in a community where there is a gate to the entrance, I do not have security guards patroling 24/7, I'm not in a position where I have Secret Service protecting me where ever I go, so the job falls back onto me.
The presevation of my life and the lives of my loved ones comes first, and if it means I get to own guns to do this then, oh well.

Nothing you can do or say will change my position on that, having mixed with a sordid bunch back in the UK, having been privy to things that have happened but shouldn't have, means I have a bit more of a realistic view on the World and understand what bad people are capable of doing.

Paranoid no, I just think, judging by your comments here I have abit more real life experience ;)

As far as " I only comment here because it is brought up so often." you're on a Pro Military website, what do you expect :cantbeli:


rofl Paranoid, definately.

Errh...okay, if you like



I don't live in a gated community nor have 24x7 protection either. The PD and other law enforcement are available. I have other means of defense within my home since the ex took the gun with him... but I don't anticipate needing "defense" against our own government. And I have a healthy understanding of what bad people are capable of. I'm just not overly paranoid about the world nor extremist about having things my way all the time. I don't begrudge anyone the right to own arms that will satisfy the need for "personal defense" or "sport". I'm talking compromise. I understand that the average citizen does not need certain weapons for "personal defense" nor "sport" and I definately think people should be held more accountable for keeping their weapons secure..

I think I've already compromised, I can't own select fire weapons, fire SBRs or Destructive Devices and the list goes on so how much of a compormise do you suggest, it seems like everything falls in your favour at the moment ;)

And who are you to determine what the average citizens NEEDS, and exactly what type of firearms falls within the guidelines you have set for personal defense?

I didn't say that I was going to determine what the average citizen needs. I have an opinion on the matter that I'll voice as an individual, and I'll accept the laws our representatives in government vote in and if I don't like their decisions I'll vote for someone else. I would not bunker down and shoot anyone just because a law doesn't go my way. Nutty talk like that supports the need for control, IMO.





As for "Pro" Military and what I expect of this site --- I think it's funny that every issue has to be "pro" or "anti" with you. No middle ground. Not everyone here talks about taking up arms against their own country if a law gets changed. I think it's funny that someone can be called "unamerican" or "unpatriotic" for not supporting a particular candidate (not saying you did this), but talking about taking up arms against your own country to protect what amount to toys or ***** extentions is somehow "reasonable" or "acceptable".

I asked the question if people would be prepared to do this.....and I find it amazing how you try to belittle our 2nd Amm Rights by refereing to firearms as toys or ***** extensions, I would say that currently you are posting replies based on your emotions rather than logic ;)

We have the right to arm ourselves. I don't personally believe we need certain weapons in our day to day lives, but what I find disturbing in this thread is the blatant disregard for "the law" under the guise of protecting a law. Your "rights" are based on "laws", if the law changes then you work within the legal system to get the law changed again. As if shooting people over gun ownership puts you on the side of righteousness... even if you are breaking a law.

If you argue that gun ownership isn't a "law" and just a "right" as a human being... then I go back to the example of our being hypocrites for trying to disarm other countries. Is it not their right to arm themselves too?

As for emotion being involved... that is what the toy/***** analogy implies about a person that needs a weapon beyond the power neccessary for the task they claim it is for. Emotional -- I'm not the one talking about killing people over a personal possession.



As far as pro and anti, there is no middle of the road for the antis, take Fein-Swine, the AWB did nothing to curb crime yet it is her goal as is KERRY'S, BOXER, SCHUEMER and KENNEDY to disarm the law abiding. Please explain to me where is the compromise there :cantbeli:

LMAO - I wasn't talking about the "antis" I was talking about YOU. You don't seem to willing to find middle ground on issues. You seem to pick a side on an issue and then go to the extreme of it. Nothing would get done in our society of we all took that posture.

You keep saying "law abiding" while talking about hiding weapons and/or shooting people if the law chances from what you desire.

[Sir Zach of R.]

There is no middle ground on issues like these. Either it's right or it's wrong. Hot Lips I can't find exactly why you have such a problem with certain guns. For someone like me living in a neighborhood that has had four homes broken into, and robbed, I and my family have to have a gun. There's a f*cking police chopper circling around nearly twice a month with it's search light going up and down the street, then ten minutes later, I'll hear sirens blaring up and down the street.

[Hot Lips]

There is no middle ground on issues like these. Either it's right or it's wrong. Hot Lips I can't find exactly why you have such a problem with certain guns. For someone like me living in a neighborhood that has had four homes broken into, and robbed, I and my family have to have a gun. There's a f*cking police chopper circling around nearly twice a month with it's search light going up and down the street, then ten minutes later, I'll hear sirens blaring up and down the street.

No middle ground? So citizens should be able to by whatever weapons they want to? If armament is a simple matter of "right" versus "wrong" then why do we worry about disarming other countries? We can send men out to die to police the world, but not police ourselves?

We won't see eye to eye on control issues, particularly when it involves grouping myself with "law abiding" people that would willingly kill military/police personel from their own country because a particular law doesn't suit them.

[Geezah]

I understand that the average citizen does not need certain weapons for "personal defense"

And what are those certain weapons????It seems like a simple enough question but you seem unable to answer it :cantbeli:


LMAO - I wasn't talking about the "antis" I was talking about YOU. You don't seem to willing to find middle ground on issues. You seem to pick a side on an issue and then go to the extreme of it. Nothing would get done in our society of we all took that posture.

How can I/We find middle ground if those that wish to take away our rights have no intention of meeting us half way? You believe that law abiding citizens should have access to certain weapons for "persoanl protection" but you can't tell me what those are? I'm trying to meet you half way ;)


If you argue that gun ownership isn't a "law" and just a "right" as a human being... then I go back to the example of our being hypocrites for trying to disarm other countries. Is it not their right to arm themselves too?

What????What the hell has the rest of the World got to do with *our* Constitutional Rights???



We have the right to arm ourselves. I don't personally believe we need certain weapons in our day to day lives, but what I find disturbing in this thread is the blatant disregard for "the law" under the guise of protecting a law. Your "rights" are based on "laws", if the law changes then you work within the legal system to get the law changed again. As if shooting people over gun ownership puts you on the side of righteousness... even if you are breaking a law.

So even though, no-one has broken the law, you're arguing over the fact that people have said they would fight for their rights, well okey do k.... Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Ming or would you prefer Pol Pot! Hell it was law that woman weren't allowed any rights under Taliban rule, do you think that's ok, it was the law?
Also what are those "certain weapons"??


As for emotion being involved... that is what the toy/***** analogy implies about a person that needs a weapon beyond the power neccessary for the task they claim it is for.

And I thought that was fast cars or does that apply to anything that has a hint of an aggressive nature, well when I was 13 I used to BMX, then got into ice hockey(amateur of course, knocked out my right front tooth) then skateboarding(broke and dislocated my right arm have callos bone on my right elbow and ankle, had 5 stiches in my right knee) then I crossed over into aggressive rollerblading( travlleing into the West End in the early hours of the night, nearly broke my back in South Bank), then when I moved here I got into Chinese Boxing(have had multiple inguries but still enjoyed it) so during this time, you think the reason I got involved in aggressive sports was because I wanted a couple of extra inches on my (0ck, please explain Sigmund because I'm fasinated.........not.

[BarkingSquirrel]

We won't see eye to eye on control issues, particularly when it involves grouping myself with "law abiding" people that would willingly kill military/police personel from their own country because a particular law doesn't suit them.Tell that to George Washington.

[Geezah]

There is no middle ground on issues like these. Either it's right or it's wrong. Hot Lips I can't find exactly why you have such a problem with certain guns. For someone like me living in a neighborhood that has had four homes broken into, and robbed, I and my family have to have a gun. There's a f*cking police chopper circling around nearly twice a month with it's search light going up and down the street, then ten minutes later, I'll hear sirens blaring up and down the street.

We won't see eye to eye on control issues, particularly when it involves grouping myself with "law abiding" people that would willingly kill military/police personel from their own country because a particular law doesn't suit them.

I love the way you've put a spin on this, we're talking about our Constitutional Rights, how hard is it to undrstand that :cantbeli:

So what do you think about Ruby Ridge and the fact the FBI/ATF opened fire and killed when there was no immediate threat to themselves or their partners?

[Geezah]

No middle ground? So citizens should be able to by whatever weapons they want to? If armament is a simple matter of "right" versus "wrong" then why do we worry about disarming other countries? We can send men out to die to police the world, but not police ourselves?


How much knowledge/experience do you have about/with firearms and the law???? I can't own just anything I want because of the laws that are in place, I'd like to own SBRs, Destructive Devices even Select Fire Weapons but I cannot because of the current laws in place, where is this middle ground that we should meet on???? :cantbeli:

It's not a case of RIght versus Wrong it's our Constitutional Right :cantbeli:

[sergey31]

How about this.

Driving a vehicle = previlige.
Getting a pilot's license = previlidge
Painting your house purple in a home association neigborhood where everyone else's house is white AND geting away with it = Previlidge.

Owning a firearm = Right.

[Hot Lips]

We just disagree. Some of you think it's right to kill people that are enforcing the laws of our nation when those laws don't suit you personally. I believe in working within our governing system to try and change things.

[sergey31]

We just disagree. Some of you think it's right to kill people that are enforcing the laws of our nation when those laws don't suit you personally. I believe in working within our governing system to try and change things.

If we go around changing our constitution.... Well, we might go and make changes to the Bible while were at it... Oh, maybe some history as well.

Some things are not for change. Constitution/Amendments is one of them.. .No need to!

[BlackRain]

the tuffff is the sound of a round hitting a body, anything over 650 metre's plus you won't hear an accuracy int , I win woot :lol:

I will saturate the battlefield with 20 year old Scotch and good beer. We both know that a good Irishman can't resist.

Then all your base belong to us.

[moughoun]

the tuffff is the sound of a round hitting a body, anything over 650 metre's plus you won't hear an accuracy int , I win woot :lol:

I will saturate the battlefield with 20 year old Scotch and good beer. We both know that a good Irishman can't resist.

Then all your base belong to us.
I haven't had a drink in 6 years haha ;)

[Hot Lips]

Some things are not for change. Constitution/Amendments is one of them.. .No need to!

Amendment = change

[Sir Zach of R.]

We're not talking about gay's rights here. Now, name five (5) weapons that you believe civilians should not posess. Be sure to list 3 main features of that particular weapon that you believe make the weapon more lethal, effective, etc.

[moughoun]

We're not talking about gay's rights here. Now, name five (5) weapons that you believe civilians should not posess. Be sure to list 3 main features of that particular weapon that you believe make the weapon more lethal, effective, etc.
40mm aaa gun, anti aircrft, anti tank weapon's,mortor's, sub machine gun's, anything capable of killing a charging elephant and those annoying bubble blowing guns :bash:

[Sir Zach of R.]

We're not talking about gay's rights here. Now, name five (5) weapons that you believe civilians should not posess. Be sure to list 3 main features of that particular weapon that you believe make the weapon more lethal, effective, etc.
40mm aaa gun, anti aircrft, anti tank weapon's,mortor's, sub machine gun's, anything capable of killing a charging elephant and those annoying bubble blowing guns :bash:

You know what I mean. I mean "small arms", AR's, AK's, Bolt Actions, etc. Okay, let me put it this way: List 5 weapons that should not be posessed by civilians, which are currently posessed by civilians legally.

[Hot Lips]

We're not talking about gay's rights here. Now, name five (5) weapons that you believe civilians should not posess. Be sure to list 3 main features of that particular weapon that you believe make the weapon more lethal, effective, etc.

