Second Amendment internal debate thread. by dreamtrove

1. Anthony, thanks, not what I meant, I disagree with the analysis, I think that's not what it says: In order to maintain the security of a free state. As I said, many govts. defend themselves while being tyrannical brutal dictatorships internally. The 2nd is clearly intended to prevent that, NOT to defend the sovereignty of the USA.

2. PJ

I disagree. Yes, he could have and would have. There are several things wrong with the the holocaust picture:

1. Many jews left voluntarily because they feared what might happen to them in Germany, or because they joined the jewish relocation program.* Only Roberto Benini has addressed this on screen that I've seen

2. Gun Control laws in Nazi Germany were to prevent a second coup, not to implement the holocaust, since the holocaust was not implemented in Germany. It was implemented in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. There was no gun control.

3. Similar genocides have been instituted in many countries that had no gun control.

* The jewish relocation program was not a code name for the holocaust, but the real german govt. plan to ethnically cleanse germany of jews, and simultaneously establish a state of israel. This much is well established. The zionist authority rejected the idea on germany's first two attempts, and rejected it on the third. It is unknown how many jews were relocated to israel, but estimates are generally on the low end, from 4-15,000. The program got hijacked by the already running work-camp program which would later be called "the holocaust."

The holocaust per se was not executed entirely in this fashion. Forced slave labor camps had a high attrition rate, and people who were not potential laborers were executed. As for "death camps" I'm not sure. There were massacres in labor camps, and also in some POW camps. Auschwitz was a labor camp in which 1.2 million people or so were exterminated in one fashion or another, about 1/2 of whome were jewish, but this is a small slice of the over 11 million civilian casualties of the collective program of taking over eastern europe, using it for a military base, and imprisoning any "insurgents" which basically meant anyone, make whatever present day parallel you feel like.

As a genocide, it ranks among the top ten of all time, I would place them in decending order as such, feel free to correct me:

Mao's Communist and Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, Chinese Nationalist Revolt, The Inquisition, Leopold's Congo, Extermination of Indians, The Slave Trade, The Holocaust, The Central African War*, The Crusades.

*If you couple this with the contemporary greater east african war as one conflict, then it exceeds the holocaust, and if, like me, you blame Clinton for both...

But back on topic: Gun control doesn't seem an essential ingredient of genocide. Superior firepower is a pretty strong ingredient, but our govt. already has vastly superior firepower to what it allows its citizens to have.

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:26 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Superior firepower is a pretty strong ingredient, but our govt. already has vastly superior firepower to what it allows its citizens to have.

"Superior firepower" isn't all it's cracked up to be. You can ask just about anyone who's been to Iraq or Afghanistan how much our "superior firepower" is worth in the face of a widespread insurgency.

Mike

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

1. The purpose of keeping and bearing arms is the security of a free state, not self defense.

Unless you're defending yourself from enemies foreign and domestic. :)

Quote:

2. A well regulated Militia was later interpreted to be the National Guard, which is when DC abandoned the 2nd. I disagree that the Natl. Guard keeps the 2nd, as it is beholden to DC.

Interpreted by some. Many, many other interpretations list the "militia" mentioned in the Second as the entire potential fighting force - at the time, every man capable of carrying arms in defense of the nation and/or his state. As such, he was expected to bring his own arms to bear.

Quote:

3. The definition of Arms is of the time, a musket, the arm needed to protect the nation at the time, and defense of the citizenry.

Why? Why do you tie only THIS Amendment to its time? Shall we shut down the internet? It's not protected by "free press" stipulations, since it's not actually printed on a press, and the right to a free press only extends to those who actually own a printing press. Does the right to free speech only extend to those within hearing distance of your spoken voice, and not extend to radio, television, or the internet, because they weren't "of the time"?

Quote:

4. Note, important, that the maintenance of the free state is NOT defense of the govt., the task which the national guard is charged with most typically (yeah, i know, sometimes they do other things) but this is not relevent: You can have a well protected govt. of a tyranny. The people must be protected to maintain a free state.

The maintenance of the free state is defense FROM the government. The founders actually believed that the protection of the people from the government was best left in the hands of... THE PEOPLE! They thought that a well-armed populace and no standing army (look that one up when you get a chance) would lead to a much more honest government. From the looks of things, and the way things have been going since, they were entirely correct in that view. Notice how things have been slowly chipped away since, especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment, and most recently, the Fourth.

Quote:

5. The carrying of guns, or Chuck Baldwin's "buy a gun" platform is the dumbest interpretation I have ever read. It single-statemently lost him my vote. Guns were weapons of the time. Muskets. Today, that would be little more use than a muskrat in terms of defense against unjust rule. Don't believe me? Look at Waco.

Take it for what it's worth, but Japan's Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor surprise attack (allegedly), said that the reason there was never a real effort to invade the American mainland was because there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". If you don't think a populace armed with nothing more sophisticated than a "mere" rifle can be a distinct danger, and give the most well-armed military in the history of the world real pause, you really should talk to some Gulf War veterans who faced the insurgency.

Quote:

6. It's indisputable that guns lead to higher homocide rates, and gun control leads to brutality and democide and both are bad, which is worse is a matter from debate, but I would like to skip that. It's a problem, that can be solved.

Please let us know when you figure out how to solve either of those.

Quote:

7. Gun Suicide is a very serious problem, as are school shootings. Additionally, guns are rapidly circulating through the drug community, as a result, I was shot at and a friend of mine was killed. I've known a number of gun suicides, and two non-gun suicides. I'm convinced the rate would be lower without guns, from the psychology I've read: The suicide impulse is a short term brain glitch, having prepared weaponry makes it easier. Both non-gun suicides I knew had human execution methods handy at their disposal. Most people don't.

I've had two friends kill themselves with guns, and two with belts. Maybe we should outlaw belts. Or maybe we should better deal with suicidal tendencies (the impulse, not the band from Los Angeles).

Quote:

8. Back to Waco, envision a true nightmare scenario: What if G. W. Bush had been Bill Clinton and had decided to deal with the FLDS, a community of roughly 50,000 american citizens, in that manner. Check all your baggage about the FLDS at the door, and just imagine the carnage. You know that the possession of muskets, muskrats, or high tech sniper rifles wouldn't have helped. For defense you would need *at least* anti-tank and anti-aircraft armaments, accorded to you by the constitution but not allowed to you by law.

Smellin' a lot of "what if..." comin' off that scenario. I'm thinking that the day the federal government decides to burn 50,000 of any of its citizens out of their homes, they're no longer going to be dealing with a mere 50,000 angry citizens.

Quote:

9. I'm not a gun owner, I've used a gun, I've been shot at and had guns pointed at me several times. I don't like the idea of highly fatal weapons being used to solve arguments. Also, the majority of gun incidents the guy pointing a gun at me has been a cop, which should enter into the equation.

