Show off your Guns!

[MrJim]

Just got back from the range~fired the rifle for the first time.  It doesn't like the semi-wadcutters (wouldn't cycle) but 3 different kinds of jacketed round worked fine~got to get a better front sight on it.

I was there with a couple that had bought their first handguns and they had a terrific time, and they bought quality (SIG and S&W w/laser) and they had no problems and kept their shots in the zone...afterwards we had lunch and they were headed to the sheriff's office to apply for their carry licenses

[biro]

Well, certain posters on this thread have said very disrespectful things about the police before. Don't put words in my post that weren't there, and don't skim over what people say that is inconvenient for you.

I don't call the person next door when I'm in trouble. I call the police. If you don't like that, sorry- and start a petition to close all the departments and get all our tax money back. If the average Joe with a gun is the best person to defend you, why are you and I paying for a local PD at all?

People should be consistent.

[MrJim]

Because I carry my gun to protect me, not to protect you.

That says a lot.

Well, I don't have something against the cops; that seems to be the difference. My grandfather and many of my cousins were police officers for a number of years. I respect them.

I respect the law. I don't think it's necessary to repeal the Second Amendment. I do think it's necessary to have a well-regulated milita... which is only going by the Bill of Rights.

Not everyone who advocates gun ownership for protection has "something against cops". The reality is that police are mainly useful after a crime, to investigate and capture, or useful at preventing crime by patrolling often through neighborhoods. Unless the crime takes a long time to commit or happens to be happening at the exact time they pass by there is a certain physical impossibility in them stopping that crime. That's not disrespectful to police, unless acknowledging our police officers do not happen to get shipped here from an exploding alien planet and raised by a kindly couple in Kansas is some form of disrespect.

(As a disclaimer- I do have something against cops. Living in Chicago for a decade will do that. The police in Chicago manage to shoot more innocent people each year than gang-bangers- how messed up is that?)

When asked "why do you carry a gun" a fellow responded:  "Because a cop is too heavy to carry"

[primuspilus]

As was said before, the cops are good after or before the crime. usually the deed is done by the time the cops get there. Its nothing against them, but its fact.

PP

[biro]

I guess I'm outnumbered. Better go get lots of guns. Then people will like me.

Oh wait, I'm late for the puppy-kicking party.

[Justin Kissel]

I guess I'm outnumbered. Better go get lots of guns. Then people will like me.

Oh wait, I'm late for the puppy-kicking party.

They don't kick puppies today--that's Friday. Today is the day they put kittens in burlap bags and throw them in a lake. 

[primuspilus]

I guess I'm outnumbered. Better go get lots of guns. Then people will like me.

www.cheaperthandirt.com

Its a gun website...sorry for the naked link

PP

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I guess I'm outnumbered. Better go get lots of guns. Then people will like me.

Oh wait, I'm late for the puppy-kicking party.

They don't kick puppies today--that's Friday. Today is the day they put kittens in burlap bags and throw them in a lake. 

Are these folks choosing these days purposefully as commemorative for the Fasting days of Wednesday or Friday, or the opposite, intentionally sacrilegious

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Justin Kissel]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I guess I'm outnumbered. Better go get lots of guns. Then people will like me.

Oh wait, I'm late for the puppy-kicking party.

They don't kick puppies today--that's Friday. Today is the day they put kittens in burlap bags and throw them in a lake. 

Are these folks choosing these days purposefully as commemorative for the Fasting days of Wednesday or Friday, or the opposite, intentionally sacrilegious

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Another mystery of Orthodoxy!

[vamrat]

Well, certain posters on this thread have said very disrespectful things about the police before. Don't put words in my post that weren't there, and don't skim over what people say that is inconvenient for you.

I don't call the person next door when I'm in trouble. I call the police. If you don't like that, sorry- and start a petition to close all the departments and get all our tax money back. If the average Joe with a gun is the best person to defend you, why are you and I paying for a local PD at all?

People should be consistent.

I think you are exaggerating a bit.  This hyperbole isn't helping your argument, either.  I'm not sure what other posters have said about the police in other parts of the forum, but I know what has been said on this thread and you are not representing any of these posters accurately. 

No one has stated that all police departments should be closed.  They are only pointing out that you need to be responsible for your own safety.  The courts have stated that the Police are not there to protect you as an individual.  They are there to maintain public order.  For example, if you were to be a member of a protest the police would be there to make sure you did no harm to city property.  Now, if you happen to get murdered, raped, or robbed, you cannot sue the police for failing to stop it.  In Nebraska, in two of those instances you would be permitted to defend yourself with lethal force.  In the third instance if the attacker was armed you'd have a pretty good case as well. 

What it boils down to is, you pay taxes to maintain a police department because if you stopped paying taxes those very police would arrest you and dispossess you of your liberty and property.  The reason I spent the money to buy, learn how to use, and get a permit to carry a gun is so that I have some means of defense if, God forbid, it ever come to that. 

[primuspilus]

I think you are exaggerating a bit.  This hyperbole isn't helping your argument, either.  I'm not sure what other posters have said about the police in other parts of the forum, but I know what has been said on this thread and you are not representing any of these posters accurately. 