No. I'm done. We are debating opinions and there is no right or wrong. Only more opinions. If we were talking about facts that would be different. We won't see eye to eye.

[Sir Zach of R.]

Congrats on your 1st rate job skating around my question. :bash:

[Geezah]

Congrats on your 1st rate job skating around my question. :bash:

Hey.....I asked the same question 3 times(I think) only to find out I want a longer (0ck rofl
I thought this was a simple question to Hot Lips

You believe that law abiding citizens should have access to certain weapons for "personal protection" but you can't tell me what those are?
I guess it wasn't that simple, especially when you base your idea of giving law abiding citizens certain firearms only to have no understanding of firearms in general, it's this mindset that fuels the likes of Fein-Swine :cantbeli:

https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi2.jpg
Senator Dianne Feinstein
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi1.jpg
One fine example of someone that has no clue about the safe handling of firearms but wants to ban them :cantbeli:

[Sir Zach of R.]

Congrats on your 1st rate job skating around my question. :bash:

Hey.....I asked the same question 3 times(I think) only to find out I want a longer (0ck rofl
I thought this was a simple question to Hot Lips

You believe that law abiding citizens should have access to certain weapons for "personal protection" but you can't tell me what those are?
I guess it wasn't that simple, especially when you base your idea of giving law abiding citizens certain firearms only to have no understanding of firearms in general, it's this mindset that fuels the likes of Fein-Swine :cantbeli:

https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi2.jpg
Senator Dianne Feinstein
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi1.jpg
One fine example of someone that has no clue about the safe handling of firearms but wants to ban them :cantbeli:

Exactly. Those who hate or oppose civilian-ownership of firearms are typically the most ignorant on the issue. By that, I mean they usually haven't the slightest clue of what damage can be done with a 9mm Luger, 30-06, .17 HMR, .22 Long, etc. Also, they probably don't even know basic firearms safety, operation, etc. And those who say: "We don't want criminals using them." Holy sh*t! I don't think they know that an AR-15 typically costs anywhere from $700 to $4,000. There's more of a chance of a truckload of Tec-9's being illegally shipped over the boarder, than some punk from LA gettin' a hold of a KAC SR-15.

[Hot Lips]

Congrats on your 1st rate job skating around my question. :bash:

Hey.....I asked the same question 3 times(I think) only to find out I want a longer (0ck rofl
I thought this was a simple question to Hot Lips

You believe that law abiding citizens should have access to certain weapons for "personal protection" but you can't tell me what those are?
I guess it wasn't that simple, especially when you base your idea of giving law abiding citizens certain firearms only to have no understanding of firearms in general, it's this mindset that fuels the likes of Fein-Swine :cantbeli:

https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi2.jpg
Senator Dianne Feinstein
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi1.jpg
One fine example of someone that has no clue about the safe handling of firearms but wants to ban them :cantbeli:

Exactly. Those who hate or oppose civilian-ownership of firearms are typically the most ignorant on the issue. By that, I mean they usually haven't the slightest clue of what damage can be done with a 9mm Luger, 30-06, .17 HMR, .22 Long, etc. Also, they probably don't even know basic firearms safety, operation, etc. And those who say: "We don't want criminals using them." Holy sh*t! I don't think they know that an AR-15 typically costs anywhere from $700 to $4,000. There's more of a chance of a truckload of Tec-9's being illegally shipped over the boarder, than some punk from LA gettin' a hold of a KAC SR-15.

Neither of us can prove anything other than we have incompatible opinions. You can stroke each other all night long about how much you know about handling different guns and still not prove anything because you are talking about opinions.

The only time opinions really matter is when the majority shares a common opinion and bands together to change laws. If you think your opinion should be elevated above majority or above new law and that murder is the answer to addressing your issues with law changes then there are plenty of other countries/governments to choose from.

[James]

I'm going to my compound in the mountains when the black helicopters come.

[Sir Zach of R.]

Congrats on your 1st rate job skating around my question. :bash:

Hey.....I asked the same question 3 times(I think) only to find out I want a longer (0ck rofl
I thought this was a simple question to Hot Lips

You believe that law abiding citizens should have access to certain weapons for "personal protection" but you can't tell me what those are?
I guess it wasn't that simple, especially when you base your idea of giving law abiding citizens certain firearms only to have no understanding of firearms in general, it's this mindset that fuels the likes of Fein-Swine :cantbeli:



https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi2.jpg
Senator Dianne Feinstein
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/difi1.jpg
One fine example of someone that has no clue about the safe handling of firearms but wants to ban them :cantbeli:

Exactly. Those who hate or oppose civilian-ownership of firearms are typically the most ignorant on the issue. By that, I mean they usually haven't the slightest clue of what damage can be done with a 9mm Luger, 30-06, .17 HMR, .22 Long, etc. Also, they probably don't even know basic firearms safety, operation, etc. And those who say: "We don't want criminals using them." Holy sh*t! I don't think they know that an AR-15 typically costs anywhere from $700 to $4,000. There's more of a chance of a truckload of Tec-9's being illegally shipped over the boarder, than some punk from LA gettin' a hold of a KAC SR-15.

Neither of us can prove anything other than we have incompatible opinions. You can stroke each other all night long about how much you know about handling different guns and still not prove anything because you are talking about opinions.

The only time opinions really matter is when the majority shares a common opinion and bands together to change laws. If you think your opinion should be elevated above majority or above new law and that murder is the answer to addressing your issues with law changes then there are plenty of other countries/governments to choose from.

You still have not given me a relevent answer as to why civies should not be able to own the evil "assault weapons." You can eat crap fed to you by Feinstein your entire life, or you can try to look up the facts, and see that most murders or assaults have been pulled off using snub nosed .38's, or cheap ass MAC-10's smuggled over the border. The event in LA in '97, if I recall, involved a pair of full-auto Hungarian AK-47's that were ILLEGALLY smuggled into the US. So, if you really want to stop crime, you also have to improve border security, and better intermodal container inspection.

[Hot Lips]

Neither of us can prove anything other than we have incompatible opinions. You can stroke each other all night long about how much you know about handling different guns and still not prove anything because you are talking about opinions.

The only time opinions really matter is when the majority shares a common opinion and bands together to change laws. If you think your opinion should be elevated above majority or above new law and that murder is the answer to addressing your issues with law changes then there are plenty of other countries/governments to choose from.

You still have not given me a relevent answer as to why civies should not be able to own the evil "assault weapons." You can eat crap fed to you by Feinstein your entire life, or you can try to look up the facts, and see that most murders or assaults have been pulled off using snub nosed .38's, or cheap ass MAC-10's smuggled over the border. The event in LA in '97, if I recall, involved a pair of full-auto Hungarian AK-47's that were ILLEGALLY smuggled into the US. So, if you really want to stop crime, you also have to improve border security, and better intermodal container inspection.

In your mind, is there a "relevent answer" to be had?

[BarkingSquirrel]

I'm still wondering what you think George Washington would say about civilians fighting soldiers and police against unconstitutional laws/stripping of rights/general totalitarianism.

[Hot Lips]

I'm still wondering what you think George Washington would say about civilians fighting soldiers and police against unconstitutional laws/stripping of rights/general totalitarianism.

Are you comparing the American Revolution to not having one law go your way and killing people over it instead of working within the system to get the law changed back? Is a law "stripped" if is voted in by our elected officials? What is it about representative democracy that you are opposed to? What would you like to see replace it?

[Sir Zach of R.]

Neither of us can prove anything other than we have incompatible opinions. You can stroke each other all night long about how much you know about handling different guns and still not prove anything because you are talking about opinions.

The only time opinions really matter is when the majority shares a common opinion and bands together to change laws. If you think your opinion should be elevated above majority or above new law and that murder is the answer to addressing your issues with law changes then there are plenty of other countries/governments to choose from.

You still have not given me a relevent answer as to why civies should not be able to own the evil "assault weapons." You can eat crap fed to you by Feinstein your entire life, or you can try to look up the facts, and see that most murders or assaults have been pulled off using snub nosed .38's, or cheap ass MAC-10's smuggled over the border. The event in LA in '97, if I recall, involved a pair of full-auto Hungarian AK-47's that were ILLEGALLY smuggled into the US. So, if you really want to stop crime, you also have to improve border security, and better intermodal container inspection.

In your mind, is there a "relevent answer" to be had?

Jesus H. Christ! Answer the f*cking question already! :bash: :bash: :bash: Quit skating around my question and just answer it! Is it so difficult? You know, the only time I've had this hard of a time getting someone to answer a question, was someone who was ashamed of the answer. Do you know where you stand is wrong? Is that why you continue to dodge mine and Geezah's questions?

To answer your question, yes, there is a "relevent answer." There has to be something you can say about why it is wrong to own "assault weapons." It is a simple question: Why is it wrong for US civilians to own the so called "assault weapons?"

*sigh* My f*cking head hurts. If you're just trying to annoy the sh*t out of me, it worked. I'm pissed, and I'm commited to this thread. :cantbeli:

[BarkingSquirrel]

I'm still wondering what you think George Washington would say about civilians fighting soldiers and police against unconstitutional laws/stripping of rights/general totalitarianism.

Are you comparing the American Revolution to not having one law go your way and killing people over it instead of working within the system to get the law changed back?Yes I am.

particularly when it involves grouping myself with "law abiding" people that would willingly kill military/police personel from their own country because a particular law doesn't suit them.You need to brush up on you're history. This is exactly what they did.

[moughoun]

*sigh* My f*cking head hurts. If you're just trying to annoy the sh*t out of me, it worked. I'm pissed, and I'm commited to this thread
you son need to get out more

[Hot Lips]

You still have not given me a relevent answer as to why civies should not be able to own the evil "assault weapons." You can eat crap fed to you by Feinstein your entire life, or you can try to look up the facts, and see that most murders or assaults have been pulled off using snub nosed .38's, or cheap ass MAC-10's smuggled over the border. The event in LA in '97, if I recall, involved a pair of full-auto Hungarian AK-47's that were ILLEGALLY smuggled into the US. So, if you really want to stop crime, you also have to improve border security, and better intermodal container inspection.

In your mind, is there a "relevent answer" to be had?

Jesus H. Christ! Answer the f*cking question already! :bash: :bash: :bash: Quit skating around my question and just answer it! Is it so difficult? You know, the only time I've had this hard of a time getting someone to answer a question, was someone who was ashamed of the answer. Do you know where you stand is wrong? Is that why you continue to dodge mine and Geezah's questions?

To answer your question, yes, there is a "relevent answer." There has to be something you can say about why it is wrong to own "assault weapons." It is a simple question: Why is it wrong for US civilians to own the so called "assault weapons?"

*sigh* My f*cking head hurts. If you're just trying to annoy the sh*t out of me, it worked. I'm pissed, and I'm commited to this thread. :cantbeli:

Wow such an emotional response! Nice use of the violent smilie. Are you dictating what I must do? I don't think we'll ban all guns. I don't think there is a secret agenda and plot to storm our homes to confiscate them - but if they do I won't cry over it cause I don't hunt and don' feel I need a gun for personal protection. I'd feel bad for hunters, but I won't think it would be OK for them to shoot officials that come to confiscate the weapons if that is what the new law calls for.

This issue is clearly more important to you ---- so why don't you tell me why you think you need all the available weapons or any that were banned.

[Hot Lips]

I'm still wondering what you think George Washington would say about civilians fighting soldiers and police against unconstitutional laws/stripping of rights/general totalitarianism.