I am a gun owner, I've used a gun, I've been shot at and had guns pointed at me several times as well. I don't like the idea of force being used to solve arguments, and knives, clubs, and fists are highly fatal weapons, too. You know what's more fatal than any of those? Words. Every war in history, all started with words. Every genocide? Begun with words.

Quote:

10. I want better solutions, at least one which lowers the personal fatality rate, and at least one which protects the citizenry from unjust actions by the govt. or other entity. (Picture NY City with an anti-aircraft system on 9-11. Now picture NYC with a non-lethal aircraft capture system on 9-11.)

You and me both. For the record, my guns have killed exactly zero people.

Mike

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:15 PM

Mike

1. True enough. But a man you are burglaring or who is burglaring you is not an enemy, he's just a victim or an asshole. But my point was that this bad argument is frequently made. The second amendment was not meant for personal self defense or offense, nor was it intended to support game hunting.

2. You are correct again. The concept now would be absurd however. Most US citizens are probably not to be trusted with your life and many are a menace. But the concept of well ordered militia, IMHO, should still be a citizen organization. I made this point earlier when I opined that a concept of "well ordered militia" could be defined so that a shooting range or a rod and gun club could get a charter as a militia, but an organized crime syndicate could not.

3. You misunderstood my post on this: The use of "Arms" by the framers was specifically to NOT tie it to times. Translating "Arms" as guns is as much tying it to the times as tying Arms to muskets would be. In a word, absurd. IMHO, the arms needed to defend for the US citizenry DO NOT include atom bombs, but DO include more than random guns. A defensive militia has to actually be able to defend against the attacks od september 11th, or the attack on the Waco branch davidian compound. These people had no shortage of guns, which did not help them in either case. A gun is not sufficient. I suspect the current arms required to defend against all enemies are currently unavailable because of arms control measures already active in the US.

4. Agreed, again. I have looked it up. I used to work for the reform party, though I was never a 2nd amendment person, the issue came up a fair number of times. Here's a creepy conspiracy to look up some time: The govt. in Washington is an independent microstate representing the british east india company. It's pirate news level of crazy that posts this, but it's not entirely devoid of merit. Also worthy of note, this is an item of the Bill of Rights we are discussing. We should separate out the "framers" here to note that the framers of the articles of confederation were the ones who adopted the bill of rights, the document slightly modified from the original one that King James II, evil bastard, was forced, by the people, to sign, in exchange for not executing him. Unfortunately they then installed William and Mary who were just as bad.

But the point being that the creation of a new constitution in 1789 and the creation of a supreme court were to disable and remove these rights from the people, as the Federalists had lobbied aggressively and failed to strike down the Bill of Rights (both before and after the introduction of the new constitution, and are still doing it today.)

5. I know enough veterans of this war, veterans from the first Gulf war generally didn't see group combat, but that's not the point:

This did not defend Japan. The identical argument was made against attacking the Japanese mainland and the moron in the white house seemed intent on fighting pointless land battles at tremendous cost. Truman, evil bastard, decided to cheat, and make an attack against which Japan could not defend. That changed the rules.

Since WWII, aerial firepower has ruled the battlefield. There is no need to fight this land war, it's fought for other reasons. But we could fight it completely from the air. I'm not saying it would be perfect or even good, but that their guns only defend them because we send in unarmored guys with guns.

Also, the people I know who fought this insurgency, and they are using more than regular guns, they have rocket launchers and grenades, etc.

6. Some possibilities to consider:

A) No weapons at all, on any level
B) non-lethal weapons.
C) Tranquilizers. Yes, they're not instantly effective, but they're effective enough, and sometimes guns aren't an instant kill either. I can think of two recent US shootings where the dead victim had time to return fire and kill his assailant.
D) Citizen militias, more than one, not under a single command structure, would prevent democide, especially if there was an alliance based on "everyone has a duty to oppose the abuser" if some big fish in a small pond started acting up.
E) Authorities could have digitally authorized weapons via some encryption scheme, so their weapons could be deactivated if they were out of line.
F) No standard use of auto-fire weapons with massive amounts of ammo. All genocides seem to involve heavy use of non-target specific weaponry that sends out heavy fire at more or less random targets.

7. part a) is a fallacious argument. That's like saying because sober drivers also have accidents, we shouldn't worry about drunk driving. I admit it only solves part of the problem. 6/10 intentional suicides involve a gun. It's not safe to assume that these people would use another method, since 95% of people who try suicide once never do so again. What we should have first and foremost is a bogus suicide method for people to try, and have time to feel moronic, like some slow acting poison which could then be counteracted with an antidote...(I have a fair number of ideas on this)

As for your second part, I agree. Suicidal impulses come largely from a tryptamine imbalance resulting from a rejection syndrome. Usually, the cause is actually repression, but the body doesn't know that, and so it ups the tryptamine level to encourage people, usually young people, to seek out mates. This can easy be counteracted with an over the counter 5-htp supplement. Every parent should know this, and should recognize the symptoms of a suicidal teen.

8. Oh, you have far more faith in America than I do. I've seen this happen in countless countries, even, dare I suggest, ones far more civilized than this one. All they need to do is demonize them to the right level, and people will accept it, especially if it's blamed on the victim, as Waco was.

Here's a nightmare scenario for you:

a. The media-govt. picks a group and demonizes them as child molestors etc.
b. MSM then paints a picture of these people as not just a threat to the US but inherently violent, and using very dangerous weapons.
c. Then it kills them in a series of small incidents, never admitting to the final death toll, and each time, makes it look like said target group is the actual attack, esp. if they can create the image of infighting.
d. The Govt. then paints itself as the savior "stepping in to stop the madness" as it did in Somalia, and so many other places.

Here's another approach: Attack them with biowarfare, and then claim that it's a local disease that these people have because they refused a govt. flu shot.

Finally, look at our history. This country has gotten away with kill up to 12 million Native Americans, (and still admits to only 40,000, and claims that those 40,000 deaths were "self inflicted" on the part of the native population <-- this is still true); and has killed over a million blacks, enslaved countless others, with no real recourse ever taken; and finally, even in seating Obama as our new president, took time to idolize Abraham Lincoln, a man who could easily have avoided conflict by solving the two major issues, but instead decided to exterminate one million of his own citizens, who now hail him as a hero? I'm sorry, Abe Lincoln and Andrew Jackson are on our money WTF? These people killed far more americans than any foreign leader ever has.

Solution to the Civil War, for those who don't know it, but recognize that everyone knew it at the time:

A. Establish a per person vote system, not per territory vote system. This is what the south was pushing for, and the number one reason for the civil war, anyone can look this up, it's top on the list of every declaration of session: The proposed partitioning of the western states was to give the republicans a permanent senate majority, to marginalize the southern voice in the senate.

