Gun Companies Boycott New York.

[Armistead]

http://offgridsurvival.com/guncompanies-boycottnewyork/


"Barrett Firearms, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower Inc, Templar Custom and York Arms have all stopped selling firearms to all New York law enforcement and government agencies. A number of them are also starting to call for an industry wide boycott on any state who bans civilian ownership. The boycott is in response to New York’s latest efforts to strip the American public’s 2nd amendment rights."

Not only that, they will refuse to sell parts, repair or honor warranty

"If companies like Glock, Smith & Wesson and SIG Sauer join the fight, we may actually see some of these States start to back off." Rumors are Glock is going to join the ban, we shall see.

[Platapus]

Refusing to sell I can understand. But refusing to honor an existing warranty may be illegal.

I do like this response


Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies.
In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

[Stealhead]

Most firearms manufactures already make California legal versions of their firearms that are banned there (look at the Colt catalog) it is not very hard to make a 7 round magazine you simply put a stopper to take up 3 more rounds in a 10 round magazine.(CA limit is 10 rounds)

In fact if I owned a firearm company I'd make a design meet the requirements of New York and charge a higher price for it then I get sales that the companies that refuse to sell wont make I smell a business opportunity.I bet you Colt is already making New York compliant AR-15s or tooling up to do so.

http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtCaliforniaCompliantRifles.aspx

[Armistead]

Refusing to sell I can understand. But refusing to honor an existing warranty may be illegal.

I do like this response

[/I][/B]



[/INDENT]

Could be a battle, but if the gun is deemed illegal, maybe the warranty is no longer valid.

Course the criminals will have no problem getting all the weapons they need.

[yubba]

If we could only get the guns out of the hands of the police, if we could only save one criminals life,, instead of filling him full of holes..I got the fix for gun violence, you make it easier to get a good paying job and be able to keep it than to committ a crime...I'm from New York I can't believe the mess that state is in,, from what,, I gather there is a movement that folks are buying goods and services across state lines so not too pay New York sales taxes, you vote every day with your dollars,, vote wisely....

[em2nought]

Refusing to sell I can understand. But refusing to honor an existing warranty may be illegal.

I do like this response

[/I][/B]



[/INDENT]

Noboby above the law, I like that too! ha

[Armistead]

If we could only get the guns out of the hands of the police, if we could only save one criminals life,, instead of filling him full of holes..I got the fix for gun violence, you make it easier to get a good paying job and be able to keep it than to committ a crime...I'm from New York I can't believe the mess that state is in,, from what,, I gather there is a movement that folks are buying goods and services across state lines so not too pay New York sales taxes, you vote every day with your dollars,, vote wisely....

Yep, lot's of guns and cigarettes coming across state lines.

[Tribesman]

What a strange topic.
Looks like those arms manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot, though on further insection they are just announcing some meaningles advertising/politcal spin for people to parrot.
If you look at it then apart from the silly bit which would open the firms to legal action for breach of contract the statement from LaRue actually says they are going to stop ...no legal sales at all to any state:rotfl2:

[Betonov]

I wish I was a gun producer. If the rest are boycotting there'd be no competition for me :cool:

[Wolferz]

You can always go the other route ...
Get a 3d printer and print your own clips, recievers or any other component except the barrel and the springs. The code is available.

If the assault on our freedoms doesn't end soon, we're all going to need an assault rifle.

[Mork_417]

My childhood dream is coming true at long last... I'm going to rule the world with my Dennis the Menace slingshot! :D

[Ducimus]

A couple more links on the same:
http://www.examiner.com/article/olympic-arms-cuts-off-business-to-new-york-over-gun-restrictions

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/breaking-larue-tactical-plans-to-limit-law-enforcement-sales-to-civilian-standards/


And... Ill just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZO0d5PsTlM

[Molon Labe]

I think this is great from a strategic communications standpoint, especially if Glock or one of the other major manufacturers joins in. No matter what, the "boycott" will never be effective in applying pressure on New York or any other state to get them to change the law. But, it helps control the dominant narrative.

Right now, you have two (or three) competing narratives in the gun control issue. One can be summarized as:

""Assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines are dangerous weapons of war that no civilian needs to own. Laws banning these will make our streets (and schools) safer and will not violate the rights of hunters and sportsmen." You hear this in the media whenever a pol talks about not needing 30 rounds to hunt deer, or how a law has exemptions for hunting weapons.

The other narrative I'll summarize as "The right to bear arms isn't about hunting, but about protection. The police and citizens face the same threats--armed criminals--and if the police have determined that semiautomatic rifles and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are the best weapons to protect the citizens from criminals, then they are also the best weapons for citizens to use to protect themselves from criminals."

(The third would be the constitutional balance-of-power argument, which I personally find the most persuasive, but it's not something that is going to win over swing voters)

Anyway, the reason I like this boycott is because it connects to the second narrative in a way that is likely to get media attention. The more companies that join in, the more attention this gets, and the more the second narrative gets out there in the public consciousness. Especially if someone like Glock joins in, because at that point, police will be bitching to the media directly, and it will be hard to ignore.

[Armistead]

I think it's funny that we say law enforcement only needs assault type weapons, but why do they need them? The answer is simple, criminals use them, so much so that police forces were being outgunned. If they police feel they're being outgunned by criminals, I'll take their word for it and keep my AR to defend myself.

[Armistead]

I think this is great from a strategic communications standpoint, especially if Glock or one of the other major manufacturers joins in. No matter what, the "boycott" will never be effective in applying pressure on New York or any other state to get them to change the law. But, it helps control the dominant narrative.
.


Well, led by the NRA, gun manufacturers that don't join in will suffer. Gun owners in mass will take their business to those who boycott. Don't know how true, but 1000's are posting at different sites to not buy personal weapons of any type for those that sell to New York.

Yep, in the end, not gonna be much concern, someone will sell a gun, but it will become costly.

[August]

It'd be interesting to see if New York resorts to making straw purchases for their firearms through other states. :)

[Wolferz]

The revolution begins against the status quo...

The political puppets and the bureaucracy (http://www.bing.com/search?q=bureaucracy&FORM=AWRE) they've created to rob the citizens blind is approaching its conclusion. After usurping the American way of life and making it their own private domain at our expense will no longer be tolerated.
Change is inevitable and resistance is futile.

[Tribesman]

I'm going to rule the world with my Dennis the Menace slingshot! :D
But when they outlaw dennis the menace slingshots only criminals will have dennis the menace slingshots
Moron Lube:up:

It'd be interesting to see if New York resorts to making straw purchases for their firearms through other states.
Errrrrrr...they don't have to make straw purchases, they can legally buy what they like as this boycott is a just a silly publicity shot which has no effect whatsoever

Well, led by the NRA, gun manufacturers that don't join in will suffer. Gun owners in mass will take their business to those who boycott. Don't know how true, but 1000's are posting at different sites to not buy personal weapons of any type for those that sell to New York.

Yep, in the end, not gonna be much concern, someone will sell a gun, but it will become costly.
You really swallowed the hype didn't you.
But thanks for the link in the OP. that preppie site is a real laugh fest.:rotfl2:

[Platapus]

if the police have determined that semiautomatic rifles and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are the best weapons to protect the citizens from criminals, then they are also the best weapons for citizens to use to protect themselves from criminals.


I like that. Why should the police (the governmental group most likely to have an immediate adverse on civil rights) have a quality of weapons that the citizens can't have?

I can understand why civilians should not have the same level of weapons that the military has. But the police?

It is more likely that a police force will be used to subjugate the people than a military.

[Wolferz]

It is more likely that a police force will be used to subjugate the people than a military.


Will use? More like is using.
Right now, you can't drive through Tennessee with a Buckeye bumper sticker.

[Tribesman]

Why should the police (the governmental group most likely to have an immediate adverse on civil rights) have a quality of weapons that the citizens can't have?

Why can the police have flashing lights and sirens?
It just isn't fair, I am being oppressed by not being allowed what the police have in their job, equal rights in flashing lights.

[Platapus]

Will use? More like is using.


I was trying to be nice. :D

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm not going to quote anybody becuase I don't want to single anyone out, at least not at this time. However I will note that people have been both brigged and banned here for making, shall we say, threats of violence against law enforcement. There are some posts here that are inching a little close to that line, and since we have some new players on the field so to speak, consider this a friendly reminder in hopes that nobody says anything that gets them in trouble.

Now, back to it.

The Management

[August]

I like that. Why should the police (the governmental group most likely to have an immediate adverse on civil rights) have a quality of weapons that the citizens can't have?

I can understand why civilians should not have the same level of weapons that the military has. But the police?

It is more likely that a police force will be used to subjugate the people than a military.

This is a great point. I believe that the police should not be outgunned by the criminal element but they also shouldn't be turned into an Infantry force. We're not supposed to be policed by the Army.

I don't care what you call him. This is a soldier, not a policeman.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/147187/147187,1222064454,5/stock-photo-swat-soldier-on-white-background-18351580.jpg

[Dowly]

It is more likely that a police force will be used to subjugate the people than a military.

It is also more likely that they (the police) come upon situations where they
need something heavier than a pistol or a shotgun in their line of work.

Wasn't it the '97 North Hollywood shootout that started the talk about how
poorly armed the officers are against suspects with bodyarmor and automatic
weapons? :06:

[Wolferz]

don't care what you call him. This is a soldier, not a policeman.


The PC version is paramilitary entity.

The war on percieved crime continues. Instituted by those who think they are the law and above the law.
Try not to get caught in the crossfire.
oppression is a sneaky foe.

[Tribesman]

It is also more likely that they (the police) come upon situations where they
need something heavier than a pistol or a shotgun in their line of work.

But that is like saying a cabinet maker probably needs a different quality of tools than someone who just bought a flat pack from IKEA.

[u crank]

Depends on the situation.

If I see this guy and his buddies about to enter a place where known and armed criminals are I say OK.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/147187/147187,1222064454,5/stock-photo-swat-soldier-on-white-background-18351580.jpg

If I see the same guy dressed and armed like that walking a beat in my neighborhood I'd be a little concerned.

[Buddahaid]

I'd move to a different neighborhood.

[Cybermat47]

But that is like saying a cabinet maker probably needs a different quality of tools than someone who just bought a flat pack from IKEA.

That's probably true as well.

And civilians have guns to defend against criminals. Law enforcement has guns to attack criminals.

[August]

That's probably true as well.

And civilians have guns to defend against criminals. Law enforcement has guns to attack criminals.

Law enforcement is supposed to apprehend criminals, not attack them.

[Madox58]

I tend to think the 'apprehend' has been replaced with 'kill' if a shot is fired.

Not that I disagree with that.
Shoot at me? I'll fire back intending to kill you. As should the Cops.

What gets me is that all research and equipment is intended to kill not wound.

Remember the rubber bullets and such talked about back in the '70's?
Those are only for rioting type situations and never went much past that type useage.

And those so called "Cop killer' bullets?
Invented by the Cops themselves to reduce slowing and deflection of the rounds.
You can't have them. They can.

Get caught with a bullet resistant vest? Yep. You have a problem.
Got any ParaMilitary gear laying around? You have a problem.

[Armistead]

It is also more likely that they (the police) come upon situations where they
need something heavier than a pistol or a shotgun in their line of work.

Wasn't it the '97 North Hollywood shootout that started the talk about how
poorly armed the officers are against suspects with bodyarmor and automatic
weapons? :06:

For that dept and others joined in. Now a great many trained policeman carry higher powered rifles, but usually in the 223 range. Like I said, if police state they're being outgunned by criminals, then I want the right to own weapons I can defend against them.

[Tribesman]

Like I said, if police state they're being outgunned by criminals, then I want the right to own weapons I can defend against them.
There is a solution, write to the police commissioner and inform him that he should disconnect your batphone as you will no longer be on call for bank robberies like the one in the post you quote.

[Armistead]

There is a solution, write to the police commissioner and inform him that he should disconnect your batphone as you will no longer be on call for bank robberies like the one in the post you quote.

One morning I was in the corner store getting coffee. Cops chased a car that pulled in right at the front door. The cop got out and pulled his gun. I could see 4 or 5 males in the car with gun barrels sticking out. I wrapped my belt around the door to sort of lock it. The guys wouldn't follow orders from the cop. Two got out, acting like they were giving up, but no doubt in my mind distracting the cop. One pulled at the door, but by that time owner locked it. Then came the calvary, they gave up. The guys arrested were all armed and they found several assault type weapons, including full auto. This group had been on a bank robbing spree in the state and had killed two people. No doubt they had thought of charging the store. What they didn't know is the owner was waiting with an assault rifle of his own and one man any myself were armed with pistols. Had they tried to come through the door, I don't think they would've gotten far.

I live in a small rural county, most people are armed, not a place for robbers to come vist.

If they want to do something, they need to stop letting criminals out of jail.

[Tribesman]

One morning I was in the corner store getting coffee......
And when you see a SWAT member getting coffee dressed like in Augusts picture when he is not actually at work then you may say you need what the police have.

Though your story looks like the demand you are making is for the right to have a belt and a key to secure doors.

[Ducimus]

Wasn't it the '97 North Hollywood shootout that started the talk about how
poorly armed the officers are against suspects with bodyarmor and automatic
weapons? :06:

I think your correct. Prior to that, i think all police kept in their car was the obligatory remington 870 shotgun that you used to see mounted in a rack, in the front of the car, in the middle of the front dash board.

