Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well, that's a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer.

I used to shoot in competition so I was trying to master the difficult task of disciplining my body in order to get the bullet to precisely the right location in a short period of time. Winning an award was a rare but pleasant goal.

I no longer shoot competitively, or to be more accurate, no longer in competition with others. I am in competition with myself (playing with myself?) and I try to improve my capability of controlling my body in this task.

I have never shot anyone, shot at anyone, or threatened anyone. in 30+ years of recreational shooting.

Okay, so you want your gun for recreational and competitive shooting. That's what we're all getting worked up about -- recreational and competitive shooting.

[Platapus]

All that I ask is that I, as a law abiding citizen, be allowed to participate in my chosen hobby and not be restricted because a small number of people are choosing to break the law (reference my sig).

[Takeda Shingen]

In that case, air-powered arms should suffice for those purposes. Therefore, there is no need for civilians to own firearms.

/thread

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

All that I ask is that I, as a law abiding citizen, be allowed to participate in my chosen hobby and not be restricted because a small number of people are choosing to break the law (reference my sig).

Thats another one of my issues. Nor you, nor I, nor millions of other gun owners had ANYTHING to do with Newtown. Why should we be made to suffer for it? On that note, Fienstiens original draft of her AWB was even more draconian then the one she submitted the other day. Photographing and fingerprinting everyone like we're criminals. So if people like her are to have their way, we and millions of others are to be made to suffer and be cataloged like a criminal for a crime we did not commit. That kinds pisses me off.

edit:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

In that case, air-powered arms should suffice for those purposes. Therefore, there is no need for civilians to own firearms.

/thread

The second amendment called and was disinclined to acquiesce your request.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I did not know that you were an Olympic shooter.

I didn't claim to be an Olympic "shooter".

You asked for non violent applications for firearms so I gave you three. BTW it's called a "Biathlon".

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The second amendment called and was disinclined to acquiesce your request.

Clearly. And because the logic holds that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership for the right of self protection, which has been argued ad naseum for six weeks.

The 'founding dudes' included the right to bear arms for numerous purposes; pirmary among them being the right to self-defense. The gun is a weapon. A weapon exists for the purpose of killing and inflicting bodily harm on another person or thing. And so the use of that weapon is practiced in order to ensure that it can be used properly if your life or liberty are threatened. One does not buy silverware for the intention of self-defense. You buy a gun for that purpose. You do not buy it to cook ham, do your laundry or remove hard water stains. It is an item of violence, and it's ownership is used as deterrent against violence by the threat of violence.

How can you (not you specifically, Ducimus -- you're the only one who said it was a weapon) state that the owning a gun is a necessity for the self-preservation of body and right, and then dance around the fact that it is a weapon, designed and practiced for self defense? Why adamantly proclaim that the government wants to take those guns and then shy away from the same fact? If the application of firearms is Olympic and recreational shooting, then clearly this is not an issue. It's not, though, is it?

Originally Posted by August

I didn't claim to be an Olympic "shooter".

You asked for non violent applications for firearms so I gave you three. BTW it's called a "Biathlon".

I'm aware of the biathlon, thank you. I wasn't aware that the IOC approved AR 15's for competition.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

In that case, air-powered arms should suffice for those purposes. Therefore, there is no need for civilians to own firearms.

/thread

Refer back to the discussion about rights depending on someones definition of need.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

Refer back to the discussion about rights depending on someones definition of need.

Read above for lols.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Clearly. And because the logic holds that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership for the right of self protection, which has been argued ad naseum for six weeks.

The 'founding dudes' included the right to bear arms for numerous purposes; pirmary among them being the right to self-defense. The gun is a weapon. A weapon exists for the purpose of killing and inflicting bodily harm on another person or thing. And so the use of that weapon is practiced in order to ensure that it can be used properly if your life or liberty are threatened. One does not buy silverware for the intention of self-defense. You buy a gun for that purpose. You do not buy it to cook ham, do your laundry or remove hard water stains. It is an item of violence, and it's ownership is used as deterrent against violence by the threat of violence.

How can you (not you specifically, Ducimus -- you're the only one who said it was a weapon) state that the owning a gun is a necessity for the self-preservation of body and right, and then dance around the fact that it is a weapon, designed and practiced for self defense? Why adamantly proclaim that the government wants to take those guns and then shy away from the same fact? If the application of firearms is Olympic and recreational shooting, then clearly this is not an issue. It's not, though, is it?