B. Buy the slaves. The cost of the war, even by the estimates at the outset, was going to vastly exceed the price of the slaves. Given the option of a devastating war and loss of all their property as a possibility, or the option of fair market value for their slaves, every slave holder would take the latter. Lincoln could have offer much more than market value with ease. Each slave could be freed by law by anyone paying his purchase price, this was well known, and that this solution was easier and cheaper than the war was also well known at the time, it's hardly a new idea.

So, instead, because of various reasons (nortern imperialism? International banking? Desire for extreme executive authority? Radical reforms like the income tax or reconstruction? A permanent republican govt?) Lincoln decided to upscale the incident to a full scale war which would, including collateral damage and auxiliary deaths top one million of his own citizens. And sure, some rose up in arms against him, but where are we now. He's on the penny, and the fiver, and he has his own monument in washington dc.

In short, yes, I think they would not only get away with it, the sheepish American people would hail them as heroes.

9. That's not really the point is it? Words don't kill. Guns kill. Build a better gun that doesn't kill. I'll bet a living captured enemy willing to spill his guts and join your side is more valuable than a dead one no matter what, and the only thing in between where we are and there is the use of our brains, not our fists.

And, no I'm going to skip the obvious arguments and just refer to the number of drive by punchings, school spree punching deaths, punch suicides, the punchocide extermination of millions of jews, armenians, poles, ukrainians, gypsies, africans and lately iraqis.

I know you're pro-gun, but please use logic.

10. So we should work on a solution. We should have the right to defend ourselves, *actually* defend ourselves, against the attacks which we know have happened and will happen. You know for a fact that the govt. or some agency or lunatic group might come after you or someone you care about and can do so with much more than guns, enough more that guns will not help. We need a real defense.

At the same time, we need weapons that are less destructive to ourselves in day to day life. Your guns are harmless because you're not the angriest man on the internet, you're one of the sane calm ones, just like Frem is a thoughtful reasonable man with a self image of a rabid dog. The real freaks out there are already smoking crack to fill in the gaps between their crystal meth habit and their needle collection, and they have guns, and tomorrow it might occur to them that you are a rabbit and all rabbits must die because bunnies created cheezewhiz, and that was what was behind the hidden messages on their television.

Oh, no, I've known people far crazier than this.

So, let's start the process of creating the new arsenal of the american people which both defends against *all* enemies with *any* potential and likely for of attack we can, while keeping it safe enough that some 12 year old doesn't blow his head off, or someone elses, or everyone else's, etc. It can be done, by people with brains, which I think we have here.

I started this thread because I wanted pro-gun people on it to help design a solution that would be to their liking. A solution that is only to the liking of the anti-gun would never be a useful solution. That's the sort of thinking that produces solutions like tasers.

Seriously. Consider this. You're being chased. quick, you round a corner, and there's the enemy, at fifty yards. You're cornered, it's time for the show-down. He has a PSG1, you pull out your trusty taser. Now your ready for war!

I was at the shooting range the other day and I chucked my taser at the target...

It's a deer I got with my taser. Wasn't easy catching that sucker.

I just yell "pull" and then I throw my taser in the air as high as I can...

Oh, this sick tragic humorous note:

Iraqis like to celebrate by firing guns up into the air. When the US troops pulled out of Baghdad, there was a huge celebration. Well, anything that goes up and does not reach escape velocity will eventually stop, and start accellerating towards the earth with the same 32ft/s^2 that slowed its ascent. Without a serious terminal velocity, such an object is going to hit the earth at the same speed as it initially went up with. Well, as luck would have it, three iraqis had the poor judgment to fire straight up, and hit either themselves or their neighbors, drilling a hole right through the top of their heads. A moment of silence for these three darwin awards.

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:24 PM

Quote:

9. That's not really the point is it? Words don't kill. Guns kill. Build a better gun that doesn't kill. I'll bet a living captured enemy willing to spill his guts and join your side is more valuable than a dead one no matter what, and the only thing in between where we are and there is the use of our brains, not our fists.

And, no I'm going to skip the obvious arguments and just refer to the number of drive by punchings, school spree punching deaths, punch suicides, the punchocide extermination of millions of jews, armenians, poles, ukrainians, gypsies, africans and lately iraqis.

I know you're pro-gun, but please use logic.

I get that you're anti-gun, but please try to be less condescending and insulting.

Words don't kill? You must be joking. In every war, in every genocide, someone gave the order, not with a shot, but with a word. Those words led directly to the deaths of millions, because the people shooting were told to shoot. They were, in point of fact, "given the word" to use their guns. And it seems a great many of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were not killed with guns at all, but rather with starvation and poison gas. What do you know? When you set your mind to killing people, the guns become somewhat unnecessary.

Quote:
Also, the people I know who fought this insurgency, and they are using more than regular guns, they have rocket launchers and grenades, etc.

And guns. Lots and lots and lots of guns. Against vastly superior firepower.

I think you grossly underestimate the effectiveness of a widespread insurgency and the will that can be imposed by a group of people armed largely with little more than "just guns". It's okay - the United States has made the same mistake more than once. In Vietnam, we were extremely successful in killing the Viet Cong with our superior firepower, but we weren't effective in quelling the insurgency that involved lots of people all over the countryside with guns.

Having guns doesn't level the playing field. It doesn't guarantee that your people CAN'T be tyrannized. But in instance after instance, NOT allowing your people to have them guarantees that they CAN be tyrannized - and often it leads directly to them being so treated.

School shootings - odd that these became so much more common once we started declaring school zones "gun-free zones", eh? Maybe if a teacher at Columbine had had a gun handy, that whole mess would have ended a whole lot quicker.

I'm not saying that's the way of it, but it's a possibility. Same with Virginia Tech.

Mike

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:30 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

TN legislature just passed a law to comply with Heller v DC and 2nd Amendment, to allow handguns in state parks, as feds now allow in fed parks.

But TN cities are claiming they are immune to DC v Heller and 2nd Amendment, and are passing ordinances this week banning guns in city parks. Never mind that most citizens in city council meetings say they want their guns in city parks.
http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20090812/NEWS/308119968

To prove the danger of Victim Disarament Zones, a criminal opened fire in a city park today, with a shotgun...
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=95883&catid=2

And the jury trial begins this week for the local torture/rape murders, where the dead victims would be alive if they'd carried a $200 pistol and $1 worth of bullets.
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=95834&catid=2

National Guard takes over school for martial law to shoot rioters wanting vaccines
www.infowars.com/national-guard-takes-over-school-in-swine-flu-vaccine
-riot-drill/

Mayor Bloomburg tries to ban flintlock muskets
http://www.infowars.com/mayor-bloomberg-afraid-of-200-year-old-rifle/

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:33 PM

Quote:

I was at the shooting range the other day and I chucked my taser at the target...

It's a deer I got with my taser. Wasn't easy catching that sucker.