It's worth mentioning that this shootout occurred during the Assault Weapon ban of 94. The criminals involved didn't get the memo on that apparently. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8)

The thing is, if the gun grabbers really wanted to institute some kind of draconian gun control legislature that would actually accomplish something besides limit the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens, they missed that window of opportunity A LONG, LONG time ago. From stats ive seen, there is 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the US. There are millions of firearms in circulation, twice as many normal capacity magazines, and the majority of Americans will not accept government confiscation under any guise. (myself included)

In other words, the horse has already left the gate. The ship has already sailed. The guns are out there, and they are here to stay despite what Obama and Fienstien want to dictate. In America, a ban simply does not work, nor are guns the cause of mass shootings. Stastically, when you look at the number of firearms owned compared to the number of mass shootings, i think you probably have a greater chance of being hit by lighting then being involved in a mass shooting. The gun is just a tool. It's the hard heart that kills.

[Takeda Shingen]

The gun is just a tool. It's the hard heart that kills.

The gun is a weapon. It amuses me that gun fetishists are always talking about how they need their gun for safety and yet seem to shy away from the fact that it is a weapon. I mean isn't that why you want it? If a gun's primary function was to dry your laundry, would you be so passionate about it?

[August]

It amuses me that gun fetishists...

I don't think the insulting name is really necessary to the discussion. Are we also privacy fetishists because we believe in the 4th Amendment? Speech fetishists because we believe in the 1st?

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't think the insulting name is really necessary to the discussion. Are we also privacy fetishists because we believe in the 4th Amendment? Speech fetishists because we believe in the 1st?

Where was your complaint about this August?

The thing is, if the gun grabbers

Is this conducive to discussion? Or is it cool so long as the other side is getting the names?

[Ducimus]

The gun is a weapon. It amuses me that gun fetishists are always talking about how they need their gun for safety and yet seem to shy away from the fact that it is a weapon. I mean isn't that why you want it? If a gun's primary function was to dry your laundry, would you be so passionate about it?

There is no denying it's a weapon, however, from a pragmatic point of view, it IS a tool. Perhaps the choice of words shows more about the person engaged in the conversation, then the item itself. To me it's just a tool, no different then a powder actuated tool. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool). I'm well aware that handled wrong, incorrectly, or irresponsibly, injury of death can happen to myself, as well as others. Like any other tool, I'll wear the proper personal protection, and maintain safe practices so that I don't injure myself or anyone else. The same could be said for a circular saw, a table saw, a band saw, a Jointer, plainer, or nail gun. A tool is designed to do a job; and broadly speaking, I view firearms as tools for lawful defense of self and others. I don't think of them as weapons (though I know they are), because I have no aggressive motives, nor have I any intent on harming anyone.

While true, a gun is a weapon, what your really doing is a using a word that inspires mental images fear, danger, death, homicide, etc. The word "weapon" is a little on the aggressive side in meaning and intent. The gun isn't going to jump up by self and injure, maim or kill anyone. It' is a mechanical device, and It's the monkey handling it that is the problem and cause for concern.

Now your choice of word "fetishists " is both derogatory, and pretty much tells how you feel about gun control in general, without having any read or remembered any previous arguments you may have made on the issue. I take sides with the pro gun crowd for a few reasons:

1.) To me, the gun control issue is more about the continued erosion of civil liberties. I'm looking at the larger picture. The politics of fear have created The patriot act and the National Defense Authorization Act, both of which have tremendous potential to trample upon our civil liberties as defined by the bill of rights. Now they're going after our means of self defense? No, this has gone too far already. No more.

2.) It pisses me off that some dillweed politicians who are not even living in the same state as me, try to dictate policy as if I were under there thumb, and their solution was a one size fits all. Honestly, i think gun policies should be decided at state level, NOT the federal level. What works for New York or California, does not work for Utah, and vice versa. The demographics are different, and different demographics require different solutions.

3.) I enjoy target shooting. It is a fun hobby and competitive sport, and I resent being told what i can or can't do on or during my free time. Don't screw with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness when I am not doing anything wrong, and not harming anyone. I was not at Sandy Hook elemetary with a gun in my hand shooting at innocent kids, nor would I ever do such a hideous thing, it is beyond my comprehension. (See tool vs weapon), furthermore I resent legislative punishment for a crime i did not commit.

[August]

Where was your complaint about this August?



Is this conducive to discussion? Or is it cool so long as the other side is getting the names?

A "gun grabber" is a politician with an anti-2nd Amendment legislative agenda, whereas what you call a gun fetishist means anyone who holds a belief in the right of a free people to be armed. Beliefs vs actions. Apples vs oranges.

[Takeda Shingen]

There is no denying it's a weapon, however, from a pragmatic point of view, it IS a tool. Perhaps the choice of words shows more about the person engaged in the conversation, then the item itself. To me it's just a tool, no different then a powder actuated tool. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool). I'm well aware that handled wrong, incorrectly, or irresponsibly, injury of death can happen to myself, as well as others. Like any other tool, I'll wear the proper personal protection, and maintain safe practices so that I don't injure myself or anyone else. The same could be said for a circular saw, a table saw, a band saw, a Jointer, plainer, or nail gun. A tool is designed to do a job; and broadly speaking, I view firearms as tools for lawful defense of self and others. I don't think of them as weapons (though I know they are), because I have no aggressive motives, nor have I any intent on harming anyone.

While true, a gun is a weapon, what your really doing is a using a word that inspires mental images fear, danger, death, homicide, etc. The word "weapon" is a little on the aggressive side in meaning and intent. The gun isn't going to jump up by self and injure, maim or kill anyone. It' is a mechanical device, and It's the monkey handling it that is the problem and cause for concern.

Now your choice of word "fetishists " is both derogatory, and pretty much tells how you feel about gun control in general, without having any read or remembered any previous arguments you may have made on the issue. I take sides with the pro gun crowd for a few reasons:

1.) To me, the gun control issue is more about the continued erosion of civil liberties. I'm looking at the larger picture. The politics of fear have created The patriot act and the National Defense Authorization Act, both of which have tremendous potential to trample upon our civil liberties as defined by the bill of rights. Now they're going after our means of self defense? No, this has gone too far already. No more.

2.) It pisses me off that some dillweed politicians who are not even living in the same state as me, try to dictate policy as if I were under there thumb, and their solution was a one size fits all. Honestly, i think gun policies should be decided at state level, NOT the federal level. What works for New York or California, does not work for Utah, and vice versa. The demographics are different, and different demographics require different solutions.

3.) I enjoy target shooting. It is a fun hobby and competitive sport, and I resent being told what i can or can't do on or during my free time. Don't screw with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness when I am not doing anything wrong, and not harming anyone. I was not at Sandy Hook elemetary with a gun in my hand shooting at innocent kids, nor would I ever do such a hideous thing, it is beyond my comprehension. (See tool vs weapon), furthermore I resent legislative punishment for a crime i did not commit.

Then make that your argument. I don't necessarily share your view on society and the nature of gun ownership, but this is the position:

My gun is a weapon; a lethal device which I am granted the right to own by the United States Constitution. As a law-abiding citizen of this nation, my gun represents the last line of defense for my physical self, my loved ones, my property and my inalienable rights. As such, there is nothing wrong with my exercise of this right; a right that should not be revoked due to the fact that a miniscule percentage of the American populace abuses it.

It is the lethality of that weapon that makes it useful for those things. Perhaps I should not have ascribed what I am about to say to you, and I apologize for it, but the NRA line where guns are needed for defense combined with the downplaying of the weapon as a tool drives me crazy.

[Takeda Shingen]

A "gun grabber" is a politician with an anti-2nd Amendment legislative agenda, whereas what you call a gun fetishist means anyone who holds a belief in the right of a free people to be armed. Beliefs vs actions. Apples vs oranges.

"Gun grabber" is a term used to belittle proponents of gun control. "Gun fetishist" is a term used to belittle supporters of gun ownership and rights. Apples and apples.

[Ducimus]

Is this conducive to discussion?


You know originally, I put "they" instead of "gun grabbers", but decided to put "gun grabbers" instead. Why not call "them" out by their real intent? Discussion? In my opinion, the bill of rights is not up for discussion. It is called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the bill of NEEDS. So no, i don't think any item contained within the bill of rights is up for discussion.

Now if you want to talk about how to keep guns and other weapons away from criminals and the mentally insane, that is indeed a topic for disucssion. But the INSTANT that "discussion" is about changing, altering, cheapening, lessening, etc on the bill of rights for competent law abiding citizens, there is no discussion at all.

[Takeda Shingen]

You know originally, I put "they" instead of "gun grabbers", but decided to put "gun grabbers" instead. Why not call "them" out by their real intent? Discussion? In my opinion, the bill of rights is not up for discussion. It is called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the bill of NEEDS. So no, i don't think any item contained within the bill of rights is up for discussion.

Now if you want to talk about how to keep guns and other weapons away from criminals and the mentally insane, that is indeed a topic for disucssion. But the INSTANT that "discussion" is about changing, altering, cheapening, lessening, etc on the bill of rights for competent law abiding citizens, there is no discussion at all.

My point in using the term 'fetishist' stems from the fact that talking to people in those terms is inherently disrespectful. I am not a gun owner. While I support your right to own those firearms, including AR-15s, I do not share your philosophy about the urgency of gun ownership. And yet, as I am not trying to take your guns away, I have been slapped with that term by individuals that do take your view. While it is probable that you were not applying that term to me specifically, it's use did certainly rub me the wrong way.

[August]

"Gun grabber" is a term used to belittle proponents of gun control. "Gun fetishist" is a term used to belittle supporters of gun ownership and rights. Apples and apples.

Unless they are an elected official then no proponent of gun control has the ability to grab anyone's guns. So it is indeed apples and oranges.

[Takeda Shingen]

Unless they are an elected official then no proponent of gun control has the ability to grab anyone's guns. So it is indeed apples and oranges.

Your fellow advocates disagree. Definition No. 2; second most popular.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gun%20Grabber

[Ducimus]

My point in using the term 'fetishist' stems from the fact that talking to people in those terms is inherently disrespectful. I am not a gun owner. While I support your right to own those firearms, including AR-15s, I do not share your philosophy about the urgency of gun ownership. And yet, as I am not trying to take your guns away, I have been slapped with that term by individuals that do take your view. While it is probable that you were not applying that term to me specifically, it's use did certainly rub me the wrong way.

The thing about the gun control merry go round, is the longer you stay on it, the more vitriolic it becomes. There's an Godwin like rule somewhere, that the longer it goes on, the less the other side will understand the other. I've been trying to avoid the issue. I've already done all i can, and have been more politically active in in the last couple months, then I have in my entire lifetime. I don't think everything the NRA does is all honkey dory, but they are the best organization to contribute money to for the preservation of the second amendment. My point is, i've done all i can, and i'm past the point of caring too much, because their's not much else I can do except pony up a vote against anyone who decides our Constituational rights are subject for debate. Yeah, i think the slippery slope argument is applicable here. It starts here, or there, but when does it stop? I think our civil rights should be concrete. Fixed. Immoveable.

Yeah, i can already sense the "well why not own a machine gun" argument forming, though I don't think you'd be as so disingenuous to make it. A machine gun, (AKA, real assault weapon) to me is just impractical. I've never really had a "boner" for one. In fact, I have a gold membership at a local shooting range that has it's Class 3 license (meaning they can have machine guns), and could rent one to use on their range for free at any time I like. I have yet to do so. Fun? Sure. But too expensive in ammo, and just not practical. I'd rather spend my time improving my own techniques on guns id actually use. (Mainly pistols)

I would say the same (impractical) for the real "high capacity magazines". Google image search, "Beta mag". That's your real Hi cap mag, The ones Fienstien et all are after are Normal capacity magazines. 30 round mags come standard on most rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15. Fifteen round mags come standard on most 9mm pistols. This is one beef of people familiar with fireams have. The politicians behind gun control, and most of their supporters want ban stuff they know next to nothing about.

EDIT:
And for the love of (insert diety here), don't call a "magazine" a "clip", or even worse, say "high capacity magazine clips". These words are like nails on a blackboard to anyone familiar with firearms. They are the words uttered out of ignorance. Anyone making any argument for gun control immediatly loses all crediblity when they first utter these words. Call a magazine a clip just ONCE, and your done talking, cause their done listening.

[Takeda Shingen]

The thing about the gun control merry go round, is the longer you stay on it, the more vitriolic it becomes.

The politicians behind gun control, and most of their supporters want ban stuff they know next to nothing about.

Not to totally butcher your post, but I think that you are completely right about both of these things, and I think that most of the problem in the whole 'gun' argument stems from a combination of both. The environment is toxic, and people are staying in that toxic environment longer due to the fact that people are trying to pass laws about guns that don't know anything about them. Personally, I have next to no real knowledge about firearms. I know what a rifle and a handgun is. I understand caliber. I know the difference between a clip and a magazine. I have ideas about places where it is appropriate to carry a gun and where it isn't appropriate to do so. However, I do not know enough to hold an opinion of what ammunition capacity is adequate and what is overkill.

