"If" this story is true then they are up to something. I can somewhat understand them using folk's homes in case the storm has wiped out headquarters, but what the heck does grabbing guns do to help?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/05/virgin-islands-allows-national-guard-to-seize-guns-ammo-ahead-of-hurricane-irma/
... makes it less of a problem when the Vandel Family get to playing
"Robin Hood an' 's merry band of men [1]".in the aftermath of destructive
weather events.
Bill
--
[1] loose use
The time you are MOST likely to need to defend your family and your property and they want to disarm you...
The same thing happened after Katrina. That really raised a big stink.
Jim
Quote from: sawdstmakr on September 07, 2017, 04:33:42 PM
The same thing happened after Katrina. That really raised a big stink.
Jim
The people that suffer the most are the ones that can't afford structures that withstand hurricanes. So although they don't have much they lose everything. When a human being has nothing more to lose they sometimes resort to stealing. The stealing is not a huge problem the guns are because police and rescue personal get in their way. And secondly guns and amo get left behind for criminals to pick up. What would be a good system is to turn in your guns and amo to a safe place so they could be returned undamaged. I suppose the resistance to do this is that the guns would be registered to who owned them. Some people don't like that.
The police and rescue crews get in the way of people stealing?!!!!
What on Gods green earth are you talking about?
They get in "arms" way. The people that are stealing have arms and they shoot law enforcement and the people trying to help other people. If they didn't have arms there would be no problem.
"If" I had guns/ammo :wink: it would all go with me when I evacuate and it all comes back with me when I return. "You loot, we shoot."
That might be the worst idea. If you got swept of the road and died it would all be for the taking. Now if you said you had a safe where it would all be locked up it would be better to leave them. Although, they could get damaged depending on where the safe is.
Ace, you just don't understand us gun owners. Leaving it home would be like leaving our jack and lug wrench at home. In the case of needing them, we wouldn't have the tools to work with. To us, guns aren't monsters hiding in dark spaces ready to jump out and attack someone. They are just another tool in our tool box for when needed.
Quote from: iddee on September 08, 2017, 08:34:24 AM
They are just another tool in our tool box for when needed.
I know a whole lot of people that have tool boxes just full of tools and have no idea how to use them. It is my experience that those that have the most tools are the ones that know the least about using them. I don't expect it is any different with guns. And that is the part that you don't understand.
Brian,
Most Gun owners that have a lot of guns know how to use them.
Jim
Meaning they know how to pull the trigger?
Ace most people who use the first amendment shouldn't either, but I wouldn't advocate taking it away.
Until you lefties finally abolish the second amendment, your stuck with all us "irresponsibile" gun "slinger".
Brian,
Never forget that it is the second amendment that protects all of the other rights. When You take it away, the others will follow.
Jim
Quote from: sawdstmakr on September 08, 2017, 02:07:15 PM
Brian,
Never forget that it is the second amendment that protects all of the other rights. When You take it away, the others will follow.
Jim
Jim, I am not advocating taking your guns away. I am suggesting that law enforcement or some other trust worthy entity could secure your guns for you if you don't have a way to do it when a cat 5 hurricane is blowing through.
Quote from: Acebird on September 08, 2017, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: sawdstmakr on September 08, 2017, 02:07:15 PM
Brian,
Never forget that it is the second amendment that protects all of the other rights. When You take it away, the others will follow.
Jim
Jim, I am not advocating taking your guns away. I am suggesting that law enforcement or some other trust worthy entity could secure your guns for you if you don't have a way to do it when a cat 5 hurricane is blowing through.
No thanks.
Ace,
I gotta admit, your position on this has me scratching my head. :smile:
Herb, I don't have a position. I am not in the way of Irma and I don't have a stash of guns. If I did I would have no fear that someone is out to take them away from me no more than I have a fear that someone is going to empty my tool box. The tools are so old only a real craftsman would know how to use them. A real craftsman would not want anybody else's tools so I am OK.
"" if you don't have a way to do it when a cat 5 hurricane is blowing through.""
All but one are in a very expensive and secure safe bolted to the floor.
The one is in my left front pocket. If it becomes unsecure, I probably won't need it anymore anyway.