I just yell "pull" and then I throw my taser in the air as high as I can...

Well, on a humorous note, I've got one gun that's more useless than that. It's a crappy little Grendel P-12 (predecessor of the Kel-Tec P-11, oddly) .380auto, and it's complete shit. It can be counted on with 100% reliability to jam at least every other shot, rendering it worse than useless.

I've still got it because I haven't seen any gun buy-back programs or trade-ins recently. I often joke that if I were cornered while I were carrying this paperweight, I'd hold it out and yell, "Stop, or I'll THROW!" - and then I'd throw it at the perp. If I were very, very lucky, he'd actually try to use it against me, giving me all the time in the world to get away...

Mike

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:41 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Well, on a humorous note, I've got one gun that's more useless than that. It's a crappy little Grendel P-12 (predecessor of the Kel-Tec P-11, oddly) .380auto, and it's complete shit. It can be counted on with 100% reliability to jam at least every other shot, rendering it worse than useless.

My KelTecs work pretty good, but kick like crazy. 380 is easy to conceal. 9mm needs a front sight, obviously impossible to aim at less than 10 feet.

My use of the 380 is limited to point-blank range, bullet to the head situation. A former NYPD cop told me how he killed a guy like that in self defense off-duty, while being choked. Guy's eyes got real big right before he pulled the trigger...

My next-door neighbor likes to shoot his AR15 while standing in his yard. I do the same with my Mini 14 and 12 gauge on the 4th of July at midnight.

Obama seized control of all state National Guards for martial law, effective TODAY.
www.infowars.com/governors-oppose-dod-emergency-powers/

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:50 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I recommend some flavor of Makarov as a concealable and reliable defense pistol.

J&G Sales in Prescott is selling a nice Eastern Bloc variant. 9x18mm Polish P64 costs $159 and 1,000 rounds of ammo cost $210.

Good reviews on a great reliable little piece of Cold War history.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:52 PM

Before I really get into the discussion at hand, lemme bring up a thought that's been with me all day, ok ?

In a world where guns are ubiquitous, and they always, ALWAYS will be - any back room machine shop which can bore a piston can make a gun, let's not pretend anyone is unaware of this...

What really is the best way to protect yourself ?
How bout this for a novel solution ?

NOT MAKE PEOPLE WANT TO SHOOT YOU!

Gee, who'da thunk it!

Now obviously that ain't gonna work for a world leader, cause no matter what they do they're gonna piss someone off, and the occasional nutter is every bit as ubiquitous as weapons themselves, thankfully most of em are terrible shots, heh.

But as a general rule it's a far better defense to make friends instead of foes, than it is to try and disarm everyone ELSE(1) for your own protection - which I might add is a great way to make, if not downright enemies, at the very least, people really freakin suspicious of YOU.

Nor is simply having a gun a complete defense for that matter - a gun cannot watch over you while you're asleep, or cover your back when a situation happens, or carry your wounded ass to cover - but a friend can.

A friend with their own weapon and proper discipline and knowhow in it's use is even better, cause you can TRUST them, you see ?
Hell, it's almost as good as having a second gun that wields itself, innit ?

The more the merrier, I say!
Not a one of us is quite as good as ALL of us, yes ?

Just as an idle thought.

-Frem
(1)consider how many 'anti-gun' advocates have been caught with firearms?
Hector Marroquin, Sylvia Arrellano, William Jefferson (along with freezer cash), Sheila Eccleston,and Annette Stevens.
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-RELEASE_Stevens_arres
t.htm

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:00 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

'I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.'

A good quote from a famous tyrant. Still, I take wisdom where I find it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:17 PM

Quote:
My KelTecs work pretty good, but kick like crazy. 380 is easy to conceal. 9mm needs a front sight, obviously impossible to aim at less than 10 feet.

Oh, I've no real problem with the KelTec. The Grendel isn't that, though. It's junk. In fact, it's FAMOUS for being junk - information that would have been good to have BEFORE I got the damned thing. It makes many, many lists of "worst handguns in history". :) The KelTec was, if I recall, what happened when they FIXED the problems with the Grendel. And the Ruger LCP is the next generation of the KelTec, apparently. A buddy just picked one up. It's really quite tiny - so small, in fact, that it's very difficult for me to shoot. I can only get the tip of my finger on the trigger, because the trigger guard is so small, and every time I fire it, the recoil causes the trigger guard to give my finger a hell of a slap.

As for 9mm, I have no problems putting 10 rounds in the head and chest of a silhouette target at 25 yards. Just gotta get comfortable with your chosen weapon, is all. I've pumped a few thousand rounds through this particular handgun - a Ruger P85 9mm semi-auto - and though it has a bit of a reputation as a "cheapie" model, I love it. It's small (a little smaller than a 1911), fits my hand perfectly, and goes where I point it. I've only ever had one jam with it (a failure-to-feed jam), so I'm quite happy with it. It is my very favorite gun.

Mike

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:20 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
[B

3. The definition of Arms is of the time, a musket, the arm needed to protect the nation at the time, and defense of the citizenry.

A technological nit worth picking. The musket was a smoothbore, relatively short ranged long gun, as typically used by the British Army.

What most of the colonists used was the Pennsylvania ( or Kentucky) long rifle, which was more accurate and had longer range. This is what made the Minute Man tactics of sniping from the woods and behind bridges and walls effective against the massed open field forces of the Redcoats.

Using this logic, one can argue that the People should be armed with weapons superior to those used by the military.

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:41 PM

Quote:
Frem is a thoughtful reasonable man with a self image of a rabid dog.

I'm the bloodhound of florencia ?

But I look so silly in a maid outfit!

As for .380Auto - it's actually my preferred caliber, from the original Colt Mustang Pocketlite I wore completely out to the current Bersa Thunder, even though it's a comparitively light round, a couple of Corbon PowRballs in your chest cavity means you AIN'T gettin back up, since I used to shoot at competition level with the USPSA, and can still empty the whole bloody mag into you before you hit the ground.

I've also still got that ancient Polish Radom/Vis/p35 9mm auto which was given to me by a jewish friends grandfather who told me that because of it's "terrible history" he could think of no better hands to put it in for redemption than mine.
I am honored tremendously by that statement, but I haven't dared fire the thing, just lookin at it and wondering what he meant by that gives me the willies.

And then there's Forquet, but that really *IS* "too much gun", a cut down and seriously enhanced Saiga-12 with 30 round drum clip, patrol sling, and a gunlight that must be seen to be believed.
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/The_Torch-74-0.html

We had a creeper last night at site three and one of the residents was (foolishly) looking for him with a puny little low wattage camper flashlight, and I had dismounted that horrible beam thrower and taken it with me.

Come up behind the resident and said "here, try mine" and kicked it on, scaring the crap out of said resident and causing the creeper to give himself away by shrieking and trying to stumble through the brush while pawing at his eyes, bwa hah hah hah.