No one has stated that all police departments should be closed.  They are only pointing out that you need to be responsible for your own safety.  The courts have stated that the Police are not there to protect you as an individual.  They are there to maintain public order.  For example, if you were to be a member of a protest the police would be there to make sure you did no harm to city property.  Now, if you happen to get murdered, raped, or robbed, you cannot sue the police for failing to stop it.  In Nebraska, in two of those instances you would be permitted to defend yourself with lethal force.  In the third instance if the attacker was armed you'd have a pretty good case as well. 

What it boils down to is, you pay taxes to maintain a police department because if you stopped paying taxes those very police would arrest you and dispossess you of your liberty and property.  The reason I spent the money to buy, learn how to use, and get a permit to carry a gun is so that I have some means of defense if, God forbid, it ever come to that

Well stated Vam.

PP

[biro]

I fold. Can't butt my head against a wall forever. I guess sarcasm is only okay for some folks.

All you have to do to find the quotes about the police is look at the threads about guns. I won't name the posters now because I don't want to get banned. I may be close enough already.

Guess I'm not enough of a certain political stripe to fit in. Funny, I thought I had rights too. I was born and raised in the U.S. and I have worked and paid taxes since I was 16. Too bad it was all for naught.

[LizaSymonenko]

Biro, you won't get banned, you haven't even been warned, yet! 

Don't take it so personally.  Some people you can get along with and some you just can't....on this topic.

Tomorrow, you and they will be on the same side again, in defense of another topic.

Shake it off and move on.

Believe me, no matter what they have said, I am certain that they WOULD defend their neighbor if the neighbor needed to be defended - without a doubt!

They are all good people. 

[biro]

I am sure, Liza. Thank you.

[vamrat]

I fold. Can't butt my head against a wall forever. I guess sarcasm is only okay for some folks.

All you have to do to find the quotes about the police is look at the threads about guns. I won't name the posters now because I don't want to get banned. I may be close enough already.

Guess I'm not enough of a certain political stripe to fit in. Funny, I thought I had rights too. I was born and raised in the U.S. and I have worked and paid taxes since I was 16. Too bad it was all for naught.

When you butt heads with a wall, the wall usually wins!     The problem with sarcasm is that no one can hear the tone of your voice, only see the words you have written.  This is a serious matter to many folks so your words have been taken seriously.  Like Liza pointed out, you'll not get banned for disagreeing, and I'm sure (though I can only speak for myself) no one hates you over it.  But there are several of us who disagree with you.  The same right you have to voice your opinions gives us our right to debate your opinions through reasoned discourse.  Such is the nature of debate.  The reason that this issue is so heated for many on the other side of the aisle is that no one of us is threatening your rights in this matter.  In fact, we are arguing for your rights, regardless of whether you wish to exercise them or not.  This is not true for the other perspective.  Many people who express opinions similar to yours would like to see other people's rights revoked or restricted.  So if you think some of us are being very defensive about this issue...well, we are.

Hopefully this helps clear things up, and helps us understand one another.   

[biro]

Well, no. But thank you.

[NicholasMyra]

The early church only had access to polearms, spears, swords, clubs, maces, axes, bows/arrows, slings and basic siege weaponry. The innovations I've seen here disgust me.

[vamrat]

The early church only had access to polearms, spears, swords, clubs, maces, axes, bows/arrows, slings and basic siege weaponry. The innovations I've seen here disgust me.

They also didn't have flush toilets or motorized transport.  I personally don't like feces floating down the streets and I'll bet my Taurus gets better mileage than it's namesake.  I own a rapier, but the Glock is so much more practical.

[Punch]

I fold. Can't butt my head against a wall forever. I guess sarcasm is only okay for some folks.

All you have to do to find the quotes about the police is look at the threads about guns. I won't name the posters now because I don't want to get banned. I may be close enough already.

Guess I'm not enough of a certain political stripe to fit in. Funny, I thought I had rights too. I was born and raised in the U.S. and I have worked and paid taxes since I was 16. Too bad it was all for naught.

When you butt heads with a wall, the wall usually wins!     The problem with sarcasm is that no one can hear the tone of your voice, only see the words you have written.  This is a serious matter to many folks so your words have been taken seriously.  Like Liza pointed out, you'll not get banned for disagreeing, and I'm sure (though I can only speak for myself) no one hates you over it.  But there are several of us who disagree with you.  The same right you have to voice your opinions gives us our right to debate your opinions through reasoned discourse.  Such is the nature of debate.  The reason that this issue is so heated for many on the other side of the aisle is that no one of us is threatening your rights in this matter.  In fact, we are arguing for your rights, regardless of whether you wish to exercise them or not.  This is not true for the other perspective.  Many people who express opinions similar to yours would like to see other people's rights revoked or restricted.  So if you think some of us are being very defensive about this issue...well, we are.

Hopefully this helps clear things up, and helps us understand one another.   

Well put!

There are several things that really should be pointed out:

1) I do not like police.  That comes from living in a city where the police are of no use in preventing crime, and of only marginal use in solving crimes already committed.  Will I dial 911?  Sure, and I have.  The shortest response time EVER was around 5 minutes.  Activation of the panic alarm on my Security System took 20 minutes.  I don't use the Security System anymore, and I can solve most tactical problems that I may encounter in far less than 5 minutes.  In fact, if I have not solved them in 3 seconds, I am probably dead.

