Time to bury the guns... by Hardware

Meh, as folk know, I think everyone who wants one should have one - but I also think that everyone who has one oughta know how to actually use it, operate and maintain it properly, too.

That last isn't a legal responsibility, but a moral one.

So if you get one, for the love o mercy, get some hands-on training, please.

My personal reccommendation for beginners is either a Taurus 650SS2 (revolver) or a Bersa Thunder (automatic), inexpensive and durable, tho efficient self protection.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2007 9:47 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

In one or two posts time, PIRATENEWS will be along to spew out nonsence about the Wisconsin Cop killing spree, so brace yourselves.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2007 10:20 PM

BLAZESOLO

I am a proud owner of several guns. One of my philosiphies is Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And the other one is Gun control means hitting your target.
(Sorry I've always been a bad speller

)

I wear a blaster under my Browncoat

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 1:36 AM

JUDITH

I'm 77 and still go out to shoot regularly. I love my .45. I've had this one for thirty years and she still shoots true.

Having seen where this country is going, I fear I may have to use it one day. Thank god I won't be around too much longer to see what happens next. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to have to use my weapons, but I will if need be. I've seen two wars and hate to think there may be another here.

We ALL need to get more active with votes that count.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Meh, as folk know, I think everyone who wants one should have one -

Does that include terrorist, convicted violent felons, and the mentally ill? Cause if you agree we can't allow those folks to have guns then you agree we need gun control...just disagree as to the how much.

Me, I've got some nice guns, I intend to keep them whatever the law says. But I favor keeping them away from criminals, terrorists, and crazy types...and kids (without proper supervision, which means most kids these days, but not all).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 4:40 AM

I said everybody, didn't I ?

When it comes right down to it - if you can't trust someone to not shoot folk, then why trust them to drive a car, own tools, etc ?

That's a damn short drop to a rubber room "for our own protection", and contrary to all that I believe.

And given the state of our current despotism, I am not at all prepared to accept their definition of "terrorist" or "mentally ill" - especially given a regime that seems to consider anything but absolute subservience to their merest whim, no matter how lunatic, to be one or the other.

And mostly certainly I would not accept your definition of a "convicted violent felon" given that you are, in essence, part of that regimes apparatus, no, I do not think so.

If one wishes to have and excercise a right, it must be universal - none of this denying it to people you do not like, that is the very essence of despotism, just like free speech, I may not like what someone says, but damned if I wanna shut them up - you start down that road, sooner or later it comes back to YOU.

The world is not a safe place, it cannot be made a safe place no matter how many rules and laws are enacted in a ludicrous effort to make it so - words on paper are no defense save after the fact, if even then, and be damned if I would meekly hand over the responsibility for my own safety to people (government) that have been endlessly proven to not be trustworthy with it, in exchange for a flawed illusion of safety that in truth constitutes no such thing.

To not carry a firearm because we have police is as insane, as asinine, as to not have a fire extinguisher because we have fire departments, a ridiculous concept when you strip away the fear of a mere tool and look at it for what it is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 5:56 AM

JARHEAD

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Meh, as folk know, I think everyone who wants one should have one -

Does that include terrorist, convicted violent felons, and the mentally ill? Cause if you agree we can't allow those folks to have guns then you agree we need gun control...just disagree as to the how much.

Me, I've got some nice guns, I intend to keep them whatever the law says. But I favor keeping them away from criminals, terrorists, and crazy types...and kids (without proper supervision, which means most kids these days, but not all).

H

I've proposed a compromise in the past for this one - what if we redesigned the interface on those machines that we all have to use to legally purchase a firearm so that it only takes our name and social and then connects to the FBI crime database, which thanks to the Patriot Act can now be interconnected to other GO's databases like mental hospitals, and the machine can give you a thumbs up or down right on the spot. And of course this would rescind the NFA of 1934 and all of it's amendments, which would allow anybody of age to buy anything provided the system didn't flag them. And just to calm down the libs now that we would be able to buy machine guns over the counter without massive months of bureaucracy and fees we would even have a waiting period for a *first* gun purchase, because logically after that if the person can't use the second gun they will just use the first.