Not a weapons owner no longer - trained and blooded tho' - it seems to me
the US struggles with weapon carrying through very localised situations and
the belief having a weapon handy is "safer". Not familiar with either as good
reason I butt in to put maybe AB is playing on both?
Another version of - for those that "get it";
"This is my rifle, this is my gun
This is for fighting, this is for fun"
Perhaps AB is bent on prolonging the proverbial screw... as a diversion built
from personal concerns in these worrying times, locally?
Bill
I wouldn't own a gun if I needed someone else to handle it for me. I wouldn't trust the gooberment with my dirty socks. I sure wouldn't ask them to look after my valuables until the storm passes. My thinking is this..... Your only going to disarm the honest man. (Or maybe turn an honest man into a dishonest man when you ask for his weapons) everyone in my family has a gun (or a bunch of them) in there house. Everyone in my family is also responsible with them, doesn't have them laying all over the place so that they become a Hazzard, and knows good and well how to handle them. A gun is like a parachute, you better not get your butt into a position where you are wishing you had one. Or guess what......you ain't nothing but a memory, and a stone with your name chiseled in it. I'm not one of these cold dead hands kind of guys, but the nut jobs in the media, and the Looney toons that support the nonsense that spews from the television all day long have a lot to learn.
Quote from: Psparr on September 08, 2017, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Acebird on September 08, 2017, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: sawdstmakr on September 08, 2017, 02:07:15 PM
Brian,
Never forget that it is the second amendment that protects all of the other rights. When You take it away, the others will follow.
Jim
Jim, I am not advocating taking your guns away. I am suggesting that law enforcement or some other trust worthy entity could secure your guns for you if you don't have a way to do it when a cat 5 hurricane is blowing through.
No thanks.
Exactly, noooo thanks.
Jim
Quote from: Fishing-Nut on September 09, 2017, 11:03:07 PM
I wouldn't own a gun if I needed someone else to handle it for me. I wouldn't trust the gooberment with my dirty socks. I sure wouldn't ask them to look after my valuables until the storm passes. My thinking is this..... Your only going to disarm the honest man. (Or maybe turn an honest man into a dishonest man when you ask for his weapons) everyone in my family has a gun (or a bunch of them) in there house. Everyone in my family is also responsible with them, doesn't have them laying all over the place so that they become a Hazzard, and knows good and well how to handle them. A gun is like a parachute, you better not get your butt into a position where you are wishing you had one. Or guess what......you ain't nothing but a memory, and a stone with your name chiseled in it. I'm not one of these cold dead hands kind of guys, but the nut jobs in the media, and the Looney toons that support the nonsense that spews from the television all day long have a lot to learn.
Well said.
Jim
Quote from: Fishing-Nut on September 09, 2017, 11:03:07 PM
My thinking is this..... Your only going to disarm the honest man.
The problem is with the word "only" it could very well arm the dishonest. You have to ask yourself, are your valuables worth your life? The last big hurricane that came through Miami flattened every house. If you didn't leave you were either dead of very lucky. No gun is going to save your valuables. But if your guns are part of the wreckage then that is likely to put more of them in the hands of criminals. If you are in an area that doesn't get hit hard and you are staying with your guns then that is a completely different scenario. The Virgin Islands got decimated partly because their structures are not hurricane resistant. Do you think the people in the Virgin Islands have their guns in a 2000 dollar safe. Some of their houses aren't worth 2000.
If my house was worth less than 2000 dollars. I likely couldn't afford a gun unless I stole it. Maybe your scenario would disarm more criminals, rather than arm them.
I will mostly agree with you that if I was in an area that my home could potentially get leveled, and everything I owned got scattered across the state for just anyone to pick up and use however they choose, then yes, take the guns with you when you leave. Guns dont take up that much room. Even 50 of them. But for the government to come in and make my decisions for me, is not something I want to participate in. The criminals that will use a weapon to commit a crime will always have, or have access to a weapon. Whether we like it or not. To take away mine just makes me a sheep amongst the wolves. No thanks. I'll walk around and eat grass going baa baa all day long, but turning me into lamb chops would be a tough job.