2) In spite of #1 above, I do not HATE police.  In fact, I happen to like Sheriffs Deputies and have had good contacts with the State Police (who issued me my CHP).  Also, in spite of #1 above, not all police fit in the category that I mentioned.  In fact, ALL of my trainers were policemen from the Omaha PD.

3) I do not dislike people that do not like guns.  I dislike people who think that I should not be allowed to have them because they dislike them.

4) I respect the well thought out opinions of those that have actually taken the time to study the issue of private ownership of firearms, and express their opinions based on this study.  Most who do an honest study of the facts will moderate their anti-gun position.  Also, most that do an HONEST study of the fact will also find themselves in favor of some forms of gun control, including rabid pro-2A people like me.

5) The hostility that I have displayed in some of my posts here do not come from people's opinions.  There was a thread for opinions.  My hostility is for those who trash a thread that was supposed to be for people who like guns to show off their guns.  Instead, we get people who do not see the rudeness in their actions, yet whine and complain that people treat them poorly for their rudeness.  Vamrat is correct about our defensiveness.  We gun owners do not kick your doors down and thrust guns into your hands.  Many of us, like me, actually prefer concealed carry so that being armed does not upset those who are more timid around me.  I regularly speak against open carry on gun forums, and am called some pretty nasty names because of it.  However, just like those who have trashed this thread, the anti-gunners have no trouble trying to force their "opinions" on those who specifically did not ask for them.  It speaks volumes to us as to what kind of people you are.  Just like you have ruined this thread, you would also ruin our rights if you were given the opportunity.

6) As to "Christian Duty" to defend someone: I will always stand up for the innocent.  I will not, however, put my life at risk for someone who intentionally and willfully puts themselves in a position of danger.  Some people CANNOT defend themselves, and if I am placed in a position to assist them, I will.  However, most people who are victims of a crime are intentional victims.  They are victims due to their own negligence and stupidity.  I feel no obligation to defend such a person.  As I said before, if your life is worth so little to you that you will not do what is necessary to defend it, why should I risk mine for yours?  I consider myself a productive member of society, and I have people both inside and outside of my family that depend on me for various things.  I stay alive for that reason.  Since you have nothing of value to live for, at least not of enough value for you to protect, why should I value you?  I am sorry if this upsets you.  If you were here, I would hand you a tissue.

7) There is another very valid reason that some of us will not come to your aid.  Who is the bad guy?  When I am being attacked, I KNOW who the bad guys is.  When I see a fight between you and someone else, all I know is that there are two people fighting.  I was involved in a situation once myself where all was not what it appeared.  A rather large man was carrying a younger girl out of a house over his shoulder while she was kicking and screaming to get away.  He thrust her rather roughly into a van and then proceeded to get in himself.  Nebraska State Law allows me to use deadly force to prevent a kidnapping.  If I were the Rambo that some think that gun owners are, I would have shot him dead on the spot.  Thankfully, I did what I was trained to do and took down all of the pertainant information.  I ran into a Deputy at a gas station a block down the road and told him what happened.  The man was the autistic girl's father, and he was taking her to some form of therapy that she really did not like.  This was a usual spectacle for that small town.  I had never seen it before.  Had I gotten out of my car and brandished a weapon, I would have been guilty of a Class III Felony.  Had I shot him, it would have been murder.  And no, I am not going to ask someone 20 questions if I think they are committing a crime.  That is a real good way to get killed, and I don't intend to get killed by curiosity.

Nobody has said NOT to call the police when they are in trouble.  If someone is kicking your door down, by all means call the police.  If you have an armed neighbor that you wish to call, go ahead and do so.  It is your life, call who you want.  If someone is kicking my door down, I will call the police, too . . . after I shoot them.  If I have enough warning, I will call the police and then shoot them (after the appropriate warnings for the situation).

[biro]

5) The hostility that I have displayed in some of my posts here do not come from people's opinions.  There was a thread for opinions.  My hostility is for those who trash a thread that was supposed to be for people who like guns to show off their guns.  Instead, we get people who do not see the rudeness in their actions, yet whine and complain that people treat them poorly for their rudeness.  Vamrat is correct about our defensiveness.  We gun owners do not kick your doors down and thrust guns into your hands.  Many of us, like me, actually prefer concealed carry so that being armed does not upset those who are more timid around me.  I regularly speak against open carry on gun forums, and am called some pretty nasty names because of it.  However, just like those who have trashed this thread, the anti-gunners have no trouble trying to force their "opinions" on those who specifically did not ask for them.  It speaks volumes to us as to what kind of people you are.  Just like you have ruined this thread, you would also ruin our rights if you were given the opportunity.

Again, totally wrong. Did you miss the part where I said I don't want to repeal the Second Amendment, I just want a well-regulated militia, like it says? Well, go back in the thread. It's there. I'm not going to do your research for you.

In the meantime, I guess I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on something just because of the topic of this thread. Now who's stifling someone's opinion?

