# OT - Missile slinging devices



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

The NRA sould be real proud after the Colorado "incident" - gun sales are surging beyond expectations.


----------



## LukieB (Jan 8, 2012)

What are you implying by putting incident in quotations?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Aurora has strict gun regulations. The theature in which the slaughter occured did not allow patrons to have hand guns.
Your post is a flimsy attempt to denigrate the NRA. You have posted no intelligant thought. It does reveal your stupidity however.


----------



## vernonator (Feb 21, 2011)

+1 Jerry, +1…


----------



## GMman (Apr 11, 2008)

I don't blame it on guns but on TV shows that is where they see all that stuff.
Someone with a little off upstair sees that on TV then they are turned on.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Jerry: You should check your spelling before you start calling people stupid. Also do not use words with more than 2 syllables.
The NRA has way to much power and should be disbanded. IMHO.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

It is no surprise that when OBAMA flies in to address the issue, people immediately think that he will enact some draconian law, by *executive order *again, circumventing any debate or legislative process.

Yep people respond to perceived threats to their constitutional rights. So they are rushing out to buy things before they are banned.

The NRA should be disbanded right after the ACLU goes, since the Lib mantra is F- the Constitutional rights of the citizens.
The NRA is not FORCING gun ownership, just keeping dumbass liberals in check. Guns are illegal in mexico too…. so the murder rate is really low right? Not all the guns come from the US either - - we don't make AK47's


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

distasteful all the way around …


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

My spelling was typos. Your reply about disbanding the NRA speqaks for itself. The 2nd amendment is our Bill of Rights. Big goverment would love to see them go.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I'm not sure that I'm seeing your point, Jim. AFAIK, the NRA sees no benefit from increasing gun sales - other than possibly a few new members. I'm also pretty sure that only a small percentage of gun owners are members of the NRA.

Is there more to your story?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I have a kitchen knife ,table saw and other sharp implements. Also a sling-shot. Should be enough. Some guys in the bible though so.


----------



## joebloe (Feb 13, 2012)

I am a proud member of the NRA .The NRA didn't put that gun in that freeks hands,they also didn't pull the trigger on any of the gun's that done any killing.It is not the NRA's fault that the gun laws that are on the books are not being enforced.So now tell me the point your tring to make,besides giving your libtard opinion.let's see some facts.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Why should the libs let facts intrude into their rants? The Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government.
Big government would take great delight in having an unarmed citizenry.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Chipmunk-
Can you post some links showing that the NRA promotes those things? I've seen articles where they've defended the right to own them, but nothing that actually promotes them.

Gerald -
The majority of the people I've ever debated with are amazed when they read the Bill of Rights and see that they aren't about giving rights to citizens - they're explicit restrictions on the powers of the government to interfere with those rights.


----------



## MontanaBob (Jan 19, 2011)

DrDirt….I'm a dumbass liberal in your eyes, because I'm not a knuckle dragging right wing moron…Well you had better wake up and smell the coffee…There are millions of us liberals that are gun owners…and the anti-gun crowd is going to really have their day, after this shooting in Colorado. That kind of puts us both in the same boat….Please stay on you side, I don't want to listen to it…For all you antis out there, as far as I see it there is really nothing to be done….If someone is going to go off the deep end, and want to kill people, there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it….You are safe only if you can defend yourself, or can eliminate other people from having access to you (try that in this day and age)..Be vigilant of people around you, don't go where there are large groups of people. If you see something you don't like leave the area…Remember that even if you have a carry permit, and you end up shooting someone…your going to be broke, and or in jail… Years ago I was a NRA member, I really liked their magazine…but the NRA went overboard with the right wing stuff I quit…But if the right to bears arms starts getting hit hard I'll join if I think it'll help…. To quote Thomas Jefferson - "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."


----------



## Howie (May 25, 2010)

SS,DD. This argument has and will go on for years and years. Bottom line, if one person in that crowd was a concealed weapon permit holder,some of those people woulda/coulda been saved.
Think of all the things in your wood shop that could be used as a weapon if necessary. But people don't ban them.
Yeah,I carry and will continue to do so.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

What about the incindery devices he made? If he burned down the theatre with a couple mason jars full of gasoline would you have felt better? This guy was going to kill people no matter what he had to do it with.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Chipmunk-
In the version of English that I speak, "promote" means to encourage (perhaps require) something. The NRA supports the right, but couldn't care less if we exercise it.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Stopping a person bent on slaughtering others cannot, for the most part, be stopped. Taking away people's fire arms only leave them unprotected. It is our right to own and use guns. Look at the countries who do not allow gun ownership. They have their share of mass killings.
As a nation we cannot keep narcotics out. Do you think if guns are outlawed they too won't end up being smuggled into the U.S?


