I was of the opinion.gun controll was sight picture,sight alignmeent,with the right "dope"on my weapon,i was in controll. Jus sayin
usmc69-77 kinda feel like i earned the right and the knowledge protecting .your right to whine .....jig
"
Printable View
I was of the opinion.gun controll was sight picture,sight alignmeent,with the right "dope"on my weapon,i was in controll. Jus sayin
usmc69-77 kinda feel like i earned the right and the knowledge protecting .your right to whine .....jig
"
If I were into guns as much as I am fishing equipment, I would avoid that kind of merchandizing like the plague. Gouging or "coercive racketeering" means gypsy merchants, here today, gone tomorrow. There used to be that kind of "show" in computer equipment, too. You really had to watch your step in those place or you got junk at inflated prices and had to pay admission for the privilege on top of it. After one or two of those I went back to established outlets and never looked back there either. And then you have no way of knowing whether any of that stuff is hot or how hot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cane Pole
If that trend is industry wide then the industry is behind it, but I sort of doubt that, although the petroleum industry does that to all of us pretty regularly. Keep your business with merchants you know and trust to be there and not only vend fairly but will stand behind their sales. There is a long history in this country of snake oil salesmen selling guns and ammo.
The other disturbing part of this is that long lines and large crowds buying for gouging prices at such "events" means you guys have a lot of wannabees getting involved, a whole lot of greenies who don't know what they are doing in the first place. You really no more want to be around those folks handling guns than you want to hunt quail with Cheney, and he was supposed to be experienced.
I've sat and read this thread and YES I own guns.
This is MY opinion and MINE only - the biggest problem I see is that kids today don't know RESPECT for anything!!!!!!! or have any boundaries. I know many of us are 50+, when we were kids not everyone made the team - made you work that much harder to make it the next time, every friend of your family was likely to give you a good swift kick in the ass for being dumb and then taking you to your parents and you got it again - are we mass murderers and killers because of it?? NO!! When we got home from school we had to do our homework or chores first then we could go out and play. We sat down to dinner as a FAMILY.
Today you can't give your kid a swat or you have Social Services, Police, SWAT and every Government agency trying to put you in jail!! or lable you as an abuser. My kids are Military Brats - they learned early on about RESPECT and right and wrong, did they get spanked YES THEY DID!!!!!!!!! when they really deserved it but talking and grounding worked better. They played sports, fished and hunted and they now have families of their own.
I might get blasted for this but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!!!!!! it's that simple. Not every crime involves a gun!!!
Well said Fatman!
So you believe the Government has been in the dark about anyone they desire to see ANY thing about?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishingpox
Can anyone spell
H Y P O C R I T E ?
Video Mocks Celebrities' 'Demand A Plan' Gun Control PSA - YouTube
I support gun CONTROL. but not a gun BAN.
A citizen should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice to reasonably protect themselves and those around them. A citizen should be allowed to own a reasonable amount of firearms within their household. A citizen should acknowledge the responsibility of securing such firearms and keeping them out of the hands of people who are not qualified to handle a firearm.
As a former US military member, I have used an assault rifle, I have used a handgun, and I have used a minigun mounted on a helo. No person has ever convinced me why they need an assault rifle. I keep hearing protection, FROM WHO?! Who the hell are you shooting at that requires you to use a 21 count magazine? Do you have zero faith in law enforcement and our military? You want to own a rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, be my guest, those are excellent weapons to have. But an assault rifle isn't one of them. Give me a good legitimate reason why a person should have an assault rifle, and i will change my mind.
I don't understand why folks need high capacity magazines either. You pretty much turned a handgun into a sub-machine gun. Again, what is the purpose of this?
I also support a stricter, more thorough background check on those who apply to own a firearm.