The arugment about capacity seems silly to me. A man carrying a small pistol with even one shot can kill another man, and dead is dead. Is a tragedy less of a tragedy because one person dies instead of two? Probably not to the family of the one that died. As I also understand it, a very small percentage of murders with firearms involve high-capacity weapons. They're big. They're unwieldy. Not great for carrying around concealed.

[AVGWarhawk]

I was puzzled the other day. My wife and I got on the conversation of guns and gun control. I asked her if she would like a gun in the house. She said yes. :o I asked why. She said the nuts have one and I would like one just in case that nut comes into our home. :o Totally unexpected answer.

[Ducimus]

However, I do not know enough to hold an opinion of what ammunition capacity is adequate and what is overkill.

The arugment about capacity seems silly to me. A man carrying a small pistol with even one shot can kill another man, and dead is dead. Is a tragedy less of a tragedy because one person dies instead of two? Probably not to the family of the one that died.

Well we're agreed that ammo capacity arguments are silly. I know enough to say this:
Shot placement is everything.
I'm sure you heard that newsclip that progun supporters were pointing out about how that mother defended her kids and shot some guy with 5 rounds out of a revolver. He walked out of there, and didn't collapse until later.

More to the point, in terms of lawful defense of self and others, limiting magazines is a bad idea because:

1. Home intruders don't always come solo. Some of those guys work as a team of 3 or 4 men. (Hold right there fellas while i reload my 6 shot revolver)

2. No matter how much practice you do, under duress, you will miss. You can have a 15 round mag of hollowpoints (so they won't go very far past the first wall they come in contact with when if/when you miss), and only hit the guy 3 times out of those 15 shots.

3. In the case of handguns, unless your a crack shot, it is not one bullet and the guy dies. It will more often then not take multiple rounds until the threat stops. (IE, the guy drops)

4. It doesn't take long to reload a detachable box magazine. If someones bent on mass shooting, if he doesn't acquire his "high capaicty magazines" through illegal means, it just means he'll carry more mags on him. You do not need much practice to be able to reload a magazine quickly.



As I also understand it, a very small percentage of murders with firearms involve high-capacity weapons. They're big. They're unwieldy. Not great for carrying around concealed.

Your right. Rifles are a very small percentage of crimes commited with guns. The rifles they want to ban, are only a small subset of that group. Handguns are more widely used. If you don't mind a couple of trauma pictures in the context a medical presentation, you may find this highly informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA

[August]

Your fellow advocates disagree. Definition No. 2; second most popular.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gun%20Grabber

My fellow advocates? I'm sorry Takeda but incorrect and anonymous claims are not proof of anything except your willingness to grasp at straws.

Simple logic dictates that the only way you can take a persons legally owned firearm away from them is by force of law. When you have the capability to enact legislation then you can proudly wear the title of gun grabber and not before.

[Platapus]

I was puzzled the other day. My wife and I got on the conversation of guns and gun control. I asked her if she would like a gun in the house. She said yes. :o I asked why. She said the nuts have one and I would like one just in case that nut comes into our home. :o Totally unexpected answer.

A bunch of years ago, there was this gang of home invaders operating in MD. Pretty nasty people. Pretty brutal.

After a while they were caught. One of the reporters asked them, why they chose MD as opposed to the more affluent VA just across the river.

Their answer: Virginia has guns. Criminals might prefer operating in states with more restrictive gun laws.

[Ducimus]

A bunch of years ago, there was this gang of home invaders operating in MD. Pretty nasty people. Pretty brutal.

After a while they were caught. One of the reporters asked them, why they chose MD as opposed to the more affluent VA just across the river.

Their answer: Virginia has guns. Criminals might prefer operating in states with more restrictive gun laws.

Heh, yea that is one thing gun control advocates overlook. Areas with the highest crime rates, also tend to have stricter gun laws. Conversely, areas with more lax gun control laws, tend to have lower crime rates. What scares me in this, is the politicans coming back and saying something like, "OMG, we still have all this crime! We didn't do enough the first time. We need more bans! Ban everything!", leaving people defenseless, and metaphorically putting a fire out with gasoline.

[Tribesman]

Discussion? In my opinion, the bill of rights is not up for discussion. It is called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the bill of NEEDS. So no, i don't think any item contained within the bill of rights is up for discussion.

Now if you want to talk about how to keep guns and other weapons away from criminals and the mentally insane, that is indeed a topic for disucssion. But the INSTANT that "discussion" is about changing, altering, cheapening, lessening, etc on the bill of rights for competent law abiding citizens, there is no discussion at all.
Congratulations, you have destroyed your own arguement in a single post.
Well done.

[Armistead]

I agree with Ducimas. I get tired of people saying I don't need a AR with a 30 round clip to defend myself, that a pistol will do. I'm a fairly good shot with a pistol when I'm not nervous. A pistol is light, just a minor shake and your bullet goes way off. Unless your highly skilled and use to combat, good luck with a pistol. I have a nerve disease so I shake a tad, but a rifle is heavy enough to deal with my shakes, a pistol isn't.

Still, owning a gun isn't just about protection, it's our constitutional right to defend against government.

[Cybermat47]

Still, owning a gun isn't just about protection, it's our constitutional right to defend against government.

Why do you have a government then? :06:

[AVGWarhawk]

A bunch of years ago, there was this gang of home invaders operating in MD. Pretty nasty people. Pretty brutal.

After a while they were caught. One of the reporters asked them, why they chose MD as opposed to the more affluent VA just across the river.

Their answer: Virginia has guns. Criminals might prefer operating in states with more restrictive gun laws.

No doubt.

[Armistead]

Why do you have a government then? :06:

Defend against a govt. that turns to tyranny. No, not likely to happen here in US, but you know why, because we've always had a 1st/4th amendment backed by the 2nd. In nations without those rights, well, we see what can happen.

[Sailor Steve]

Why do you have a government then? :06:
Because when large groups of people need things to get done, it requires a group effort. You need local government, and taxes, to support professional police and fire departments. You need a government to build roads. In order for a government to be effective you have to give it power. The problem is that once someone has that power the chance arises for abuse, and if the abuser can get the weight of the law behind him he can control how the abuse is applied.

This was best stated by the man we Americans refer to as "The Father of The Constitution", political thinker, statesman and fourth President of the United States, James Madison.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
-James Madison, Federalist #51

[Tribesman]

I agree with Ducimas. I get tired of people saying I don't need a AR with a 30 round clip to defend myself, that a pistol will do. I'm a fairly good shot with a pistol when I'm not nervous. A pistol is light, just a minor shake and your bullet goes way off. Unless your highly skilled and use to combat, good luck with a pistol. I have a nerve disease so I shake a tad, but a rifle is heavy enough to deal with my shakes, a pistol isn't.
And just like Ducimas destroying his "I want no restrictions" arguement with a "but I do want restrictions" follow up you undermine your own arguement very quickly.
Any long arm would suit your stability issue wouldn't it. A shotgun would be heavy enough to deal with your shakes.

Defend against a govt. that turns to tyranny. No, not likely to happen here in US, but you know why, because we've always had a 1st/4th amendment backed by the 2nd. In nations without those rights, well, we see what can happen.
So with the war between the states, the mormon wars, the internment of the japanese...all those and many more either didn't happen or those involved on the wrong side didn't have the 1st/2nd/4th to protect them.
Well that can't be true can it, so.....
Maybe their view of government tyranny didn't fit the bill? :hmmm:
But more likely it just demonstrates that the whole line of arguement you are usng simply does not work.

[Mork_417]

But when they outlaw dennis the menace slingshots only criminals will have dennis the menace slingshots

Buzz killer. :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

But when they outlaw dennis the menace slingshots only criminals will have dennis the menace slingshots
Moron Lube:up:




So will the government. Wait, are they the criminals? :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

So will the government. Wait, are they the criminals? :hmmm:
I used to work with a a retired county sherrif from Wyoming. His take on the whole thing was "When guns are outlawed, only the cops will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

[AVGWarhawk]

I used to work with a a retired county sherrif from Wyoming. His take on the whole thing was "When guns are outlawed, only the cops will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

I feel fairly safe now. :hmmm: I guess it depends on what neighborhood one lives.

[Sailor Steve]

I would never feel safe in a society where only the police were armed.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would never feel safe in a society where only the police were armed.

And I believe it is this very thought that produces the passion we see concerning the 2nd Amendment.

[Tribesman]

I would never feel safe in a society where only the police were armed.
Since there has never been such a society and there has never been any serious proposal to create such a society then you can feel safe, or you can worry about the sky falling on your head as it is just as much of a threat.

And I believe it is this very thought that produces the passion we see concerning the 2nd Amendment.
Indeed, but since the thought makes no sense the passion makes no sense either.

[AVGWarhawk]

Indeed, but since the thought makes no sense the passion makes no sense either.

I would agree.

[Armistead]

And just like Ducimas destroying his "I want no restrictions" arguement with a "but I do want restrictions" follow up you undermine your own arguement very quickly.
Any long arm would suit your stability issue wouldn't it. A shotgun would be heavy enough to deal with your shakes.


So with the war between the states, the mormon wars, the internment of the japanese...all those and many more either didn't happen or those involved on the wrong side didn't have the 1st/2nd/4th to protect them.
Well that can't be true can it, so.....
Maybe their view of government tyranny didn't fit the bill? :hmmm:
But more likely it just demonstrates that the whole line of arguement you are usng simply does not work.

A shotgun wouldn't be my preference of defense, nor would my 30.06 bolt action rifle. My AR is perfect. A shotgun might be handy, but if a murderer grabs my wife or kid or line of fire becomes an issue, I want something I can aim very well with and not worry about a blast pattern. A lot depends where you live, I live in the woods.

We're talking a total gun ban of the people, you last paragraph is silly.

[AVGWarhawk]

A shotgun wouldn't be my preference of defense, nor would my 30.06 bolt action rifle. My AR is perfect. A shotgun might be handy, but if a murderer grabs my wife or kid or line of fire becomes an issue, I want something I can aim very well with and not worry about a blast pattern. A lot depends where you live, I live in the woods.

We're talking a total gun ban of the people, you last paragraph is silly.

Riot/shot gun. Point in general direction. Better chance of striking target. I do not see me or my wife being very proficient with a handgun in a situation like being confronted by a intruder. I understand that a family member might be in line of fire. Best if no gun is involved at all in that situation. Your family member is effectively a human shield. Also, if said hand gun or rifle is powerful enough to go through a wall and possibly striking a passerby or neighbor you are liable. This is how I understand it in the state of MD.

[Tribesman]

We're talking a total gun ban of the people, you last paragraph is silly.
Really?
I thought you were initialy claiming you needed exactly the same as what a SWAT officer needs when he is working.
But OK on your new arguement lets make it simple
Provide some proof.
I have asked people before and they have completely failed to provide any proof no matter how wide I set the parameters to allow them leeway.
If there is nothing even resembling a total gun ban then your whole arguement is as you put it, rather silly.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Because when large groups of people need things to get done, it requires a group effort. You need local government, and taxes, to support professional police and fire departments. You need...

Government and group effort in one sentence.

Had you said "coordination", i could have agreed.
My life tells me that within a government, there is more fighting than grouping up and efforting together.:har:

Government: They aint no wingmen. They be dogfighters!

[Armistead]

Riot/shot gun. Point in general direction. Better chance of striking target. I do not see me or my wife being very proficient with a handgun in a situation like being confronted by a intruder. I understand that a family member might be in line of fire. Best if no gun is involved at all in that situation. Your family member is effectively a human shield. Also, if said hand gun or rifle is powerful enough to go through a wall and possibly striking a passerby or neighbor you are liable. This is how I understand it in the state of MD.


A shotgun would certainly be best in many situations, close in home invasion as long as line of sight isn't an issue. Any normal person would be nervous, so aiming doesn't matter as much.

As for a human shield, there have been many cases of that happening, a person gave up there gun, usually a pistol and the entire family ended up dead. It's a tough call, but with the right rifle, at least you're in a stand off. The question is, are you willing to lay down your gun and trust the criminal holding your family hostage. Cops are taught never to lay down their gun or give them up for a reason. The majority of human shield cases are taken out by a sniper, never a shotgun.

In apts, most walls are mere sheetrock, two layers, a 22 cal bullet could go through.

No situation with a gun is good, sure things could go wrong, but it's the same old same old, would you rather be in a position to defend yourself or not. Many liberals seem to think with love and talk, you can get a criminal to lay his gun down and wait for the cops.......

[Armistead]

Really?
I thought you were initialy claiming you needed exactly the same as what a SWAT officer needs when he is working.
But OK on your new arguement lets make it simple
Provide some proof.
I have asked people before and they have completely failed to provide any proof no matter how wide I set the parameters to allow them leeway.
If there is nothing even resembling a total gun ban then your whole arguement is as you put it, rather silly.


Well, if I wanted it and could afford it, I could have basically every thing a SWAT officer has. I never claimed I needed what they have, but I want the right to a legal semi auto rifle.

The fact is, all this gun contol is political. The majority of gun deaths, about 80% are in inner cities with cheap handguns, yet you don't hear a ban on handguns. Liberals simply want to do away with the NRA and other gun groups that are pro GOP. Our highest crime districts have the most gun control, solved nothing. The problem isn't guns, it's criminals that don't obey laws.