Are you comparing the American Revolution to not having one law go your way and killing people over it instead of working within the system to get the law changed back?Yes I am.

particularly when it involves grouping myself with "law abiding" people that would willingly kill military/police personel from their own country because a particular law doesn't suit them.You need to brush up on you're history. This is exactly what they did.

You missed these questions.... Is a law "stripped" if is voted in by our elected officials? What is it about representative democracy that you are opposed to (since you think a revolution is justified by the changing of one law - Washington fought against a form of government and laws the people were opposed to -- if you are like him then you must be opposed to our current government)? What would you like to see replace it?

[Sir Zach of R.]

*sigh* My f*cking head hurts. If you're just trying to annoy the sh*t out of me, it worked. I'm pissed, and I'm commited to this thread
you son need to get out more

Maybe I'll just go shoot my guns. How does that sound?

[Beowulf]

A: Why do you need the weapons?
B: Why can't we have them?
A: Well, why do you need them?
etc etc

It's considered a right to own a weapon in America, what type of weapon is the issue.

The AWB was a horrible piece of legislation written by people who have little understanding of firearms and what it is that makes one more lethal than another.

The '94 AWB dealt primarily with cosmetic features that made a weapon look scary.

Also the rather loose usage of the term "assault weapon" [ooohhh] is misleading. It makes the question "Why do you need to own an assault weapon?",that much more loaded. [pun]

Ultimately the flaw in most gun legislation in America is that it only tends to affect law abiding citizens.

The meth dealer does not care whether his weapon only has two of the features outlined in the AWB...it's probably full auto anyway (something not covered in the 94 awb...)

[moughoun]

*sigh* My f*cking head hurts. If you're just trying to annoy the sh*t out of me, it worked. I'm pissed, and I'm commited to this thread
you son need to get out more

Maybe I'll just go shoot my guns. How does that sound?
as long as it's not at people sport p-)

[Sir Zach of R.]

A: Why do you need the weapons?
B: Why can't we have them?
A: Well, why do you need them?
etc etc

It's considered a right to own a weapon in America, what type of weapon is the issue.

The AWB was a horrible piece of legislation written by people who have little understanding of firearms and what it is that makes one more lethal than another.

The '94 AWB dealt primarily with cosmetic features that made a weapon look scary.

Also the rather loose usage of the term "assault weapon" [ooohhh] is misleading. It makes the question "Why do you need to own an assault weapon?",that much more loaded. [pun]

Ultimately the flaw in most gun legislation in America is that it only tends to affect law abiding citizens.

The meth dealer does not care whether his weapon only has two of the features outlined in the AWB...it's probably full auto anyway (something not covered in the 94 awb...)

Hail, the always wise Beowulf. btw, I loved your fable. You kicked that dragon's ass in that lake of blood. :lol:

[Beowulf]

one final thought...for me gun ownership is really about whose responsibility it is to protect myself and my family.

I have a lot of friends in law enforcement, ask a police officer they will most likely tell you that their job is not so much prevention as response, ,and apprehension...

Unless you want a police state these things are not going to change. America was founded with strong notions of liberty in mind, citizens are in large part responsible for themselves...discussions of libertarianism aside..

I carry a weapon most of the time, I have my CHL and I view it as stepping up and taking responsibility for myself, my friends and family. Others may call me paranoid....perhaps they are correct. I do know this, friends (usually women) have mentioned that they feel "safer" when I am around.

[BarkingSquirrel]

One such check and balance is the Second Amendment which plainly states that an armed citizenry is "necessary to the security of a free state." Our Constitution provides the means (an armed citizenry) to restore our freedoms if the government grows so big that it takes them away. Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason. Politicians who hold to a socialist agenda fear this aspect of the 2nd amendment and seek to discredit it at every opportunity. The right to own firearms for "sporting purposes" is falsely substituted into the 2nd Amendment to trick us into believing that hunting is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. This is nonsense--but many Americans foolishly believe it! The Second Amendment is continually demonized by misinformation. Citizens who own firearms are refered to as "extremists" and "child killers" by politicians, educators and the news media. Possession of arms by citizens is the central indicator of whether our country is truly "free" and secure. When a government disarms its citizens, that country is not truly free--no matter what excuses are used to justify it--including the false promises of safety and security voiced by the anti-violence/anti-gun movements--and even our own Justice department. When this happens, America will cease to be what it was created to be. That's why Charlton Heston calls the Second Amendment "Our First Freedom." When the word "democracy" is used to describe the United States by educators and news reporters, they are taking advantage of the ignorance about America's true nature. It is the difference between Socialism (or a "socialist" democracy) and true freedom. This is plainly stated in our "Pledge of Allegiance," but ignored by most Americans.Link (http://www.mcsm.org/truth1.html)

Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. We're potential murderers if we do as our forefathers intended :roll:

Oh, and we're a free republic, not a democracy, hell even the pledge of allegiance says it.

[Hot Lips]

One such check and balance is the Second Amendment which plainly states that an armed citizenry is "necessary to the security of a free state." Our Constitution provides the means (an armed citizenry) to restore our freedoms if the government grows so big that it takes them away. Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason. Politicians who hold to a socialist agenda fear this aspect of the 2nd amendment and seek to discredit it at every opportunity. The right to own firearms for "sporting purposes" is falsely substituted into the 2nd Amendment to trick us into believing that hunting is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. This is nonsense--but many Americans foolishly believe it! The Second Amendment is continually demonized by misinformation. Citizens who own firearms are refered to as "extremists" and "child killers" by politicians, educators and the news media. Possession of arms by citizens is the central indicator of whether our country is truly "free" and secure. When a government disarms its citizens, that country is not truly free--no matter what excuses are used to justify it--including the false promises of safety and security voiced by the anti-violence/anti-gun movements--and even our own Justice department. When this happens, America will cease to be what it was created to be. That's why Charlton Heston calls the Second Amendment "Our First Freedom." When the word "democracy" is used to describe the United States by educators and news reporters, they are taking advantage of the ignorance about America's true nature. It is the difference between Socialism (or a "socialist" democracy) and true freedom. This is plainly stated in our "Pledge of Allegiance," but ignored by most Americans.Link (http://www.mcsm.org/truth1.html)

Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. We're potential murderers if we do as our forefathers intended :roll:

Oh, and we're a free republic, not a democracy, hell even the pledge of allegiance says it.

If your state is behind the action collectively against the federal government that's one thing. I'd hope that they try to resolve the matter through our existing system before resorting to killing people. If you are taking it upon yourself as an individual to bunker down in your home and shoot people because you personally disagree with what our elected officials voted on... that something else entirely, IMO.

I guess we should let Bush know to stop talking about our democracy. "The roots of our democracy can be traced to ...."

[Hot Lips]

one final thought...for me gun ownership is really about whose responsibility it is to protect myself and my family.

I have a lot of friends in law enforcement, ask a police officer they will most likely tell you that their job is not so much prevention as response, ,and apprehension...

Unless you want a police state these things are not going to change. America was founded with strong notions of liberty in mind, citizens are in large part responsible for themselves...discussions of libertarianism aside..

I carry a weapon most of the time, I have my CHL and I view it as stepping up and taking responsibility for myself, my friends and family. Others may call me paranoid....perhaps they are correct. I do know this, friends (usually women) have mentioned that they feel "safer" when I am around.

Thanks Beowulf for sharing your perspective. If you don't mind my asking.... do you feel that all gun control laws should be eliminated or just reworked by people more knowledgable on the subject?

[BarkingSquirrel]

One such check and balance is the Second Amendment which plainly states that an armed citizenry is "necessary to the security of a free state." Our Constitution provides the means (an armed citizenry) to restore our freedoms if the government grows so big that it takes them away. Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason. Politicians who hold to a socialist agenda fear this aspect of the 2nd amendment and seek to discredit it at every opportunity. The right to own firearms for "sporting purposes" is falsely substituted into the 2nd Amendment to trick us into believing that hunting is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. This is nonsense--but many Americans foolishly believe it! The Second Amendment is continually demonized by misinformation. Citizens who own firearms are refered to as "extremists" and "child killers" by politicians, educators and the news media. Possession of arms by citizens is the central indicator of whether our country is truly "free" and secure. When a government disarms its citizens, that country is not truly free--no matter what excuses are used to justify it--including the false promises of safety and security voiced by the anti-violence/anti-gun movements--and even our own Justice department. When this happens, America will cease to be what it was created to be. That's why Charlton Heston calls the Second Amendment "Our First Freedom." When the word "democracy" is used to describe the United States by educators and news reporters, they are taking advantage of the ignorance about America's true nature. It is the difference between Socialism (or a "socialist" democracy) and true freedom. This is plainly stated in our "Pledge of Allegiance," but ignored by most Americans.Link (http://www.mcsm.org/truth1.html)

Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. We're potential murderers if we do as our forefathers intended :roll:

Oh, and we're a free republic, not a democracy, hell even the pledge of allegiance says it.

If your state is behind the action collectively against the federal government that's one thing. If you are taking it upon yourself as an individual to bunker down in your home and shoot people because you personally disagree with what our elected officials voted on... that something else entirely, IMO.

I guess we should let Bush know to stop talking about our democracy. "The roots of our democracy can be traced to ...."Funny how it says "citizenry" and not "state" eh? The abolute right to resist the government was built into constitution for a reason. I understand you socialists don't like that, but that's you're problem not ours.

Keep trying. One day you might actually get it right.

[James]

Unless you want a police state these things are not going to change. America was founded with strong notions of liberty in mind, citizens are in large part responsible for themselves...discussions of libertarianism aside..

I carry a weapon most of the time, I have my CHL and I view it as stepping up and taking responsibility for myself, my friends and family. Others may call me paranoid....perhaps they are correct. I do know this, friends (usually women) have mentioned that they feel "safer" when I am around.

Whenever I pack heat I like to think there is a little bubble of safety around me and all the people I might come across during the day... They just don't know it.

[Secret Squirrel]

One such check and balance is the Second Amendment which plainly states that an armed citizenry is "necessary to the security of a free state." Our Constitution provides the means (an armed citizenry) to restore our freedoms if the government grows so big that it takes them away. Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason. Politicians who hold to a socialist agenda fear this aspect of the 2nd amendment and seek to discredit it at every opportunity. The right to own firearms for "sporting purposes" is falsely substituted into the 2nd Amendment to trick us into believing that hunting is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. This is nonsense--but many Americans foolishly believe it! The Second Amendment is continually demonized by misinformation. Citizens who own firearms are refered to as "extremists" and "child killers" by politicians, educators and the news media. Possession of arms by citizens is the central indicator of whether our country is truly "free" and secure. When a government disarms its citizens, that country is not truly free--no matter what excuses are used to justify it--including the false promises of safety and security voiced by the anti-violence/anti-gun movements--and even our own Justice department. When this happens, America will cease to be what it was created to be. That's why Charlton Heston calls the Second Amendment "Our First Freedom." When the word "democracy" is used to describe the United States by educators and news reporters, they are taking advantage of the ignorance about America's true nature. It is the difference between Socialism (or a "socialist" democracy) and true freedom. This is plainly stated in our "Pledge of Allegiance," but ignored by most Americans.Link (http://www.mcsm.org/truth1.html)

Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. We're potential murderers if we do as our forefathers intended :roll:

Oh, and we're a free republic, not a democracy, hell even the pledge of allegiance says it.