I don't think THAT one is gonna be back any time soon.

You know you've gone over the top silly when your gunlight itself is weapons-grade.

-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

Friday, August 14, 2009 1:56 PM

Yay! There was bloodshed on my thread! Kewl!

Okay, first. Mike:

I respect your opinion because you're usually rational. Sometimes you get caught up in silly partisan battles, but usually you know when not to waste your time.

Let's not waste time discussing the validity of the 2nd or the use of guns, I said those weren't issues here. Just how to improve the weapons we have to make them less harmful, and to give ourselves what we would *really need* for defense.

Feel free to trust guns only, but I'm looking for lower casualties and better defense.

Yes, in the past, britain was defeated by guys with spears.

1. A lot of Iraqis died in that war and a lot of Americans. What a waste. If I were the arms dealer, I would have sold both better weapons.

2. No offense was intended here, that was humor, it should be taken as such.

3. Words don't kill. Guns don't kill either. Bullets kill. Occasionally someone gets hit by a gun. I'm going to whap you with my Grendel P-12.

That's a deer I got with my Grendel P-12. No, there's no bullet wound. I beat it to death.

4. The second amendment isn't under attack, defending it before its attacked is only encouraging someone to come along and attack it.

Quote:

School shootings - odd that these became so much more common once we started declaring school zones "gun-free zones", eh? Maybe if a teacher at Columbine had had a gun handy, that whole mess would have ended a whole lot quicker.

I think this is just incorrect. They coincide with increased gun sales and gun toting security.

Teachers with guns would be a total disaster. Teacher violence against kids much larger than the opposite. You'd see not only teachers shooting kids, but teachers using guns to aid abuse, rape, etc.

As per columbine, the other students would need guns, but this is an even worse idea, as you would quickly have gang warfare in schools.

But I'd like to get back to the topic: What do we need to defend ourselves, and what can we do to decrease the destructive effects of the weapons we have.

Frem,

Welcome

Quote:

NOT MAKE PEOPLE WANT TO SHOOT YOU!

This has been my strategy, and it has worked up until the last, and then, I had to resort to "dodge." The problem? Squeaky Fromme. You're assuming, as I was, that humans can always be reasoned with. It's a good rule, but sometimes they're insane, genocidal, paranoid, or just want something you have.

But this is off topic.

Anthony T, good point.

Topic was...?

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

Friday, August 14, 2009 2:41 PM

Actually I don't assume they can be reasoned with, I simply try to do that FIRST.

THEN comes other measures.

And if one sorts through the historical propaganda about it, that is the very essence of what Ghandi was saying all along - TRY REASON FIRST.

"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully."
http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/momgandhi/chap28.htm

There's little reason not to, and reason is cheaper than bullets.

-F

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

Friday, August 14, 2009 2:45 PM

No argument here.

Got any ideas for safer weapons or defense against superior firepower?

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

Friday, August 14, 2009 2:55 PM

Actually, plenty.

One of the things about Forquet which makes it so very heinous is that not only will you wipe out the perp and all his friends, you'll probably obliterate the front wall of the BUILDING!

That's... a bit much, you know ?
So we've been experimenting with some less lethal loads, one of which shows promise for home defense, which is loaded with 6mm airsoft pellets instead of lead shot, and you would NOT wanna be hit with it, but it's very unlikely to kill you.

I prefer non-lethal force if I can manage it, but I WANT that card in my deck just in case it comes to that - and was more aware of the potential danger of electroshock weapons before most folk, since they're available even to known violent felons, and some of the smarter ones have been known to use em to dodge gun possession charges, I did drive a cab, remember, and my jacket is lined with TaserShield Plus, which with some research and digging around in the right places, is a useful defensive technique, provided you remember that if you DO stand up to a bully in blue that way, you damn well better have thought through what's gonna happen AFTER he realizes his torture toy don't work on you, and be morally and legally prepared to deal with it.

Anyhows, plenty of ideas, but not enough time to go into it, as I gotta get suited up and cover for a sick employee tonite.

-F

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

Friday, August 14, 2009 3:07 PM

Quote:
Actually I don't assume they can be reasoned with, I simply try to do that FIRST.

Good point, Frem - and while you're doing that, it's also a great opportunity to look around a bit, observe (without being noticed doing it, hopefully), and size up the aggressor, all in preparations for the eventuality that you may have to go to Plan B. I'm fairly good at talking people down (size helps, as it gives them a very good opportunity to think things over and look for a non-violent way out of the situation, which I'm only too happy to help them find), and I've had to talk some friends away from some VERY stupid barfights before. And the whole time I'm in the middle of a group of pissed-off, drunk rednecks, I'm sizing up the situation and figuring out which guy's balls I'm going to kick first, then which guy's kneecap takes a boot, who gets the heel of my hand to their nose, etc. As you've pointed out above, if a person is planning on fighting me, they'd do better to just jump in, 'cause while we're discussing it, I'm laying some very evil plans.

Mike

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

Friday, August 14, 2009 3:36 PM

Quote:
Be Polite, Be Professional, Have a plan to kill EVERYONE you meet.

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

Friday, August 14, 2009 4:05 PM

I've thought anything which can break skin but not bone, could enter the blood directly can carry a heavy and rapid sedative dose that will take them down faster than a bullet to the same location.

A tranq dart is slowed in absorption, IIRC, by the fact that the drug hits muscle tissue most likely, and will take c. 30 sec. to get pulled back up. a more direct hit could chop that down to around 7 sec. ? Correct me if I'm off, not my field, this is just what I recall.

I think that if your first hit doesn't do this, you'd want a second hit of a long term tranq. If you can stun someone for 30 sec, you can tranq them for 8 hours no problem, provided you can hit a stationary target.

A friend of mine who was in Iraq found he could get a lot of mileage out of "shoot first, ask questions later." He'd take his prisoners and ask them why they were trying to do what they did. Then he'd pull out the Qu'ran and read to them the verses that they would claim told them to set up a bomb in a square or whatever, and ask them if they thought that's what mohammed was trying to tell them here. He said invariably the answer was no, and progressively, the insurgents would come to realize that some mullah had lied to them, and abused their inability to read arabic, and tricked them into some mission, and some of them would opt to switch sides.

Now I know you know the value of that power. If their guys become your guys, you're going to win. It's much more powerful than a kill or a recruitment, because their guys already know a lot about the enemy, his tactics, locations, recruiting grounds, targets, etc.

Of course, to survive this long, you have to break the rules and use body armor, etc. Uncle Sam, for some reason, wanted our guys to die... I'm not quite paranoid enough to figure out why.

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

Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:13 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow. Someone who writes as long as I do...and longer! I'm impressed. Also by the points you made, tho' I agree with some and disagree with others.