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

This debate has long since grown tiresome. Here's the deal: I don't give a ******************** what guns you have, or don't have. I don't give a ******************** what some politician, or some cop, or some judge says - you can't have mine, and you don't need to know how many rounds my magazine holds.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I fault the NRA because they should be part of a reasonable solution to gun control.

*If they are not part of the solution, then they must be part of the problem!*


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

The word incident was ment to be as it is spelled. The NRA only supports the 2nd Amendent for their own good, not for the good of the people. When I said the NRA should be proud about the surge in sales, that is an example of their scare tactics. Nobody is trying to take your guns from "your dead cold hands", we are trying to get the assult weapons out of "live warm hands". That old argument about "guns kill people, not people kill people", is a stupid statement. That's like saying missiles kill people, cannons kill people, tidle waves kill people, drowning kills people, and on and on. It takes a person behind the trigger to pull that trigger to kill people. How does a gun kill people all by it's self, magic ?


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Jim -
If that statement is so stupid, indulge me with a thought experiment.

Imagine a fully automatic weapon (M16, AK47, Uzi, take your pick), sitting on a shelf loaded, cocked and locked. Now imagine that no living thing touches it for 25 (or more if you like) years. Can it harm anyone?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Jim, what constitutes an assault rifle? The thing is most people dont know, most people label something an assault rifle because it is "scary" looking.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Sawkerf - 
Probably not except, if the ammo went bad, which it does. I'm talking about what people say, "The gun kills people, not the person behind the trigger". Thats the stupid answer / argument I am referring to. How can anybody use that kind of anology? Without the nut behind the trigger, the person in front of the trigger would not be killed. The question is: What does anybody want with an assult weapon, and why ? Where I used to work, an individual bought an AR-15, when asked what was he going ddto do with it, his reply, "I'm going deer hunting". My answer was, "So, if you hit the deer 12 times, what then ? That's called field butchering". He had no answer. I have experience with assult weapons: M-16, M-79, Quad-50, 51-AAA, M-60, 5.62 GAT, 30-GAT, and some others. All this was in South East Asia. I know what an assult weapon will do to the human body. Reference my previous question: WHY ?

patcollins - Assult rifle / weapon: See previous paragraph. Yes, some illiterate / misinformed individuals do not know what an assult rifle is.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

A 30-06 can do some serious damage, especially when equiped with hunting rounds. Fragmentation rounds are not allowed per the Geneva convention because of what they can do to a person, but they are commonly used for hunting.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or even self defense. It was put into the bill of rights to ensure that the people would be able to overthrow a government if they saw fit at a future time.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Hey - I'm not trying to be a smart ass, all I'm doing is asking a question as to why would anyone want a weapon that shoots a bzillion bullets at a time. I don't care if you have one, or two, or 20. Why? I have four weapons - a Ruger 22Mag, a single shot 22 rifle my dad gave to me when I was 13, an 1896 Winchester which is are very dear items, since my dad passed away a number of years ago, and an 8 guage single shotgun my grandfather gave to me. I've only fired that thing ONCE, kicked me on my butt ! So, you see, I'm not an anti-gun nut, just asking a question.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Nothing was said about a state militia, then a militia could be the boys that lived up the holler. In colonial times the militia was a group of volunteers that came and fought when they wanted to and could leave whenever they wanted to. So there could be the Chipmunk family militia, the blue mountian militia, etc etc.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

rosebud, define what you mean by shoots a bzillion bullets at a time, what gets defined as assault weapons today is just semiautomatic, one pull one bullet.

Why would anyone "need" a 5hp unisaw?


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Jim-
The simple answer (and the one that drives the nannies among us crazy) is because they want to. As long as they use them responsibly, no additional justification is required. But you answered my question. Absent some sort of intervention, that inert *thing* on the shelf is harmless in and of itself. Contrary to Chipmunk's bold faced ranting, the NRA (that I remember) fully supports enforcement of our gun laws.