If your state is behind the action collectively against the federal government that's one thing. If you are taking it upon yourself as an individual to bunker down in your home and shoot people because you personally disagree with what our elected officials voted on... that something else entirely, IMO.

I guess we should let Bush know to stop talking about our democracy. "The roots of our democracy can be traced to ...."Funny how it says "citizenry" and not "state" eh? The abolute right to resist the government was built into constitution for a reason. I understand you socialists don't like that, but that's you're problem not ours.

Keep trying. One day you might actually get it right.

then why does it say "necessary to the security of a free state."? Do you really believe that the U.S is going to turn into a dictatorship? If you honestly believe the B.S ( :P ) in the above quote, why are you even bothering trying to discuss this with someone?


Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason.

That quote in itself is both amusing and pathetic as its couched in the rhetoric of paranoia. And it sets to define "real americans" as specifically pro-gun. I guess the rest of America should be stopped, probably at gun point, from voting in this election.

[BarkingSquirrel]

why are you even bothering trying to discuss this with someone?Why are they trying to delete fundamental rights from our constitution?

And it sets to define "real americans" as specifically pro-gun.No, it defines "real americans" as those that understand their rights and the rights of others. Not those doing their damnedest to get rid of them all.

[Secret Squirrel]

why are you even bothering trying to discuss this with someone?Why are they trying to delete fundamental rights from our constitution?

And it sets to define "real americans" as specifically pro-gun.No, it defines "real americans" as those that understand their rights and the rights of others. Not those doing their damnest to get rid of them all.

So you actually believe everything contained in the section you quoted?

by the way, the actual wording, or so i thought, was; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[BarkingSquirrel]

mi·li·tia ( P ) ****unciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Nice try.

[Secret Squirrel]

mi·li·tia ( P ) ****unciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Nice try.

What composes an army? Is one person an army? Is a group of citizens who dont muster an army? Wouldnt the NG be the Militia? And stop trying to dodge the previous questions please. I'll try again..

then why does it say "necessary to the security of a free state."?

Do you really believe that the U.S is going to turn into a dictatorship?

That quote in itself is both amusing and pathetic as its couched in the rhetoric of paranoia. And it sets to define "real americans" as specifically pro-gun. I guess the rest of America should be stopped, probably at gun point, from voting in this election. If I said people shouldnt own .50 cal machine guns, then according to the above mentioned quote, I'm not a "real American" and the "real Americans" should view me with suspicion.

[Hot Lips]

One such check and balance is the Second Amendment which plainly states that an armed citizenry is "necessary to the security of a free state." Our Constitution provides the means (an armed citizenry) to restore our freedoms if the government grows so big that it takes them away. Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason. Politicians who hold to a socialist agenda fear this aspect of the 2nd amendment and seek to discredit it at every opportunity. The right to own firearms for "sporting purposes" is falsely substituted into the 2nd Amendment to trick us into believing that hunting is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. This is nonsense--but many Americans foolishly believe it! The Second Amendment is continually demonized by misinformation. Citizens who own firearms are refered to as "extremists" and "child killers" by politicians, educators and the news media. Possession of arms by citizens is the central indicator of whether our country is truly "free" and secure. When a government disarms its citizens, that country is not truly free--no matter what excuses are used to justify it--including the false promises of safety and security voiced by the anti-violence/anti-gun movements--and even our own Justice department. When this happens, America will cease to be what it was created to be. That's why Charlton Heston calls the Second Amendment "Our First Freedom." When the word "democracy" is used to describe the United States by educators and news reporters, they are taking advantage of the ignorance about America's true nature. It is the difference between Socialism (or a "socialist" democracy) and true freedom. This is plainly stated in our "Pledge of Allegiance," but ignored by most Americans.Link (http://www.mcsm.org/truth1.html)

Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. We're potential murderers if we do as our forefathers intended :roll:

Oh, and we're a free republic, not a democracy, hell even the pledge of allegiance says it.

If your state is behind the action collectively against the federal government that's one thing. If you are taking it upon yourself as an individual to bunker down in your home and shoot people because you personally disagree with what our elected officials voted on... that something else entirely, IMO.

I guess we should let Bush know to stop talking about our democracy. "The roots of our democracy can be traced to ...."Funny how it says "citizenry" and not "state" eh?

Keep trying. One day you might actually get it right.

I missed "citzenry" in the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

[BarkingSquirrel]

mi·li·tia ( P ) ****unciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Nice try.

What composes an army? Is one person an army? Is a group of citizens who dont muster an army?In the broadest sense it would be anything more than 1 person fighting for a similar cause.

Wouldnt the NG be the Militia?Is it called a militia?

And stop trying to dodge the previous questions please.Why, I'm simply doing exactly the same thing Lips has done the entire thread(and most debates it's in) and you do on regular occassions.

Do you really believe that the U.S is going to turn into a dictatorship?The entire point is that the people have the right to bear arms is incase it does. The reality that it may, or may not has no bearing as the mere possibilty that it may is cause enough to make provisions against it.

If I said people shouldnt own .50 cal machine guns, then according to the above mentioned quote, I'm not a "real American" and the "real Americans" should view me with suspicion.Again with the skewing of the situation. The debate is not whether or not certain kinds of firearms should be banned, it's whether or not all of them should. Do you honestly think the anti-gun lobby only wants a few banned?

I got one question(that no doubt you will ignore as usual):

If they could constitutionally revoke the right to bear arms, don't you think a liberal would have done it by now? If they could, don't you think Clinton would have instead of settling on just a few?

The fact is that they can't and that makes this entire argument a moot point. Don't like the fact that I own a gun? Tough ****. That's my right (http://www.theglitteringeye.com/archives/000168.html). Bugger off.

[Secret Squirrel]

In the broadest sense it would be anything more than 1 person fighting for a similar cause.
rofl You honestly believe this? rofl We're not talking about music bands or groups or acts. ;)


Is it called a militia?
It fits the definition that you provided for defining a miltia; but nice try trying to dodge this point. ;)


Why, I'm simply doing exactly the same thing Lips has done the entire thread(and most debates it's in) and you do on regular occassions.
Could you point out where I have? I'll try to address those points you claim I've not addressed. Or will this turn into another thread that you "withdrawn from but not conceed"? :P


The entire point is that the people have the right to bear arms is incase it does. The reality that it may, or may not has no bearing as the mere possibilty that it may is cause enough to make provisions against it.

Someone please key the X-Files music.


Again with the skewing of the situation. The debate is not whether or not certain kinds of firearms should be banned, it's whether or not all of them should. Do you honestly think the anti-gun lobby only wants a few banned?

I honestly dont know, as I cant speak for them. But the above quote said nothing about banning all guns, it said "Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason." So again, please try to address my point. ;) (note you posted the long quote, i'm only using parts of it to educate you).


I got one question(that no doubt you will ignore as usual):

Well since you're in such a bitchy and whiney mood, as obvious from the other thread, i'll ignore it just to prove you right so maybe you'll get a little happier. Damn man, go out and get laid or something. Weekend girlfriends can do wonders for your outlook. ;)

[Hot Lips]

I got one question(that no doubt you will ignore as usual):

If they could constitutionally revoke the right to bear arms, don't you think a liberal would have done it by now? If they could, don't you think Clinton would have instead of settling on just a few?

I know I said that I don't see it happening.

As for the
Why, I'm simply doing exactly the same thing Lips has done the entire thread(and most debates it's in) and you do on regular occassions. crack.

I take you mean try to stay on topic? I try not to jump into secondary debates (throw out as a distraction) if the first issue hasn't been addressed. I try to keep comments factual. I try to learn the other persons perspective incase I am mistaken. I'll debate a fact if I know it to be true and someone insists it isn't... but I see no point in trying to debate an opinion beyond a certain point. There comes a time when discussing opinions that you have realize that you just aren't going to see eye to eye.

How many of my questions go unanswered in various topics? Doesn't this go back to your whining about how people responded to Fokkert different than SCM77? Do you ignore when people you agree with skip over questions or try to change the subject just becuase they share our opinion?

[BarkingSquirrel]

Is it called a militia?
It fits the definition that you provided for defining a miltia; but nice try trying to dodge this point. ;)Errrrnt. Try again. My definition cited civilians in the prime definition. NG are not civilians.



Why, I'm simply doing exactly the same thing Lips has done the entire thread(and most debates it's in) and you do on regular occassions.
Could you point out where I have? I'll try to address those points you claim I've not addressed. Or will this turn into another thread that you "withdrawn from but not conceed"? :PYou honestly don't know how you selectively reply/ignore arguments/stray from the questions? Even I thought you were smarter than that. Guess not. Anyways, just look at your next quote below.



The entire point is that the people have the right to bear arms is incase it does. The reality that it may, or may not has no bearing as the mere possibilty that it may is cause enough to make provisions against it.

Someone please key the X-Files music.



Again with the skewing of the situation. The debate is not whether or not certain kinds of firearms should be banned, it's whether or not all of them should. Do you honestly think the anti-gun lobby only wants a few banned?

I honestly dont know, as I cant speak for them. But the above quote said nothing about banning all guns, it said "Real Americans should view with suspicion anyone who supports the disarming of the U.S. population in any way--for any reason." So again, please try to address my point. ;) (note you posted the long quote, i'm only using parts of it to educate you). Symantics, another of your tricks. You can't be disarmed without total ban.



I got one question(that no doubt you will ignore as usual):

Well since you're in such a bitchy and whiney mood, as obvious from the other thread, i'll ignore it just to prove you right so maybe you'll get a little happier. Damn man, go out and get laid or something. Weekend girlfriends can do wonders for your outlook. ;) :hug:

[BarkingSquirrel]

As for the
Why, I'm simply doing exactly the same thing Lips has done the entire thread(and most debates it's in) and you do on regular occassions. crack.

I take you mean try to stay on topic? I try not to jump into secondary debates (throw out as a distraction) if the first issue hasn't been addressed. I try to keep comments factual. I try to learn the other persons perspective incase I am mistaken. I'll debate a fact if I know it to be true and someone insists it isn't... but I see no point in trying to debate an opinion beyond a certain point. There comes a time when discussing opinions that you have realize that you just aren't going to see eye to eye.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Parasaur/4_1_72.gif

[Beowulf]

Unless you want a police state these things are not going to change. America was founded with strong notions of liberty in mind, citizens are in large part responsible for themselves...discussions of libertarianism aside..

I carry a weapon most of the time, I have my CHL and I view it as stepping up and taking responsibility for myself, my friends and family. Others may call me paranoid....perhaps they are correct. I do know this, friends (usually women) have mentioned that they feel "safer" when I am around.

Whenever I pack heat I like to think there is a little bubble of safety around me and all the people I might come across during the day... They just don't know it.

That's cool, weird thing is my CHL instructor said the exact same thing...

[Hot Lips]

As for the
Why, I'm simply doing exactly the same thing Lips has done the entire thread(and most debates it's in) and you do on regular occassions. crack.

I take you mean try to stay on topic? I try not to jump into secondary debates (throw out as a distraction) if the first issue hasn't been addressed. I try to keep comments factual. I try to learn the other persons perspective incase I am mistaken. I'll debate a fact if I know it to be true and someone insists it isn't... but I see no point in trying to debate an opinion beyond a certain point. There comes a time when discussing opinions that you have realize that you just aren't going to see eye to eye.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Parasaur/4_1_72.gif

You missed those questions again ;) Funny how that works. "How many of my questions go unanswered in various topics? Doesn't this go back to your whining about how people responded to Fokket different than SCM77? Do you ignore when people you agree with skip over questions or try to change the subject just becuase they share our opinion?"