Third time now: I never said I want to take away your guns. I just don't think I have to have lots of guns and constantly remind people of that fact in order to be doing the right thing in this country.

Keep on with your preferred daydream, though, I can see it makes you happy.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The early church only had access to polearms, spears, swords, clubs, maces, axes, bows/arrows, slings and basic siege weaponry. The innovations I've seen here disgust me.

  I own a rapier, but the Glock is so much more practical.

for what I might ask?

 When the Spanish came to the Americas, the Indians thought of them as cowards for killing men from a distance with firearms.  When the Turks brought these same weapons against the Ethiopians, they felt the same..

I sure wish I lived in the UK where there are knife fights, I'd take a knife fight (even a rapier perhaps) any day against a gun fight.  There have been 100 teenagers killed in the UK by violence since 2000.  There were well over 100 teenagers killed by gun violence in Los Angeles county ALONE just last year

How should we solve that problem, should teenagers start being issued carrying permits? (sarcasm by the way)

From my experience, perhaps we should arm them with something proven more effective



stay blessed,
habte selassie

[MrJim]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The early church only had access to polearms, spears, swords, clubs, maces, axes, bows/arrows, slings and basic siege weaponry. The innovations I've seen here disgust me.

  I own a rapier, but the Glock is so much more practical.

for what I might ask?

 When the Spanish came to the Americas, the Indians thought of them as cowards for killing men from a distance with firearms.  When the Turks brought these same weapons against the Ethiopians, they felt the same..

I sure wish I lived in the UK where there are knife fights, I'd take a knife fight (even a rapier perhaps) any day against a gun fight.  There have been 100 teenagers killed in the UK by violence since 2000.  There were well over 100 teenagers killed by gun violence in Los Angeles county ALONE just last year

How should we solve that problem, should teenagers start being issued carrying permits? (sarcasm by the way)

From my experience, perhaps we should arm them with something proven more effective



stay blessed,
habte selassie

We could try but I don't think we are going to be able to force conversion on gangbangers...you see, they are already breaking law when they engage in their shootings...but I agree we could be doing more in this area. 

[Marc1152]

However, I know a few people at work who own automatic and semi-automatics.  Unless you are a war veteran and that is "your" gun (do soldiers even get to keep their guns?), I don't see why you would need it.  Perhaps if you live in a land where "war" is constantly looming....but, in the U.S.?  Why would you need one?

What does the operating system have to do with need?  Do you have specific knowledge to back up your thoughts or are you just regurgitating what you have heard on TV?

What's with the attitude?  I was just asking a question.  When have you known me to simply regurgitate what I hear on TV?  I hardly even watch TV!

I have never claimed to be a firearms expert, however, from what little I think I know....rifles can be used for hunting animals for food, target practice, etc.  Semi and automatic weapons are geared for destruction of human life.

Am I wrong?

If I am not wrong, why would anyone in America (other than the armed forces and security personnel) need a weapon of that caliber?

I'm just asking....give me a polite answer.  I have enough people snipping at me at work, I don't need you giving me attitude, too.

Yes.  The bolt action Mauser rifle has probably killed more people in combat than any other.  If you study the Cuban revolution, you will see that Castro himself preferred the bolt action over the semi-auto.  People using a bolt action or single shot usually know how to hit what they shoot with one shot.  Even our military snipers use bolt action weapons in warfare (most of them).  If you want to reach out and touch your target, a semi-auto is not always the best weapon to use.  Of course, there are exceptions such as the excellent Dragunov rifle, and accurized M-14 Springfields (and M-1A rifles).

And caliber refers to the diameter of the bore, not the type of action.  Most hunting weapons are far larger than the current military weapons, which I would not use for hunting anything larger than dogs.  The older 7.62 Nato caliber weapons like my FAL are another matter.  Still not as powerful as a .300 Magnum, 416 Rigby or .500 Nitro Express.

As to semi-automatic hunting and target weapons, there are many.  Most purpose designed hunting semi-autos have NO military use or application.  The current BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) is a premium hunting arm that would not survive the rigors of war.  Remington also makes a semi-automatic hunting rifle.  Semi-automatic shotguns are extremely common both in the field and on trap and skeet ranges.  Semi-automatic pistols are the norm when it comes to competition of nearly any kind other than silhouette shooting.

Nearly all rifles used, and which are useful, for military application are selective fire - not semi-automatic.  The exception to this would be the remaining FAL rifles that were produced semi-auto only because experience with the selective fire ones showed them to be uncontrollable in full auto.  This has not always been true, but it is the current standard.

Are there weapons out there solely made for killing people?  You bet there are.  But, so what.  Most of us who own firearms also believe that it is our right to defend ourselves from predators, human and animal.  And those of us who believe in the Second Amendment of our Constitution consider any weapon suitable for police work to be suitable for self defense.  This brings in weapons such as the AR-15, AK-47 and AK-74 which are primarily designed to kill people.  However, even these are MOSTLY used, in the US at least, for sporting purposes.

I have a buddy who was in Vietnam. He said they were told never to put their M-16 on auto..Big waste.

[NicholasMyra]

When the Spanish came to the Americas, the Indians thought of them as cowards for killing men from a distance with firearms.

so?