I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 9:07 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
I said everybody, didn't I ?

Amen.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I said everybody, didn't I ?

When it comes right down to it - if you can't trust someone to not shoot folk, then why trust them to drive a car, own tools, etc ?

I think thats the point in restricting them.

Because a terrorist and a violent criminal or a person who's criminally insane...you can't really trust them not to shoot folk.

And I oppose allowing terrorists to drive, own tools, etc. I'm funny that way, being all biased against the terrorists.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact...Supreme Court said that cause some of you folk are perfectly happy to be dead rather then bend just a little on issues like allowing terrorists and crazy types to buy guns. Thats fine for you, not for me, and not for the majority of folks around.

Its live free or die. Not Die free cause you allowed a terrorist to kill you with a legally purchased firearm. Me, I'd let all you law abiding folks buy anything you want within reason (no nukes...and you need to have a really good reason for a bazooka, like varmint huntin). Its the bad guys and the crazy guys whose rights don't mean squat to me.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 10:16 AM

JADEHAND

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And I oppose allowing terrorists to drive, own tools, etc. I'm funny that way, being all biased against the terrorists.

You're a horrible person, being all biased against people who want to kill you. Shame.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it." - "True Romance"

A man who walks the Earth

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 10:43 AM

ALLIETHORN7

If someone tries to take away our right to bear arms, then- just on principal- I'll get one of my crazier (And more millitant friends) to shoot them. Prople repect what they fear, people fear what they respect. It's a vicious cycle that led us to not be a colony anymore.

-Danny

We move for all mankind,
A million miles from everything we've ever know...
We're on their hearts and minds,
A million heads are bowed to bring us safely home...
Hemmed in by emptiness,
A million ways that everything could be undone...

THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
My Master went to the Moon in a Rocket of Flamin' Cheese!
I LIKE CHEESE!!!
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 12:10 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I said everybody, didn't I ?

When it comes right down to it - if you can't trust someone to not shoot folk, then why trust them to drive a car, own tools, etc ?

I think thats the point in restricting them.

Because a terrorist and a violent criminal or a person who's criminally insane...you can't really trust them not to shoot folk.

And I oppose allowing terrorists to drive, own tools, etc. I'm funny that way, being all biased against the terrorists.
...
Its live free or die. Not Die free cause you allowed a terrorist to kill you with a legally purchased firearm. Me, I'd let all you law abiding folks buy anything you want within reason (no nukes...and you need to have a really good reason for a bazooka, like varmint huntin). Its the bad guys and the crazy guys whose rights don't mean squat to me.

And I'm finding myself stuck dead in the middle between you two; I'm starting to agree with Frem we must question who is deciding who the terrorists are and agreeing with Hero I don't want 'em to have none.

Of course, no one said was fair. Or simple.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I said everybody, didn't I ?

When it comes right down to it - if you can't trust someone to not shoot folk, then why trust them to drive a car, own tools, etc ?

Regarding the mentally ill, many of them that shouldn't have guns wouldn't be capable of passing a driving test, so no we don't let them drive.

Regarding cars in general I find your analogy flawed, most people require transportation in order to have gainful employment, denying them the ability to drive denies them the ability to lead a productive life. Denying the right to have guns can, under certain circumstances, do the same, however the circumstances in question are much rarer and typically easier to avoid. A maniac with a car can certainly kill, but not as efficiently as a maniac with a gun. Additionally a person with significant driving infractions will have their license revoked, a violent criminal is in essence having their license revoked the same way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 12:05 AM

I ain't buyin what you're sellin.

Firstoff, a criminal, especially a known violent felon with no respect for the law in the first place, isn't gonna give a rats ass if some words on paper say he cannot have a gun.

Do you really, truly, honestly THINK that will stop him like a brick wall from buying or possessing one ?

Cause that's what you're trying to sell me, here.

Imma also refer you to this post, that whole totally pesky "unalienable rights" thing, you know.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30821&m=547245#547245

And on top of that, what part of "shall not be infringed" somehow escaped folk here ?