Quote from: Fishing-Nut on September 10, 2017, 11:33:53 AM
But for the government to come in and make my decisions for me, is not something I want to participate in.
Again that is not something I am suggesting.
Quote from: iddee on September 10, 2017, 10:38:50 AM
If my house was worth less than 2000 dollars. I likely couldn't afford a gun unless I stole it.
I don't think that is the case in this country. I had a double barreled shot gun at the age of 15. No way could I afford a 2000 dollar house.
So how much was your house worth?
If you didn't own one, it doesn't fit into the conversation.
Quote from: iddee on September 10, 2017, 01:49:38 PM
So how much was your house worth?
If you didn't own one, it doesn't fit into the conversation.
Iddee have you ever seen poverty? Does the second amendment give you the right to have a gun if you are poor? What makes you think the poor don't have guns unless they stole it?
We owned guns when I was a kid. My father paid 1000 dollars for a house and land. No running water, no doorknobs, only 2 nails and a shoe string.
No glass in the upstairs windows. No over night heat. Wood cookstove.
Groceries at the store was 100 lb. flour and 60 lb. lard. The rest came from the garden, barnyard, woods and river.
No, Ace, I've never known poverty.
Quote from: iddee on September 10, 2017, 05:56:36 PM
We owned guns when I was a kid.
Did you steal them? Why then would you think the way you do?
Because my guns didn't average 25% of the price of the house. Average gun today is around 500 dollars. NOT ALL, just average.
At that time, a 1000 dollars would buy close to 100 guns.
My first was considered high dollar. I paid 15.00 for it.
A single shot .32 rifle, breech type, with octagon barrel.
What would a 2000 dollar house and lot on today's market be like?
Ace..... correct me if I'm wrong, (because I very well could be) but I think I have seen you refer to some weapons as "war machines" on here. What makes you say that? I am honestly just asking, and not trying to fuss with anybody. Even though I do enjoy a good conversation with differing opinions. (I don't own a weapon that would be referred to as a war machine)
Quote from: Fishing-Nut on September 11, 2017, 01:30:35 PM
Ace..... correct me if I'm wrong, (because I very well could be) but I think I have seen you refer to some weapons as "war machines" on here. What makes you say that?
Because they were designed with specific needs for the military. They really don't have any advantage for protecting one's belongings. I have been told they are "fun" to shoot. Should manufacturers make dangerous weapons that coddle the fun gene?
Quote from: iddee on September 10, 2017, 08:13:20 PM
What would a 2000 dollar house and lot on today's market be like?
Usually it is a house in poor shape that has been taken by the city for taxes. Typically they end up being rentals because of the area they are in. When I made the remark about $2000 house I was referring to the Virgin Islands.
Quote from: Acebird on September 11, 2017, 01:48:33 PM
Quote from: Fishing-Nut on September 11, 2017, 01:30:35 PM
Ace..... correct me if I'm wrong, (because I very well could be) but I think I have seen you refer to some weapons as "war machines" on here. What makes you say that?
Because they were designed with specific needs for the military. They really don't have any advantage for protecting one's belongings. I have been told they are "fun" to shoot. Should manufacturers make dangerous weapons that coddle the fun gene?
Sure. It's covered by the second amendment.
Now if you didn't want certain flavors of ice cream manufactured, you may find some legal ground. See ice cream isn't covered by an amendment.