[NicholasMyra]

The early church only had access to polearms, spears, swords, clubs, maces, axes, bows/arrows, slings and basic siege weaponry. The innovations I've seen here disgust me.

They also didn't have flush toilets or motorized transport.  I personally don't like feces floating down the streets and I'll bet my Taurus gets better mileage than it's namesake.  I own a rapier, but the Glock is so much more practical.

The rapier is made of steel. The early church could only afford iron weapons.

Abandon your heresy, go fashion yourself an adze out of a cast-iron pot handle.

[vamrat]

The early church only had access to polearms, spears, swords, clubs, maces, axes, bows/arrows, slings and basic siege weaponry. The innovations I've seen here disgust me.

They also didn't have flush toilets or motorized transport.  I personally don't like feces floating down the streets and I'll bet my Taurus gets better mileage than it's namesake.  I own a rapier, but the Glock is so much more practical.

The rapier is made of steel. The early church could only afford iron weapons.

Abandon your heresy, go fashion yourself an adze out of a cast-iron pot handle.

Why?  I already have plenty of superior weapons.  And if I turn my skillet into an adze, what am I going to cook my beans in during the fast?  My AK's receiver? 

[vamrat]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The early church only had access to polearms, spears, swords, clubs, maces, axes, bows/arrows, slings and basic siege weaponry. The innovations I've seen here disgust me.

  I own a rapier, but the Glock is so much more practical.

for what I might ask?

 When the Spanish came to the Americas, the Indians thought of them as cowards for killing men from a distance with firearms.  When the Turks brought these same weapons against the Ethiopians, they felt the same..

I sure wish I lived in the UK where there are knife fights, I'd take a knife fight (even a rapier perhaps) any day against a gun fight.  There have been 100 teenagers killed in the UK by violence since 2000.  There were well over 100 teenagers killed by gun violence in Los Angeles county ALONE just last year

How should we solve that problem, should teenagers start being issued carrying permits? (sarcasm by the way)

From my experience, perhaps we should arm them with something proven more effective

stay blessed,
habte selassie

One of these days you and I are going to have to have a nice long talk about the Spanish invasion of the Americas.  You seem to know a bit about it, and it's a fascinating subject.

As for this, what the Natives thought of the Spaniards and their guns was inconsequential in the long run.  From what I've read, the Indians thought the guns were only useful as noisemakers and many Spaniards in the New World agreed with them.  They were slow, inaccurate, and unreliable.  What gave the Indians real problems was the steel weapons and armour of the Spaniards.  The obsidian bladed sword-clubs couldn't penetrate the steel breast plates or helmets that many of the Spaniards had.  Conversely, their cotton padded armour could not stop the steel swords, pikes, and halberds that the Spaniards wielded.  (Interestingly enough, the steel armour was heavy and cumbersome, so many Spaniards ditched them for the Indian cotton armour which was more comfortable and ultimately did a good enough job at stopping the Indian weapons). 

And of course there was the small pox - best weapon in the Spanish arsenal.

As for the Ethiopians, they seemed to get over their dislike for firearms when fighting the Italians.  (Both times.)

As for knife fights, I'd just as soon not get stabbed.  That's why I prefer a weapon that lets me keep those who would do me harm at a distance.  And as I have stated before, I wear a cross and have an Icon of the Theotokos in my car.  Juts because I carry a gun doesn't mean I don't rely on God.  I've only had to pull the gun once, but the Lord has protected me every other one of the 10,000 days I've been alive.  And when it gets down to it, I think He was protecting me then too.

Think of it this way.  I trust in God to provide for me in all things.  I trust in God to provide for me food and water.  But I also work.  The fact that I work isn't that I don't trust in God, it's that I am not lazy and will provide for myself as best as I can.  Why then should I expect God to protect me from the attacks of the barbarians if I am not willing to do my utmost to avoid trouble and to stave it off if it comes to me?  Christ did not jump from the high place when the evil one tempted Him.  He did not test God.  I see no need to either.

[LizaSymonenko]

5) The hostility that I have displayed in some of my posts here do not come from people's opinions.  There was a thread for opinions.  My hostility is for those who trash a thread that was supposed to be for people who like guns to show off their guns.  Instead, we get people who do not see the rudeness in their actions, yet whine and complain that people treat them poorly for their rudeness.  Vamrat is correct about our defensiveness.  We gun owners do not kick your doors down and thrust guns into your hands. 

I'm sorry, Punch.  I didn't mean to add to the hijacking of the thread.  

I am all for private gun ownership, I was just curious why anyone would have a need for semi-automatic (automatic) guns.  One can defend themselves with a pistol, hunt with a regular rifle, etc.  It just seems that a gun that shoots an insane number of rounds in a second is overkill.  That's all.    ...and I am ONLY asking because of those "odd" folks I have at work who are always boasting of owning them.

[Punch]

Black power.  20 guage.  Howdah pistol made by Pertersoli in Italy.  I would actually like to get out and shoot it with round ball one day.  So far I have only shot it with buckshot, and with paper wadding for making noise on July 4th.