[AVGWarhawk]

As for a human shield, there have been many cases of that happening, a person gave up there gun, usually a pistol and the entire family ended up dead. It's a tough call, but with the right rifle, at least you're in a stand off. The question is, are you willing to lay down your gun and trust the criminal holding your family hostage. Cops are taught never to lay down their gun or give them up for a reason. The majority of human shield cases are taken out by a sniper, never a shotgun.



No one said anything about giving up the gun in a human shield situation. I to believe the intruder is going to off the entire family plus the dog if I lay down the weapon. Either way, the family member held captive is screwed. So what to do? I would shoot for the legs. Family member gets it as well but good chance of surviving. Intruder also down. Finish the job quickly. He is confused, in pain and going into shock. Sounds good on paper but true to life can be very different.

[Tribesman]

Well, if I wanted it and could afford it, I could have basically every thing a SWAT officer has.
Yes, but your neighbours would think you a bit of a TWAT if you dressed like that to go for coffee at the local store.

The fact is, all this gun contol is political.
Is it?
So all team D want one thing and all team R want the opposite?

You know that doesn't make sense, besides which even the NRA can't get a consensus view from their membership (plus their current leadership seems to be aiming for policies which are directly at odds with the views of the majority of NRA members)

The majority of gun deaths, about 80% are in inner cities with cheap handguns, yet you don't hear a ban on handguns.
So is your arguement for more expensive guns now?
BTW havn't you heard the brady bunch? they rabbit on about handguns all the time and have done for years, how can you possibly have missed that?

Liberals simply want to do away with the NRA and other gun groups that are pro GOP.
So its nothing to do with guns and is simply a matter of attacking lobby groups that throw money at candidates who failed to get elected.

The problem isn't guns, it's criminals that don't obey laws.
The problem is complex, but at its core is the easy accesibility criminals have to firearms and the loopholes and lack of regulation which enables them to buy them directly from publicly advertised gun sales.

[Armistead]

No one said anything about giving up the gun in a human shield situation. I to believe the intruder is going to off the entire family plus the dog if I lay down the weapon. Either way, the family member held captive is screwed. So what to do? I would shoot for the legs. Family member gets it as well but good chance of surviving. Intruder also down. Finish the job quickly. He is confused, in pain and going into shock. Sounds good on paper but true to life can be very different.

Never said you said that, just said it's stupid to do. Let's face it, a human shield situation is tough, your call on what to do would be based on the situation, but give me an AR anytime. The best you could do is hope to calm it and get the guy to leave. Hard thing is many of these instances involve multiple intruders.

There is a tool for every job. To say which weapon is the best home defense weapon depends on a lot of different factors and situations. My "home" starts at my fence line, abouy 1/2 mile from my house. My AR is the tool I prefer outside. Inside my house, I would probably pull my shotgun. In my vehicle or person, a 45.

I mainly like the AR for shooting critters, coyotes, feral cats, etc....

We have two corner stores across from each other about 5 miles away. One night I was at one of them, when mass gun fire erupted at the other across the street. All I had was my 30.06 bolt rifle in the truck. I got it out and scoped, but couldn't figure what was up, who was shooting who.
Turned out to be a peod fired employee, went in shot the owner, two customers, went Rambo shooting the store up, then shot himself. I could've easily chosen that store over the other....Honestly can't say what I would've done, but had I been in the parking lot, would've rather had my AR.

[August]

Interesting article in the Boston Globe (local liberal rag).

Crime has soared in Massachusetts since passage of the states AW ban.

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/the-nation-toughest-gun-control-law-made-massachusetts-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Never said you said that, just said it's stupid to do. Let's face it, a human shield situation is tough, your call on what to do would be based on the situation, but give me an AR anytime. The best you could do is hope to calm it and get the guy to leave. Hard thing is many of these instances involve multiple intruders.

There is a tool for every job. To say which weapon is the best home defense weapon depends on a lot of different factors and situations. My "home" starts at my fence line, abouy 1/2 mile from my house. My AR is the tool I prefer outside. Inside my house, I would probably pull my shotgun. In my vehicle or person, a 45.

I mainly like the AR for shooting critters, coyotes, feral cats, etc....

There is no best home defense weapon. There is layers of safety/security before a weapon is needed. Start with stickers on the window stating the house has an alarm system. The sticker alone does make many would be intruders move on to easier ground. I just purchased a security system that has 32 zones of coverage. Detects movement of anything 25 pounds or heavier. All windows will be wired. The systems phones 5 different numbers if the alarm is set off. It has two 125 decibel alarms with flashing blue/red lights. The family dog is also a layer of security. Our poodle hears everything. Including the squirrels farting just outside the window.

Anyway, your AR. Go for the head shot. Miss. Then what? Multiple intruders? I would prefer multiple balls of lead flying at them than one bullet. :D You are correct, there is a tool for every job. One hopes that the tools would never have to be employed. To do that, create the layer of security. Ogres have layers.

[antikristuseke]

Go for the headshot? Really?
Put a couple center mass and don't go for showy crap.

[Armistead]

Make my day punk!

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/475ab263-44a9-4a9a-80b9-5d5a1d748ab1_zps98923ef0.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Go for the headshot? Really?
Put a couple center mass and don't go for showy crap.

9 of 10 people would be shaking so badly the center mass shot would be iffy at best. Head shots are for the movies. Shotgun...point in general direction. Good chance of scoring a hit.

But I will say one thing...the noise of a pump shotgun chambering a round is a sound many people know and understand as not a good thing if on the receiving end. Might be all it takes for the intruder to leave.

[AVGWarhawk]

Make my day punk!

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/475ab263-44a9-4a9a-80b9-5d5a1d748ab1_zps98923ef0.jpg

Sometimes all it takes is a potential intruder to step in the pile of dog crap out back to make him think about his next move. :03: Not to mention the smell gives him away plus the dog crap tracks left behind. :haha:

[antikristuseke]

9 of 10 people would be shaking so badly the center mass shot would be iffy at best. Head shots are for the movies. Shotgun...point in general direction. Good chance of scoring a hit.

But I will say one thing...the noise of a pump shotgun chambering a round is a sound many people know and understand as not a good thing if on the receiving end. Might be all it takes for the intruder to leave.

If a person is shaking so badly that they can not make reliable center mass shots when a person has unlawfully and with hostile intent entered their living space, then they should not be in possession of firearms.
Also you seem to overestimate the spread of shot at those ranges nor would I count on intimidation alone, an empty thread is meaningless.

When a person get a firearm for home defense they need to be able to use it with a high degree of proficency, lest it become criminal incompetence.

[AVGWarhawk]

If a person is shaking so badly that they can not make reliable center mass shots when a person has unlawfully and with hostile intent entered their living space, then they should not be in possession of firearms.
Also you seem to overestimate the spread of shot at those ranges nor would I count on intimidation alone, an empty thread is meaningless.

When a person get a firearm for home defense they need to be able to use it with a high degree of proficency, lest it become criminal incompetence.

Whether said person shakes or not in that situation has no bearing on gun ownership. 2nd Amendment.

I overestimate nothing. You simply have a better chance of a hit with a shotgun than a single bullet. Go ahead, pull the string on the clay duck thrower. Unless your are truly a sharp shoot as seen on tv you will not hit the clay duck with a single bullet. A shotgun will provide the best chance.

A high degree if proficiency is not required to own a weapon. 2nd Amendment. Everyone is libel for criminal incompetence. Gun, car, pool unattended...the list goes on

[Armistead]

If a person is shaking so badly that they can not make reliable center mass shots when a person has unlawfully and with hostile intent entered their living space, then they should not be in possession of firearms.
Also you seem to overestimate the spread of shot at those ranges nor would I count on intimidation alone, an empty thread is meaningless.

When a person get a firearm for home defense they need to be able to use it with a high degree of proficency, lest it become criminal incompetence.

You're not being realistic. One can have all the training possible, but they can't put themselves in an emotional fearful gunfight. The fact is most cops with training get nervous and shake in a gunfight and often miss. It only takes only a minor movement, that's why for many a shotgun is the best weapon to use, each must decide.

Remember the LA riots, the looters.. The stores that didn't get looted or robbed were those owners that armed themselves to the hilt.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+man+uses+assault+weapon&mid=5DF88917C67218C44CCA5DF88917C67218C44CCA&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7

[Ducimus]

Defend against a govt. that turns to tyranny. No, not likely to happen here in US, but you know why, because we've always had a 1st/4th amendment backed by the 2nd. In nations without those rights, well, we see what can happen.

I find myself questioning the assumption we all make that tyranny cannot happen here. I think as long as politics of fear are at work, there is a chance. I think ever since 911 we have been in a steady slide towards planting the seeds from which tyranny may someday grow from.

This video makes a good point.
Fear and Oath-ing in DC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8)

I used to work with a a retired county sherrif from Wyoming. His take on the whole thing was "When guns are outlawed, only the cops will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

Nope! Not just because only cops would have guns, but because by the time the cops show up, the crime has already occured. They cannot defend you. They show up to make a report, and investigate what has already happened. Too late to be of any aid to you.

I feel fairly safe now. :hmmm: I guess it depends on what neighborhood one lives.
Don't fall into the false belief that, "it can't happen to me". Don't get me wrong, im not say be paranoid, but in day to day life, there are A LOT of "special people." I call them special because the way they drive, or their outlook on what may or may not happen to them in general, they must be special because they have no thought that something bad may happen to them. Be it a car accident, or home invasion. And when something bad does happen, whats the first thing they say? "I can't believe this is happening!". (I used to be a special person. :haha: )


And I believe it is this very thought that produces the passion we see concerning the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment is what helps insure the rest. It is a cornerstone of our civil rights, and our freedom. Remove it, and you remove a foundation upon which our civil rights rest upon.
Another good point raised here:
You Can't Ban Evil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E)


We're talking a total gun ban of the people, you last paragraph is silly.
Everything he says is silly, or just blatant trolling. Made my ignore list ages ago because all he does is try to antagonize, and make a mockery of whatever it is you may have to say. So the way I see it, there isn't ANYTHING he has to say that is worth reading. All he does is troll for an emotional response.

Riot/shot gun. Point in general direction. Better chance of striking target.

Sorry AVG, i gotta stop ya there. A shotgun is not project a wall of death down a hallway. Yeah i know im embellishing a little there, but a shot pattern holds together a lot more then people think. It varies on what size of shot your using, length of barrel, size of chock, even brand of ammunition being used. For home defense, the best load in my opinion is 00 buckshot. That load effectively contains nine .32 caliber bullets. You hit someone with that, they are not getting back up. However, it still requires aiming. You still have to shoulder the weapon, find your sight picture, put the front sight bead on the target, and squeeze the trigger.

For grins and giggles, take a shotgun that can fire 00 buck to your an indoor shooting range with 3 or 4 body silhouette targets. Shoot a 00 buckshot load at varing ranges and you'll see how the pattern works. Even at a range of 15 yards, a pattern can hold together fairly well. Statics have shown most indoor engagements occur at 7 yards or less, where a shotgun pattern is the tightest. In other words, yes, you can miss with a shotgun. Hell, ive seen it happen on the range when my wife was first learning to shoot. "Congradulations honey, you missed him, with a shotgun!" Believe you me, she has come a long way since then. I've already learned she shoots best when its that time of the month - no fooling. Avenging valkarie and all that. Don't mess with PMS! :haha:


I do not see me or my wife being very proficient with a handgun in a situation like being confronted by a intruder.

But can she handle the recoil of a shotgun? My wife can't. For all practical purposes, the best gun to use for home defense is the one where you can get rounds on target with. If you can't hit what your aiming it, then it is of no use to you.

I understand that a family member might be in line of fire. Best if no gun is involved at all in that situation. Your family member is effectively a human shield.

The best thing to do, if kids are involved, is try and round them up and get your family together in one room. Probably the master bedroom. Or tell your kids beforehand, that if someone breaks into the house, go to mommy and daddys room RIGHT AWAY. Hole up in the one room, STAY PUT, take cover behind the bed, stay away from the doorway, and train your gun on that opening, and blast anything that comes through it. It essentially becomes a funnel of death, and anyone looking to get to your family has to go through it. Meanwhile your wife or child calls 911, while you keep your gun pointed at that doorway. Oh and did i mention to STAY PUT? Don't try and clear the house. Especially if the cops are on the way. Once they get there, they won't be able to tell you from the bad guy. A man with a gun is a man with a gun in their eyes. Stay on the line with 911 so you know when the cops get there, and to let the police know where your at.


Also, if said hand gun or rifle is powerful enough to go through a wall and possibly striking a passerby or neighbor you are liable. This is how I understand it in the state of MD.

I think it any state, you are responsible for every single round that leave the barrel of your gun. I prefer hollow point bullets for this reason. Hollow points do two things.
a.) Maximize wound channel damage to the bad guy.
b.) loose momentum and velocity upon the first wall they hit. A stray hollow point will be lucky to make it through the first wall it comes in contact with, and definately will not make it through a second wall.

A shotgun would certainly be best in many situations, close in home invasion as long as line of sight isn't an issue. Any normal person would be nervous, so aiming doesn't matter as much.

Not neccessarily for reasons ive already mentioned above.

As for a human shield, there have been many cases of that happening, a person gave up there gun, usually a pistol and the entire family ended up dead. It's a tough call, but with the right rifle, at least you're in a stand off. The question is, are you willing to lay down your gun and trust the criminal holding your family hostage. Cops are taught never to lay down their gun or give them up for a reason. The majority of human shield cases are taken out by a sniper, never a shotgun.