I think so.

[Beowulf]

Thanks Beowulf for sharing your perspective. If you don't mind my asking.... do you feel that all gun control laws should be eliminated or just reworked by people more knowledgable on the subject?

All gun legislation is not bad, I just had problems with the AWB and the rhetoric/mis-statements coming from the gun-control crowd.

What then is the proper amount of legislation? I think that the problem lies not so much in "what type, how many, and to what extent" types of questions.

The essential problem with gun legislation is that it is generally based on the standpoint that guns in the hands of private citizens is intrinsically bad and therefore should be extensivelly regulated, if not done away with altogether.

Those that push gun legislation the hardest view all guns (in the hands of private citizens) as useless at best, evil at worst. If you don't think this is an accurate assessment of the gun control lobby, just go to their websites, and read a bit. They aren't just against "assault weapons" they are against Guns. (note: this may not be ALL anti-gun people's opinions, but it seems to be MOST)

Unless legislation is coming from the standpoint that the private ownership of weapons is a Right here in America, and that the responsible use/ownership of firearms is an integral part of American culture I think it will be flawed.

That is to say that responsible gun legislation ought to be written by those that are knowledgeable about firearms, and do not view all guns as bad and all legislation as good. (or rather as a stop-gap towards a general outlawing of guns.)

[Secret Squirrel]

Errrrnt. Try again. My definition cited civilians in the prime definition. NG are not civilians.

Reservists then. ;)


You honestly don't know how you selectively reply/ignore arguments/stray from the questions? Even I thought you were smarter than that. Guess not. Anyways, just look at your next quote below.

So you're saying that you dont have a point? Are you conceeding or withdrawing? ;)


Symantics, another of your tricks. You can't be disarmed without total ban.

it said disarmed in "any way". My stating that civilians shouldnt own .50 cals and then arguing that those who do own them, should have them removed, meets the requirements of the quote. Again, please try to address the quesiton. If you cant address it, just say so.

edit: I really have no problem with gun ownership to a certain level. I had a chance to play with various hunting rifles, assault rifles and .50 cals before. So please dont lump me with the crazy anti-gun people. Just like I'm trying not to lump you with the crazy pro-gun people.

[Hot Lips]

Thanks Beowulf for sharing your perspective. If you don't mind my asking.... do you feel that all gun control laws should be eliminated or just reworked by people more knowledgable on the subject?

All gun legislation is not bad, I just had problems with the AWB and the rhetoric/mis-statements coming from the gun-control crowd.

What then is the proper amount of legislation? I think that the problem lies not so much in "what type, how many, and to what extent" types of questions.

The essential problem with gun legislation is that it is generally based on the standpoint that guns in the hands of private citizens is intrinsically bad and therefore should be extensivelly regulated, if not done away with altogether.

Those that push gun legislation the hardest view all guns (in the hands of private citizens) as useless at best, evil at worst. If you don't think this is an accurate assessment of the gun control lobby, just go to their websites, and read a bit. They aren't just against "assault weapons" they are against Guns. (note: this may not be ALL anti-gun people's opinions, but it seems to be MOST)

Unless legislation is coming from the standpoint that the private ownership of weapons is a Right here in America, and that the responsible use/ownership of firearms is an integral part of American culture I think it will be flawed.

That is to say that responsible gun legislation ought to be written by those that are knowledgeable about firearms, and do not view all guns as bad and all legislation as good. (or rather as a stop-gap towards a general outlawing of guns.)

Thanks again. I can agree with that.

I guess I found the comments about shooting people if a law changes disturbing, especially when we still have options for addressing the issue - I understand it somewhat under certain circumstance (total disregard for what the majority of the nation wants and sudden shift in how we are governed), but I don't see that happening in our country. I believe our system ultimately works. Times change, laws change, and sometimes they are reversed again. I just was taken aback by some of the paranoia.

[sergey31]

Bill or rights can not be changed (period) .

[Mark Sman]

The 2nd is not meant to protect the government or the miltarys right to own guns.

It is meant to guard the peoples right to own guns. That why it says exactly that.


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part is a reason, the second part is an action. Who cares what their reason was. The intent is clear. An armed population.

Whatever, disarming the US population is an impractical idea. The Democrats have turned down alot of their rhetoric on this point. It is excedingly unpopular with a large portion of voters both Dem and Rep.

The Democratic party can't even be considered unified on gun control. Although many members support it, others do not.

The AWB was stupid. Far more effective was banning some imports. I would actually support a law that banned all firearms imports. Reputable makers like HK, FN, Sig, Beretta, Glock and such already have factories here turning out top shelf weapons. It would prevent any recurance of the years when Norinco flooded the US market with $150 AKs. That we can do without.

Its funny, because I'm a big firearms rights guy. But I could live with that law. And technically it wouldn't infringe any right to keep or bear arms. Or arm bears. Whatever.

[Mark Sman]

Also, as to the armed populace defending freedom:

I don't see it happening in my lifetime. But what about in my grandkids lifetime? What about their grandkids? Hard to say what the future could bring. I just think the idea of an armed populace is good in multiple ways. But thats just me.

Just the threat of an armed resistance could be enough to hold back a government. Maybe more so than the reality. Because if that is the way most folks felt, I think you would have a heck of time getting police and prosecutors to bring the hammer down nationwide.

[Geezah]

Neither of us can prove anything other than we have incompatible opinions. You can stroke each other all night long about how much you know about handling different guns and still not prove anything because you are talking about opinions.

The only time opinions really matter is when the majority shares a common opinion and bands together to change laws. If you think your opinion should be elevated above majority or above new law and that murder is the answer to addressing your issues with law changes then there are plenty of other countries/governments to choose from.

You still have not given me a relevent answer as to why civies should not be able to own the evil "assault weapons." You can eat crap fed to you by Feinstein your entire life, or you can try to look up the facts, and see that most murders or assaults have been pulled off using snub nosed .38's, or cheap ass MAC-10's smuggled over the border. The event in LA in '97, if I recall, involved a pair of full-auto Hungarian AK-47's that were ILLEGALLY smuggled into the US. So, if you really want to stop crime, you also have to improve border security, and better intermodal container inspection.

In your mind, is there a "relevent answer" to be had?

Jesus H. Christ! Answer the f*cking question already! :bash: :bash: :bash: Quit skating around my question and just answer it! Is it so difficult? You know, the only time I've had this hard of a time getting someone to answer a question, was someone who was ashamed of the answer. Do you know where you stand is wrong? Is that why you continue to dodge mine and Geezah's questions?

To answer your question, yes, there is a "relevent answer." There has to be something you can say about why it is wrong to own "assault weapons." It is a simple question: Why is it wrong for US civilians to own the so called "assault weapons?"

*sigh* My f*cking head hurts. If you're just trying to annoy the sh*t out of me, it worked. I'm pissed, and I'm commited to this thread. :cantbeli:

We will never get an answer to the question, and this leads me to believe that she bases her views on the cosmetic features of a firearm rather than the working parts.
I didn't think it was that hard to describe which weapons she thought civilans should own for "personal protection"??? :cantbeli:

It amazes me that someone can talk about banning certain guns but is unable to tell us what those guns are but, and I'm going to assume here, she would put her trust in the likes of Fein-Swine to do the right thing even though she also is clueless on the subject :cantbeli:

[California Joe]

We will never get an answer to the question, and this leads me to believe that she bases her views on the cosmetic features of a firearm rather than the working parts.
I didn't think it was that hard to describe which weapons she thought civilans should own for "personal protection"??? :cantbeli:

It amazes me that someone can talk about banning certain guns but is unable to tell us what those guns are but, and I'm going to assume here, she would put her trust in the likes of Fein-Swine to do the right thing even though she also is clueless on the subject :cantbeli:

She never claimed to know a great deal about guns, she asked why YOU feel the need to own certain types. Your responses run the gamut from because I can, to I think they look cool to because the government may come to take them away and I want to play Alamo. These may be acceptable to gun nuts like most of us here but to an uninitiated person looking in they seem slightly scary and a little bit odd. So you and the 16 year old boy wonder attack her knowledge of firearms. Her entire point is that she does not believe that the government is out to get you. She's a friend of mine and she knows that I own probably 25 guns. I'll try to educate her on the cosmetic features but don't ask her to accept paranoia as relevant to discussions of guns. Maybe if knowledgeable gun people took the high road there would be less confusion.

[moughoun]

We will never get an answer to the question, and this leads me to believe that she bases her views on the cosmetic features of a firearm rather than the working parts.
I didn't think it was that hard to describe which weapons she thought civilans should own for "personal protection"??? :cantbeli:

It amazes me that someone can talk about banning certain guns but is unable to tell us what those guns are but, and I'm going to assume here, she would put her trust in the likes of Fein-Swine to do the right thing even though she also is clueless on the subject :cantbeli:

She never claimed to know a great deal about guns, she asked why YOU feel the need to own certain types. Your responses run the gamut from because I can, to I think they look cool to because the government may come to take them away and I want to play Alamo. These may be acceptable to gun nuts like most of us here but to an uninitiated person looking in they seem slightly scary and a little bit odd. So you and the 16 year old boy wonder attack her knowledge of firearms. Her entire point is that she does not believe that the government is out to get you. She's a friend of mine and she knows that I own probably 25 guns. I'll try to educate her on the cosmetic features but don't ask her to accept paranoia as relevant to discussions of guns. Maybe if knowledgeable gun people took the high road there would be less confusion.
are you channeling Tane's spirit Joe? ;)

[California Joe]

I should only hope to be that wise one day my friend. ;)

[Geezah]

We will never get an answer to the question, and this leads me to believe that she bases her views on the cosmetic features of a firearm rather than the working parts.
I didn't think it was that hard to describe which weapons she thought civilans should own for "personal protection"??? :cantbeli:

It amazes me that someone can talk about banning certain guns but is unable to tell us what those guns are but, and I'm going to assume here, she would put her trust in the likes of Fein-Swine to do the right thing even though she also is clueless on the subject :cantbeli:

She never claimed to know a great deal about guns, she asked why YOU feel the need to own certain types.

But she hasn't been able to tell me, what those certain types are? I could tell her that a 10/22 is deadly and it can hold a 50rnd magazine, so does that mean I shouldn't own that "certain type" of gun? Is she going to leave it down to me to tell her the types that I think are nasty and shouldn't be allowed to own?



Your responses run the gamut from because I can, to I think they look cool to because the government may come to take them away and I want to play Alamo.

I remember saying that I couldn't own just anything I wanted, I.E.SBRs, Destructive Devices, Select Fire, and asked her where the middle ground was? But at no point did I say they look cool did I and that was a reason for owning them :|
I did ask her about Ruby Ridge and whether she thought that what the Government did there was right??



These may be acceptable to gun nuts like most of us here but to an uninitiated person looking in they seem slightly scary and a little bit odd. So you and the 16 year old boy wonder attack her knowledge of firearms.

I'm somewhat surprised that she would not try and educate herself on the subject so she would be able to post from a position of strength, me, I don't know everything :cantbeli: and I'm very stubborn, but I try not to push my opinion about something that I have very limited knowledge/experience on/with.



Her entire point is that she does not believe that the government is out to get you. She's a friend of mine and she knows that I own probably 25 guns. I'll try to educate her on the cosmetic features but don't ask her to accept paranoia as relevant to discussions of guns. Maybe if knowledgeable gun people took the high road there would be less confusion.