[Ansgar]

Black power.  20 guage.  Howdah pistol made by Pertersoli in Italy.  I would actually like to get out and shoot it with round ball one day.  So far I have only shot it with buckshot, and with paper wadding for making noise on July 4th.

Is it actually real? I have a copy of a similar pistol, but I didn't know they still made real ones?

[podkarpatska]

I think you are exaggerating a bit.  This hyperbole isn't helping your argument, either.  I'm not sure what other posters have said about the police in other parts of the forum, but I know what has been said on this thread and you are not representing any of these posters accurately.  

No one has stated that all police departments should be closed.  They are only pointing out that you need to be responsible for your own safety.  The courts have stated that the Police are not there to protect you as an individual.  They are there to maintain public order.  For example, if you were to be a member of a protest the police would be there to make sure you did no harm to city property.  Now, if you happen to get murdered, raped, or robbed, you cannot sue the police for failing to stop it.  In Nebraska, in two of those instances you would be permitted to defend yourself with lethal force.  In the third instance if the attacker was armed you'd have a pretty good case as well.  

What it boils down to is, you pay taxes to maintain a police department because if you stopped paying taxes those very police would arrest you and dispossess you of your liberty and property.  The reason I spent the money to buy, learn how to use, and get a permit to carry a gun is so that I have some means of defense if, God forbid, it ever come to that

Well stated Vam.

PP

I would argue that is not well stated it all - it belies a rather typical 'pop' culture induced lack of understanding of the ancient concepts of 'commonweal' and 'civitas'  bequeathed to us from Hellenic through Roman and on into Ango-Saxon law and civilization.

I suppose out of fairness this debate does come down to whether one places higher worth to 'individualism' or to 'community' in terms of being a more important cementing virtue to our culture or civilization. I will concede that one can not properly exist in the absence of the other, but the relative weight of each of these virtues is at the root of our current national debate.

If an American citizen feels the need to be armed, I usually don't have a problem with it - unless they have a criminal history or are mentally deficient or mentally ill.

However, for the life of me I have never, and I will never, understand the answer gun absolutists give in response to the question as to why then the state may require training and licenses to fish and hunt, and impose a further requirement for insurance in order to drive a car, be a doctor, be a lawyer, be an engineer etc....

Absolutists give me a problem whether they are from the NRA or NOW.

I will simply agree to disagree on the "absolutists' arguments relative to the gun issue rather than to argue the point 'ad infinitum'. After all this is a free country and we have to respect the ideas of those with whom we disagree (on most issues.)

[vamrat]

I think you are exaggerating a bit.  This hyperbole isn't helping your argument, either.  I'm not sure what other posters have said about the police in other parts of the forum, but I know what has been said on this thread and you are not representing any of these posters accurately.  

No one has stated that all police departments should be closed.  They are only pointing out that you need to be responsible for your own safety.  The courts have stated that the Police are not there to protect you as an individual.  They are there to maintain public order.  For example, if you were to be a member of a protest the police would be there to make sure you did no harm to city property.  Now, if you happen to get murdered, raped, or robbed, you cannot sue the police for failing to stop it.  In Nebraska, in two of those instances you would be permitted to defend yourself with lethal force.  In the third instance if the attacker was armed you'd have a pretty good case as well.  

What it boils down to is, you pay taxes to maintain a police department because if you stopped paying taxes those very police would arrest you and dispossess you of your liberty and property.  The reason I spent the money to buy, learn how to use, and get a permit to carry a gun is so that I have some means of defense if, God forbid, it ever come to that

Well stated Vam.

PP

I would argue that is not well stated it all - it belies a rather typical 'pop' culture induced lack of understanding of the ancient concepts of 'commonweal' and 'civitas'  bequeathed to us from Hellenic through Roman and on into Ango-Saxon law and civilization.

I have no idea where you are going with this, based on what I said above.  FWIW, my Major was in Ancient History, primarily Romans and Greeks.  I understand how the Romans and Greeks understood civic duty, etc.  I was basing my statements on the world as it is today.   Our culture owes a lot to the Romans and Greeks, but a lot has changed in 2000+ years.  We are different cultures.  But then again, I was basing my statements off of current society and current laws.

I suppose out of fairness this debate does come down to whether one places higher worth to 'individualism' or to 'community' in terms of being a more important cementing virtue to our culture or civilization. I will concede that one can not properly exist in the absence of the other, but the relative weight of each of these virtues is at the root of our current national debate.

If an American citizen feels the need to be armed, I usually don't have a problem with it - unless they have a criminal history or are mentally deficient or mentally ill.

I think we need to have both.  An individual should not endanger the community at large.  But in return I believe the community owes each individual member some benefits.  I do find the need to be armed.  The Military has proven itself capable of fighting.  This is proven by the fact that we have had no major enemy incursions into the US since Pancho Villa.  If stuff south of the border starts spilling over any more I think it will be time to discuss allowing civilians to form militias with access to light artillery (mortars) and close support weapons (RPGs and SAWs/LMGs).  As long as the US Government is willing to deploy the Army to the border if the feces hit the oscillating blades, then I will accept that Military (crew served) weapons will generally not be available to civilians.  