Never, EVER, EVER, give up your gun. For ANY reason. The instant you give up your gun, you give up any advantage and leverage you have, and entrust your life, and the life of your entire family to a criminal in your home. Think about this now, this criminal has most likely done time in prison. He could be a rapist, and a murderer. He is one big unknown criminal element in your home, capable of ANYTHING. Do you trust your life and the life of your entire family to someone like this? No. NEVER. Never ever ever ever ever give up the gun.

In apts, most walls are mere sheetrock, two layers, a 22 cal bullet could go through.


Possibly, it depends on what kind of 22 cal bullet we are talking about. Technically speaking, the much talked about AR-15 shoots a 22 caliber bullet. Yeah, that will definatlely go through. A 22 rimfire hollow point? Not so much.


No situation with a gun is good, sure things could go wrong, but it's the same old same old, would you rather be in a position to defend yourself or not. Many liberals seem to think with love and talk, you can get a criminal to lay his gun down and wait for the cops.......

Insert standard "living in ivory tower" and "Utopian ideals" comments here. On a side note, Im currently kind of stuck here in a hotel room in vegas, with nothing to do but watch TV or post on a message board. (this place is bloody expensive, the simple act of eating food is ludicriously expensive), anyway, was watching Demolition man yesterday, and it occurs to me, the "San Angeles" portrayed in that movie, is probably the progressive wet dream about a utopia.



The fact is, all this gun contol is political. The majority of gun deaths, about 80% are in inner cities with cheap handguns, yet you don't hear a ban on handguns.

I think it's about politics, and control.

Liberals simply want to do away with the NRA and other gun groups that are pro GOP.

I think that people of the far left in persuasion, are simply scared, and full of angst for things they do not understand out of ignorance. Watch this debate carefully:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo9BbB6rBx0

The show host i think, is a fine example of your typical anti-gun person in his beleifs, his knowledge, and level of ignorance.


Interesting article in the Boston Globe (local liberal rag).

Crime has soared in Massachusetts since passage of the states AW ban.

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/the-nation-toughest-gun-control-law-made-massachusetts-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

Yeah go figure that one out. Disarmed , or poorly armed people make for easier targets? Nahhhhh...... Never.

Go for the headshot? Really?
Put a couple center mass and don't go for showy crap.

Agreed. Center of mass. Which also happens to be the heart/lung area on a human being. The heart is not off to the left in the chest like many people may think. Its in the center of your chest. You shoot center of mass until the threat stops being a threat.

9 of 10 people would be shaking so badly the center mass shot would be iffy at best. Head shots are for the movies. Shotgun...point in general direction. Good chance of scoring a hit.

Shotguns ive already covered. Center of mass is your largest target area, and greatest hit probability. The fact that people under duress WILL miss is a great argument against a ban of "hi-capacity magazines". In terms of defending your family, each round is a potential life saver.


But I will say one thing...the noise of a pump shotgun chambering a round is a sound many people know and understand as not a good thing if on the receiving end. Might be all it takes for the intruder to leave.

One can hope. I wouldn't leave anything to providence or chance.

If a person is shaking so badly that they can not make reliable center mass shots when a person has unlawfully and with hostile intent entered their living space, then they should not be in possession of firearms.

Under stress, even police miss. Its not just shaking, but rushing your shots because your in a panic. One thing that a lot of people don't do, but should do, is spend more time on the range. Under stress, you revert to muscle memory. Muscle memory is instilled by training. It takes 1000 repetitions of something before it becomes muscle memory.


The fact is most cops with training get nervous and shake in a gunfight and often miss. It only takes only a minor movement, that's why for many a shotgun is the best weapon to use, each must decide.

In terms of handguns vs long guns, a long gun will always be more accurate. This isn't about shotgun's it's about sight radius. That is the distance between your rear and front sight. The longer it is, the more accurate that firearm will be. Even between handguns, a handgun with a longer sight radius will inheirantly be more accurate. For example, my M9A1 (handgun) , is slightly more accurate then my wifes PX4 storm compact (smaller handgun) because it has a longer barrel and hence longer sight radius. (by about 1 an inch or so i think).


Remember the LA riots, the looters.. The stores that didn't get looted or robbed were those owners that armed themselves to the hilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs
I think you referring to the Korean shop owners.
http://www.humanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/58852252.jpg
Your right, their shops didn't get razed and looted.

[Platapus]

9 of 10 people would be shaking so badly the center mass shot would be iffy at best.

I remember reading an FBI report in a shooting magazine that said that an experienced civilian shooter, in a life and death situation will most likely miss a moving target at 7 feet and a stationary target at 7 yards.

Shooting paper on a range does not simulate a real life shooting situation. :yep:

Of course, I am different. If I were in that situation, I would just shoot the gun out of the baddies hand like the lone ranger used to. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Ducimus:
Don't fall into the false belief that, "it can't happen to me". Don't get me wrong, im not say be paranoid, but in day to day life, there are A LOT of "special people." I call them special because the way they drive, or their outlook on what may or may not happen to them in general, they must be special because they have no thought that something bad may happen to them. Be it a car accident, or home invasion. And when something bad does happen, whats the first thing they say? "I can't believe this is happening!". (I used to be a special person. )

We still take our precautions. Sleeping with the frobt door unlocked and key in the ignition is left to folks in Mayberry. As I posted a few back, a home security system is going in our new home. We are aware but not overly nuts about it. Frightens the kids if one gets crazy about it. May never leave the house. I do know the shootings does unsettle my 14 year old. Need to find a balance of safety and security for all under the roof.

Sorry AVG, i gotta stop ya there. A shotgun is not project a wall of death down a hallway. Yeah i know im embellishing a little there, but a shot pattern holds together a lot more then people think. It varies on what size of shot your using, length of barrel, size of chock, even brand of ammunition being used. For home defense, the best load in my opinion is 00 buckshot. That load effectively contains nine .32 caliber bullets. You hit someone with that, they are not getting back up. However, it still requires aiming. You still have to shoulder the weapon, find your sight picture, put the front sight bead on the target, and squeeze the trigger.

Sure, I understand the shotgun does not spread a wall of death however it does provide more projectiles going in the same direction instead of one projectile. I understand the length of barrel as well will affect the pattern. This is why post about the riot shotgun as you can see. 18 inch barrel. Easier to use in a home setting. Also noted, the noise of the pump action on the weapon is a noise many recognize and know what the potential outcome could be. I would say that noise is enough to be a game changer for the intruder.

But can she handle the recoil of a shotgun? My wife can't. For all practical purposes, the best gun to use for home defense is the one where you can get rounds on target with. If you can't hit what your aiming it, then it is of no use to you.

At first I would say she would not. She wants to go to the range and will for the experience. I think she do well. Truth be told, first time I messed with my 870 Express shotgun I came home with a bruised shoulder. :shifty:

Shotguns ive already covered. Center of mass is your largest target area, and greatest hit probability. The fact that people under duress WILL miss is a great argument against a ban of "hi-capacity magazines". In terms of defending your family, each round is a potential life saver.

True, but everyone handles a stressful situation differently. Fight or flight as it were. I understand the center of mass. I would rather shoot a bus and not a Fiat. Unfortunately everyone thinks they are Dirty Harry and a head shot is in the cards. :88)

[August]

Another factor to consider is recoil. A .12ga kicks a heckuva lot more than a .223 therefore the latter is a lot easier aim a second shot if one becomes necessary. Shotguns are the original "spray and pray" weapon.

[Ducimus]

This is why post about the riot shotgun as you can see. 18 inch barrel. Easier to use in a home setting.

The biggest weakness with a shotgun as home defense, is it's overall length. A long rifle or shotgun makes it easier to wrestle away from you. Along with an 18 " barrel, id recommend using a shorter length of pull stock to lessen the overall length of the shotgun and make it a bit more manueverable indoors. (video on that here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfH_v9rv3Js). I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes some decent points. )

- If shotgun is a Remington, I'd get an M4 styled stock similar to this one.
http://www.blackhawk.com/product/SpecOps-NRS-Shotgun-Stock,1157,165.htm

- If shotgun is a mossberg, id get a Hogue overmolded short length of pull stock similar to this one.
http://www.hoguestore.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=18&products_id=4615

Whatever you do, don't get a pistol grip with no shoulder stock. Those things are about as hollywood as headshots.


At first I would say she would not. She wants to go to the range and will for the experience. I think she do well. Truth be told, first time I messed with my 870 Express shotgun I came home with a bruised shoulder. :shifty:


Ahh, so you do have a remington. Here's an idea for handling recoil if you don't mind spending some money.

Knoxx recoil reducing stock. (http://www.blackhawk.com/product/SpecOps-Gen-II-Adjustable-Shotgun-Stock,1808,165.htm)

I'd look that up on youtube for some product reviews. Not all are glowing.

[AVGWarhawk]

I did have a 870 Express. As well as a Marlin 30/30 with scope and a Browning 380. I sold them well over 20 years ago. My wife expressed that she would like a weapon because the bad guys have one. Actually I was surprised. Anyhoo...I have no issue with it and time will be spent learning to use it and safety. I did enjoy skeet shooting. I'm betting she would also. I used to reload shells. Saved a few bucks doing so. I have been looking.

[Tribesman]

This video makes a good point.
Fear and Oath-ing in DC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8)

Not that idiot again:doh:

The show host i think, is a fine example of your typical anti-gun person in his beleifs, his knowledge, and level of ignorance.


He matches the level of ignorance of your above pro gun commentator.
Neither one is really that typical but both are idiots.

Everything he says is silly, or just blatant trolling. Made my ignore list ages ago because all he does is try to antagonize, and make a mockery of whatever it is you may have to say. So the way I see it, there isn't ANYTHING he has to say that is worth reading. All he does is troll for an emotional response
wow even a CAPSLOCK:har::har::har::har::har::har:
errrrr ....that was the episode of your "people who have not been in the military cannot know simple things" nonsense where your claim about special forces was easily proven to be totally false.:yeah:
The thing in this topic and nearly every other gun topic which is "silly"is the people refering to the threat of a non existant "total gun ban".

[Sailor Steve]

I remember reading an FBI report in a shooting magazine that said that an experienced civilian shooter, in a life and death situation will most likely miss a moving target at 7 feet and a stationary target at 7 yards.
So will a cop, or a soldier.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/oh_shoot_cops_fire_off_target_ZqMbx38FZnt4GWaaGWJB fN

[August]

Gun owners get a discount at VA. pizza shop.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-owners-discount-va-pizza-shop-111718083.html

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/c.naXx.iFCkUVWKtwP7_QA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTMzMTtjcj0xO2N3PTIwMDA7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/65a7803e0c96f806290f6a7067009e45.jpg

Don't be messin' with that pistol packing mama!

[Tribesman]

Don't be messin' with that pistol packing mama!

The pistol packing mama is plainly a muppet, she is holding the baby in the wrong arm to be ready for selfdefence.:rotfl2:

[AVGWarhawk]

She is a quick draw! :haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

She's also holding that baby with the wrong arm if she wants to be a quick draw.

[Armistead]

Maybe she just wants a discount....

[Takeda Shingen]

Maybe she just wants a discount....

Silly argument. -3 Must do better.

[August]

Engaging in gun play with an infant in ones arms would be a Jihadi tactic, not that of a Red Blooded American Parent. You put the baby down, preferably behind cover, THEN you draw and return fire.

[Takeda Shingen]

Engaging in gun play with an infant in ones arms would be a Jihadi tactic, not that of a Red Blooded American Parent. You put the baby down, preferably behind cover, THEN you draw and return fire.

And you'll be dead by that point. If you are carrying something in the arm that you use to draw your weapon, you can drop it to quickly free that arm. What is she going to do, drop the infant? I think not. In the circumstance shown in the photograph, that pistol is purely decorative.

I don't like Tribesman, but he has an excellent point.

[Armistead]

Silly argument. -3 Must do better.

Bet she has another gun on her other hip....:D

[AVGWarhawk]

Look, put the baby in the holster and cradle the pistol in your arms. Problem solved. :up:

[Takeda Shingen]

Bet she has another gun on her other hip....:D

It may be possible, but from what I can tell from the angle she does not appear to be wearing a double holster. If you are able to produce an image from a different angle, we may be able to resolve this impasse.

Look, put the baby in the holster and cradle the pistol in your arms. Problem solved. :up:

Isn't that what most NRA members already do? :O:

[Tribesman]

Engaging in gun play with an infant in ones arms would be a Jihadi tactic, not that of a Red Blooded American Parent. You put the baby down, preferably behind cover, THEN you draw and return fire.

Yeah right:doh:
Some crazy dreamworld where the evil criminal who is coming at you with a gun is going to stop and wait for you to attend to your child so you can get your gun before he continues his action
I can see it now "please mr nice polite robber will you give me a minute to get my gun out before you try and rob me":rotfl2:

[August]

And you'll be dead by that point. If you are carrying something in the arm that you use to draw your weapon, you can drop it to quickly free that arm. What is she going to do, drop the infant? I think not. In the circumstance shown in the photograph, that pistol is purely decorative.

"The circumstances shown in the photograph" represent, at most, half the time the kid is in her arms. She switches him to the other arm, which according to my observations infant carrying people do all the time, and she can draw her weapon just fine.