To me, owning a gun has very little to do with protection, but rather control and power. When you pick up a gun, no matter what it is, you feel powerful. You holding the most effective killing utensil man has created yet. Your also holding an object of control, a gun always puts fear into the person it is aimed at or even sees it. By pulling out a gun, no matter what your intentions, you have instilled fear into the people around you and have gained control. Most folks will use this power and control for good and their intentions are pure, but there are those who would use this power and control in a negative way, whether they wanted to or not, it doesn't change the outcome.
If you want the freedom of owning a firearm, you better be ready to accept the responsibilities and the consequences of owning a firearm.
There are laws that protect us from whomever getting our medical records. I'm just curious about them over reaching. This administration does not like the constitution; why should they abide by the laws protecting our medical records?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonMoon
I dissagree Chris. If the Government and Military are allowed assualt weapons, along with our tax dollars supplying the same weapons to other Countries, then the regular folk in the US should also be allowed to own the same weapons according to the Constitution. I've never had a "powerfull" feeling when holding any weapon but I would rather have the right to own one and be able to use it when and if needed to protect my family from bad guys, the government or an invading military force from another Country. This is our right as Citizens of the United States of America! Those who attempt to take any of those rights away should be tried in a court.
Apparently you are blind to what the 2nd affords us. Apparently you trust government to care for you. You and those like you are the ones that will allow an overeaching government to enslave you. Sure we trust the LE and military. Listen very closely to what this woman says. There is one sentence in her commentary that should reach out and slap the sheet out of you.
Thank you for your service.
Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! - YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
Chris, if you're told which guns you can own, and which you cannot, isn't that in a sense a ban? If you're not allowed a certain weapon, it is banned from you being able to own it. They might sugar-coat it, and call it something else, but if you're denied ownership, it's banned, bottom line.
I don't own any 21 round mags, my EBR's are fed from 30 rounders :ThumbsUp And you're stating by inserting an higher cap mag, it turns a rifle into a fully automatic weapon? Really?
I also find it odd that you assume some sort of "power" by simply holding a weapon. I don't, never have.
"You holding the most effective killing utensil man has created yet."
Hiroshima would tend to show differently.
"By pulling out a gun, no matter what your intentions, you have instilled fear into the people around you and have gained control."
Well, I wouldn't "pull out a gun" unless there was a threat requiring it, and if it went as the rest of your statement, then good, that was what I intended it to do, and possibly more if the threat increased.
ETA: What was the reason YOU carried a gun?
Always amazes me to hear those who Served forget why............
You're contradicting yourself, and agreeing with what I'd said earlier. There's no "privacy" in any aspect of your life if the Government chooses to put you under the magnifying glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishingpox
ALLOWED? Who decides?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
Reasonable? Who decides? Oh our government because they are so reasonable right?
Qualified? Who decides? Again our government the one who thinks a spending cut is not spending as much as you planned five years from now….now I feel safer!
Assault …really, it means a violent or viscous attack, I think my little ol 38 revolver could be used for a violent or vicious attack right….Assault used by the media as a scare tactic!Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
No person could convince the NEED to fish but we still do it??Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
YES, 0 Faith! To be there at the time of need. I don’t have a cop or member of the military in my house or standing next to me all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
Good, go downtown tonight and start checking background of gangbangers and criminals and get back to us. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
Couldn’t agree more so let me decide as a loaded 38 with one in the chamber is no more than three feet from my fingers as I type this. And in all due respect to you and all military including public servants Thank You for your Service!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
Are some of you guys so paranoid as to answer the doorbell with a gun in your have every time you answer it because if you don't your gun for protection theory is a sham... We keep firearms because we like them and enjoy the hobbies that go along with them... The 'old west' mentality should have went away a good many years ago... I seriously doubt any of you guys making all the noise here have ever seen a need to 'protect' yourself with a firearm in your life, I am 67 and have never seen a time that I wished I had a firearm handy.
but when you do................................hmmmmmmm
Fairly certain most have never been a victim, yet does it hurt anyone for a responsible gun owner to have one handy? Home invasions as an example was never a crime and now it's almost daily that one or two are on the news. Some of the people that have had their home invaded happened to be gun owners who were able to protect themselves and their families. I'd have no problem at all pulling the trigger on some worthless POS if the situation called for it. Key phrase, "situation called for it"Quote:
Originally Posted by HLLeonard
So don't hate those just trying to protect their own and practice their rights as a citizen.