Now with the police, can you name a major city that less than 10 murders or rapes per year in the US?  (I still don't think 10 is an acceptable number, but you have to allow some room for misfortune.)  If so, then the Police either have failed at keeping the people safe, or it is not their intent to begin with.  I lean more towards the latter.  The Police are not there to protect you.  They are there to protect the public order - which does involve stopping crime if possible, or to clean up after it's already happened.  I think this is proven by the fact that if you are murdered, raped, robbed, or have a loved one kidnapped, you cannot sue the police for failing to prevent it.  The fact that they cannot is acknowledged by the State.  So, who has this responsibility?  I say you the individual are responsible for your own safety and for that of those that are close to you.  I believe that a personal firearm is the best way to achieve this.

However, for the life of me I have never, and I will never, understand the answer gun absolutists give in response to the question as to why then the state may require training and licenses to fish and hunt, and impose a further requirement for insurance in order to drive a car, be a doctor, be a lawyer, be an engineer etc....

I have no problem with their being licenses, and I believe that if you are going to carry a gun you should know how to use this.  I almost believe that the NE concealed carry course is a bit easy.  I achieved a perfect score in both accuracy and understanding of the State laws regarding firearms.  I believe that a much higher standard should have been place on operation of the weapon and accuracy.  I am not a trick shot, but I was able to get 100% accuracy with a 50 year old Czech pistol.

At the same time, I believe that these courses should be taught for a lower price so poor people or non-gun-enthusiasts have the ability to learn to defend themselves.  I am over 6' tall and am a rather well built, straight, white man.  Statistically, the likelihood of me becoming a victim is slim.  I think that more women and poor people should learn to defend themselves.

Though, perhaps, I may not fit your definition of an 'absolutist'.

Absolutists give me a problem whether they are from the NRA or NOW.

I will simply agree to disagree on the "absolutists' arguments relative to the gun issue rather than to argue the point 'ad infinitum'. After all this is a free country and we have to respect the ideas of those with whom we disagree (on most issues.)

Very well.  You respect my rights to voice my opinion and to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, and I will respect your rights to disagree with me and not own or carry a weapon.  Liberty in action.

[Punch]

Black power.  20 guage.  Howdah pistol made by Pertersoli in Italy.  I would actually like to get out and shoot it with round ball one day.  So far I have only shot it with buckshot, and with paper wadding for making noise on July 4th.

Is it actually real? I have a copy of a similar pistol, but I didn't know they still made real ones?

I am not sure what you mean by "real".  Mine is a fully functioning pistol and not a non-firing display piece.  Is that what you were asking? 

[Ansgar]

Black power.  20 guage.  Howdah pistol made by Pertersoli in Italy.  I would actually like to get out and shoot it with round ball one day.  So far I have only shot it with buckshot, and with paper wadding for making noise on July 4th.

Is it actually real? I have a copy of a similar pistol, but I didn't know they still made real ones?

I am not sure what you mean by "real".  Mine is a fully functioning pistol and not a non-firing display piece.  Is that what you were asking? 

Yes!

[theo philosopher]

More people die in the United States each year from heart disease than they do from firearms.

Shall we ban food?

The point being, we can't become pragmatists or consequentialists at the drop of the hat. What people miss is that the 2nd Amendment was put in place for the people to protect themselves against their government. Now, agree or disagree with armed rebellion, when we put the Founders in their Enlightenment context, we see that they believed a society to be justified in armed conflict against their own government given the proper circumstances. Thus the creation of the 2nd Amendment. This is why "well-armed militia" doesn't negate the private use of arms; and notice how this argument was never made by any of the Founders. That's because it was never in their mind to ban the private ownership of firearms.

Banning guns won't stop violence or curb the murder rate. Pointing to Japan or England's murder rates doesn't work because those are two totally different societies from America. If we could snap our fingers and remove guns overnight, our murder rates would remain relatively the same; rather than shooting one another, we'd just stab one another (reading murder reports one sees that almost daily people die from stab wounds or blunt force trauma every single day).

The problem is ultimately with the culture, not the weapon. The weapon doesn't aim itself and pull the trigger, rather the culture does that. The weapon is simply a tool.

Likewise, while I'm not a consequentialist, I would point out that since states have been allowing conceal carry laws to go through, the US crime rate has actually gone down. This shows a few things:

1) It's possible that by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, the crime rate actually goes down
2) That there's absolutely no correlation between gun control and violent

But let us assume that our crime rate is tied directly to our gun laws. The fact of the matter is that Pandora's Box has been opened and now criminals have guns. We can't stop them. That they now have them, do we really think that by creating laws criminals will somehow obey these laws? Remember, they are criminals because they break the law.

So even though one may have a problem with guns, we cannot become idealists, nor can we become consequentialists; rather, we must be realists when approaching this issue.

[sprtslvr1973]

As people have said the problem is ultimately with the heart and mind of a people, rather than with tools and methods. I have to say I find it hard to believe that as many Americans are murdered with knives and clubs as they are with guns. My biggest problem with guns is that all too often they escalate an incident from injury to death, and I believe often unnecessarily. If someone can share some verifiable statistics showing the equal death rate from weapons other than firearms, I would appreciate that.
My biggest problem with hardcore gun control, on the other hand has also been stated by others. Simply put, it does not work. In fact contraband based laws rarely work; the same is the case when the subject is soft core porn or small quantity of drug possession for personal use.