Besides nobody is always completely ready to draw and fire all the time. Not even Soldiers. Take for example the picture below. Neither of those Troops could draw and fire their weapons any faster than that woman could.

http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/300-12-iraqtroops.jpg

I don't like Tribesman, but he has an excellent point.I find that difficult to believe Takeda but it's just not worth unblocking the troll in order to see. I'll bet whatever he said was sarcastic though. Amirite?

[Takeda Shingen]

"The circumstances shown in the photograph" represent, at most, half the time the kid is in her arms. She switches him to the other arm, which according to my observations infant carrying people do all the time, and she can draw her weapon just fine.

Besides nobody is always completely ready to draw and fire all the time. Not even Soldiers. Take for example the picture below. Neither of those Troops could draw and fire their weapons any faster than that woman could.

http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/300-12-iraqtroops.jpg

I find that difficult to believe Takeda but it's just not worth unblocking the troll in order to see. I'll bet whatever he said was sarcastic though. Amirite?

Yeah. His point is what I said. I just removed the venom.

[Dowly]

"The circumstances shown in the photograph" represent, at most, half the time the kid is in her arms. She switches him to the other arm, which according to my observations infant carrying people do all the time, and she can draw her weapon just fine.

Engaging in gun play with an infant in ones arms would be a Jihadi tactic, not that of a Red Blooded American Parent.

Huh? :88)

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah. His point is what I said. I just removed the venom.
Yes, you're absolutely right. If someone comes in to rob her during the 30 seconds or so it takes to pay her bill, or while she's walking to or from her car, she's screwed. Is that a good enough reason to support our biggest resident troll? Or was it just an excuse to get your point across no matter what?

[Tribesman]

Huh? :88)
Careful now, don't point out that his whole approach there was rather foolish or you will be added to his land of ignorance:03:
Come to think of it doesn't that episode just like most of the topic demonstrate a heavy reliance on emotional arguements instead of rational ones....... and all delivered without any prodding by me.:haha:

[Tribesman]

Deal with what is written steve not what your amazingly innacurate mind reading powers tell you. :down:
Address the post not the poster as you are falling into something you often berate others for.

[Sailor Steve]

Since your sole reason for being on these forums is to mock people, is there a reason anyone should listen to you?

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, you're absolutely right. If someone comes in to rob her during the 30 seconds or so it takes to pay her bill, or while she's walking to or from her car, she's screwed. Is that a good enough reason to support our biggest resident troll? Or was it just an excuse to get your point across no matter what?

It was my attempt to put across a valid point made that would not have been responded to because of who happened to make the point. So what is your game Steve? Are you really that offended by the view or is this about something personal?

[Sailor Steve]

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert

[Tribesman]

Since your sole reason for being on these forums is to mock people, is there a reason anyone should listen to you?
Your astounding mind reading powers fail you yet again.

[Tribesman]

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress."

Tell that to the pro/anti guns people as they make no progress and repeatedly fall back to exactly the same arguement they have themselves already rejected

[Sailor Steve]

Please show the last time you actually engaged in a debate with someone.

[Tribesman]

How about the last time you asked me a question and then got all upset because I was answering it.:yeah:

[August]

Huh? :88)

The Jihadi's are known for using civilians as shields. I doubt that an American mother would use her own infant like that so it stands to reason that she'd first put the infant down before drawing her weapon no?

[Sailor Steve]

How about the last time you asked me a question and then got all upset because I was answering it.:yeah:
What are you talking about? I gave you my own personal experience and you ignored it. You presented nothing of your own. Please show anything you have ever contributed to this forum. You live for derision. You live to cut people down. You contribute nothing. Please show otherwise.

[Hottentot]

Yes, you're absolutely right. If someone comes in to rob her during the 30 seconds or so it takes to pay her bill, or while she's walking to or from her car, she's screwed. Is that a good enough reason to support our biggest resident troll? Or was it just an excuse to get your point across no matter what?

So just to make this clear: it's wrong to agree with something Tribesman says?

Can we get these rules written somewhere? I mean I'm fairly sure he shouldn't be quoted, but this one is all new to me. As a mere humble rank-and-file member of this forum I'm really getting confused with all of this. Can I get brigged for agreeing with him? I often do.

[Sailor Steve]

So just to make this clear: it's wrong to agree with something Tribesman says?
Not at all. I questioned the motives for agreeing with him in this case.

Can we get these rules written somewhere? I mean I'm fairly sure he shouldn't be quoted, but this one is all new to me.
No rules. And he can be quoted, I've just been asked not to, which request I just ignored again. I just felt that Takeda's reasons for agreeing with him in this case was personal. I could be wrong.

As a mere humble rank-and-file member of this forum I'm really getting confused with all of this. Can I get brigged for agreeing with him? I often do.
Nothing to be confused about. My opinion on Tribesman's motives are my own. I still stand by them. Disagree if you like.

[AVGWarhawk]

So just to make this clear: it's wrong to agree with something Tribesman says?

Can we get these rules written somewhere? I mean I'm fairly sure he shouldn't be quoted, but this one is all new to me. As a mere humble rank-and-file member of this forum I'm really getting confused with all of this. Can I get brigged for agreeing with him? I often do.

I agree with Tribesman a lot. I just don't post it all the time. It goes to his head. The swelling starts. :O:

[Hottentot]

Not at all. I questioned the motives for agreeing with him in this case.

No rules. And he can be quoted, I've just been asked not to, which request I just ignored again. I just felt that Takeda's reasons for agreeing with him in this case was personal. I could be wrong.

Nothing to be confused about. My opinion on Tribesman's motives are my own. I still stand by them. Disagree if you like.

Cool. Seems I misunderstood and/or overreacted then. Must be the late hour doing tricks on my reading comprehension. :sunny:

[Dowly]

I agree with Tribesman a lot. I just don't post it all the time. It goes to his head. The swelling starts. :O:

Yeah, I tend to agree with quite a bit of what he says *usually*.

[August]

Yeah, I tend to agree with quite a bit of what he says *usually*.

That's difficult to believe because i've never known him post anything besides endless insults and sarcastic comments about the people on this forum.

After all has he ever wished anyone a happy birthday? Has he ever expressed his condolences for someones loss? Posted anything positive or in good cheer at all?

[August]

What are you talking about? I gave you my own personal experience and you ignored it. You presented nothing of your own. Please show anything you have ever contributed to this forum. You live for derision. You live to cut people down. You contribute nothing. Please show otherwise.


This ^

[Dowly]

That's difficult to believe because i've never known him post anything besides endless insults and sarcastic comments about the people on this forum.

He has his moments. Though, I don't like how he presents his points. :nope:

[Cybermat47]

Posted anything positive or in good cheer at all?

Yeah, actually.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1996367&postcount=5

This was definitely constructive for the topic at hand.

[Cybermat47]

Tell that to the pro/anti guns people as they make no progress and repeatedly fall back to exactly the same arguement they have themselves already rejected

Exactly. That's why I've long since given up trying to engage in these quagmires. Reading "Obama is an evil dictator trying to destroy the very foundation of this great country AMERICA!" get's really boring once you've finished trying to figure out how people fall for the crap the NRA says.

[Tribesman]

What are you talking about? I gave you my own personal experience and you ignored it.
Oh dear.
It goes like this.
You asked a question, I answered your question and you went into one because you didn't like the answer.
Shall I repeat your question?

You presented nothing of your own.
I did and you didn't like it at which point you insisted that another answer must be my answer.

Please show anything you have ever contributed to this forum.
How you getting on with finding matching statistics?:03:
congratulations on the Un ones , they are the most comprehensive effort, But , and it is a big but, they do carry a very big and very visible disclaimer don't they.

You live for derision. You live to cut people down. You contribute nothing. Please show otherwise
Mind reading again? you are not very good at it are you.
Show otherwise??????:hmmm:
Yeah, I tend to agree with quite a bit of what he says *usually*.
I agree with Tribesman a lot. I just don't post it all the time.
It was my attempt to put across a valid point made that would not have been responded to because of who happened to make the point

It seems I don't even have to write anything to prove you wrong on that point.:yep:

Not at all. I questioned the motives for agreeing with him in this case
Mind reading again was it?

Just out of interest Steve, since the OP link was easily answered straight away, with several variations of"because its their job" why did you jump on the "they want to ban all guns" bandwagon when you have already failed to show any evidence ever of such an event?

[Tribesman]

That's difficult to believe because i've never known him post anything besides endless insults and sarcastic comments about the people on this forum.

But as you live in the world of ignorance you cannot know so your beliefs are blind faith.

After all has he ever wished anyone a happy birthday? Has he ever expressed his condolences for someones loss? Posted anything positive or in good cheer at all?
If you didn't live in your land of ignorance you might stop making those silly claims which are repeatedly very easily proven wrong.
Thats the strange joy of ignorance you carry on in the same vein when others can see what is plainly written there to see.

[Tribesman]

Exactly. That's why I've long since given up trying to engage in these quagmires. Reading "Obama is an evil dictator trying to destroy the very foundation of this great country AMERICA!" get's really boring once you've finished trying to figure out how people fall for the crap the NRA says.
Cuts both ways, there are plenty of people the other end of the spectrum too.
Though the extremes think everyone without their specific view is right on the other end of the scale.

One question I will ask you again Cybermat as you didn't answer it before.
You have said previously that you want all guns banned.
Why?

[Takeda Shingen]

I should probably sound off, since others have chosen to speak for me.

Yeah, I tend to agree with quite a bit of what he says *usually*.

Me too, and my point in saying what I said was to illustrate that such views can be successfully presented without being insulting.

Tribesman, you could make for a very good member, but you really need to do three things.

1. Cite some sources. I know you think it is mundane and tiresome, but it really helps move the discussion along.

2. Quote properly. Again, I know you think it is tedious, but it also helps facilitate the conversation.

3. Leave the personal stuff out. This is the biggie for you. Most people would be willing to overlook items 1 and 2 if you could give us item 3. So you don't agree with someone's political views on an internet forum dedicated to video games. So what? I read and hear all kinds of things that I disagree with every day, both on the internet and in real life. It's called dealing with people. Sometimes it isn't worth having a discussion about it. If you feel that it is, you will always find that your point can be made more effectively if you don't take someone's head off while doing it. This is what I tried to illustrate by making the same point that you had today. Notice the difference in the response, at least for the most part.

Despite the fact that I have to do it all the time, I think that scolding, infracting and penalizing people (don't you dare, Dowly :stare: ) are some of the least effective ways of dealing with individuals. I would rather reach out (again, not a word, Dowly :stare: ) and try to get you to see things my way. I fail a lot, and I may fail this time again, but I do try.

[Armistead]

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo49/faolbushcraft/Misc/popcorn-1.gif

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, yes Armistead I see and am terribly impressed with your new jacket.

http://www.soccersouls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/rebel-without-a-cause-james-dean-1955.jpg

[Tribesman]

On #1 Tak.
The opening link contained all that was needed.
All that could be added was a link to the legislation to emphasise how meaningless the arms manufacturers PR stunt is though I tend to assume that if people are complaing about legislation they know what the legislation is.
A link for a total gun ban? I keep on asking those that make the claim to provide some evidence, and somehow myself I cannot post a link to something that doesn't exist.
As for the AWB, like the last attempt it isn't an actual ban is it.
There are arguements for and against such a thing but most of them make no sense, those posted tend to fall in to "the make no sense" category.
I have already stated that I object to the ammunition capacity regulations as they are nonsense.
But note a clearly discernable pattern from the pro gun people(anti gun people seem to be very absent)
They start with the second, then concede that the 2nd does not mean no restrictions, then they start with another angle which tends to fall apart very quickly, then they go back to the 2nd which they have already rejected and try to build another falling apart angle on the same basis they have already had to drop. It just repeats on the same cycle with the regular addition of the sky falling on the head "total gun ban".
Now if someone want to object to seriously draconian NY legislation regulating firearms the better target is their approach to class 2.

#2 I have improved, and you can quote me on that:03:

#3 You must admit I have toned it down a hell of a lot, consider it a work in progress.

[Takeda Shingen]

On #1 Tak.
The opening link contained all that was needed.
All that could be added was a link to the legislation to emphasise how meaningless the arms manufacturers PR stunt is though I tend to assume that if people are complaing about legislation they know what the legislation is.
A link for a total gun ban? I keep on asking those that make the claim to provide some evidence, and somehow myself I cannot post a link to something that doesn't exist.
As for the AWB, like the last attempt it isn't an actual ban is it.
There are arguements for and against such a thing but most of them make no sense, those posted tend to fall in to "the make no sense" category.
I have already stated that I object to the ammunition capacity regulations as they are nonsense.
But note a clearly discernable pattern from the pro gun people(anti gun people seem to be very absent)
They start with the second, then concede that the 2nd does not mean no restrictions, then they start with another angle which tends to fall apart very quickly, then they go back to the 2nd which they have already rejected and try to build another falling apart angle on the same basis they have already had to drop. It just repeats on the same cycle with the regular addition of the sky falling on the head "total gun ban".
Now if someone want to object to seriously draconian NY legislation regulating firearms the better target is their approach to class 2.

#2 I have improved, and you can quote me on that:03:

#3 You must admit I have toned it down a hell of a lot, consider it a work in progress.