Bad ammo? Maybe, but I've never seen bad ammo cook off on its own. I've fired really old ammo (25 - 30 year old headstamps) that would misfire, but that's it.

Chipmunk -
I think you need to put that militia part in the right context. At that time, there was virtually no standing army and if one were needed the state militias would be called up. (Read up on how Washington got the troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion). For all intents and purposes, every able bodied man was considered to be eligible to join. Since few militias had armories with state owed guns, it was expected that the members would bring their own, personal, weapons - as well as the powder and shot to use them.

There's also a school of thought that the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the means to overthrow the government that they were founding if it became necessary. After all, hadn't they just done that themselves?


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Bzillion bullets = figure of speach. Because they "need" it to do their job. An assult weapon is defined as a particular weapon used by the military - fully automatic. True, an assult weapon, which is NOT truly a rifle can be defined as a semi-automatic, which resembles a military weapon. Nobnody "needs" a fully automatic weapon, as defined by the military as an assult weapon. Case in particular: A number of years ago, two idiots in LA had AK-47s, fully automatic, in full body armour, held off the police for hours. Those "rifles" are defined as assult weapons, because they are not semi-automatic or single shot. What are we arguing about - sematics - or legal terms.

Point of fact: An AK-47 will accept .223 ammo. The bullet will rattle down the barrell and, is accurate to 100 ft.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Not argueing with you jim, just trying to figure out what you mean. Alot of times people are trying to argue a point that really doesn't exist. I am a stickler for the facts in a discussion on my side or the other side and not some bull that people believe just because they have heard it so much.

I remember those guys, but really are guys that are going to rob a bank care if their weapons are legal or not?


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

I know what. Why don't we all change the words "assult weapon" to "weapons of mass destruction" and, create a new legal term to define what we're talking about ?


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Pat - you're correct about whether they cared if their weapons were legal or not. But, I'm trying to understand the rational of owning a weapon of mass destruction just because the constitution says we can own a weapon. Why is it that most people read "into" the constitution that we can own a weapon of mass destruction, when in that time period a weapon of that sort was for military purposes, i.e., cannons, mortars, blunderbuss, etc. The common person of that time only had a muzzle loader, which was certainly not a WOMD (WMD?).

Think I'm going to sack in. Will continue this tomorrow ? Old bones carried enough around today.


----------



## craftsman on the lake (Dec 27, 2008)

I think the NRA goes a bit to far in fighting for some things that go beyond what people need guns for. But, if as a country we allow it, vote people in who allow it, then it's what a free country wants. We shouldn't complain when the results of that happen. I suppose we could call it 'acceptable losses for the right of those freedoms'.

Not my opinion but it seems to be the opinion of the country.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Then you need to communicate that reason to the Supreme Court. One of the biggest problems with the whole second amendment argument has been knowing what the founding fathers meant by "militia". Generations of historians and legal scholars haven't been able to unambiguously define it and here you've had the answer all along.

Thanks for turning off the bold face type. Speaking for myself, I'm much more persuaded by a logical argument than a loud one - which really gets my wife going sometimes. - lol


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Craftsman -
So who should have the power to decide why someone "needs" a gun? IIRC, the NRA is defending the rights of each of us to make that decision for ourselves - and having made that decision accept the personal responsibility that goes with it.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

*Point of fact: An AK-47 will accept .223 ammo. The bullet will rattle down the barrell and, is accurate to 100 ft.*

Ok, I sometimes weigh in, but rarely discuss my background, I am simply doing so now to lay out that I am not some guy with "internet" facts.

I am a USMC vet, a plank holder (ie founding member) of MARSOC, which is the Marine Corps' SOCOM element. I ran the armory for the Foreign Military Training Unit, and wrote most of the manuals and doctrine used by MARSOC for non-standard weapons systems, including the AK-47.

Saying an AK-47 will fire and be accurate to 100" a .223 round is complete and utter BS.

I have heard this about the soviet 9.3X18 as well. That it will fire our 9mm NATO but not vise versa. Once again, BS.

This comes from the Russian 82mm mortar, which will fire out 81 mm mortar. Trying to include that to any of the others, just simply shows you are uninformed on the topic at hand.