I don't see any caveats, exceptions, excuses or legal/verbal contortions there, I see a plain statement that means exactly what the hell it says, and it's a damned slippery slope when you start letting the Gov slip it's leash.

A universal right must remain universal, otherwise it's just one group oppressing another.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 1:32 AM

JUDITH

Quote:
Originally posted by Alliethorn7:
If someone tries to take away our right to bear arms, then- just on principal- I'll get one of my crazier (And more millitant friends) to shoot them. Prople repect what they fear, people fear what they respect. It's a vicious cycle that led us to not be a colony anymore.

-Danny

I take issue with this statement. In my many years, I have found that people fear what they fear and respect the righteous. Fear in no way can be confused with respect. Respect can only be earned - neither given or forced.

Don't get someone else too do your own dirty work - Comes a time you have to shoot your own dog. Don't farm it out. It only makes it worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 3:37 AM

I know bullets are cheaper, but that's a statement far better made with some tar, feathers and a fencerail.

Any politician not scared shitless of his constituents is a politician desperately in need of a recall vote, if not the above.

THEY should be scared of US, not vice versa.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:03 AM

JUDITH

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I know bullets are cheaper, but that's a statement far better made with some tar, feathers and a fencerail.

Any politician not scared shitless of his constituents is a politician desperately in need of a recall vote, if not the above.

THEY should be scared of US, not vice versa.

-F

Here, here!
Hear, hear!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 6:14 AM

HARDWARE

Let's address the kids issue first. When I was in school it was not uncommon for high school students to bring their deer hunting rifles to school and leave them locked in their car in order to hunt after class. Number of spree shootings at school... 0.

Prior to 1934 any child with enough money could puchase and own, or if they chose, have delivered by mail, a fully automatic firearm. Number of spree shootings perpetrated by kids... 0.

Whatever objections you may have, it's not about just kids.

Prior to 1968 convicted felons could own firearms. The Gun control act of 1968 made that illegal. What changed in 1968? If you're saying convicts are going to committ crimes after release, why release them? Isn't this law a condemnation of our criminal justice system?

As far as terrorists, I haven't seen a huge number of terror events involving guns. As a matter of fact, trying to prevent acts of terrorism caused 9/11. How long do you think 9/11 would have gone on if a couple of citizens on each plane were armed? (and no, despite what hollywood has shown a bullet won't cause the plane to explosively decompress.) The answer to terrorism isn't a cop on every corner, it is arms in the hands of everyday people. How many times do you see fanatics shooting up a location in Israel?

This country has been fed a huge line of shinola about it's gun laws starting back in 1898. Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol? Why do rifles and shotguns have a 16 inch minimum barrel limit unless you pay a $200 tax? It's about control, pure and simple.

They have forgotten WE control THEM.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I ain't buyin what you're sellin.

Firstoff, a criminal, especially a known violent felon with no respect for the law in the first place, isn't gonna give a rats ass if some words on paper say he cannot have a gun.

Do you really, truly, honestly THINK that will stop him like a brick wall from buying or possessing one ?

Nope, but it does make it a bit less convenient and if they commit another crime it tacks on another charge which will hopefully keep them away for longer.

Quote:
Imma also refer you to this post, that whole totally pesky "unalienable rights" thing, you know.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30821&m=547245#547245

Unalienable rights refer to the three that follow it, not to the Bill of Rights.

Quote:
And on top of that, what part of "shall not be infringed" somehow escaped folk here ?

Two thoughts on this, first I'm pretty sure that if the founding fathers knew what weaponry would develop into in the future that they wouldn't have nearly so broad in their statement there. Second, since they were so broad IIRC the "well regulated" has been construed to mean that the government has a certain amount of say in the matter, if it was not construed as such then IMO we would have to (and would have by now) pass a new amendment giving the power to restrict weaponry. Perhaps it would be a better option to push for a new amendment replacing the second with clearer language on the matter. Personally I think we'd do well to have the entire Constitution re-written to be clearer on a lot of points.