I really do note the improvement, and I want you to know that I have said it to others. We've still got a ways to go, but like you said it is a work in progress. I do appreciate your effort.

[Sailor Steve]

why did you jump on the "they want to ban all guns" bandwagon when you have already failed to show any evidence ever of such an event?
Because, as I said at the time. I've met these people, I've seen them talk, and they have said as much.

But as you live in the world of ignorance you cannot know so your beliefs are blind faith.
And that's what I'm talking about. That is a typical statement. Not showing it. Not debating it. Just dumping on someone because you can.

My problem is that, believe it or not, is that I do like you, and I agree with you a lot as well. I just wish you'd use all that intelligence to bring something to the table rather than just kick people every chance you get.

[Cybermat47]

One question I will ask you again Cybermat as you didn't answer it before.
You have said previously that you want all guns banned.
Why?

Well, that was what I thought back then. Now I think that hunting rifles and pistols shouldn't be banned, just semi-automatic rifles. And there should be thorough background checks, to make sure that the weapon isn't going into the wrong hands.

[Dowly]

Despite the fact that I have to do it all the time, I think that scolding, infracting and penalizing people (don't you dare, Dowly :stare: ) are some of the least effective ways of dealing with individuals. I would rather reach out (again, not a word, Dowly :stare: ) and try to get you to see things my way. I fail a lot, and I may fail this time again, but I do try.

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/zip-zip-animated-animation-000408-l.gif

[Sailor Steve]

Cool. Seems I misunderstood and/or overreacted then.
Misunderstood? Possibly. Overreacted? Not at all. I've never denied that I'm wrong more than I'm right. People seem to forget that where I'm concerned.

I've also said more than once that Tribesman seems to be extremely intelligent. My only real complaint is that he tends to never argue or discuss things, just attack people out of hand. It would be great if he actually engaged in these discussions rather than take potshots.

But that will probably never happen, and I'll probably end up trying to ignore him again.

[AVGWarhawk]

#3 You must admit I have toned it down a hell of a lot, consider it a work in progress.


Yes you have. :yeah::up:

[Tribesman]

I've also said more than once that Tribesman seems to be extremely intelligent.
Unfortunately you keep stating that, but once again you are wrong.
I am thick as pig **** , but I know it.

[Tribesman]

Well, that was what I thought back then. Now I think that hunting rifles and pistols shouldn't be banned, just semi-automatic rifles. And there should be thorough background checks, to make sure that the weapon isn't going into the wrong hands.
Did you forget shotguns?
Classify a hunting rifle?
This perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YWqkX8ZLDI

Why semi autos though? there is a better arguement for restrictions on fully auto but the semi autoi gets sketchy rather quickly, which is why the AWB tends to not be an AWB.

Background checks are cool, though the real dunderheads among the NRA(only the dunderheads in case you missed the NRA majority mention earlier) don't even like them.

One side note on something I do find funny in regards to checks in the US.
Not posted on this forum but on links that have been posted here.
Fingerprints. Isn't it really funny when you have ex military on places like oath keepers ranting about not giving fingerprints to their evil federal government.
Do you think they are really really really old or just have a rather bad memory?

[Sailor Steve]

Unfortunately you keep stating that, but once again you are wrong.
I am thick as pig **** , but I know it.
Sorry, but it takes an intelligent person to recognize his foibles.

Or, as I once said in another context, "It takes a real fool to convince himself he's intelligent."

Oh, and don't forget the language rules.

[Tribesman]

Sorry Steve missed your earlier post.

Because, as I said at the time. I've met these people, I've seen them talk, and they have said as much.


Yes , but who are they, I have met people who want to ban all fishing, it ain't gonna happen and the people are in no position to do anything at all about it.
All you provided as proof was some doctor in Florida.

And that's what I'm talking about. That is a typical statement. Not showing it. Not debating it. Just dumping on someone because you can.

I am afraid the point was correct, If someone is deliberately ignorant of statements they are talking about then they are going on nothing but blind faith.
That is what the ignore list does, it makes you ignorant of what that person has written, which eans if you are making any statement on what has been written that you have not read you are totally ignorant of the content you are choosing to talk about.

I just wish you'd use all that intelligence to bring something to the table rather than just kick people every chance you get.
I am not kicking people, I am kicking the statement.
Sort of address the post not the poster:03:

Oh, and don't forget the language rules.
It said "muck" but I was playing it safe with the filter

[Ducimus]

So much ado about some woman trying to get a discount at a pizza shop, and of feeding a troll.

A.) Woman is there for a freaking discount on pizza. To do that, she's open carrying her handgun. While not advisable, it is legal.

B.) Add troll to your ignore list. Problem solved. Some people are simply not worth hearing.

[Armistead]

Gun Ban Proposals by Politicians




Former Sen. Bill Bradley, Al Gore's sole rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is considering including a ban on the sale of handguns in an aggressive gun control plan that he will announce later in his campaign, the Associated Press reports.

"I'm considering all the alternatives," the former New Jersey lawmaker said Monday in an interview with reporter Ron Fournier. Mr. Bradley already has endorsed a " handgun card, " a photo identity card required of anybody carrying a handgun.

Greg Pierce, Where's the Outrage?, Washington Times, May 26, 1999, at A6.
* * *

Mayor Dianne Feinstein [now U.S. Senator, D.-Cal.] moved yesterday to make San Francisco the nation's first major city to ban handguns for personal use.

UPI, Feinstein Seeks To Ban Handguns In San Francisco, Feb. 26, 1982.
* * *

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke signed the Communitarian Network's The Case for Domestic Disarmament, (http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html) which among other thing said:

There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
* * *

I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!

Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.I.), In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A.
* * *

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999, at C3 (quoting Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)).
* * *

Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.
* * *

Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.

Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, at 1A.
* * *

Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran is proposing a wide-ranging package of laws that would make the state's gun control regulations among the strictest in the nation and says his ultimate goal is a ban on handguns.

Daniel LeDuc, Tough Laws For Guns Proposed In Maryland; Attorney General Says Goal Is Ban, Wash. Post, Oct. 20, 1999, at A01.
* * *

[Peter] Jennings: And the effect of the assault rifle ban in Stockton? The price went up, gun stores sold out and police say that fewer than 20 were turned in. Still, some people in Stockton argue you cannot measure the effect that way. They believe there's value in making a statement that the implements of violence are unacceptable in our culture.

[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.

ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file.
* * *

In a high-stakes political gamble, [Democrat-Farmer-Labor Minnesota] gubernatorial candidate Tony Bouza proposed a strict gun control program Tuesday that includes the confiscation and purchase by the state of most privately owned handguns.

Robert Whereatt, Bouza Says He'd Confiscate Majority of Handguns, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 7, 1994, at 1A. (In Minnesota, the Democratic party is known as the Democrat-Farmer-Labor party.)

Gun Ban Proposals by Media Figures and Institutions




Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it's the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer.

Editorial, Taming The Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 1993, at B6 (boldface added).
* * *

No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons.

Editorial, Guns Along the Campaign Trail, Washington Post, July 19, 1999, at A18 (boldface added).
* * *

There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.

I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers.

I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.

Michael Gartner (then president of NBC News), Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992, at 9A (boldface added).
* * *

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).
* * *

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999, at 55 (quoting talk show hostess Rosie O'Donnell) (boldface added).
* * *

My guess [is] . . . that the great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment. . . . I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and now I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely -- the handguns, the semis and the automatics.

Roger Rosenblatt (Time Magazine columnist), Get Rid of the Damned Things, Time, Aug. 9, 1999, at 38 (boldface added).
* * *

Time national correspondent Jack E. White one-upped Mr. Thomas: "Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby. I mean, for example, we're talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month. Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one."

L. Brent Bozell III, Lock-and-Load Mode Against the 2nd, Washington Times, May 8, 1999, at A12.
* * *

Investigate the NRA with renewed vigor. It may be on the run, but its spokesman claims membership ($25 annual dues) is up 600,000 over 10 years ago. Print names of elected officials who take NRA funds. Interview them. Support all forms of gun licensing; in fact, all the causes NRA opposes.

Thomas Winship (former editor of the Boston Globe), Step Up the War Against Guns, Editor & Publisher Magazine, April 24, 1993, at 24.

Gun Ban Proposals by Advocacy Groups




The [American Academy of Pediatrics] believes handguns, deadly air guns and assault weapons should be banned.

American Assocation of Pediatrics, Where We Stand, available at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/wwestand.htm (visited Jan. 21, 1999) (boldface added).
* * *

A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999, at 45 (boldface added).
* * *

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).
* * *

We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993, at 11A (boldface added).

The best way to prevent gun violence is to ban handguns.

Michael K. Beard, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Letters to the Editor, Wall. St. J., July 23, 1997, at A19 (boldface added).

The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.").
* * *

There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
Communitarian Network, The Case for Domestic Disarmament, (http://www.gwu.edu/ ccps/pop_disarm.html) endorsed by 75 signatories, mostly academics. 

[Ducimus]

Gun Ban Proposals by Politicians

...
endorsed by 75 signatories, mostly academics.

Ugh. Domestic disarmament my ass.
I know this is melodramatic, and typical right wing rhetoric, but i think this is what they really want (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiVcUhghze8) for our society, and a good start in that direction is by removing our ability to defend ourselves.

EDIT:
You know, I wonder. I wonder just how many people this gun control issue has pushed over to the right. Before all this BS, i was pretty much in the center, middle of the road. Some things the left did I agreed with, some things the right did I didn't agree with - and vice versa. However, the INSTANT the left started talking about infringing upon the second amendment, it pushed me off the fence and to the right. I wonder how many people have done the same. It also got me looking at the larger picture. In my opinion, this isn't about guns, its about the continued erosion of our civil liberties. It has to stop, and the way things are going, It seems to me a nation run by a left wing majority is a greater long term threat to our civil liberties and way of life then a right wing majority. (the latter of which will just leave us broke and impovrished)

[Tribesman]

Gun Ban Proposals by Politicians

Big list, none calling for banning all guns.
One comment by that media muppet O'Donell, do you attatch any wieght to her?

B.) Add troll to your ignore list. Problem solved. Some people are simply not worth hearing.
You trolling again Ducimus.:yep:
Get over yourself, you made an emotional arguement against something Takeda wrote and threw your toys out the pram when you were called on it.

[Armistead]

Big list, none calling for banning all guns.
One comment by that media muppet O'Donell, do you attatch any wieght to her?


You trolling again Ducimus.:yep:
Get over yourself, you made an emotional arguement against something Takeda wrote and threw your toys out the pram when you were called on it.


I agree, some would leave us with muskets and shotguns, but as soon as someone killed a person with one those would be next. They're numerous comments from known media figures in the list to get rid of all guns....

You asked for one, you got it.....now keep complaining.

[Takeda Shingen]

The most recent from that list is from 13 years ago. The last part is even citing a petition to a senator that died in 1999. Some of it goes back to the 70's. None of this is active in the current debate.

[u crank]

You know, I wonder. I wonder just how many people this gun control issue has pushed over to the right. Before all this BS, i was pretty much in the center, middle of the road. Some things the left did I agreed with, some things the right did I didn't agree with - and vice versa. However, the INSTANT the left started talking about infringing upon the second amendment, it pushed me off the fence and to the right. I wonder how many people have done the same. It also got me looking at the larger picture. In my opinion, this isn't about guns, its about the continued erosion of our civil liberties. It has to stop, and the way things are going, It seems to me a nation run by a left wing majority is a greater long term threat to our civil liberties and way of life then a right wing majority. (the latter of which will just leave us broke and impovrished)

Interesting point.

[Sailor Steve]

None of this is active in the current debate.
Except that it was only posted in response to someone's claim that it has never happened.

[Platapus]

Gun owners get a discount at VA. pizza shop.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-owners-discount-va-pizza-shop-111718083.html

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/c.naXx.iFCkUVWKtwP7_QA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTMzMTtjcj0xO2N3PTIwMDA7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/65a7803e0c96f806290f6a7067009e45.jpg

Don't be messin' with that pistol packing mama!




Nice, all I need to do now is sneak up behind her, slug her with a stick and I now have a weapon. That's why I don't like open carry. It is just advertising that you have something worth stealing.

[Armistead]

The woman looks pretty good for just having a baby....:D

[Ducimus]

You asked for one, you got it.....now keep complaining.

Dude, do us both a favor and stop quoting the trolling Mick. His words are worth the paper they are printed on. Which is to say, worthless.

Nice, all I need to do now is sneak up behind her, slug her with a stick and I now have a weapon. That's why I don't like open carry. It is just advertising that you have something worth stealing.

I can appreciate that we can legally open carry, but it's just one of those things where, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". I'm all for concealed carry, but "strapping Iron" openly onto your hip i think is one of those things best left to the great outdoors when one is camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, etc,

[Bubblehead1980]

Ugh. Domestic disarmament my ass.
I know this is melodramatic, and typical right wing rhetoric, but i think this is what they really want (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiVcUhghze8) for our society, and a good start in that direction is by removing our ability to defend ourselves.