You mean a Republican Guberment isn't out for our guns as much as a Democratic one ;)
I don't remember accepting that I was paranoid, rather having a realistic view of the World and understand the lengths bad people will go to get what they want, but if I was to say, I own guns for the safety of my family even though nothing may have happened yet, can't that be misinterpreted as being paranoid?
As far as taking the high road, the link I provided took her to a Sig Forum where a large percentage of the posters are LEOs and could get a feel and understanding for where gun owners are coming from.

[Sir Zach of R.]

We're not paranoid, we just want to be ready. ;) I mean, c'mon, it is a government by the people

[California Joe]

Geez, lets you and me go in a different direction. I own quite a few guns myself. I can't really, if I'm honest say why, other than historical interest and love of fine quality wood and craftsmanship in the flintlocks I build. I own several .22's that I shoot cause they're fun and a couple are nice target rifles that are old that I restored. I have an old SMLE in .303 British cause the Lighthorsemen was such a cool movie ;) I bought an old Savage 99 in .243 for deer hunting not long ago. Do I need any of them? No. In fact, I believe that the reason gun nuts buy "assault" weapons are for the same reasons the antis hate them. Cosmetics. It's like playing Army when you're a kid. Because they're cool and badass looking. You get to shoot them and not get shot back at. Men really are boys at heart. We both know that the most effective home defense weapon is probably a 12 G pump shotgun. That's not on anyone's banned list that I know of. I would indeed use a gun to defend my family and loved ones but I don't believe I'll ever have to. Maybe it's because of where I live. I equate my interest to that of Flagg and his motorcycles or Romulous and his Hot Rods. Fun, but not a priority to prevent the implosion of our rights in this country. If it ever gets to the point of Civil War in this country we're all f*cked.

[Geezah]

Geez, lets you and me go in a different direction. I own quite a few guns myself. I can't really, if I'm honest say why, other than historical interest and love of fine quality wood and craftsmanship in the flintlocks I build. I own several .22's that I shoot cause they're fun and a couple are nice target rifles that are old that I restored. I have an old SMLE in .303 British cause the Lighthorsemen was such a cool movie ;) I bought an old Savage 99 in .243 for deer hunting not long ago. Do I need any of them? No. In fact, I believe that the reason gun nuts buy "assault" weapons are for the same reasons the antis hate them. Cosmetics. It's like playing Army when you're a kid. Because they're cool and badass looking. You get to shoot them and not get shot back at. Men really are boys at heart.

My AK was my first firearm, it's cool to shoot, surplus ammo is dirt cheap, you can load up mags prior to going to the range and plink away, the P226 was next, my first handgun, I chose that gun because I had heard that the SAS used it over the BHP(I thought if it works for them, it works for me) then the 10/22 and 12ga, next came the Bushy M4gery, why this one, you're propably right because it looks somewhat cool and I call it my Lego gun because you can add so many do-dads, but the thing is acurate as hell, last was the P239. Another Sig, why because I loved my first one, and you could almost see the same loyalty to certain firearms, the way the Chevy-Ford thing works. Some people like Glocks, I love Sigs. Up until this point I have a broad range of different calibers, 7.62x39 .223 ,22LR, 12GA and finally 9mm.
AR15s can make great varmiter guns taking out coyotes, prairy dogs things like that and if you move up to the .308 in sme states you can hunt deer, so semi-autos can be very practical.
I'm currently trying to decide on my next purchase, a Bushy no ban AR15(hbar) or the FN 57 but that's a few months away. Playing army, no, enjoying the products that hit the civilian market because of they're success in the military, yes, but I will agree men still like to play, maybe that's why my Father-in-law likes going to the hill climb?



We both know that the most effective home defense weapon is probably a 12 G pump shotgun. That's not on anyone's banned list that I know of. I would indeed use a gun to defend my family and loved ones but I don't believe I'll ever have to. Maybe it's because of where I live. I equate my interest to that of Flagg and his motorcycles or Romulous and his Hot Rods. Fun, but not a priority to prevent the implosion of our rights in this country. If it ever gets to the point of Civil War in this country we're all f*cked.

Amazing that a 12GA is more socially acceptable than an AR15 for home defense even though the 12GA would be devastating at close range :cantbeli: to answer your question the semi-auto shotguns commonly used for shooting trap are on Kerry's to ban list ;)

[California Joe]

You're right about the 12 being devastating. I was thinking more about it's effectiveness in close quarters in the dark, not it being more socially acceptable. Plus, I don't really need .223 rounds penetrating drywall and accidently whacking a family member 2 rooms over.

My father in law uses a Belgium made Browning BAR in .243 for deer hunting or a Savage .300 lever gun. I don't really see the need for semi's to hunt deer. A good enough hunter should only need one with maybe a 2nd follow up shot if necessary. I'd assume that the majority of hunters out there use scoped bolt action rifles.

[Mark Sman]

My initial reason for buying the AR was vecause I couldn't keep up in target competition with the M-14. The AR is a legit target rifle as competitors everywhere have proved.

For hunting I don't use a scope because of environment. Too much brush. Shots come at 75 yards or under. I have a cheap, chopped up Mosin Nagant M44 that works great as a brush gun. Shotguns and Bows are very popular as well. I haven't used the bow as much as I used too. To bad really, I should get out with the bow again.

I was raised shooting, and enjoy shooting a variety of firearms. I don't want any more restrictions. Its a personal opinion, but one supported by law. Haven't seen too many ARs turning up down here in the hands of criminals. Almost always handguns with the occasional sawed-off thrown in for good measure.

[Geezah]

You're right about the 12 being devastating. I was thinking more about it's effectiveness in close quarters in the dark, not it being more socially acceptable. Plus, I don't really need .223 rounds penetrating drywall and accidently whacking a family member 2 rooms over.

I'm not sure that you should be shooting into the dark if you're not completely aware of what you're shooting at, plus I think if you use 00 or 000 in your home your going to get good penetration :P now using the .223 for home defense you can buy frangible ammo.
Each to their own I guess, me I have my 12GA out with 6 #4s 2 00 and 2 slugs plus I have a Surefire tactical foregrip so I won't have to worry too much about the dark.
But when you think about it, the shotgun is socially acceptable where as a AR15 for home defense is not, that's another reason why I only keep the 12ga out of the safe.



My father in law uses a Belgium made Browning BAR in .243 for deer hunting or a Savage .300 lever gun. I don't really see the need for semi's to hunt deer. A good enough hunter should only need one with maybe a 2nd follow up shot if necessary. I'd assume that the majority of hunters out there use scoped bolt action rifles.

Now, because *you* don't see a need, does that mean that everyone has to follow suit? Times change, if someone prefers using something that is relatively lightweight and packs a good punch then why not?

Kerry, seems to think hunting deer is all about crawling around on your belly with your trusty "double barrel", should we follow his example and do away with our semi-auto and pump action shotguns?

[Hot Lips]

She never claimed to know a great deal about guns, she asked why YOU feel the need to own certain types. Your responses run the gamut from because I can, to I think they look cool to because the government may come to take them away and I want to play Alamo. These may be acceptable to gun nuts like most of us here but to an uninitiated person looking in they seem slightly scary and a little bit odd. So you and the 16 year old boy wonder attack her knowledge of firearms. Her entire point is that she does not believe that the government is out to get you. She's a friend of mine and she knows that I own probably 25 guns. I'll try to educate her on the cosmetic features but don't ask her to accept paranoia as relevant to discussions of guns. Maybe if knowledgeable gun people took the high road there would be less confusion.

That sums it up CJ, if only I were so well spoken. I have admitted that I have much to learn on the topic if you want to talk specifics. I have admitted here and in other threads that the AWB was too vague based on what some forum members have shared with me. If you want to own a gun, fine. Like others, I do believe gun control can be useful. When you start talking too much about needing a weapon to fend of people that want to kill you, fend of the government, etc... you start to sound radical. Guns in the hands of people that focus too much on the need to kill other people are a little unnerving.

As for comments on my "pushing my opinion on people". I have argued facts a few times in other threads. Here I did attempted several times to cease debating an opinion because I know those debates have no conclusion. I was not the one pressing for further debate here.

[Sir Zach of R.]

My AK was my first firearm, it's cool to shoot, surplus ammo is dirt cheap, you can load up mags prior to going to the range and plink away, the P226 was next, my first handgun, I chose that gun because I had heard that the SAS used it over the BHP(I thought if it works for them, it works for me) then the 10/22 and 12ga, next came the Bushy M4gery, why this one, you're propably right because it looks somewhat cool and I call it my Lego gun because you can add so many do-dads, but the thing is acurate as hell, last was the P239. Another Sig, why because I loved my first one, and you could almost see the same loyalty to certain firearms, the way the Chevy-Ford thing works. Some people like Glocks, I love Sigs. Up until this point I have a broad range of different calibers, 7.62x39 .223 ,22LR, 12GA and finally 9mm.
AR15s can make great varmiter guns taking out coyotes, prairy dogs things like that and if you move up to the .308 in sme states you can hunt deer, so semi-autos can be very practical.
I'm currently trying to decide on my next purchase, a Bushy no ban AR15(hbar) or the FN 57 but that's a few months away. Playing army, no, enjoying the products that hit the civilian market because of they're success in the military, yes, but I will agree men still like to play, maybe that's why my Father-in-law likes going to the hill climb?


Amazing that a 12GA is more socially acceptable than an AR15 for home defense even though the 12GA would be devastating at close range :cantbeli: to answer your question the semi-auto shotguns commonly used for shooting trap are on Kerry's to ban list ;)

If you're looking for a new Bushy, check this one out. ;) This is the one I'm getting come next summer, if I can afford it.
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/bcwa3f14m4iz.asp
BM's 30 rd. mags are only $19.95, so I could easily stuff my BHI Commando rig with 12 mags without going into the insane price range.

[James]

I own this. I keep it in my house.

http://img64.exs.cx/img64/8606/bushmaster.jpg

Why? you might ask. To maintain my skill. I just like shooting. And, if nothing else, my neighborhood is safer bacause I have it.

[MEGR]

Nice carpet James.

[Sir Zach of R.]

"James, could you come over really quick? There's someone in my house!"

"I'll be right over."

*Click* :lol:

[Geezah]

My AK was my first firearm, it's cool to shoot, surplus ammo is dirt cheap, you can load up mags prior to going to the range and plink away, the P226 was next, my first handgun, I chose that gun because I had heard that the SAS used it over the BHP(I thought if it works for them, it works for me) then the 10/22 and 12ga, next came the Bushy M4gery, why this one, you're propably right because it looks somewhat cool and I call it my Lego gun because you can add so many do-dads, but the thing is acurate as hell, last was the P239. Another Sig, why because I loved my first one, and you could almost see the same loyalty to certain firearms, the way the Chevy-Ford thing works. Some people like Glocks, I love Sigs. Up until this point I have a broad range of different calibers, 7.62x39 .223 ,22LR, 12GA and finally 9mm.
AR15s can make great varmiter guns taking out coyotes, prairy dogs things like that and if you move up to the .308 in sme states you can hunt deer, so semi-autos can be very practical.
I'm currently trying to decide on my next purchase, a Bushy no ban AR15(hbar) or the FN 57 but that's a few months away. Playing army, no, enjoying the products that hit the civilian market because of they're success in the military, yes, but I will agree men still like to play, maybe that's why my Father-in-law likes going to the hill climb?