An AK-47 round is 7.62X39, a .223 is 5.56X45. The AK will not even chamber the .223 properly. It is 12mm longer, you can not even close the bolt without excessive force, much less get to fire accurately. You can jam a .223 round in there, pull the trigger a few times, and one of those times might set off the primer. But when you do get it to go off, the round is going to flop out the end of the barrel with a poof of smoke around it. The power burn might hurt someone close, the projectile won't. It is simply to much room for the projectile to expand and create a seal, letting pressure build


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Ok, so you took a lot of words and references to effctively say that nobody has ever come up with a definitive answer - and the argument rages on.

BTW, your second sentence suggests a bit of bias don't you think?


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

Chipmunk,
Keep in mind every SCOUTS has said corporations are people since the 14th amendment.

I however disagree.


----------



## ralbuck (Mar 12, 2012)

TOO MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET!

When Florida LIBERALIZED the gun LAWS crime WENT down!

If you have ever been shot at??? iF ARMED YOU will shoot BACK!

Would have shortened the "incident" a lot! Had you been sitting in that place with your 9 on your belt; would he have managed to shoot that many people???

I don't usually like Political discussions. This is going to be used by the anti-gun --pro chaos-- group to foster that agenda! NAZI Germany had no private guns! Look at that result!! Learn something from history!


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

As an outsider it seems pretty simple - the easier it is for a crazy person to get a gun, the greater the possibility that a crazy person will get a gun and kill someone with it.

On that basis - make it much harder for people to buy guns and ammo and fewer people will die.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

"NAZI Germany had no private guns! Look at that result!! Learn something from history!"

That has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

I think we should get rid of forks and steak knives. Those can easily kill someone.

Spoons are ok


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I think that David White has the right idea but the issue is, how can it be implemented?


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

I think we should get rid of forks and steak knives. Those can easily kill someone.

A stupid, trite response - would you rather face a crazy person armed with a steak knife or with a gun?


----------



## joebloe (Feb 13, 2012)

Cars and baseball bats can and have killed people,but I don't see you raising hell about someone driving to a ball game.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

I wouldn't want to face a crazy person with either a gun or a knife….which is exactly my point. It's the crazy person that's the danger, not the tool (gun or knife…. Or spoon)

I come from a huge family of hunters. Almost everyone in my family owns a gun… No one has killed anyone yet. Stop blaming the guns, blame the poor parenting and/or what ever else causes these crazies to use a (when used correctly and responsibly) harmless tool to kill 
Thank you for that. That was easy


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

The attacker in Colorado was clearly out to hurt innocent people and adding the additional charge of using an illegal weapon is ridiculous compared to the gravity of the murders. This was a planned rampage. Without access to a rifle, it could have just as easily been a different weapon. Firearms are not the only way to kill people and many improvised devices could have been just as destructive or more so with simple things taught in high school physics and chemistry classes. It is a social problem and not the mere availability of firearms.

Singling out assault rifles as a class is just ignorant. They are not nearly as powerful as most long arms. They just "look scary." Assault rifles were developed as a low power and light weight alternative weapon to fill the gap between handguns and long rifles for mostly urban warfare. Even the rate of automatic fire is not that much different than what can be achieved by a semi-automatic weapon with a little practice. Look up bump firing if you are unfamiliar. Magazine capacity is irrelevant when you are looking at an armed and armored attacker against an unarmed crowd. It doesn't take that long to swap out magazines. Even a single shot weapon can have devastating effects. That is why they have snipers.

The thing that bothers me personally about many of the legal debates such as this is when a minority wants to subvert the process to make up for lack of support for their cause. You do not believe that the public should have weapons? Fine. There is a clear process to change the law. Write up an amendment to to the constitution and get it passed. That is why the provisions for amendment of the constitution exist.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

I wouldn't want to face a crazy person with either a gun or a knife….which is exactly my point. It's the crazy person that's the danger, not the tool (gun or knife…. Or spoon)

So you are unable to see that a crazy person with a gun is more dangerous that a crazy person with a steak knife?


----------



## murch (Mar 20, 2011)

In the early 1990s, gun violence reached unprecedented levels. In 1994 the number of Americans killed by firearms peaked with 39,595 deaths. Another 104,390 people suffered non-fatal injuries. While the annual number of gun-related deaths has decreased to approximately 30,000, the loss of life remains a chilling reality across the United States.

Man, that is a jaw-dropper. About 50% of the 30,000 total are suicides (staggering and tragic, as well) but that's still leaving over 250 Americans per week who are killed by other Americans. You guys just cant stop killing one another. It makes Afghanistan look safe.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

*The Second Amendment….."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*

If the latest shooting is part of a well regulated Militia, I would hate to see what a badly regulated one looks like.