Ar15 (223) can be had in a single shot rifle. My buddy's kid hunts with one. Same with an ar10 (308) , very common hunting rifle for both youth and adults. What makes them "specifically" for the military? Because of the picatinny rails? The capability to mount attachments to the weapon? Or is it the looks of the gun? I will agree that it's an intimidating looking weapon. And also keep in mind that I don't agree with someone carrying one across there chest through town just because it's there "right". Some things are just dumb, and abusive to a situation. But there are lots of common, practical uses for them. Keep in mind that I don't own one, or care to for that matter. But I know guys that use them for coyote control, and crop damage control for night hunting feral hogs. The fun to shoot part is just a bonus, but in my opinion it's still plenty of reason for a gun guy to own one if he so chooses, and can legally do so. Here's a little food for thought.....I would bet my Boots that a 12 gauge shotgun loaded up with 00 buck would do more damage in a nut cases hand than a scary looking 223 rifle. If your not familiar with coyote hunting or hog hunting, there is more times than not, a very necessary need for quick follow-up shots. With a bolt action rifle it takes to long to be on target and ready for another shot, especially when the animals are scattering. As far as protecting ones belongings....... If my wife woke me up in the middle of the night and said honey a vehicle just pulled in and 2 masked men got out with guns in there hands. In the closet is a single shot 22 , and an ar15.......guess which one I'm about to "protect my belongings" with..... again I don't own that style rifle. But if I did that would be the scenario
Sawdust and idee......I'm really just making up for my bad Indian joke. I really am anti gun, voted for Obama, and then Hillary.... :wink: And Ace. I'm really not bickering I am honestly enjoy the "conversation". And I respect a fella like you that is voicing his opinion, even though the majority of us (at least in this conversation) have a different opinion than yours. I can honestly appreciate something like that.
>The problem is with the word "only" it could very well arm the dishonest.
You think dishonest people aren't armed?
> You have to ask yourself, are your valuables worth your life?
Well... I spent my life earning them, so they represent what part of my life I could accumulate.
>The last big hurricane that came through Miami flattened every house. If you didn't leave you were either dead of very lucky. No gun is going to save your valuables.
From looters?
> But if your guns are part of the wreckage then that is likely to put more of them in the hands of criminals.
I don't understand. I don't think there are so many criminals that they are likely going through the wreckage looking for guns.
> If you are in an area that doesn't get hit hard and you are staying with your guns then that is a completely different scenario. The Virgin Islands got decimated partly because their structures are not hurricane resistant. Do you think the people in the Virgin Islands have their guns in a 2000 dollar safe. Some of their houses aren't worth 2000.
You would be hard pressed to find a house in VI that isn't worth more than $40,000... I've priced them.
>Because they were designed with specific needs for the military. They really don't have any advantage for protecting one's belongings. I have been told they are "fun" to shoot. Should manufacturers make dangerous weapons that coddle the fun gene?
The AR15 is the most popular gun in the US because it's modular and you can interchange parts and calibers and magazines. Personally I don't find them appealing, but the reasons they are popular aren't because they are any more fun than a bolt action or a single shot or a muzzle loader. If I were to try to buy a bolt action rifle or a single shot with interchangeable barrels in several calibers it would probably run me $10,000. I could do the same with a AR15 and have a plinking gun, a deer rifle and a big game rifle for probably $3,000 or so and all of the ammo would fit the same magazine and the barrels would all fit the same gun. If I could just resign myself to a semi auto, ugly, plastic rifle, I could save a lot of money... Also an AR15 is light and handy. Good qualities when you have to haul it miles and miles over rough terrain. The only guns I ever shot that were NOT fun were not fun because they were painful to shoot.
Quote from: Fishing-Nut on September 11, 2017, 02:27:55 PM
Ar15 (223) can be had in a single shot rifle. My buddy's kid hunts with one. Same with an ar10 (308) , very common hunting rifle for both youth and adults.
But now it is not military issue. I would assume it does not accept a clip with 50 rounds in it. I would assume it is not capable of shooting rounds that rip through steel or travel miles. The intimidation doesn't really mean much because 50 cops coming after you will not be intimidated. But if the gun is capable of spraying 50 rounds in a densely populated area like a school or an auditorium the intimidation is unacceptable. I think this type of a weapon needs to be registered and the person licensed to operate it. Second amendment or no second amendment. You have to get a license to fish or hunt don't you? Does that make you feel your rights are violated?
The second amendment does not give you the right to own a gun if you are a criminal or a psycho. So prove you are not a criminal or a psycho to have these type of guns. Why is that unreasonable?
This is why disarming the citizen is totally wrong.
St.Thomas resident Mike Laplac on Monday said that looters are robbing residents using machetes and guns in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma pummeling the Caribbean island.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/09/11/irma-looters-armed-with-machetes-in-u-s-virgin-islands.html
Fishing and hunting are NOT in the constitution. Therefore left to the states. Ace your making this too easy.