Easy solution, DON'T OWN ONE. Keep in mind not everyone agrees with you, and need to be free to make their own choice. You're free to make yours, leave me free to make mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by HLLeonard
As i read some of your responses, I close my eyes and try to see the world through your eyes. What I see is a person barricaded his home while shooting out the window at the FBI, or CIA, or the US military. Because they are protecting themselves from the government. You don't like our government, fine. Neither do I, I want to see a more state run government, the one our forefathers intended us to have.
You want to know who I think should decide who should have a gun, what kind of gun? Their community, their neighbors, the people that person will be affecting the most by owning a gun.
I joined the service to protect the freedoms of my country. But if your saying that by going down the gun shop and buying firearms is a way of you protecting your freedoms in this country, well hell, why did i join the service anyway? I could've skipped all that boot camp and military training and just simply bought a gun at pawn shop.
When i mentioned high capacity magazines, i meant for handguns, not rifles. I might have gotten a little carried away comparing them to fully automatic weapons. But i still don't think they are necessary.
Not every one wants a gun, not every one can handle a gun. Maybe its because i have taken lives with a gun that i feel citizens in this country shouldn't own certain firearms. But I will say this again, i support any one who is responsible enough to own and operate a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or combination of the 3, but i don't see a reason to have a semi-automatic or fully automatic assault rifle.
I'll change the wording I used earlier. A gun is the most effective and easily acquired killing tool. Obviously, you can't stroll in to Walmart and ask for a nuclear bomb.
The day everyone owns a firearm, is the day we no longer need law enforcement or military. We can go back to the 1790's when each state had their own militia.
Well Chris. with comprimise and incrementalism you preach is one of the most definite ways people will be hurt.
As you close your eyes and "try to imagine", what you're seeing is what you've been lead to see by the media, and you're proof it works. Not sure where you get that those who choose to own whatever weapon of their choosing is in relationship to the Government, other than, once again, brain-washing media. They want everyone to believe that pretty much EVERY weapon owned is a fully-automatic high-cap "clip" fed monster wielded by someone who could double for Rambo in full camo with face-paint. Again, media hog-wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
You're making allowances again for others to make my decisions for me. Why should my neighbors choose what I can own and what I can't? Maybe your community should require you all to wear a similar "uniform", so that they can distinguish you from the community next door. I mean, you wouldn't want to embarrass them by just wearing jeans and a t-shirt, right? I mean, after all, it's "their" choice how you should look, maybe the vehicle you drive, and how many kids you can have. It's all about "their" choices, not yours, right? After all, "their" the ones you'll be "affecting", right?
Not sure if you're aware of it, but we already have the Right to go buy a gun, 2 guns, 5 guns, whatever. THAT'S one of the freedoms you fought for. I don't see anyone here asking for more than our Constitution sets-forth. Again, you're twisted into believing because "Joe Citizen" owns guns, he's doing it to me a 1-man Army. You should spend as much time reading/learning about why people own guns, as opposed to why the media wants you to think they shouldn't. Maybe we should have a Law forcing every person of age to carry a weapon...and eliminate their choice. Makes about as much sense as telling someone else they can't, or what they can't.
Again, hogwash about the high-cap mags. You know how long it takes to pop one out, and another in? I don't even see any argument there, just more BS to further demonize them. Maybe everyone should be limited to single-shots? Perhaps sometime you'll be walking after dark, and a group of 10-15 "homies" will pay you a visit, and they new one is there for his initiation, and you're it. Good luck with that single-shot. Oh wait, you won't have a gun on you. Ask for a time-out, diall 911, and I'm sure a cop will arrive post-haste to save your bacon.