Amazing that a 12GA is more socially acceptable than an AR15 for home defense even though the 12GA would be devastating at close range :cantbeli: to answer your question the semi-auto shotguns commonly used for shooting trap are on Kerry's to ban list ;)

If you're looking for a new Bushy, check this one out. ;) This is the one I'm getting come next summer, if I can afford it.
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/bcwa3f14m4iz.asp
BM's 30 rd. mags are only $19.95, so I could easily stuff my BHI Commando rig with 12 mags without going into the insane price range.

Sir Zach of R if you're looking to get a Bushy you need to check out Aim Surplus (http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/New_Bushmaster_Sunset_Rifles___Preban_features_.html) and for mags go to Ammoman (http://www.ammoman.com/AR15MAG2.HTM) I have 10 of the Brit mags(plus shippings free on everything) those mags rock.

Here's my Bushy M4gery,
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1097584498_dcp_0205(custom).jpg

You may want to try and get it before January because if Kerry gets in there's no chance :(

[Dennis G]

I like it Geezah, :P

I have only two AR-15 type, Think about adding a third.

1) CAR A4, Civilianhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif Model from Rock River arms

2) Les Baer IPSC Action Model .223 -- Expensive!!! :bash:

I been thinking about Les Baer's new gun the "Custom Thunder Ranch Rifle" or building a 6.8spc upper on the CAR. I've got a few more of the AK type p-)

[Geezah]

I like it Geezah, :P

I have only two AR-15 type, Think about adding a third.

1) CAR A4, Civilianhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif Model from Rock River arms

2) Les Baer IPSC Action Model .223 -- Expensive!!! :bash:

I been thinking about Les Baer's new gun the "Custom Thunder Ranch Rifle" or building a 6.8spc upper on the CAR. I've got a few more of the AK type p-)

Thank you, this is my 1st AR :)

Do you have any pics of yours and it's a shame you didn't hold out to get the RRA DEA version ;) I'm pulled at the moment on my next purchase and I can't go silly otherwise my Wife will go mental :|

Here's a pic of my AK,
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1097602917_dcp_0196(medium).jpg

[moughoun]

I have a question, are those weapon's for fun or do you use them practicly?

[Geezah]

I have a question, are those weapon's for fun or do you use them practicly?

?Huh...what do you mean? :roll:

[moughoun]

I have a question, are those weapon's for fun or do you use them practicly?

?Huh...what do you mean? :roll:
ok I'll rephrase it, are they just to go out on a weekend and shoot up an old truck or are they for home defence? it's not rocket science ;) , I'm just asking not judging or crap, I just like weapon's too that's all :P

[Geezah]

I have a question, are those weapon's for fun or do you use them practicly?

?Huh...what do you mean? :roll:
ok I'll rephrase it, are they just to go out on a weekend and shoot up an old truck or are they for home defence? it's not rocket science ;) , I'm just asking not judging or crap, I just like weapon's too that's all :P

Sorry.....I thought you meant, use them to scare people :cantbeli: I use them to plink and home defense, my 12ga is my primary home defense weapon and everything else stays in the gun safe.
My shotty was in pieces for a few months(I refinished it) so I used my P239 for home defense(soon to be my CCW).
If I needed to, I would use the AR for home defense but not the AK, I'm too worried about over penetration.
The AKs good for plinking, ammo is dirt cheap plus you don't have to clean it everytime you get back from the range, I haven't cleaned it since March ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

Hey Geezah, is that AK from Fulton Armory?

[Dennis G]

Thank you, this is my 1st AR :)

Do you have any pics of yours and it's a shame you didn't hold out to get the RRA DEA version ;) I'm pulled at the moment on my next purchase and I can't go silly otherwise my Wife will go mental :|

Here's a pic of my AK,
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1097602917_dcp_0196(medium).jpg

I might be able to post some pics, dont have any on the HD right now.

I know the DEA looks nice :P

I like the AK, Bulgarian?

Personally I like the AK. One of the ones I own is a Bulgarian model. Its a battleax not a rapier, but in battle often a battleax is needed.

Also, since there are so many of them in the world, you are just as likely to find one in your hands as anything else. As one student in a Texas rifle class announced to the AR15 wielding fellows in the class ,"100 million ignorant peasants can't be wrong". p-)


I really want to get my hands on a Valmet or Galil or a SIG 550!!

[Geezah]

Thank you, this is my 1st AR :)

Do you have any pics of yours and it's a shame you didn't hold out to get the RRA DEA version ;) I'm pulled at the moment on my next purchase and I can't go silly otherwise my Wife will go mental :|

Here's a pic of my AK,
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1097602917_dcp_0196(medium).jpg

I might be able to post some pics, dont have any on the HD right now.

I know the DEA looks nice :P

I like the AK, Bulgarian?

Personally I like the AK. One of the ones I own is a Bulgarian model. Its a battleax not a rapier, but in battle often a battleax is needed.

Also, since there are so many of them in the world, you are just as likely to find one in your hands as anything else. As one student in a Texas rifle class announced to the AR15 wielding fellows in the class ,"100 million ignorant peasants can't be wrong". p-)


I really want to get my hands on a Valmet or Galil or a SIG 550!!

Sir Zach of R. and Dennis G, you're both wrong my friends, it's a Romanian WASR-10, Century Arms, I changed out the stock with the 74 stock from KVAR, it gives an extra 1-1/4" pull(I've got long arms) and ordered an AK74 brake from Dyna Systems. When I ordered the brake I made sure it came with the opening under size so I could mill it out for a tight fit, once i removed the muzzle cap that used to be on there, once in place I spot welded it in 2 places to make sure it wouldn't move.
Sounds like that Texas Rifle Class thinks like my Father-in-Law, he thought I was crazy when I told him I might sell my AK, to fund another purchase :cantbeli:
I'd love to get my hands one of the SIG 550 series, and I remember seeing a Galil at Knob Creek over the weekend, I can't remember if it was class III or not.

[Dennis G]

Yeah now that I’m looking at it, it has no dimples on the magazine well. You did a very nice number on it.

I might be giving Tom Grove at Ohio Rapid Fire a call I believe they sell parts kits and fully assembled Galils. They run about $1500 I believe.?

[Geezah]

Yeah now that I’m looking at it, it has no dimples on the magazine well. You did a very nice number on it.

I might be giving Tom Grove at Ohio Rapid Fire a call I believe they sell parts kits and fully assembled Galils. They run about $1500 I believe.?

Wow.......I'd like a Galil but it's not at the top of my list, I'd really like to get an FN 57, they have them at CDNN and you can get the 20rnd mags from them and CMMG, but I also want another AR :(

[Sir Zach of R.]

I'm getting my first AR sometime by early spring or late summer. I know that Kerry won't be elected just cuz I know that no one wants a Q-tip as a president. No worries here.

Does anyone on here have any experience with the Troy Ind. MRF-C fore-end?

[Geezah]

I'm getting my first AR sometime by early spring or late summer. I know that Kerry won't be elected just cuz I know that no one wants a Q-tip as a president. No worries here.

Does anyone on here have any experience with the Troy Ind. MRF-C fore-end?

I hope your right ;)

I can't say I've had any experience with those, your best bet is to lurk over at AR15.Com and see if you can come up with anything ;)

[MEGR]

I want me an AR.. I need money!!!!!!

[Geezah]

If you want to vote on this debate, send me a PM, also here's the link for a storm over on AR15.Com (http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=283449&page=1)

[Geezah]

If any of you watched this last night, you would realise that Rebecca Peters and IANSA are out to disarm all American's, they will only agree to letting law abiding American's own firearms arms that are used in legitimate sporting events in the Olympics, she does not agree with any American owning a handgun or firearm that can shoot over 100meters. During this debate at no point did she offer any alternatives for the law abiding to protect themslves agains those that would do us harm :cantbeli:
She didn't even mention calling LEOs at a timeof need even though they openly admit that they are not there to protect the individual but to enforce the law, so what have we got from this woman, she thinks that America should fall into line and disarm, she said that there was no reason why anyone should own a shotgun but suggested that a single shot rifle was fine so long as you could PROVE it was being used for a sporting purpose!
Wayne Lapierre, said that the NRA was in favor of locking up felons who use firearms for long periods, he said he supported the 3 strikes and your out ruling, he advised the listeners that they ahd put time and effort into pushing longer jail sentences for these crimes, at no point did she agree with this, I was completely shocked by what IANSA have planned for the US and I'm scared that this will become a reality if Kerry makes it into the White House.IANSA is another organisation that's funded by the likes of George Soros :fork:
Kerry is no friend to the law abiding gun owners and has proved that time and again, so come 2006 hoepfully Bush iwill be in office and he will make sure and tell the UN where to go.

[Durandal]

Just added a pre-ban ( or is that a post-post-ban) 16" A3 upper with birdcage and two A.R.M.S low viz flip sights, and collapsible stock...

I burned the old non collapsible carbine stock in the fire since the pins would not pull.

Been wanting to do that for a long time.

[Geezah]

Just added a pre-ban ( or is that a post-post-ban) 16" A3 upper with birdcage and two A.R.M.S low viz flip sights, and collapsible stock...

I burned the old non collapsible carbine stock in the fire since the pins would not pull.

Been wanting to do that for a long time.

Shweet......but this post is no good without pics.....we must have pics ;)

I didn't think the stock would collapse but it's cool to burn it, me I kept mine, you never know when you may need a spare.

So bring forth the pics :P

Did you vote?

[Durandal]

I missed the debate. I do not have cable (I would waste a LOT time watching TV). I read that the vote was accessible through a password given during the debate.

I'll take a photo or two right now. I am going to work late. I'm waiting for a call from Beretta...those sh*ts.

[Geezah]

I missed the debate. I do not have cable (I would waste a LOT time watching TV). I read that the vote was accessible through a password given during the debate.

I'll take a photo or two right now. I am going to work late. I'm waiting for a call from Beretta...those sh*ts.

Check your PM, I've sent you the details on how to vote.

Beretta........hhhhmmmmm????

Pics would be good :P

[Durandal]

The new and improved AR...

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_5612.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_5613.jpg

One of the things I am building into my gunsmith room is a proper place to photograph parts and firearms...can't wait.

[Geezah]

The new and improved AR...

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_5612.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_5613.jpg

One of the things I am building into my gunsmith room is a proper place to photograph parts and firearms...can't wait.

Shweeet........you should check out Ebay and AR15.Com to get a nice optic on there and change out the forearm for a ARMs of Surefire, there was a guy on AR15.Com that just sold a Surefire M73 for $120 :cantbeli:

Did you pick up the upper at Knob Creek?

Was it hard to change out the front sight?

[Durandal]

The Beretta is another issue. I bought a 9000S as my Conceal Carry pistol, but after I got it, I noticed it was jamming a fair amount. I tried different rounds and found this:

Anything less than say 140 gr causes the pistol to jam. Your standard 115 to 125 gr rounds aren't enough to reliably move the action. Which floors me. You have to spend a buck a round to make the gun work properly. Idiocy.

During this I send it to Beretta hoping the can fix it. I get it sent back marked "Cleaned - No Issues"

Got it out of the box fired it again. It still jammed. So, I sent it back again. This time they called me up and had a chat with me. First the said it was an odd gun and could be jammed deliberately if you wanted to hold it a certain way (well sh*t, its a compact that jams no sh*t, just limp wristing certain compacts and sub compacts gets jams) and then blames my hold and wrists as the reason...I got steamed. The put another 150 rounds through it with no jams using nothing but Federal 150 gr hollow points. No jams well no sh*t sherlock.

*sigh*

They sent it back for me to shoot again and again, it jams on standard 9mm load outs but not on hotter rounds. No biggie there...