The intimidating factor is in my opinion, the reason why anyone would want to place more control laws on guns. People who don't know guns. Like yourself, who's only ammunition is assumptions. You see, no sir, my buddy's kids rifle will not accept a "clip" (magazine) that will hold 50 rounds. But it will send that projectile down range for miles if it goes unobstructed, and it will accept rounds that will "rip through steel", as will any other high caliber rifle. On the other hand, the good people that I know who use there "military" weapons as hunting tools, well, there's will accept the large capacity magazines, I've never seen one for 50 rounds, just 30. Although I'm sure they have them. As I stated in my previous post, they are necessary for what they are being used for. As far as comparing this to hunting and fishing, well that's like comparing oil and water......but I'll give my opinion on it anyway. In a very very small way I do feel like my rights are violated in order to be forced to purchase a hunting and fishing license. Although, we are still protected with the right to forage and gather food. On the other hand, I support and fully understand what the department of natural resources does for the state of Georgia, through stocking programs, wildlife management, conservation and so on. Some of my license cost goes to those guys and funds the programs that make it possible for me to enjoy the woods and water as much as I do.
Quote from: Acebird on September 11, 2017, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: Fishing-Nut on September 11, 2017, 02:27:55 PM
Ar15 (223) can be had in a single shot rifle.
The second amendment does not give you the right to own a gun if you are a criminal or a psycho. So prove you are not a criminal or a psycho to have these type of guns. Why is that unreasonable?
Ace,
Can you prove you are not a criminal or a psycho -- or a pervert? How does one prove a negative, my friend! An allegation must be proven, not the reverse. That's the way our legal system is (supposed to) work(s).
Our hero Obama changed that to some degree, particularly on college campuses, where the allegation of sexual misconduct was tantamount to conviction. The accused had no rights and the accuser could not be questioned. I'm a lawyer by training and this garbage stinks. Faculty on university campuses became the judges and jurors. Why were these cases not turned over to the local police and courts, where due process applied. I don't buy in to everything Trump is doing, but that's being corrected now, at least.
I have prosectuted more rape cases than you nan imagine, some so horrific they kept me awake at night. But I have also defended allegations of rape based on a desire to skew divorce case property decisions by the court, or by malice. And I don't recall losing one, including my last one, in which the judge told the prosecutor he had to prove the elements of the crime and, in the judge's words, " you haven't proven a Gxx daxxx thing".
When you are able to prove a nagative, come talk to me.
Dallas
QuoteOur hero Obama changed that to some degree, particularly on college campuses, where the allegation of sexual misconduct was tantamount to conviction. The accused had no rights and the accuser could not be questioned. I'm a lawyer by training and this garbage stinks. Faculty on university campuses became the judges and jurors. Why were these cases not turned over to the local police and courts, where due process applied. I don't buy in to everything Trump is doing, but that's being corrected now, at least.
But the trump administration has reinstated seisure laws where your stuff can be taken buy police as judge and jury with not court or defence involved. Obama had stoped that practice. How about laws that want to take your house because you rented it to some one and did not kick them out on just allegations that they were doing wrong making a private citizen into doing the polices job. For every one good thing that any of the do they do two bad things. In principle the siezure thing is the same as the rule change on campuses.
Cheers
gww
Quote from: Michael Bush on September 11, 2017, 04:00:38 PM
The AR15 is the most popular gun in the US because it's modular and you can interchange parts and calibers and magazines.
You have the viewpoint of an old person. If you ask a young person either in the military or recently out of the military they will tell you "it is fun to shoot". It resembles a violent video game. If what you said was true no one would own a musket loader or black powder gun. These are guns that are fun to have but not fun to shoot.
Quote from: Dallasbeek on September 11, 2017, 08:27:24 PM
Ace,
Can you prove you are not a criminal or a psycho -- or a pervert? How does one prove a negative, my friend!
Ohy vay, you are a lawyer? Record of convictions, psychological testing, record or convictions. If something changed after licensing you lose your license. Kind of like driving a car.
Did some posts get removed? This conversation isn't making much sense to me anymore. Serious question.
>I would assume it is not capable of shooting rounds that rip through steel or travel miles.
