TypicalFish 0 #176 July 16, 2004 QuoteBecause the difference in your example is that we DO REGULARLY hear anti-gun activists say that they ARE trying to use incremental steps toward a gradual extinction of the right to keep and bear arms. Without a doubt, the same way that some people are unequivocally trying to ban same sex marriages with a constitutional amendment. It doesn't mean they can do it. The way you and others sound from these posts, it's almost as if you do not trust the pro-gun lobby to protect your interests. Quote And are you really asserting that guns/gun manufacture/gun ownership are NOT "HEAVILY regulated"?! Do you have any IDEA just HOW heavily regulated they are?! I never said they weren't. I will tell you, it is my own personal opinion that there should be more involved in legally obtaining a firearm than there is currently. At least to the level of what it takes to get a license to drive a car; maybe some sort of certified training, and you have to pass a test. What could be the harm in that, given that (at least in my opinion, anyways) most gun owners are genuinely responsible? Again, I think the really ironic part of all the hysteria involving "lost gun ownership rights" displayed in this thread is that its original intent had to do with the upcoming LIFTING of restrictions."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #177 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteRead the new proposals. No longer talking about paying an extra tax. All out ban on certain cars and even motorcycles. www.nhtsa. dot.gov/cars/ mles/CAFE/mlemaking.htm The key word is "some". Most opponents of any type of gun restriction say that it will lead to the banning of ALL guns. Why should we not take a large contingent of the anti-gun crowd at their word? They STATE that their ultimate goal is the prohibition of all gun ownership. Just because some portion of anti-gunners don't want total prohibition does not mean that those who do can't use the overall efforts of anti-gun activists toward that goal. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #178 July 16, 2004 Quote I believe that this is in large part due to the denial and refusal of the media and of single-minded anti-gunners to grant that guns can and do serve a useful, legitimate, often life-saving purpose. I agree completely. Quote Their adamant refusal to recognize this brands them as ignorant philistines and is a clear indication that they will not argue the issue in good faith. As opposed to an adamant refusal to discuss or even consider the fact that guns do have the potential to cause societal harm?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #179 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995 Well, I think there are extremists on both sides of ANY issue. Gun control, gay marriage, environmental issues, whatever. That doesn't mean that it is going to happen the way she wants. So that's an argument for ignoring them and their efforts toward total gun prohibition? Don't you think that if we did not stand in opposition to them, no matter how much of a longshot their goals are, that they might make headway and then we'd stand around going, "How the hell did that legislation get passed?!" You can't sit around and ignore your enemies just because at the current time they are not very powerful and don't hold that much sway. When you're not opposing them in order to preserve your rights, that's when their power will grow. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luv2Fall 0 #180 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteMy frustration is that there is never any real discourse as to the merits (if any) vs. liabilities (if any) related to the regulation of ownership of guns. I believe that this is in large part due to the denial and refusal of the media and of single-minded anti-gunners to grant that guns can and do serve a useful, legitimate, often life-saving purpose. Their adamant refusal to recognize this brands them as ignorant philistines and is a clear indication that they will not argue the issue in good faith. Guns are used legally millions of times more often than they are used illegally. That alone is a good defense of gun ownership. When was the last time Dianne Feinstein or Chuck Schumer mentioned someone who had saved their own life through the use of a gun? Shit, these two won't even acknowledge that their own secret service bodyguards use guns as a deterrent to those who would try to hurt them! - Rosie O'D, an outspoken anti, has her bodyguard(s) packing.........hypocritical............ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #181 July 16, 2004 QuoteYou can't sit around and ignore your enemies just because at the current time they are not very powerful and don't hold that much sway. When you're not opposing them in order to preserve your rights, that's when their power will grow.- Isn't that just inches away from Michael Moore's justification for distorting facts; "Well, they are extreme in their methods, so I will be too"? Edit: Speaking of, guess who's movie just came on HBO. It's gotten to the point that I can't stand his voice. That being said; Nichol's brother is a flippin' LOONEY TUNE...."