People learn to use weapons correctly with recreational use, target shooting, etc.. I love to skeet shoot, it's fun, but it teaches me how to aim. Very few people use their gun as a weapon, but partake of numerous recreational activities to learn how to correctly use a weapon if the case should arrive.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Armistead

People learn to use weapons correctly with recreational use, target shooting, etc.. I love to skeet shoot, it's fun, but it teaches me how to aim. Very few people use their gun as a weapon, but partake of numerous recreational activities to learn how to correctly use a weapon if the case should arrive.

And I don't walk around executing the nikyo on people, but that doesn't change the fact that the martial arts exist for unarmed combat. For the life of me, I can't understand why you guys are shying away from this. There's no trap here. I don't support an assault weapons ban.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'm aware of the biathlon, thank you. I wasn't aware that the IOC approved AR 15's for competition.

Y'know for a guy who likes to slam others for trolling you sure don't hesitate to play the part yourself.

You asked for non violent uses for FIREARMS, not AR 15's and what my standing is with the IOC has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

Y'know for a guy who likes to slam others for trolling you sure don't hesitate to play the part yourself.

You asked for non violent uses for FIREARMS, not AR 15's and what my standing is with the IOC has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

It has everything to do with it. Your whole argument about this thing is based on your right to defend yourself. You even chastised me for not owning a firearm; calling me a 'victim' and 'helpless'. So, when somebody says that the application of the firearm is to inflict bodily harm you dance around the issue with this whole a weapon is only a weapon if you use it as a weapon nonsense. And when confronted with this, you quote selectively and deliberately obscure the point. If anyone is trolling here, it is you, August, because you know exactly what I mean and continue to avoid it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You even chastised me for not owning a firearm; calling me a 'victim' and 'helpless'.

Link?

So, when somebody says that the application of the firearm is to inflict bodily harm you dance around the issue with this whole a weapon is only a weapon if you use it as a weapon nonsense. And when confronted with this, you quote selectively and deliberately obscure the point. If anyone is trolling here, it is you, August, because you know exactly what I mean and continue to avoid it.

Sounds to me like you are confusing me for someone else which is understandable seeing as how you're talking to so many people at once.

The bottom line here is you asked a simple question and I gave you three simple answers. Apparently you didn't like them so you cherry pick one of the three items (is that called quoting selectively?) I listed and then continually attempt to narrow and redefine it. Won't wash.

If you got something to say then go ahead and say it and stop expecting others to do your work for you.

[Stealhead]

The most important weapon is the one in your head without that I do not care if you have a gun a sword or a phaser you are useless if you cant use the weapon in your head.Even a cherry picker can become a weapon a cumbersome one.

Anything can be a weapon but certain things like many firearms are designed to be a weapon to say otherwise is in a falsehood.Yes firearms can be used for many other purposes but many where designed as weapons first and foremost.I have no problem saying this because it is true but many firearms are not designed as a weapon.

i feel that there a some serious differences between shooting at a target and shooting game (though skeet shooting is much like hunting fowl) and actual "combat" shooting.Sure target shooting can teach the fundamentals but its not enough alone to prepare a person for a combat situation or a defensive situation.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

Link?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...2&postcount=75

The nuts target me. I am weak because I do not own or carry a firearm. You did not use the two words that I quoted, and for that you have my sincere apology, but your intent was the same. I cannot remember the full details of all of your insults. You issue so very many of them. However, this one does dovetail into the discussion nicely.

Sounds to me like you are confusing me for someone else which is understandable seeing as how you're talking to so many people at once.

The bottom line here is you asked a simple question and I gave you three simple answers. Apparently you didn't like them so you cherry pick one of the three items (is that called quoting selectively?) I listed and then continually attempt to narrow and redefine it. Won't wash.

If you got something to say then go ahead and say it and stop expecting others to do your work for you.

And yet, if the issue is biathlon shooting, why is there an AR 15 in your signature? I can hold your hand through this argument all you want, but I cannot open your eyes for you, nor can I make you drop the fallacious arguments. You gave a narrow answer to my posts because you saw that acknowledging the entirety of it would lead to an obvious conclusion, and you didn't like it.

Ultimately, it's my fault for responding to it in the first place. I knew what you were trying to do, but I bit anyway. I should have let it go and continued to respond to others, saving the forum from being subjected to this silliness, but evidently I've still got a lot to learn.......

Apologies to the other members. Let's get back to it.