But at this time, and with this argument, I'll let it lay--brain is not functioning that well today. I just wanted to respond to your last comment about firing guns in the air. Did you ever see "The Mexican"? They utilized that concept in a celebration scene in Mexico. It's something far too many nutcases with guns think about, and should. My heart goes out to those who died and their families.

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

Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:39 PM

Thanks. Got any ideas on alternative weapons for defense and safety?

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 3:43 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

9mm or .40 ?

With all the bad press .40's got (KBs ect) are 9mm a better, more trusted alternative?

(Btw, for me, .45s are too bulky, and .357s dont hold enough)

Also, anyone here handload? Whats the timeframe for making a box of 50?

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:12 AM

50 Rounds, or .50AE ?
Or 50 rounds OF 50AE ?
You'd have to be a little more specific...

If you're really concerned about stopping power though, you could perhaps consider this.
http://www.pfeifer-waffen.at/cms/html/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=
display&pid=32
Okay, yes, I am kidding, but just.. DAMN, yes ?

While not as completely bonkers, I've been looking at the Taurus Judge, a revolver that holds five shots of either 45-70 long colt, or 410 shotgun shells, and at $550.00USD for the Model 4510, a complete steal, although the stock grips on it kinda suck and should be replaced with Pachymars or Hogues if you have large hands.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm

Personally I prefer .380 Auto with either Corbon PowRballs or if you need more range, Speer Gold Dots, either of which will do quite a number on someone, and 9mm is just the same bullet with more hitting power and less accuracy.

9mm was initially an overloaded round for SMG and short range use, and was known to deform the round and upset it into the rifling badly - while this is no longer strictly true, I still prefer the .380 Auto cause I know it's ballistics well enough to pluck candy wafers off a sawhorse at 10 yards easily, ain't the ammo so much as where you put it, mano.

EDIT: BoT didn't try flechettes, likely cause of lack of availability, but razorfoil flechettes are amazingly nasty, tho you would have to handload them yourself.

I know cause I have a very professional looking coil-gun that runs off a stungun battery which the geek farm built for me as a test project, about the size of a colt M1911 and doesn't qualify as a "firearm" since it uses no explosive or combustible propellant, only four shots but it can smack one of those trefoil flechettes most of the way through you before it disintegrates into little razor sharp pieces goin every which way - trust me, you'd rather be shot.

Pretty sure you could adapt those to shotshell use if you were willing to hand load.

And if you've interest in coilguns, one might take a look around in here.
http://www.coilgun.ru/

-F

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I meant, how long would it take to handload 50 rounds (of 9mm, or .40) Its an interesting hobby, and one Im looking at getting into.

.380, really? Lol I actually considered a Bersa Thunder in that calibre, but the price for them climbed past $300 and it just isnt worth it for such a small round.

(Btw, you DO know that .380s bullets have been stopped by leather, right?)

:)

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
(Btw, you DO know that .380s bullets have been stopped by leather, right?)

S'what they get for using CCI Blazer rounds, which are NO good for anything but plinking with the .22LR and even then you get a lot of FTF issues.

As for a Bersa, who's the nimrod who wants three hundred bucks for one ?
I paid $215.00USD for mine new in box, and even with $40.00USD more for a CCW workover at my favorite gunsmith it was still a good bargain.

A CCW pistol is basically for up close in your face personal defense, really - if you're far enough away to worry about velocity loss, you're far enough away to consider retreat a much smarter option.

And remember, I got Forquet for home defense, although given I currently reside in a small apartment, should I really cut loose with that horror there's gonna be about 25% less "home" TO defend, cause the front wall is gone for sure.

Yes Wulfie, there *is* such a thing as "too much gun", and imagine firing THAT from a wheelchair if you've forgotten to lock the brakes first!

Covering fire AND tactical retreat all in one, well, till you hit a wall that is, OUCH!

I actually bribe my gunsmith to do any handloading I need done, he has all the goodies and no culinary skill whatever, making him easy to bribe.

-F

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 5:16 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Heheheheheheheheh

Im just imagining you breaking that thing out, and firing it without the wheel locks on...

That would definatly be a Wil E. Coyote moment.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 6:04 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Thanks. Got any ideas on alternative weapons for defense and safety?

One of the most critical aspect to the success of keeping peace and avoiding violence, from man to man to countries, is the concept of deterrents - nature uses the concept all the time. That's one reason you will not get rid of flesh ripping, brain splatting weapons. A sonic wave gun, or a super Telsa taser-field projector might be more effective and less lethal in stopping an aggressor, but it's not very fearsome. Your average thug is not going to be deterred by being *stunned.* You might actually create a new sport.

Faceless people, heavily armed and wearing lots of dark colors and shiny metal and having something that can put holes through you scares people. It's even good crime prevention to hear people suggest that they may have evil and thuggish tendancies as well.

And, as you can see by the direction your thread has taken... you're never going to break that gun love thing.

We could require motivator chips... wait! Just to monitor depression! nothing too invasive.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 6:31 AM

I've had a Bersa .380 that I've carried while my full-sized 1911 is in the shop for improvements. Now I like the Bersa, especially the old steel frames, but 7 rounds of .380 just doesn't seem like enough oomph. Now that I'm used to carrying that big .45, I feel naked with that little Bersa.

Quote:
While not as completely bonkers, I've been looking at the Taurus Judge, a revolver that holds five shots of either 45-70 long colt,

Just a minor point: if you try to load a 45-70 into a Judge (or any other gun chambered for .45 Colt) bad things will happen. You pistol will turn into a grenade.

Also, regarding the Saiga 12 you posted, and the Sci-Fi/ Fanatsy world we live in, I'd highly recommend reading Monster Hunter International

http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Hunter-International-Larry-Correia/dp/14
39132852

The author is a 3 gun shooter, former gun store owner, and a damned good 'riter to boot. Pick it up, you won't regret it.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 8:36 AM

Coilgun, this idea occurred to me when my dad was working on particle accelerators: just accelerate a larger object. This could be made plenty lethal, but also non-lethal esp. if you did a special poison needle trick.

My experience so far is that most combatants, whether terrorist, army, or police, are truly uncommitted to their causes. The only combatants committed to their cause are defenders.

Hence, a lot could be gained by disabling your opponent. A high speed needle could definitely kill someone if you hit them in the head or the heart, but a how would the necessary speed compare if you wanted to be armor-piercing?

I figure that a poison needle in an accelerator would be able to carry a very high number of rounds, as the projectile would be quite small, skinny, and would act as a dart, with a high-potency tranq inside. It could probably be designed to eject its cargo on cessation of movement rather than initial impact, or on a slow release (still milliseconds or whatever) so you don't eject into the armor.

I Suppose a potential problem is that if it passes through armor it probably passes through human and comes out the other side, which is little use unless the poison is discharged through the side as it goes.