[alanscott]

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
         ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[Punch]

Geeez.  People just do not get it.  THIS IS A PICTURE THREAD.  There is another thread for arguing the merits of owning or not owning guns.  It is REALLY so hard for supposedly intelligent people to understand this, or have I erred in assuming that most people's IQ on this list at least reaches room temperature on a cold day?

[Punch]

5) The hostility that I have displayed in some of my posts here do not come from people's opinions.  There was a thread for opinions.  My hostility is for those who trash a thread that was supposed to be for people who like guns to show off their guns.  Instead, we get people who do not see the rudeness in their actions, yet whine and complain that people treat them poorly for their rudeness.  Vamrat is correct about our defensiveness.  We gun owners do not kick your doors down and thrust guns into your hands. 

I'm sorry, Punch.  I didn't mean to add to the hijacking of the thread.  

I am all for private gun ownership, I was just curious why anyone would have a need for semi-automatic (automatic) guns.  One can defend themselves with a pistol, hunt with a regular rifle, etc.  It just seems that a gun that shoots an insane number of rounds in a second is overkill.  That's all.    ...and I am ONLY asking because of those "odd" folks I have at work who are always boasting of owning them.

We are really not that far off in what we believe.  We can discuss it further on the other thread.

[alanscott]

Geeez.  People just do not get it.  THIS IS A PICTURE THREAD.  There is another thread for arguing the merits of owning or not owning guns.  It is REALLY so hard for supposedly intelligent people to understand this, or have I erred in assuming that most people's IQ on this list at least reaches room temperature on a cold day?

O.K. fair and valid point Punch. Everyone please excuse my contribution to defend the fundamental merits of the right to bear arms in the U.S.
Indeed it is veering off the OP topic.

Nor will I defend whether my IQ is above room temperature on a cold day. Not sure it's always above room temp on a summer day and I live in South Florida! 

[Gorazd]

In Europe, the murder rate is much lower (per year and 100 000 citizens - 0.85 in Denmark and 4.8 in the US).

At the same time, there is strict gun control, and hardly anyone owns one, except for hunting.

So where is the advantage of gun ownership, please?

And for those here who consider themselves to be Christian: If someone comes to kill or rape you, why don't you turn the other cheek?

[theo philosopher]

In Europe, the murder rate is much lower (per year and 100 000 citizens - 0.85 in Denmark and 4.8 in the US).

At the same time, there is strict gun control, and hardly anyone owns one, except for hunting.

So where is the advantage of gun ownership, please?

And for those here who consider themselves to be Christian: If someone comes to kill or rape you, why don't you turn the other cheek?

Two things:

1) As I pointed out, you can't draw a correlation between a low murder rate and gun control. As shown in the US, cities with high gun control have higher violent crime rates; cities with more lax gun control have lower violent crime rates. In other words, it's far more a cultural thing than it is an issue of weapons. Americans simply tend to be more violent than their European counterparts; it's always been that way and it's a part of the culture. It has nothing to do with guns.

2) Consider to be Christians? So one must allow rape? Really? Christians have a right to defend themselves.

[theo philosopher]

As for showing off our guns:

(I'm using pictures from the internet rather than taking pictures of my own weapons)

(Mine has a much, much, much better scope that costs nearly as much as the rifle itself)



(I have the 40 and it has less kick than my 9. Really the perfect handgun)

Then I have an assortment of shotguns (3, one pistol grip) and a 9mm. The first two are really just display weapons (though they can fire) and the last one is for personal defense around the house.

[vamrat]

Theo, if you took off the scope and sling and added the spike bayonet that SKS would look exactly like my Norinco.  One of my favorite rifles to shoot, even though I haven't shot it in years.

What type of M1 Carbine do you have?  Is it original or one of those Universal aberrations?  I have a high serial number Universal - basically it replaced the one weak recoil spring with two even weaker ones.  But it was cheap.  One of the best darn bolt actions I've ever fired!

[theo philosopher]

Theo, if you took off the scope and sling and added the spike bayonet that SKS would look exactly like my Norinco.  One of my favorite rifles to shoot, even though I haven't shot it in years.

What type of M1 Carbine do you have?  Is it original or one of those Universal aberrations?  I have a high serial number Universal - basically it replaced the one weak recoil spring with two even weaker ones.  But it was cheap.  One of the best darn bolt actions I've ever fired!

It's an original, used in service (same with the SKS). The M-1 needs some work done to it before I give it away. I originally got it for my father, but have held onto it for a while trying to find a gunsmith to work on it (more try to save up money for it). His dad's weapon in WWII was an M-1 Carbine and when my father went to Vietnam he trained on the M-1 (and then moved onto the M-14, and later M-16). So I made sure the one I purchased had been in use in WWII and I'm just waiting to get it restored.


And my SKS came with a bayonet, but I took it off (serves no purpose). I will say that surprisingly the SKS is one of the most accurate weapons I've ever fired.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Show off your Guns!