Quote:
I don't see any caveats, exceptions, excuses or legal/verbal contortions there, I see a plain statement that means exactly what the hell it says, and it's a damned slippery slope when you start letting the Gov slip it's leash.

Once again I see this as a an issue of a lack of foresight, again if the founding fathers knew that we would have cheap, easily concealable rapid-fire weapons that they wouldn't have been so broad and once again the original meaning has been contorted to save the trouble of needing to pass a new amendment.

Quote:
A universal right must remain universal, otherwise it's just one group oppressing another.

To take this to the logical conclusion no one would ever be punished for a crime since to do so would be to infringe upon their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, otherwise it's just society oppressing criminals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol?

That's illegal?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
And I'm finding myself stuck dead in the middle between you two; I'm starting to agree with Frem we must question who is deciding who the terrorists are and agreeing with Hero I don't want 'em to have none.

I suspect that law abiding folks are not terrorists. Even the underground sleeper types are not truly law abiding since Conspiracy is a crime. Never the less I think criminal record of violent offenses, like Domestic Violence, are reasonable places to start. Having a list of folks who attended terrorist camps and are on international watch lists are another.

George, the guy down the street who works as a CPA and likes to go hunting or target shooting and whose worst offense is a speeding ticket...he can buy all the guns he wants. Martha, the single mother working two jobs in a bad neighborhood, fine. Fred, the postal worker...I'd be a little more cautious, but ok. PirateNews, the crazy-talker...no guns for you!

I like concealed carry, cause it cuts crime. Sure thats bad for business, but hey, I'm also a law enforcer and I like less crime. I can carry myself as a Prosecutor, but I choose not to. I would if I worked for Cleveland or Akron...its dangerous in those cities.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Firstoff, a criminal, especially a known violent felon with no respect for the law in the first place, isn't gonna give a rats ass if some words on paper say he cannot have a gun.

Do you really, truly, honestly THINK that will stop him like a brick wall from buying or possessing one ?

It will stop him from buying one legally. But it would not stop you.

So what's your problem?

Unless your a violent criminal, terrorist, or mentally insane.

Are you?

And I note for the record that many violent criminals are arrested before they can commit another violent crime because they are caught with the gun first. Maurice Clarrett is a good example (disgraced former OSU running back arrested carrying a loaded AK-47).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 11:46 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol?

That's illegal?

Unless the pistol is on the curio and relics list maintained by BATFE, possession of a pistol that can accept a detachable shoulder stock is a violation of the National Firearms Act.

http://www.shelfspace.com/~c-r-ffl/sec3.html

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Why is it illegal to have a detachable stock for a pistol?

That's illegal?

Unless the pistol is on the curio and relics list maintained by BATFE, possession of a pistol that can accept a detachable shoulder stock is a violation of the National Firearms Act.

Huh, I wondered why they weren't more common since it seems to be a reasonable thing for target practice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 12:31 PM

BADKARMA00

Hardware, I agree 100%. Nuff said.

Bad_karma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 1:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Meh, unless you guys can get together and coordinate, your guns are going to have oh, about... zero... effect on your liberties.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 3:09 PM

HOSTILE17NOW

Okay the day the man tells me I can't have something that will protect me from gangs/kkk/a$$h@*le$,,, Or anyone else who wants
me dead! hell no! like hell I am!

When that day comes we'll just buy them underground

Like I seen up north, In small towns

now those folk are scarrrrry

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 3:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Or anyone else who wants me dead!"

You're thinking too small. You think the problem is going to be a person, or at most a few people. What if it's the government ? What are you going to do then ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 3:31 PM

HOSTILE17NOW

Who did you think the A$$Holes where?

The "MAN" WHO else!

Take my love take land: why the hell not!
you took everything else

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 3:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, what are you going to do when the government comes for you ?

They want me dead - I'll show THEM ! BLAM !!!!

That'd be really helpful ...

Can you think of nothing else to do besides Custer's last stand ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:23 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I know bullets are cheaper, but that's a statement far better made with some tar, feathers and a fencerail.