EDIT:
You know, I wonder. I wonder just how many people this gun control issue has pushed over to the right. Before all this BS, i was pretty much in the center, middle of the road. Some things the left did I agreed with, some things the right did I didn't agree with - and vice versa. However, the INSTANT the left started talking about infringing upon the second amendment, it pushed me off the fence and to the right. I wonder how many people have done the same. It also got me looking at the larger picture. In my opinion, this isn't about guns, its about the continued erosion of our civil liberties. It has to stop, and the way things are going, It seems to me a nation run by a left wing majority is a greater long term threat to our civil liberties and way of life then a right wing majority. (the latter of which will just leave us broke and impovrished)

Glad you see the big picture Duci, wish more did.

[Armistead]

Dude, do us both a favor and stop quoting the trolling Mick. His words are worth the paper they are printed on. Which is to say, worthless.

I really don't him well or yet to figure out who all the radical trolls are, probably cause I pay so little attention to them.

[Ducimus]

Glad you see the big picture Duci, wish more did.

Within reason. Credible threats to our civil liberties as documented by congressional and government record, and presented in a thoughtful and logical manner get my attention. (For example, The patriot Act and the NDAA) Certainly not anything personalties like Alex Jones might say. In fact, I wish that guy wasn't on the pro gun side, as he makes everyone look bad.

I also don't buy into the whole FEMA camp thing because the only sources for that theory reside in the extreme area of opinion or conjecture. I'd have to see several reputable sources presenting irrefutable evidence in a logical manner before I'd give that stuff any serious thought.

[Tribesman]

Dude, do us both a favor and stop quoting the trolling Mick.
More trolling, now with added pathetic racism.:har::har::har::har:
You really are showing yourself up for what you are:yeah:

They're numerous comments from known media figures in the list to get rid of all guns....

You asked for one, you got it.....now keep complaining.
I suggest you read your list again.
near zero, handguns, handguns, handguns, no ban, 1 muppet, my guess????, handguns, gun licence.
So your media section came up with 1 muppet and rather strangely 1 call for no ban.

Could you post a working link to the last section please?



Except that it was only posted in response to someone's claim that it has never happened.
And like your earlier attempt at the same it doesn't quite deliver does it.

[Tribesman]

Hey who infracted Ducimus?
I have no objection to his lame attempt at racist trolling, it just makes him look rather silly.

[Tribesman]

Nice, all I need to do now is sneak up behind her, slug her with a stick and I now have a weapon. That's why I don't like open carry. It is just advertising that you have something worth stealing.
Or as happened to my cousins husband. Walk up behind him with a gun, took his gun took his truck.
They left him with the bags of groceries though which is I suppose a small consolation considering the crap storm it landed him with at work in the PD.

[Cybermat47]

That's why I don't like open carry. It is just advertising that you have something worth stealing.

:yep: A man near where I live was bashed by a burglar, and all his pistols and shotguns were stolen.

...and only now do I realise that there's an armed criminal running around near where I live.

[Cybermat47]

Hey who infracted Ducimus?
I have no objection to his lame attempt at racist trolling, it just makes him look rather silly.

Is 'Mick' a rascist slur against Irish? 'Cos I'm part Irish :stare:

[Bubblehead1980]

Within reason. Credible threats to our civil liberties as documented by congressional and government record, and presented in a thoughtful and logical manner get my attention. (For example, The patriot Act and the NDAA) Certainly not anything personalties like Alex Jones might say. In fact, I wish that guy wasn't on the pro gun side, as he makes everyone look bad.

I also don't buy into the whole FEMA camp thing because the only sources for that theory reside in the extreme area of opinion or conjecture. I'd have to see several reputable sources presenting irrefutable evidence in a logical manner before I'd give that stuff any serious thought.

Well I am not sure about the FEMA Camps yet, do I think it's out of character for those in power currently? Absolutely not. With NDAA, could see them putting people in said camps.Do I think they will be nazi style death camps? No. I see trumped up federal charges for various things or no charges at all and people who are opponents ending up there, scary and seems just far fetched but it really is not.A possible scenario? Widespread civil unrest, FEMA, DHS come in, people are detained, instead of going to local jail and being released, could see them being labeled "terrorists" and indefinitely detained, perhaps in one of these alleged camps.

The Patriot Act and NDAA are just part of it man. Alex Jones is a passionate person, first I have ever really heard was when he took on that idiot Piers Morgan.While he went nuts, his message was right on.

[Sailor Steve]

Well I am not sure about the FEMA Camps yet
You were absolutely sure in the other thread.

do I think it's out of character for those in power currently? Absolutely not.
Anybody is capable of anything. This is an observed fact. Be vigilant, and be aware. But actually accusing somebody of these things? Proof is required. Actual evidence.

A possible scenario?
Possible Scenarios are not facts, just fevered imaginings. Red Dawn was a "possible scenario".

Alex Jones is a passionate person, first I have ever really heard was when he took on that idiot Piers Morgan.While he went nuts, his message was right on.
Just the opposite. His message may or may not have been right on, but he was always nuts. He, like you, gives Conservatives a bad name.

[Tribesman]

He, like you, gives Conservatives a bad name.
Be fair, you cannot call Jones a conservative.
He has so many crazy and conflicting political, economic and social(and alien:03:) conspiracy theories blurting out his mouth he can only be described as a raving lunatic.

[Hottentot]

After all has he ever wished anyone a happy birthday?

Since you keep asking this: yes, he has (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1866988&postcount=40).

Has he ever expressed his condolences for someones loss?Yes, he has (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1988495&postcount=6). More than once (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1936736&postcount=53), in fact.

Posted anything positive or in good cheer at all?Yes, that too. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1998623&postcount=38)


That's difficult to believe because i've never known him post anything besides endless insults and sarcastic comments about the people on this forum.

Seeing that you like to make it known how he is on your ignore list and you refuse to read anything he writes, that seems contradictory. On the other hand, it would explain why the above examples have also evaded you.

No offence intended. I've just seen you asking those questions several times now, so decided to answer. I'm not saying it removes the problem that many people, including mods, have noticed in his behavior.

[Tribesman]

Armistead, I found and read your missing link.
Real extremist stuff by a small bunch of ideological dreamers.
Yet it has no call for a ban on all guns.
So your list of examples to substantiate the "ban all guns" claim produces.

politicians ...no examples
media ...1 muppet
anti gun groups...no examples

Doesn't look like it makes your case does it

[Cybermat47]

Yes, that too. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1998623&postcount=38)
.

I remember that. Quite a boost to my self esteem.

EDIT: And Tribesman and August were on the same side in that thread.

You guys definitely agree on some things!

[Tribesman]

EDIT: And Tribesman and August were on the same side in that thread.


No impossible, you are just making stuff up without even reading it:03:

[Ducimus]

Is 'Mick' a rascist slur against Irish? 'Cos I'm part Irish :stare:


Yes it is, and deliberately used against Tribesman because I have very little respect for that guy because he has a long history of mocking, aggravating, trolling, and belittling others. He made my ignore list a long time ago for those reasons, and I have nothing good to say to, or about him. I treat him as he has treated others.

As an side this topic is an American civil matter. It does not concern Ireland or the Irish, or any other foreign country. I don't recall any American on this board or any board I have ever visited, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong in any Irish or UK civil discourse.

[Dowly]

As an side this topic is an American civil matter. It does not concern Ireland or the Irish, or any other foreign country.

But the matter is being discussed on an international forum which kinda opens it
up for everyone.

[Ducimus]

But the matter is being discussed on an international forum which kinda opens it
up for everyone.

I could come back with, "said forum being hosted in the US", but meh. Seriously though man, Dowly, i have tons of respect for you. You don't jump in just to antagonize. My thought is, if one can't be civil, don't participate. I have been civil to everyone involved in these discussions with ONE exception because that exception was merited.

[August]

EDIT: And Tribesman and August were on the same side in that thread.

You guys definitely agree on some things!

I'll never be on Tribesmans side, ever. Because it's not what he says but how he says it. I may be short with people from time to time but unlike him my reason for being here is not just to insult and troll folks.

[Ducimus]

@bubblehead,

Use multiple news sources. For giggles and grins, take any major headline for the day, and look for it on both CNN and Foxnews. Look at their choice of words, what they choose to focus on, and how they deliver the story. The truth is often somewhere in between.

[Tribesman]

Yes it is, and deliberately used against Tribesman because I have very little respect for that guy because he has a long history of mocking, aggravating, trolling, and belittling others.
Trying to justify your pathetic attempt at racism.
Truly pathetic.

He made my ignore list a long time ago for those reasons, and I have nothing good to say to, or about him. I treat him as he has treated others.



I made your ignore list in a topic where you ridiculously made claims that only people who had been in the military can know very simple things:up:

As an side this topic is an American civil matter. It does not concern Ireland or the Irish, or any other foreign country.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried:rotfl2:
Paperwork for hunting is normally a bugger whichever country you visit to do it, even major international competitions can be a pain in the arse.
Just going to a range is straightforward though.

I don't recall any American on this board or any board I have ever visited, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong in any Irish or UK civil discourse.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Keep digging your hole, you must be nearly down to China by now

[Tribesman]

I'll never be on Tribesmans side, ever. Because it's not what he says but how he says it.
Since by your own admission you don't know what I write your claim is clearly rubbish.
Come to think of it, other people pointed out to you in this very topic that you are talking rubbish.
Such is the price you pay for your choice of ignorance:yeah:

I may be short with people from time to time but unlike him my reason for being here is not just to insult and troll folks.
False:yep:
well done

[Hottentot]

And there you just went and proved them right. :roll:

You deserve each other.

[Dowly]

And there you just went and proved them right. :roll:

Sigh.. indeed. :nope:

[Tribesman]

And there you just went and proved them right.
It dealt with what was written.
Can you identify anything in my two posts which is not true?

[Hottentot]

You must think I'm utterly dumb.

[Tribesman]

You must think I'm utterly dumb.
No, I was asking you a question.
Both posts I responded to contain elements which are false and have been easily proven false.
Can you show any element in my two posts which are not true.
I consider truth to be more important than tone.

[Cybermat47]

Yes it is, and deliberately used

:down:

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have the right to insult their entire country! This discussion has nothing to do with race or country! You're pretty much saying "I've completey run out of arguments, but you come from a different country so anything I say is better than your arguments."

[Ducimus]

:down:

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have the right to insult their entire country!

My words were not directed at you, and its a shame you think they are, but I make no apologies for any disparaging remarks I have made in that guys direction. As for insulting an entire country. Why the hell not? People do it to us all the time, both verbally, and physically, both on the internet and in the real world. Hell, while overseas, i've had my face spat on, been threatened with physical violence, and refused service in restaurants simply because I'm an American and for no other reason. (I'm well aware some of my countryman are beligerant, and i went out of my way not to be, yet the result was the same) So getting upset over a remark made towards a troll on a messageboard just isn't the same thing in my book. The world I know is a harsh and unforgiving place, it is not nice place, nor is it fair. That's just how it is.


This discussion has nothing to do with race or country! You're pretty much saying "I've completey run out of arguments, but you come from a different country so anything I say is better than your arguments."

There is no discussing ANYTHING with someone who's sole purpose is to troll, antagonize, or otherwise try to illicit some emotional response. Espeically when they are a foreign national accross the atlantic ocean and are not even part of the same country or culture or as your own. No, a troll like that is simply not worth talking to, nor is worth being heard. In this case, it's not that i have run out of arguments, it's simply that refuse to talk to him, nor give him the even the slightest amount of credibility. Any discourse is not worth my time, nor worth any amount of energy.


If it makes you feel any better, add me to your ignore list. I may have considered the same in your shoes.

[Cybermat47]

If it makes you feel any better, add me to your ignore list.

No. I'd just be going "What is he saying!?" all the time. :O:

Also, if it wasn't your intention to be rascist, why couldn't you just call him a troll? :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

No. I'd just be going "What is he saying!?" all the time. :O:

Also, if it wasn't your intention to be rascist, why couldn't you just call him a troll? :hmmm:

Because he got the emotional response he's been trying to get. :shifty: My response was A LOT cleaner then the one I wanted to make. It was a matter of finding a word that wasn't on the word filter that would have meaning to him.

[Tribesman]

You're pretty much saying "I've completey run out of arguments, but you come from a different country so anything I say is better than your arguments."
The beauty of it is that his last attempt at an arguement relied on the rather silly notion that an Irishman(and an Englishwoman since he added the UK I can use the wife as an example too) would not be people who go to theStates and partake in shooting.
It rather sums up the level of his arguements and the clear lack of thought he has when forming them.

There is no discussing ANYTHING with someone who's sole purpose is to troll, antagonize, or otherwise try to illicit some emotional response.
Trolling is not my purpose let alone sole purpose and you seem to be displaying an amazing ability at spouting very emotional responses all by yourself without any prodding.

In fact it can be said that both you and August with your silly spate of personal attacks, which by your own admissions can have nothing to do with my comments on this topic, are the ones who are trolling and only trolling.

Any discourse is not worth my time, nor worth any amount of energy.
Yet somehow you seem to seand a lot of time energy and "emotion" writing about me.
Methinks you are shooting down another of your own arguements again all by yourself.

As for insulting an entire country. Why the hell not? People do it to us all the time, both verbally, and physically, both on the internet and in the real world.
Oh dear, are you are having a meltdown?
Or is it just showing your true colours?

[Tribesman]

Because he got the emotional response he's been trying to get.
Errrrrr...the response I was trying to get was a coherent arguement about how in any way the announced "boycott" is not simply a meaningless publicity stunt.
But some people just get emotional over guns.