----------



## Magnum (Feb 5, 2010)

*I live in CANADA. We don't carry Guns. The only "Guns" we can take from Place To Place are Long Guns i.e. Hunting Rifles.

NO one under any Circumstances can own an "Automatic Weapon" You do! You in Jail!*

*Pistols are Tightly Regulated.* A "Professionak Shooter" or a Member of a "Gun Club" must have a Permit to move that Pistol. Most of them leave them at the Gun Club where they shoot.

*If you get caught with a Pistol in your Possession you're going to the "Cop Shop", and probably further consequences. *

We just had a Government Gun Registry Scrapped! It was suppose to "Keep the guns out of the hands of Criminals"' All it actually did was make Criminals out of Legitimate Gun Owners 75/80% of them where "Hunters" or Old Ladies who had inherited a Long Gun from someone in the Family but it was never "Registered" *DUMB ASS GOVERNMENT!!!*

*If I'm a Criminal and want a gun I'll go to Downtown Toronto and buy one for $2/$300 BUcks. Use it. Get rid of it. *

I'm not going to go to a Sport Store, fill out a Form wait for a Criminal Check, go back and get My Gun 2/3 Months later.

I don't own a Gun. Nobody I know owns a gun. NO Big Deal!!!

*The Homicide/Suicide Rate in the USA Per Capita is Astronomical compared to Canada. *

This is *FOR INFORMATION ONLY!!! *Yes! You have the "Right" to carry Guns. We don't.

*I'm NOT saying Your Country or Mine is More Right or More Wrong!*

Thank You.

Regards: Rick

*PS: However …LOL..* I am now activley looking for the one pictured below, for Competition Shooting.

At 16, in the Army Cadets and Never having fired a Rifle before I went to Camp Ipperwash for a 6 week "Cadet Instructor Training Course."

It was just like the "Real Army" i.e *"You better be able to see your Face in the Toes of those Boots or you're Not going to Bed until you can…LOL.. "The Quarter didn't bounce off your Top Sheet!. RIP IT DOWN and try again. *

You had (I THINK) 7/8 Minutes to Tear Down A Bren Gun and get it back together again. I LOVED IT!!

Anyway (Never Having Fired A Rifle Before , Again) I won *"Best Rifle Shot, Band Company", then "Best Regimental Rifle Shot". After 6 weeks there. "THEY" (I had NO Choice) sent me for "Sniper Training" at "Camp Borden". Loved It!! (I also Shoot Left Handed. Which ain't exactly a Bonus reaching over the top of the stock to load the next shot.)*

Then back to "High School" PITS!!! They wanted to make me an *"Officer" ...... No Thank You!! So, I got what I wanted "Sgt. Major" (Very Loud Voice) and I used My Fathers "Swagger Stick" from WW2.*

Well! I certainly went "Off Topic" didn't I. HEY!! I enjoyed it!! ...LOL.

OH! I just remembered something else I saved about 6/8 Months ago. Below.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++









++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++










That's 1.54 MILES!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++









++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*Thanks Guys! That Was FUN!!*


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

Let's look at how gun control has been so successful in Chicago and Washington DC.

Please liberals, explain that to me…..


----------



## CampD (Nov 8, 2008)

I have a machete or 2, best defense against Zombies!


----------



## murch (Mar 20, 2011)

*Rick* - your story brings back many memories to me. When I was in my mid-teens back in the 80's I was 
in our Reserve Defence Force.
I won best shot in the recruits with a Lee Enfield .303. A really marvelous rifle.
We also went off for a week to a range to fire 120mm mortars.
I loved it.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Neither a gun or a knife is inherently dangerous. They are inaniment objects..pieces of metal….paper weights. The danger lies in who uses them. Its impossible to answer that question without knowing the person who is using them. If someone doesn't know how to operate a gun, then a knife would be more dangerous in their hands, and vise versa
You're asking the wrong questions here. The question shouldn't be which is more dangerous - the gun or the knife. The question should be why are these people crazy and how can society prevent/change/reduce this


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

The problem with the idea of "reasonable" gun control is, what's "reasonable"? Where does it stop? Do you "reasonable gun control" people honestly believe (or expect the rest of us to) that at some point, after that elusive, perfect gun control law is finally passed (on top of the some 20,000 already extant), the anti-gun crowd will say, "Well, I'm satisfied. That's enough gun control"?