I kind of feel like you shouldn't be able to own a gun Chris, ANY gun. You sense a feeling of "power" when holding one, and that seems rather strange to me. I have no clue what that "power" might lead you to do. Sounds kind of creepy to me.
OK, so tell me, which kind of gun will kill, and which won't? You seem to have been lead to believe there are weapons strictly for no other purpose. It's either a killer, or a Fudd gun, black or white. I'd be curious to know what you drive, because I would guarantee it's more than you "need", and being larger, faster than you need, you're in effect a much greater threat to others on the road simply out of your desire to drive what you like.
Enjoy your Kool-Aid.
In my 73 years I have had two occasions where I thought I might have to use the gun I had on me. Both were tense situations. One was at a rest area north of Birmingham, AL at 2:00am & the other was at a local boat ramp at 5:00am. I did not feel powerful having the pistol, but I did indeed feel more secure.
I don't feel like I am a threat to anyone while I have a gun on me.
I also have no problem with an individual's choice of what weapon to carry whether it be a single shot pistol or a fully automatic weapon.
:twocents :twocents
Chris with your kind of thinking my 22 squirrel rifle that holds 16 shells is an assault weapon.
The Wiki definition of "Assault Rifle":
Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which shows how the media loves to dramatize it's dislike for weapons (by twisting the actual definition), but it's all about ratings, and the more drama the better. The really sad part is those that blindly believe what they see on TV or read in the paper (or internet). Some folks simply like to punch paper, or varmint hunt, and in the latter, the less movement the better. You never read about the guy who shot 10 coyotes one day and how many local pets or livestock it saved. All guns put lead downrange, and I don't see much difference in which I chose to do it with.Quote:
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]
- It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
- It must be capable of selective fire;
- It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
- Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
- And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[7]
Chris, here's a good example of what I'm saying.......
Attachment 111455
In the event you're not familiar with what he has in his hand, it's a 30-rnd AR-15 mag.
Next:
DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines - D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term �large capacity ammunition feeding device� means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term �large capacity ammunition feeding device� shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.�."
Here's a reply from MPD regarding the obvious disregard of the Law, and the fact it was openly disregarded and broken on National TV....
I'm not posting the link where this is (simply because they allow "adult" language, and not sure if I'd violate rules here), but if you want it, PM me.Quote:
"From: "DC Police (imailagent)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Email from DC Police (Intranet Quorum IMA00519327)
Date: December 24, 2012 4:13:12 PM EST
To: (OODA_Loop)
The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.
Customer Service - Metropolitan Police Department"
Now, one has to wonder why David Gregory isn't being Prosecuted :dono If you or I did that, we would be, and likely be on the 6:00 news. See how it works?
David Gregory under investigation, out of headlines - POLITICO.com
Some are just a bit more "equal" than others, or so it seems.
Oh, and just as an FYI.....Columbine happened while the AWB was in effect.
NeonMoon, I like your views and opinions. Great post's
Just home from the gun show. Not the first assault gun in sight.
Yep, I thought I may have slightly overpaid for my AK-47 2 years ago. Starting to look like I got one hell of a deal on it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by canebreaker
Interesting slant on things
AMERICA'S HUNTERS ---
Pretty Amazing!
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/wlmai....bf1.yahoo.com
The world's largest army...
America's hunters!
I had never thought about
this...
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/wlmai....bf1.yahoo.com
A blogger added up the
deer license sales in just a
handful of states and
arrived at a striking
conclusion:
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/wlmai....bf1.yahoo.com
There were over 600,000 hunters
this season in the state of Wisconsin .
Allow me to restate that number:
600,000
Over the last several months,
Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
More men under arms than in Iran .
More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to
the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed.
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/wlmai....bf1.yahoo.com
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,
all of whom have nowreturned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters
in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone
would comprise thelargest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It's millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe
from foreign invasion with that
kind of home-grown firepower.