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #182 July 16, 2004 QuoteBut, with the lifting of the ban, aren't we moving farther AWAY from what you consider your rights being infringed upon? Don't you have more of an ability to exercise that freedom? You are saying that "will not have another infringement on your rights"; but isn't that restriction being lifted even more as of September 13th? By that argument, the anti-gunners could be using the same "slippery slope" argument as the pro-gun lobby. I can hear it now; "The next thing you know, you'll be able to buy a Stinger missile at the hardware store..." Imagine if, for ten years, the government had refused to let you exercise part of your first amendment rights, say, they had enforced a law that prohibited groups of 10 or more people from gathering to discuss political topics. Then after 10 years go by, the law is found to have helped nothing, and it "sunsets." You are back to having what rights you should have had all during those ten years. You haven't "gained" anything; you've RE-gained something that had been wrongly denied you. There is so much RE-gaining to do, the anti-gunners would have to wait a while before pro-gunners ever started getting rights they didn't start out with in the first place. Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #183 July 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteBecause the difference in your example is that we DO REGULARLY hear anti-gun activists say that they ARE trying to use incremental steps toward a gradual extinction of the right to keep and bear arms. Without a doubt, the same way that some people are unequivocally trying to ban same sex marriages with a constitutional amendment. It doesn't mean they can do it. The way you and others sound from these posts, it's almost as if you do not trust the pro-gun lobby to protect your interests. Those who oppose something like same sex marriage have an all-or-none goal: either the legalization of it or the prohibition of it will result. Anti-gunners who avow that they want to eradicate gun rights can achieve a huge number of small, pernicious "victories" along the way. We will not see a law or bill that passes that says, "Civilians are prohibited from possessing any and all firearms." Of course not. But what we DO see, and ARE seeing, is the incremental erosion of this aspect of the right, and that aspect of the right, and in some place in this country the right IS severely infringed upon, almost to the point of being nonexistent. See New York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, IL for verification of this FACT. QuoteI never said they weren't. I will tell you, it is my own personal opinion that there should be more involved in legally obtaining a firearm than there is currently. At least to the level of what it takes to get a license to drive a car; maybe some sort of certified training, and you have to pass a test. What could be the harm in that, given that (at least in my opinion, anyways) most gun owners are genuinely responsible? The har m in that is that a government that takes upon itself the power to set up tests for qualifying to own a gun can make those tests irrationally and impossibly difficult to pass, if that government wants to discourage or in fact deny the exercise of the right to own guns. That's why we oppose it. The power to regulate IS the power to deny. QuoteAgain, I think the really ironic part of all the hysteria involving "lost gun ownership rights" displayed in this thread is that its original intent had to do with the upcoming LIFTING of restrictions. This same "lifting" of restrictions IS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED BY THE ANTI-GUNNERS, WHO HAVE BEEN FIGHTING TOOTH-AND-NAIL TO PREVENT IT FROM OCCURRING. They care so much about preventing it that they poisoned a widely supported unrelated bill in order to try to slip it through! The "hysteria," as you call it, in this thread is about the fact that we never should have lost that aspect of our rights (the "assault weapon") in the first place, and we are incensed that anti-gunners, who categorically cannot demonstrate any utility or good provided by the assault weapons ban, are still trying to keep us denied those rights. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #184 July 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteTheir adamant refusal to recognize this brands them as ignorant philistines and is a clear indication that they will not argue the issue in good faith. As opposed to an adamant refusal to discuss or even consider the fact that guns do have the potential to cause societal harm? Which pro-gunner or pro-gun organization has claimed this not to be true, or has carried on as though it doesn't happen? I say that all along, what we've done is state that the price of banning gun ownership is unquestionably higher than the price of allowing it, or even encouraging it. We have NOT evidenced an adamant refusal to discuss or consider the fact that guns can be USED to cause societal harm (note: your syntax implies that the guns cause the harm, but this is preposterous). In fact, pro-gunners often cite the harm done with guns (WITH, not BY) alongside the good that is done with them. Many times I have seen pro-gunners cite the 30,000 annual U.S. gun-related deaths (many of which are not criminal homicides but suicides which would happen with or without guns), alongside the estimates of 800,000 to 2,000,000 annual defensive gun uses. Now, can you tell me how citation of the gun death toll can be called a refusal to discuss the gun death toll? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #185 July 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou can't sit around and ignore your enemies just because at the current time they are not very powerful and don't hold that much sway. When you're not opposing them in order to preserve your rights, that's when their power will grow.