Any high powered rifle will shoot through 1/4" of steel or travel miles (usually not both and not in that order). Everything from a .223 Rem to a .458 Win Mag. A few will travel miles and THEN go through 1/4" of steel... Billy Dixon shot a Comanche off his horse over 3/4 of a mile away with a single shot .50-90 sharps. Any modern deer rifle has much better ballistics than that. A "modern" deer rifle is usually a design that was done in the late 1800s... An M93 (designed in 1893) an M96 (designed in 1896) or an M98 (deigned in 1898) shooting any of the ammo they were designed for at the time will go through 1/4" steel plate and are capable, on a calm day in skilled hands, of hitting a man sized target at 1,000 yards and killing it and if it were to hit a man sized target at more than a mile away (an unlikely but not impossible shot) it would still kill it. These were usually chambered in 7x57mm, 6.5x55mm or 8x57mm, respectively. Cartridges and rifles that were designed in the 19th century. Compared to those a .223 (5.56x45mm) in an AR15 is a very wimpy cartridge compared to any of those and it will probably penetrate 1/4" steel plate with ball ammo. I know a .30-06 will go through 1/4 steel plate because I've seen it. And that was with standard expanding hunting ammo. It might make it through 1/2" steel plate with ball ammo. And a .30-06 is nothing compared to a .378 Weatherby mag. Either of these will outshoot an AR15 shooting .223s at any range. An AR15 shooting standard .223s is one of the LEAST dangerous high powered rifles in existence.
Besides death by all rifles (not limited to "Assault rifles") in 2015 (the latest collected and collated data) was 252. Death by automobiles in 2015 was 38,300. Let's get things in perspective.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/18/467230965/2015-traffic-fatalities-rose-by-largest-percent-in-50-years-safety-group-says
gww wrote:
Dallas
Quote
Our hero Obama changed that to some degree, particularly on college campuses, where the allegation of sexual misconduct was tantamount to conviction. The accused had no rights and the accuser could not be questioned. I'm a lawyer by training and this garbage stinks. Faculty on university campuses became the judges and jurors. Why were these cases not turned over to the local police and courts, where due process applied. I don't buy in to everything Trump is doing, but that's being corrected now, at least.
But the trump administration has reinstated seisure laws where your stuff can be taken buy police as judge and jury with not court or defence involved. Obama had stoped that practice. How about laws that want to take your house because you rented it to some one and did not kick them out on just allegations that they were doing wrong making a private citizen into doing the polices job. For every one good thing that any of the do they do two bad things. In principle the siezure thing is the same as the rule change on campuses.
Cheers
gww
gww,
Seizure laws are truly an abomination the way they are employed. They were designed to combat organized crime, mostly of the drug variety, but havr been perverted beyond recognition. You get caught with a cache os cash while on your way to buy an antique car in another state for example, and the police seize it. It's up to you to sue at great expense to recover your money and you can't recover the cost even if you win the case. That's not justice. Totally agree with you.
Gar
Quote from: Acebird on September 11, 2017, 09:36:15 PM
Quote from: Dallasbeek on September 11, 2017, 08:27:24 PM
Ace,
Can you prove you are not a criminal or a psycho -- or a pervert? How does one prove a negative, my friend!
Ohy vay, you are a lawyer? Record of convictions, psychological testing, record or convictions. If something changed after licensing you lose your license. Kind of like driving a car.
Yes, I am a retired lawyer, oviously, or I would not have been prosecuting criminals and defending accused people (some of whom were, in fact, criminals).
I don't understand your reference to licensing. What's your point?
Michael, I disagree with you about black powder not being fun to shoot. It's slow to reload a black powder rifle, but the skill required to hit the target is the same as with any other firearm, and the comeraderie may exceed that one finds in other shooting sports. You may be competing with the other shooters, but it's done in a good-natured way.
I'll agree it's a lot of fun to throw a pound of lead downrange in a minute, but not necessarily more fun than putting a little round ball on a gong every ten minutes. The most impressive gun I ever shot was an American 180, a .22 caliber submachine gun that fired something like 1800 rounds a minute. Sure wish I had bought one back about 1974 or so. They are now worth more than $20k on the collector's market.
Quote from: Dallasbeek on September 12, 2017, 12:28:13 PM
I don't understand your reference to licensing. What's your point?