So, they said that if I was unhappy with the performance that I could return the gun and either get my money back or get a different gun. I figure I would trade it in for 92 or a 96 but the damn customer service rep has not called me back.

Now I am steaming.

Here is a picture of the jam (repeatable). Notice the brass score mark to on the lip of the right side of the ejector port? Crazy! This pistol is supposed to eject to top and slightly to the right (ambidextrous ejection for lefties or righties).

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_4168.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_4169.jpg

To add insult to injury, I noticed on their website that they are only offering the 9000S in .40 which, in my mind, proves they manufactured and designed a craptastic firearm.

[Durandal]

Shweeet........you should check out Ebay and AR15.Com to get a nice optic on there and change out the forearm for a ARMs of Surefire, there was a guy on AR15.Com that just sold a Surefire M73 for $120 :cantbeli:

Did you pick up the upper at Knob Creek?

Was it hard to change out the front sight?

Next year its a Leupold. Right now I am using a simple red dot or variable 3X to 9X scope...not too sure which yet. Just temporary till I get decent optics.

I think I may just keep the front fore grip the way it is. It was cheap to build (also new). 75 bucks total for the vert and the clamshells. There is a hidden M33 rail running along the top too, I just have it covered up.

The gas block was part of the upper that I purchased.

I have been thinking of taking my old upper and swapping out the barrel for a 24" bull barrel with a floating foregrip for tighter shooting.

Not too sure yet.

[Geezah]

The Beretta is another issue. I bought a 9000S as my Conceal Carry pistol, but after I got it, I noticed it was jamming a fair amount. I tried different rounds and found this:

Anything less than say 140 gr causes the pistol to jam. Your standard 115 to 125 gr rounds aren't enough to reliably move the action. Which floors me. You have to spend a buck a round to make the gun work properly. Idiocy.

During this I send it to Beretta hoping the can fix it. I get it sent back marked "Cleaned - No Issues"

Got it out of the box fired it again. It still jammed. So, I sent it back again. This time they called me up and had a chat with me. First the said it was an odd gun and could be jammed deliberately if you wanted to hold it a certain way (well sh*t, its a compact that jams no sh*t, just limp wristing certain compacts and sub compacts gets jams) and then blames my hold and wrists as the reason...I got steamed. The put another 150 rounds through it with no jams using nothing but Federal 150 gr hollow points. No jams well no sh*t sherlock.

*sigh*

They sent it back for me to shoot again and again, it jams on standard 9mm load outs but not on hotter rounds. No biggie there...

So, they said that if I was unhappy with the performance that I could return the gun and either get my money back or get a different gun. I figure I would trade it in for 92 or a 96 but the damn customer service rep has not called me back.

Now I am steaming.

Here is a picture of the jam (repeatable). Notice the brass score mark to on the lip of the right side of the ejector port? Crazy! This pistol is supposed to eject to top and slightly to the right (ambidextrous ejection for lefties or righties).

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_4168.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/Personal/AR/IMG_4169.jpg

To add insult to injury, I noticed on their website that they are only offering the 9000S in .40 which, in my mind, proves they manufactured and designed a craptastic firearm.

Coming from a SIG man you won't like the following advice, bin it, get rid of it, send it back to Beretta and move over to the dark side and purchase a SIG, P239 in 9mm or .357SIG with .40S&W barrel.
Even if I limp wrist(left handed) my SIGs they don't jam,(knock on wood) I've had no problems with mine and the customer service is top notch.

I would tell the their customer service to refund your money and let them know you're going to look at H&K or SIG ;)

I use Winchester White Box 115gr(for plinking) and Federal 124gr EFMJ(for home defense) never had any problems.

[Geezah]

Shweeet........you should check out Ebay and AR15.Com to get a nice optic on there and change out the forearm for a ARMs of Surefire, there was a guy on AR15.Com that just sold a Surefire M73 for $120 :cantbeli:

Did you pick up the upper at Knob Creek?

Was it hard to change out the front sight?

Next year its a Leupold. Right now I am using a simple red dot or variable 3X to 9X scope...not too sure which yet. Just temporary till I get decent optics.

I think I may just keep the front fore grip the way it is. It was cheap to build (also new). 75 bucks total for the vert and the clamshells. There is a hidden M33 rail running along the top too, I just have it covered up.

The gas block was part of the upper that I purchased.

I have been thinking of taking my old upper and swapping out the barrel for a 24" bull barrel with a floating foregrip for tighter shooting.

Not too sure yet.

If I get a new AR, I'm looking at fitting it out with the M73 foregrip and KAC vertical grip(again AR15.COM) but this time I think I'll get the Trijicon ACOG.
Prior to getting the M73 I purchased a M44 off of AR15 and right after doing that I read the reviews on it, so I turned around and sold it on Ebay for a profit ;) which funded the M73, the deals are there if you go looking.

[Dennis G]

Coming from a SIG man you won't like the following advice, bin it, get rid of it, send it back to Beretta and move over to the dark side and purchase a SIG, P239 in 9mm or .357SIG with .40S&W barrel.
Even if I limp wrist(left handed) my SIGs they don't jam,(knock on wood) I've had no problems with mine and the customer service is top notch.

I would tell the their customer service to refund your money and let them know you're going to look at H&K or SIG ;)

I use Winchester White Box 115gr(for plinking) and Federal 124gr EFMJ(for home defense) never had any problems.

I would have to agree.

but you cant go wrong with a 1911

Some links

http://www.classichandguns.com/

http://www.lesbaer.com/1911s.html

http://www.jardinescustom.com/

http://www.kimberamerica.com/custom.php -- my CCW

[Geezah]

Coming from a SIG man you won't like the following advice, bin it, get rid of it, send it back to Beretta and move over to the dark side and purchase a SIG, P239 in 9mm or .357SIG with .40S&W barrel.
Even if I limp wrist(left handed) my SIGs they don't jam,(knock on wood) I've had no problems with mine and the customer service is top notch.

I would tell the their customer service to refund your money and let them know you're going to look at H&K or SIG ;)

I use Winchester White Box 115gr(for plinking) and Federal 124gr EFMJ(for home defense) never had any problems.

I would have to agree.

but you cant go wrong with a 1911

Some links

http://www.classichandguns.com/

http://www.lesbaer.com/1911s.html

http://www.jardinescustom.com/

http://www.kimberamerica.com/custom.php -- my CCW

You carry a full size for CCW??

You left off the Wilson Combat 1911 (http://www.wilsoncombat.com/index_pistol.htm) ;)

Here's my SIGs
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1097698092_dcp_0198.jpg

[Dennis G]

You carry a full size for CCW??

You left off the Wilson Combat 1911 (http://www.wilsoncombat.com/index_pistol.htm) ;)


How could I forget Wilson :bash:

I have carried a 5" 1911 everyday since as long as I've had a CCW, my duty weapon is not full size :roll: I'm just more comfortable with them. I know 3 ex-army types who carry full size 1911's. It is what they are comfortable with. This one guy I know carrys a Colt python. I only own a few handguns :( But I have been looking into this little puppy, Ruger's new 45 auto P345.

[Geezah]

You carry a full size for CCW??

You left off the Wilson Combat 1911 (http://www.wilsoncombat.com/index_pistol.htm) ;)


How could I forget Wilson :bash:

I have carried a 5" 1911 everyday since as long as I've had a CCW, my duty weapon is not full size :roll: I'm just more comfortable with them. I know 3 ex-army types who carry full size 1911's. It is what they are comfortable with. This one guy I know carrys a Colt python. I only own a few handguns :( But I have been looking into this little puppy, Ruger's new 45 auto P345.

My buddy has a Norinco 1911, which I have yet to shoot, when we took it out he was messing around with sights so I lucked out. So I have yet to experience shooting one :|

Do you carry IWB or out?

You could always look at the SIG 1911 clones :P
http://www.sigarms.com/img/photos_gsr-1911.jpg

[Dennis G]

My usual carry gun/holster is a full-size (5") 1911 IWB in a Sparks Summer Special.

Holsters (IWB/OWB)
This is certainly a matter of personal preference. I can tell you what I like, but it won't mean much. And, you probably either clearly like IWB or clearly don't.

Honestly, I am probably more comfortable carrying IWB than on the belt. Less bothered by it is probably a better description. In a belt holster, the gun bumps into more things, the muzzle end hooks seat belts, etc, and that annoys me more than having it IWB.

Don't think IWB full-size gun carry is only for big guys. I guess I'm average size. But then again some times I carry it out.


--

I dont know much about the SIG 1911, and I never new that Norinco made a 1911 :lol: :oops:

[Durandal]

Trying to get my money back to buy something else (That something else in the 9mm range would be a full sized USP) would be like squeezing blood from a rock. I figure it would be easy to simply trade in and get a 92 FS. I know they work and work well.

The 1911 is a given. I simply haven't decided as to what manufacturer I want to purchase one from and what kind.

I have decided that while I would LOVE a Wilson .45 getting the cash together to afford it is something else. Something else will have to fit the bill till then.

Buying a Norinco 1911 is like slapping the face of god (not that I am a god fearing man but it sounds soooooo..... Jeff Cooper). ;)

A 1911 needs to be made in America by Americans by a company owned by Americans.

Edit: In Kentucky, CCL means anything from pistols, to shotguns, from fireworks to blackjacks, and from brass knuckles to a bat. More or less...the list for conceal carry is quite long. Pistols are fine regardless of frame size even if it were something ridiculous, like Taurus .454, Desert Eagle, S&W .50.

[Sir Zach of R.]

Man why don't you just get a Glock 17 or 19? $570 on impactguns.com

[Durandal]

Man why don't you just get a Glock 17 or 19? $570 on impactguns.com

Because there is nothing that annoys me more than Glock owners. I also want a decocker and guess what, Glock's don't have 'em.

Edit: Having shot half of the Glocks that havebeen/are on the market, I can safely say that I have also not held one that I ENJOY. Nothing sucks more than some uppity type suggesting what gun you should use.

I tolerate Gheeza since I know he is Sig whipped :D and we will be shooting together at some point. I like Sigs, I simply do not want to own one.

[Sir Zach of R.]

Man why don't you just get a Glock 17 or 19? $570 on impactguns.com

Because there is nothing that annoys me more than Glock owners. I also want a decocker and guess what, Glock's don't have 'em.

Edit: Having shot half of the Glocks that havebeen/are on the market, I can safely say that I have also not held one that I ENJOY. Nothing sucks more than some uppity type suggesting what gun you should use.

I tolerate Gheeza since I know he is Sig whipped and we will be shooting together at some point. I like Sigs, I simply do not want to own one.

Alright, no problem. I just empty what's left into a haybale. :lol:

[Geezah]

Man why don't you just get a Glock 17 or 19? $570 on impactguns.com

Because there is nothing that annoys me more than Glock owners. I also want a decocker and guess what, Glock's don't have 'em.

Edit: Having shot half of the Glocks that havebeen/are on the market, I can safely say that I have also not held one that I ENJOY. Nothing sucks more than some uppity type suggesting what gun you should use.

I tolerate Gheeza since I know he is Sig whipped :D and we will be shooting together at some point. I like Sigs, I simply do not want to own one.

There's a big rivalry between SIG and Glock owners, I shot a Glock it was nice but my SIGs are Shwweet and as Durandal said, "I'm SIG whipped", I've shot the H&K P2000 40S&W and wasn't very impressed, I've got big hands and still found it hard to operate all the bells and whistles ;)