- Isn't that just inches away from Michael Moore's justification for distorting facts; "Well, they are extreme in their methods, so I will be too"? How in the world did you get anything about a justification for distorting facts from what I said????? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #186 July 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou can't sit around and ignore your enemies just because at the current time they are not very powerful and don't hold that much sway. When you're not opposing them in order to preserve your rights, that's when their power will grow.- Isn't that just inches away from Michael Moore's justification for distorting facts; "Well, they are extreme in their methods, so I will be too"? How in the world did you get anything about a justification for distorting facts from what I said????? - You know, right after I posted that, I almost added "not that I am implying you are distorting facts". I meant it from the standpoint of responding to extremism with extremism. Oh, and as clarification to a previous post, your assumption about my syntax was incorrect; I agree with you that the PERSON is the responsible party, not the firearm."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #187 July 17, 2004 If I want to own an evil looking bullet hose with more thrusts per squeeze why should anyone care as long as I use it in a lawful and safe manner? If guns are being used by criminals, punish the criminals not me. Why should I pay his dues? Guns are just tools. No more no less. They are highly regulated. Far too much IMHO and if you dont think I have to jump through enough hoops to by a gun you're mistaken. People who think mere possession of a gun makes me more likely to commit a crime are transfering their own fears about themselves onto me and I take offense at that. You see, its all about power and control. The people who want to take away our guns want to do it because they know as long as we have them they cant have total control over us and that scares them. As it should. If you think its not about incremental prohibition and confiscation of all guns, just look at England and Australia. Australia is now banning swords. Soon it be illegal to pick up a rock. Thats what the second amendment is all about. Giving us the ability to take back control from those who govern us should they abuse that power. If you want to own a GSXR1100 go ahead. You have absolutely NO NEED for all that power and speed but hey, suit yourself, go nuts. All I ask is that grant me the same courtesy even though your poison is not in the BOR and mine is, thank you very much. Gun control doesnt work. 20,000 failed gun control laws prove that. Easier access to guns reduces crime as lower violent crime rates in shall issue states proves. Guns are used far more for peaceful and defensive purposes than they are used in crime but the media doesnt want you to know that. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY BULLET HOSE!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #188 July 17, 2004 Quote...an evil looking bullet hose with more thrusts per squeeze... KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY BULLET HOSE!!! Geez, I feel like I should go back to the "penis" analogy.... IT'S A JOKE, JEFFREY!!!!! "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #189 July 17, 2004 QuoteQuote...an evil looking bullet hose with more thrusts per squeeze... KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY BULLET HOSE!!! Geez, I feel like I should go back to the "penis" analogy.... IT'S A JOKE, JEFFREY!!!!! Those terms are taken from gun control websites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #190 July 17, 2004 I wouldn't doubt it. I just thought the phrasing was pretty funny."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #191 July 17, 2004 For every use of a gun in a crime I can state that had the victims been armed the crime may have been prevented. If you disarm everyone, we will all become victims. The fact that I have guns makes people around me safer because the criminals only know that some of us have guns but not who. 90% of inmates surveyed said they feared encountering an armed victim more than the police. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #192 July 17, 2004 You mean like this? (from a-human-right.com)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkiD_PL8 0 #193 July 17, 2004 QuoteI don't know what disposable income I'll have come September 13, when the "asault-weapons ban" expires, and all that "banned" stuff becomes legal to manufacture and sell and buy again, but I'm already workin' on a wish-list. I want an AR-10 (.308 cal) with all the doodads that my Match Target HBAR cannot have. I want a bunch of full-cap magazines for my Glock 27 (what do the 22s hold, fifteen or thirteen rounds?) and some of the very high cap 30-someodd rounders as well What do you plan to get that you can't legally get until the ban sunsets? And if you're anti-gun, keep outta this. I'm not looking for a thread hijack telling us why having this stuff is wrong or bad. Make your own thread if you wanna discuss that. Blue skies, -Just thought I would get the original idea of this hijacked thread onto page 8... I especially like how he asked politely that if anyone wanted to have gun/anti-gun debate again they start a thread for it. Greenie in training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #194 