You can get a license to drive a car but your record of convictions will determine if you keep it.
If the long term goal is to confiscate guns and keep them, then start out by taking them up and giving them back.
Taking away people's only means of protection is stupid or border line evil. An 80 year old great grandma with a pistol in her hand can take on any unarmed young buffed thug. This world is a very evil place and it ain't getting no better. People now a days don't recognize right and wrong. For me not having a gun on me at all times (to include going to church) is totally irresponsible. That's where society is at today. I'm not being hateful, mean, or ignorant.
Quote from: GSF on September 13, 2017, 01:00:39 PM
If the long term goal is to confiscate guns and keep them,
This line of reasoning makes me laugh. IF the GOVERNMENT wanted to take your guns how long would it take?
Forever, as even the national guard and military reserves would rebel.
That's why they are trying to do it piecemeal. They know one swoop will only get politicians killed.
The Nazi never did get all of the guns any where in Europe and neither did the British get all of the MINUTE MEN,s guns or other freedom lovers. If these Governments had got all the guns we would not be writing freely, and this language as we are now. Small point but certainly illuminates a much broader point.
>>Personally I don't find them appealing, but the reasons they are popular aren't because they are any more fun than a bolt action or a single shot or a muzzle loader.
>Michael, I disagree with you about black powder not being fun to shoot. It's slow to reload a black powder rifle, but the skill required to hit the target is the same as with any other firearm, and the comeraderie may exceed that one finds in other shooting sports.
My point was that a muzzle loader is just as much "fun" as an AR15. I do not think black powder is not fun to shoot. It's not so much fun to clean up, though. In my opinion black powder is a lot more fun than an AR15. Actually, I've never shot an AR15. I have shot an Ak47 (semi) and an SKS and a Ljungman and of those the Ljungman was the most fun, but mostly because it was much more accurate than the SKS and a lot more powerful with no recoil at all. I'm sure the AR15 would also be somewhat fun to shoot. The only guns I've ever not enjoyed was because they were painful to shoot. All of them would be more fun with a suppressor. Even with earplugs my high powered rifles ring my ears.
My grandpa was always a fan of the single shot (as am I). He always said he could fire aimed shots as fast as you can take aimed shots with an autoloader. Ross Siegfried in an article on single shots talked about the time he lent his Ruger #1 (A falling block single shot rifle based on the Farquharson rifle designed in 1872) to his then girlfriend, now his wife, to go coyote hunting. She came back from the hunt and chewed him out for lending her a single shot and she called in five coyotes at once. He asked if she got them. She said, of course she got all five of them before any of them ran, but she broke a nail. What is the magazine capacity of a Ruger #1? None. There is no magazine. How many rounds will it fire before reloading? One. How many targets can you shoot in a short time? As many as you have ammo for.
I love single shots. In the last few years every landowner and hunter is focusing on HOGS I try to get as many as I can. Eight is the most I have made into a good hog in less than probably 30 seconds. With a ten round magazine. If you say poor hogs, you were not on the four wheeler when it turned over and I was on the bottom. Luckily only my pride was hurt. I HAVE TO MOW WITH A 90 HORSEPOWER tractor in the lowest gear to keep from breaking the front axel, The mint and Golden rod are over 8 feet tall and there are hog rooting holes all over the place. We have used every method available to get this plague out of East Texas. They eat food that would feed Deer and Turkey, They also break up nesting Turkey and quail. I could stand on this soapbox for an hour at least but this is the real world where I live I only am protecting my property and family .
This line of reasoning makes me laugh. IF the GOVERNMENT wanted to take your guns how long would it take?
My point is that they are desensitizing us. According to our Constitution the Military can't be used as law enforcement. (National Guard is considered citizen soldiers) They've had several exercises now with the military standing side by side with law enforcement checking driver's license and such.
They quit teaching the Bill of Rights in Public schools a long time ago. Most young people don't really have a clue what rights they have. Most of the other folks just don't care one way or the other. It would be a blood bath if they tried to take our guns wholesale, like it was said earlier most of the military or law enforcement wouldn't support it. I can't help it I see it coming down the road.