My goal here is of course a non-lethal that is a step *above* the normal lethal weapon in combat effectiveness. No non-lethal will take over in combat if it is less effective, even if a capture is more valuable than a kill, which I feel fairly certain that it is. (anything above a 0% convert rate)

PIZMO

The shock and awe didn't deter the Iraqis.

I take your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I think that the fear factor is a separate element. I suspect I could with the right tools create the illusion of armageddon without any actual war at all.

Combat must evolve passed the destructive, or we will all be destroyed. I see this in anti-missile systems: If a nuke can always be stopped, spotted from space, to the point where it can be shot down, or detonated, from either air or space, then it becomes a liability to have one.

It does deter: Kim Jong Il got us to back off by saying "Hey, I have nukes" What if someoen could trigger those nukes at their current locale?

The same logic applies to other weapons, ultimately. We are getting our asses kicked as much as we are kicking ass in various world conflicts in part because we're being attacked to some degree with our own weapons.

The nuke is a pointless evolution of weaponry: If you nuke a city to take it, you can nothing but rubble. If you wanted, say, Tehran, it would be much more useful as an industrial powerhouse with 14 million people than as a sheet of glass.

IMHO, not only the more peaceable, but the logical next step in evolution is away from the more deadly toward less deadly but more effective. Towards that end, the taser is not a winner, unless your opponent has a sword, and then only if it's a non-insulated sword.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 9:32 AM

Quote:
away from the more deadly toward less deadly but more effective

The problem is that, within the scope of the 2A (not talking about nukes or sarin gas or whatever, just plain ol' shooting irons), more deadly is more effective, and more effective is more deadly. The only way to physically stop somebody (an individual) from doing something (robbing, raping, whatever) is to fuck up that person's system to the point where they can no longer physically perform that action, no matter how much they want to. Any weapon out there capable of achieving such stoppage, be it taser or a .50-cal, WILL, at some point, damage the shootee to the point of death.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 1:35 PM

Quote:
Got any ideas on alternative weapons for defense and safety?

What about a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with beanbag shells or soft rubber plugs? Won't necessarily KILL, but will definitely put someone down and put a hurt on 'em. I'd go for something like that - a couple rounds of such "stunner" ammo, followed by other, more conventional rounds, just in case those first two don't do the trick.

Mike

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 1:45 PM

Wulf

Quote:
Im just imagining you breaking that thing out, and firing it without the wheel locks on...

That would definatly be a Wil E. Coyote moment.

Oh it was, see - I actually DID that.

We were testing it to see how well firing from the chair would work, and I was so focused on what I was doin I forgot to set the damn brakes, Rei started to mention it just as I cut loose with a five round salvo which sent the chair up and back, slamming onto the wheelie bars and skidding backwards into the wall with a bang - I love them bars, can't count how many times I've have gone ass over teakettle without em.

Recoil for a guy my size is harsh, we wound up attaching a plate to the right side upright to brace against so it can be fired from a lower, more controllable angle without potentially flipping the chair, and to save wear and tear on me besides - not a perfect solution, but given that the cursed thing is damn close to a man portable artillery barrage, couldn't ask for better - it really is way too much weapon for the intended purpose though, and I am looking into something maybe a little LESS destructive for home defense.

AG05

Quote:
Now I like the Bersa, especially the old steel frames, but 7 rounds of .380 just doesn't seem like enough oomph. Now that I'm used to carrying that big .45, I feel naked with that little Bersa.

Yeah, well, a .22 in your pocket trumps a .45 in the desk drawer, of course.
Admittedly it's a bit light for personal defense, but I started with a Colt Mustang Pocketlite ages ago, which I still have in a shadowbox cause it's too worn out to be safe anymore - and as such the Bersa is a perfect replacement for a weapon so familar it's like part of my own hand.

Quote:
Just a minor point: if you try to load a 45-70 into a Judge (or any other gun chambered for .45 Colt) bad things will happen. You pistol will turn into a grenade.

ACK, my bad - yeah, I got the Judge and my buddies BFR confused there for a minnit, I never did see the actual use of a pistol firing rifle rounds though, myself.

Quote:
Also, regarding the Saiga 12 you posted, and the Sci-Fi/ Fanatsy world we live in, I'd highly recommend reading Monster Hunter International

Erm... err...

I know Larry, not real well, but for quite some time - before certain intolerance issues drove me away in disgust I used to frequent THR, and know quite a few of the folk he's pastiche-homaging in the book, so watching him happydance when it rocketed to #15 in Epic Fantasy had me cracking up.

Loved the book, somewhere between Buffy and Army of Darkness with a side order of Burt Gummer from Tremors, heh heh heh - he wrote it before drum mags for the S-12 were common, I believe, which gave me a bit of a chuckle when Abomination reared it's head.
(My exact reaction was to glance sideways at Forquet hanging on the wall and think to myself, you think THAT thing's a horror ?)
Hell, even the gun light is weapons grade - speakin of which, now that I've found it useful in a work related way, imma spring for an extra battery cause I can write it off.
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/The_Torch-74-0.html

Related note: Lethality versus effectiveness.
Having seen a minimart owner successfully sued into bankruptcy for shotgunning a perp who tried to hold him up with a starter pistol, I've seen what that kind of mercy is gonna get you in our current society - besides which even a mortally injured opponent can still pull a trigger and get lucky.

Once it comes to cases with lethal hardware involved, there's only one way to be SURE, and it benefits the intended victim to MAKE SURE, cause as badly as we've vilified even the idea of self defense, the legal system is gonna come gunning for you badly enough as 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, August 17, 2009 2:29 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
PIZMO

The shock and awe didn't deter the Iraqis.

I take your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I think that the fear factor is a separate element.

There were numerous surrenders from the Iraqi forward troops, so I would argue on the grunts it worked, but the military elite were stubborn, prideful, and also afraid of Saddam - he was his own kind of deterrent.

Plus, I was talking more in terms of gun ownership and keeping the peace locally, the 2nd amendment was where this started. Although...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It does deter: Kim Jong Il got us to back off by saying "Hey, I have nukes" What if someoen could trigger those nukes at their current locale?

Two illustrations of good international deterrents.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The nuke is a pointless evolution of weaponry: If you nuke a city to take it, you can nothing but rubble. If you wanted, say, Tehran, it would be much more useful as an industrial powerhouse with 14 million people than as a sheet of glass.

Exactly why it's best used as a deterrent. Ok, we used them in WWII, but you can look at that as a most unfortunate "good" thing - it showed we were morally (or immorally) capable of using it - hopefully that puts enough fear into countries that we will never have to be tested again. Weapons have a nasty lure though.