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/wlmai....bf1.yahoo.com
Hunting...
it's not just a way to fill the freezer.It's a matter of national
security.
********************http://www.crappie.com/crappie/wlmai....bf1.yahoo.com*******************
That's why all enemies,
foreign and domestic,
want to see us
disarmed.
Food for thought,
when next we consider gun control.
Overall it's true,
so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens?
(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.)
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/wlmai....bf1.yahoo.com
For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns!
Gregory is a liberal butt lick.
If you're lookin' for an argument.....gonna have to try harder :biggrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Cane Pole
ATF head, D.C. police chief challenged on selective magazine ban enforcement
ATF head, D.C. police chief challenged on selective magazine ban enforcement - National gun rights | Examiner.com
I'm sure this will go places.......
Attachment 111534
Is that a copy of the constitution I see being swept under that rug as well?
I guess I am asking too much to be convinced why a citizen would want an M-16, or an M-4, or the Robinson XCR and such. All I hear is we should be able to purchase whatever firearms we want because out forefathers wrote it in the constitution. Never mind the fact they didn't have semi-automatic firearms back then, but I am sure when they wrote it they also included citizens to own their own cannons and rockets. Why don't we take it a step further and allow citizens to purchase their won grenades and grenade launchers? Hell, let's also put armor piercing, incendiary and tracer rounds on the market as well. Who knows, thugs could be wearing body armor under those thick sweaters and baggy pants. It's stereotype thoughts like that make me feel awfully uncomfortable about the future of minorities in this country.
I don't feel powerful carrying my .45. I don't carry it all the time. I don't carry it while I am at the grocery store, I don't carry it while I am at church, and I don't carry it when i go fishing. I carry it when i know I am heading somewhere that i know i won't feel secure. Fault me for not carrying it all the time. I don't own semi-automatic guns, I don't want to, I don't own a rifle because I don't hunt. Most folks I talked to, either in person while in the military or others on message boards, I get the sense that they feel powerful and control by owning a gun. If you don't feel MORE power or control than we you didn't have a gun, then good on ya. :) Your some of the first that I have talked to who felt that way.
It frightens me that people who have never handled a gun or been around a gun, running to the stores and shops with the folks who do know how to handled a gun, buying firearms they have very little clue how to use. That's one of my problems.
When I bought my .45 Desert Eagle, I prayed to God that I would never have to use it to hurt or kill anyone. I take it out to a local ranger twice a week for target practice, but I have never had to use it in situation that I couldn't solve or handle with my mouth, hands or a knife. :)
The .45 DE is not semi-auto? :donoQuote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCarter
No.....look hard, you'll see the wheel :biggrinQuote:
Originally Posted by deathb4disco
Attachment 111600
Good thing those who place who place little to no value on human life feel the same., you forgot to include Theaters, the Workplace and Schools (which is illegal). Those are similar places to those you mentioned, designated "safe zones"......Quote:
I don't carry it while I am at the grocery store, I don't carry it while I am at church, and I don't carry it when i go fishing. I carry it when i know I am heading somewhere that i know i won't feel secure.
Why should you or anyone else be allowed to drive? It's not in the Constitution, there's a whole lot more drivers than gun owners, younger, less experiences, take more lives, adds to pollution and can me driven into a crowd to inflict injury as well.
This woman and her daughter probably never had the need for a gun either, until this happened....
Mom shoots intruder 5 times | WTVR.com
I guess that new will be on the back page of cnn.
1 am? Don't expect me to answer the door either.
I love my 357. I rub and pet it like a puppy. Makes me "feel good". The only difference between my 357 and a puppy is I can feed it when I want, don't haveta to let it out to pee and poop, and it has a hellofa bark. Besides, I ain't kilt nobody in a long time.
I like the fact that it barks here and bites over there.....:ThumbsUpQuote:
Originally Posted by Cane Pole
good 1 DonG