Any politician not scared shitless of his constituents is a politician desperately in need of a recall vote, if not the above.

THEY should be scared of US, not vice versa.

-F

Here, here!
Hear, hear!!

Here Here!!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:25 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Or anyone else who wants me dead!"

You're thinking too small. You think the problem is going to be a person, or at most a few people. What if it's the government ? What are you going to do then ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

What did we do in the 1700's? If you think the US is having trouble in Iraq...What would happen when 100 million armed americans say enuff..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Back then the British and the Colonists had equal technology, and the Brits were a long way away.

Today you're talking about guns v wiretaps, media control, economic control, and the state apparatus. In your town, in your home and in your life.

You are so naive to think it's the same game.

But the one thing the Colonists had that you are ALL forgetting about - they had EACH OTHER. And here you are like a herd of cats. Thinking that somehow an individual stand is going to get the job done.

All the guns in the world will make no difference if you can't stand together, and your neighbors won't stand with you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 5:08 PM

HARDWARE

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- Benjamin Franklin

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 5:19 PM

PIRATECAT

I would like to buy a gun that works dag nab it. Stop having guns made everywhere but the good ole USA. I have a brand new revolver back in Italy being fixed. I have quite a few guns and rifles half of the new ones something is wrong with em. I buy a Colt .38 made in 1907 shoots great. I buy the stuff made today just crap. My S/Ws have been good but everything else is going back to the manufacturer. We need to keep our machinists in the US. Its going so down hill.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 5:53 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

What did we do in the 1700's? If you think the US is having trouble in Iraq...What would happen when 100 million armed americans say enuff..........

The US army isn't trying to kill civilians in Iraq. If you sent the commanders a message tomorrow saying the gloves were off (and assuming they did not reject it as an illegal order) there would be no insurgency. These same people were just as pissy in Saddams time, they didnt do this to him because back then if someone from a village set off an IED and blew up the army that village would be raised and every man in it killed. Read the charges in Saddam's trial for proof. If the US millitary applied the same scorched earth policy today the insurgency would be over in a year. It worked for Saddam it worked for Hitler and for Stalin and for every tyrant you can name. Trying to equate 1776 with anything else is a mistake

If "the Man" punished neighbourhoods for your bad behavior it wouldnt be long before your neighbours eventually get the message and turn you in to save their kids from the deathsquads.

Rue is right, armed overthrow only works when everybody is behind it and to be honest not everyone would be. The best you could hope for is a glorious symbolic death unreported by state media.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

How many of you heard from "mainstream media" about the Miami polices' brutal response to a peaceful anti-CAFTA demonstration? What about the Oakland 25? Who stood up and cheered when Meyer was tasered? Who thinks that "rendering" people is a good idea?

Rue and Fletch2 are right: there are too many people who don't have a clue, and too many of the remainder are so frightened of "terrorism" that they'll submit to almost anything. And the remainder from THAT think that one person with a gun is somehow an Individual Hero when really that person is just attention-seeking.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:27 PM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

As to the issue of a felon's constitutional rights - These rights are only protected until by due process of law they are removed. If you are a Felon, then they have been by due process removed.

As to guns for beginners - A Colt model 1911 is pretty much perfect if you can take the recoil ((For those with an aversion, then the Browning Hi-Power is perfect, and you can step up easily if you so wish.))

Or for rifles, a Ruger 10/22 is great for plinking, and if you've got a baddie at the door, I doubt he's going to look at your rifle and think, "Oh, that's only a .22, I'm out packing him." He's going to think "((Insert Expletive here)) He's got a Gun!" Another good little rifle is the Remington 700. You can get it in any sort of cartridge you like, and in most places the gov't won't mind you buying one ((Presuming you've got a clean record &c.))

Also, SIG weapons can generally be brought through anything and then shoot straight and reliable. They're like a Kalashnikov only with Swiss Engineering and Precision.