Absolutely true: If people have nothing to lose then fear or deterrents mean very little and you have to use some kind of immobilizer. There is a place in the brain that contains something like crystals, that if they're moved too strongly they can cause dizziness (positional vertigo) and sometimes blackouts. It could be like an off switch. They are also slightly magnetic - some say they help us with directions and we can use them to sense the Earth's magnetic field. So get a really big horseshoe magnet... or magnetic ray gun - and just switch people off.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Yeah, well, a .22 in your pocket trumps a .45 in the desk drawer, of course.
Admittedly it's a bit light for personal defense, but I started with a Colt Mustang Pocketlite ages ago, which I still have in a shadowbox cause it's too worn out to be safe anymore - and as such the Bersa is a perfect replacement for a weapon so familar it's like part of my own hand.

I've always wanted a Colt 1908 Pocket Hammerless, meself. They just look so classy.

Quote:

ACK, my bad - yeah, I got the Judge and my buddies BFR confused there for a minnit, I never did see the actual use of a pistol firing rifle rounds though, myself.

I've fired a BFR, once, at a range in Texas City. The guy hand a S&W .500 and the BFR. I found the .500's recoil to be much more harsh than the BFR, although that .45-70 was pretty damned impressive. My biggest mistake was shooting these monsters BEFORE my own guns. My hand hurt so bad I couldn't hit shit all day.

Quote:

I know Larry, not real well, but for quite some time - before certain intolerance issues drove me away in disgust I used to frequent THR, and know quite a few of the folk he's pastiche-homaging in the book, so watching him happydance when it rocketed to #15 in Epic Fantasy had me cracking up.

Loved the book, somewhere between Buffy and Army of Darkness with a side order of Burt Gummer from Tremors, heh heh heh - he wrote it before drum mags for the S-12 were common, I believe, which gave me a bit of a chuckle when Abomination reared it's head.
(My exact reaction was to glance sideways at Forquet hanging on the wall and think to myself, you think THAT thing's a horror ?)

Cool! I read the Lawdogfiles quite regularly, and heard about the book from there.

Quote:

Related note: Lethality versus effectiveness.
Having seen a minimart owner successfully sued into bankruptcy for shotgunning a perp who tried to hold him up with a starter pistol, I've seen what that kind of mercy is gonna get you in our current society - besides which even a mortally injured opponent can still pull a trigger and get lucky.

Once it comes to cases with lethal hardware involved, there's only one way to be SURE, and it benefits the intended victim to MAKE SURE, cause as badly as we've vilified even the idea of self defense, the legal system is gonna come gunning for you badly enough as it is.

-Frem

I'd love to disagree with you, and it's a sad commentary on the state of our criminal and civil justice systems that I can't.

The simple fact is the only way we have, the only way we've EVER had, of effectively, instantly, and permanently neutralizing a human threat is to kill the person.

You know, we really ought to have a Firefly shoot someday. No politics, no BS, just a bunch of fans in a "run what you brung", CAS type fun shoot.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 3:35 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You know, that actually sounds like fun.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:16 PM

Quote:
more deadly is more effective, and more effective is more deadly

And yet so not so...

Mike,

Rubber bullets, not more effective.

Frem,

not sure I got the point. IMHO, if weapons are lethal, it encourages lethality in others, but non-lethals will only take over if they are superior.

Take the toys R us shooting: one guy shoots and kills other guy, dead guy uses his last 30 seconds to shoot and kill first guy. Over something stupid, non lethal exchange they just end up thinking "asshole."

Ideal non-lethal takes down the opponent instantly. Then as a prisoner you get him to rat on any co-conspirators, his attack plan, etc.

I could say more, I was fishing... There's a more solid logic behind this idea.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:20 PM

PIZMO

1. Not sure I share that interpretation of the war or the 2nd, but

2. nothing good came from nuking japan. It was already well known what the nuke was and could do. It just took a rat bastard to use it. The world is not short of rat bastards.

3. I thought that was pigeons, but an interesting thought... similar ones might also be worth exploring...

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
more deadly is more effective, and more effective is more deadly

And yet so not so...

Ideal non-lethal takes down the opponent instantly. Then as a prisoner you get him to rat on any co-conspirators, his attack plan, etc.

I could say more, I was fishing... There's a more solid logic behind this idea.

Logic, yes. practical application, no. Viewed from a self-defense perspective (military has uses for weapons besided simple threat stoppage) I cannot foresee any less-lethal weapon that will be portable, concealable, and able to stop an assailant as well as a well-aimed handgun. And I say that in the knowledge that a handgun is a pretty poor fightstopper.

Note that I used the term "less lethal" as opposed to "non-lethal" There is no such thing as an effective, incapacitating, non-lethal standoff weapon. Any jolt of electricity, any dose of drugs, any dart will kill someone. Tasers do. Drugs will. A well-placed dart will.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

2. nothing good came from nuking japan.

I disagree. If the war ended a day early, if 1 more American did not have to die fighting the Japanese, then it was worth it. In my opinion, at least.

Total War is a bitch like that, which is why we don't do it anymore.

EDIT for clarity: I sound like a cold hearted bastard in this post. Perhaps I am (in this post) but think about it this way. Those 2 weapons were used to bring to a final close the largest armed conflict in the history of mankind. Since that day 65 years ago, these weapons have be used in anger a total of zero times. Despite all the agression and hate and conflict and uncertainty since the end of World War II, NO ONE has seen fit to put these weapons to use again. I'm oddly proud of humanity for that.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 5:32 PM

CHRISISALL

Just keep away from me & my Samuri sword.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 5:41 PM

Quote:

You know, we really ought to have a Firefly shoot someday. No politics, no BS, just a bunch of fans in a "run what you brung", CAS type fun shoot.

Yes, we should. 'Course, me being fairly liberal and all, I'd likely be shot on sight...

Mike

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

You know, we really ought to have a Firefly shoot someday. No politics, no BS, just a bunch of fans in a "run what you brung", CAS type fun shoot.

Yes, we should. 'Course, me being fairly liberal and all, I'd likely be shot on sight...

Mike

Nonsense.

The great thing about a shoot like this is that we'd all have at least 2 things in common: 1) We enjoy recreational shooting and 2) We're fans of the greatest Sci-fi show to ever hit the airwaves.

Personally, I just want to set up a few stages based on scenes in the show/film. For some reason, my local range won't let me walk up to the line and

a silohuette target without breaking stride. I don't know why.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 6:15 PM

Quote:
For some reason, my local range won't let me walk up to the line and a silohuette target without breaking stride. I don't know why.

Bastards have no sense of humor...

Kind of like my range, where they gave me some very odd looks when I used my li'l P85 to shoot a smiley face into the head of a silhouette. They just did not seem to find that amusing.

Mike

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

Monday, August 17, 2009 6:29 PM

My CHL instructor said he would waive the class fees for anyone who could shoot a smiley face into the head of a target at 15 yards. I'd been awake for the previous 48 hours (taking the CHL class and working nights) Didn't even try.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

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

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:23 AM