July 17, 2004 OK, so pre-hijack I told everyon I'm the proud new onwer of one of these babies. So now I need some accessories (holster, safe for when I move out in a few months, etc) So can anyone recommend a good holster? (I'm thining ankle will be more valuable to me than waist right now) Any good deals on safes going around? Anyone use speedloaders? Any other revolver suggestions that I'm not thinking of right now? (this is my first revolver, afterall)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #195 July 17, 2004 My first and only revolver right now is the .22 Tracker by Taurus. I love firing it at the range, since it's a .22 and I can buy a box of .22LR HP (550rds.) for under ten bucks and shoot for several hours with 7 rounds per loaded cylinder. The only problem is, there is a deficiency in the cylinder lockup, which I was noticing (I'm no revolver expert by a long shot) because my left hand was getting sprayed with gas and lead sometimes when I fired. The alignment of the chamber and forcing cone is sometimes off because of the cylinder problem, and because of this some material was getting shaved off as the lead bullets left the chamber for the barrel. Ugh. Brand new gun, too. Taurus has a lifetime warranty, and they're in Miami, so I've been intending to just drive down there some afternoon and drop off the gun rather than pay to have it shipped. Maybe I can even get a tour if there's anything to see? I recommend a .22LR revolver to anyone who wants to improve trigger control and shooting in general. One trick I tried out (could not remember if I'd read it somewhere or come up with it on my own) was to put only a couple of rounds into the cylinder, rotate it without watching, and fire. If you use proper trigger control, you should not flinch or see the muzzle move when the hammer drops -- even if it's on an empty chamber. You can get very surprised to find you're flinching really badly when you didn't know you did. You can also load all but one chamber and do the same thing. You're used to Fire Fire Fire and then Click. It's so easy to flinch! Gotta beat that instinct out of yourself. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #196 July 17, 2004 Yep. Didnt have to even click the link. Been there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #197 July 17, 2004 Jeffery. All revolvers do that but there may be an issue like you say, I dont know. I think you need to look at how you grip it. Be very carefull where you put your left hand when shooting a revolver, people have lost fingers shooting the SW .50. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #198 July 17, 2004 QuoteJeffery. All revolvers do that but there may be an issue like you say, I dont know. I think you need to look at how you grip it. Be very carefull where you put your left hand when shooting a revolver, people have lost fingers shooting the SW .50. EWWWW! That SUCKS! Oh, trust me, I don't grip anywhere near the cylinder. I have my dominant right hand on the grip, and I cup the left hand around the lower front of the right (index and middle finger over the pinkie and ring finger of the right hand) for stability. Nothing is near the cylinder. I was convinced that there's a mechanical deficiency when the range operator examined the gun, dry fired it, held the trigger down, and was able to wiggle the cylinder to another chamber! He said that is not good. The cylinder should remain locked until the trigger is released, according to him. In fact, on most of the chambers, it does. I have not yet identified whether there is a specific one that goes free. If there is, I will point it out to the warranty service people at Taurus. Maybe the cylinder simply is defective, not machined right, and needs replacement. I just have to get my butt down to Miami sometime (but I suppose I'll call first to verify that I can bring a gun in to them in person.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #199 July 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteI don't know what disposable income I'll have come September 13, when the "asault-weapons ban" expires, and all that "banned" stuff becomes legal to manufacture and sell and buy again, but I'm already workin' on a wish-list. I want an AR-10 (.308 cal) with all the doodads that my Match Target HBAR cannot have. I want a bunch of full-cap magazines for my Glock 27 (what do the 22s hold, fifteen or thirteen rounds?) and some of the very high cap 30-someodd rounders as well What do you plan to get that you can't legally get until the ban sunsets? And if you're anti-gun, keep outta this. I'm not looking for a thread hijack telling us why having this stuff is wrong or bad. Make your own thread if you wanna discuss that. Blue skies, -Just thought I would get the original idea of this hijacked thread onto page 8... I especially like how he asked politely that if anyone wanted to have gun/anti-gun debate again they start a thread for it. A sarcastic comment was made, and PEACEFULJEFFREY was participatory in hijacking his own thread. It was not some crazy left wing anti gun freak trying to stir s#$% up. Truth be told, I think it was good exchange; well thought out viewpoints on all sides."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #200 July 17, 2004 Though this could be considered "hijacking" the thread (as it was in reference to the AWB), what is the feeling of revolver vs. auto? Care to share your preferences and reasons for them?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