Speaking of the Swiss, no one hears about violent crime in Switzerland, and for good reason - Practically all males ((And a good number of Females)) between 18 and 49 ((and often older)) have an assault rifle that they're trained to military proficiency on in their closet. Nobody's going to be stupid enough to try and invade your house knowing that. And Military Proficiency in Switzerland means hitting that little cuckoo clock bird every time from 400+metres without damaging the clock. Like Machiavelli Said - "The Swiss, absolutely free, and absolutely well armed."

Can I just ask a question here? For those of you who are ok with gun control ((Even a little)) How do you justify making a bayonet lug illegal? It's easy enough to rig one ((Duct Tape Anyone?)) and yet no one ever hears of a drive by bayoneting, or a robbery at bayonet point. In war, Bayonets make sense, if only as a really last resort psychological thing. In Crime, a gun is enough, and if you really need one, get a knife and some duct tape. Therefore I would challenge the necessity of any ban on bayonet lugs, as they seem to be either down or no-factor.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 9:33 PM

MAZAEN

14 year olds 100 years ago were more mature than 14 or even 22 year olds today. It would not be uncommon for 14 year olds to use rifles to shot bears on farms 100 years ago. Now you'd be lucky if a 14 year old would be given permission by their parents go camping because their parent would be concerned for mozzie bites. The more people are raised by being babied and this includes not using guns, the more immature the adults we become. It's like people are regressing in age as the decades pass. Not having guns is just another side effect of this infantisation of adults phenomenon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Can I just ask a question here? For those of you who are ok with gun control ((Even a little)) How do you justify making a bayonet lug illegal?

Just because I think that a certain amount of gun control is necessary doesn't mean I don't think that a lot of the laws are retarded, almost the entire "Assault Weapons" Ban was incredibly stupid and the few parts that weren't incredibly stupid weren't that much better.

Quote:
and yet no one ever hears of a drive by bayoneting

That would be so cool.

Quote:
or a robbery at bayonet point.

Because it would be a robbery at gun point.

Quote:
In war, Bayonets make sense, if only as a really last resort psychological thing.

I've heard stories of fights where both sides ran out of ammo and instead of using their bayonets they threw rocks at each other.

Quote:
In Crime, a gun is enough, and if you really need one, get a knife and some duct tape. Therefore I would challenge the necessity of any ban on bayonet lugs, as they seem to be either down or no-factor.

Unfortunately gun control advocates usually have no fing idea what they're talking about as evidenced by most of the provisions of the "Assault Weapons" ban.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:39 AM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

They throw rocks because the bayonet requires being up close and personal which is obviously dangerous. In certain situations however, the bayonet is invaluable. A friend of mine in Iraq told me that even though he doesn't carry an M16 he carries the bayonet. This is because his M9 is about as effective a weapon as is a well thrown rock.

As to it being robbery at gun point, this is true, so please excuse the hyperbole. But I think my point is still sound. They aren't wanted by anyone but collectors, and therefore should be allowed for said collectors.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:06 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How many of you heard from "mainstream media" about the Miami polices' brutal response to a peaceful anti-CAFTA demonstration?

This one seriously worries me a bit. I didn't hear about this until I read a reference in these forums. I mentioned it to a couple other folks, and they hadn't heard of it either. Me, I admit, I miss news maybe 3 of 7 days; often 2 or 3 in a row, so I miss things that don't repeat a while.... but something like that, I'd expect to be hearing about not just that day on again off again as the issue plays out. It's like it's dead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
They throw rocks because the bayonet requires being up close and personal which is obviously dangerous.

All the more reason for drive-by bayonetting. Sorry I've got the concept stuck in my head now.

Quote:
In certain situations however, the bayonet is invaluable. A friend of mine in Iraq told me that even though he doesn't carry an M16 he carries the bayonet. This is because his M9 is about as effective a weapon as is a well thrown rock.

IIRC they give officers pistols instead of rifles, if I was an officer in Iraq I'd be bucking for a demotion cause I'd rather get less money and a rifle myself. It'll be interesting to see if they decide to start buying MP7's and issuing them to officers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:11 AM

ARCLIGHT

Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:32 AM