You tell us exactly what law you want to see; the law after which you would be satisfied. Be specific.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Such an absurd, simplistic arguing point…you can't kill a person with a chocolate cake either..geniuses….well maybe you could if you smothered them with it..

The fact is that the more guns you have circulating in this country legal or illegal, the more gun related violence your going to have..I like guns..I think they are cool..I like to shoot.. I don't feel so insecure that I need to walk around carrying one..and there are just too many crazy people in this world, and not enough filtering…probably because the government is in charge of deciding who gets a gun and who doesn't..it's an argument that will never be resolved…I feel people should be allowed to own guns….but why a private citizen needs a semi automatic large caliber weapon with a large magazine is beyond me…your not hunting with it…


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

I've been for stricter chocolate cake laws this entire time…

On that train of thought, the more you have of anything in this country, the more likely u are to be killed "by" it (from it). If everyone started eating chocolate cake with every meal there'd be a dramatic increase of deaths from cake. The cake still isn't the problem…. It's the increase in people eating the cake. Just like the guns arent the problem, its te increase in "crazies" killing people with guns. This is a social problem, not a gun problem. Again ur asking the wrong questions

Thanks for solving nothing…genius

On that note, since HorizotalMike's F$&k-buddy has joined us, I'm out of here. If u figure it out let me know!!


----------



## lunn (Jan 30, 2012)

Well lets say a guy with a legal carrying permit was there. Lets say with a 9mm glock, expert marksman. Should he have returned fire?. Could he have saved lives?. I'd like to know how many people with permits have been arrested for crimes iuseing firearms. Sure i have registered guns seldom outta the house. The only good that does, if they get stolen i may get them back.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Ahh the unbelievable insight of a chiropractor..aren't you late for your "ripping people off with fake science 101" Class?
I guess it's ok for you to chime in with your opinions, but I'm supposed to solve things…


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

You can definitely have your opinion. It's just not a very good one. Expected 
The only reason I'm gone from here is because I dont argue/fight with trolls. In this scenario you, if not figured out, are the troll


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Says you..and that doesn't mean much..at all


----------



## Triumph1 (Dec 20, 2009)

Rosebudjim…why don't you post an actual woodworking project.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Close one


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Newage - As a USMC Vet, you are probably right in what you say. But, as a USAF Vet, with 3 years in SEA and, with the 1/5 Army at QuangTri during the Laos offensive, we captured some NVA who were using stolen M-16 rounds in their AK-47s. Yes I agree they were highly inaccurate, not to 100' as I stated, but did cause damage up close, primarily to themselves. And, contrary to popular belief, and complete denial by the US Military, the original M-16 ammo could destroy the human body, without ever touching it. The shock wave of the passing bullet could, and did, seperate body elements. I've seen it. The ACLU got after the military for using this ammo - argument: You / we cannot use this type of ammo to kill humans, because it is torture to main someone prior to killing them. Huh ? While at Ft Lewis, 1965, we were using that bullet on the range, and it would completely penetrate an empty ox bottle at 100 yards. In VN, for excitement, we would pulverize WWII Japanese concrete pill boxes.

I know someone out there is going to say, "What does this have to do with subject". Nothing. Just an explanation of some of my experiences with WOMDs.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

Chipmunk,
Maybe reading some of the SCOTUS decisions would inform you a little on the matter, vs just claiming to know and saying I am making stuff up. I'm sure the pundits don't get much into the history, it easier to say that "this right wing court has went to far"

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." 
-Headnote by Chief Justice in 1886

The court has many times held the 14th amendment to include corporations, seeing they are viewed as legal persons. The citizens united case however, didn't even mention corporate person-hood in the majority opinion.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Triumph1 - You got a deal ! WOW!

How about this one ? Don't use your pinky finger as a push stick on the band saw - OUCH !


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The reason the NRA and the pro gun lobby is has fought against seemingly "rational" gun laws is the precedent and slippery slope it creates, for some unelected geeks to be empowered to decide what is a GOOD gun and what is an EVIL one.

Fundamentaly it is not different than the abortion debate. Most rational folks are against late term and "Partial Birth" abortions. Dr. Tiller here in Kansas was one of only 2 doctors who would perform the procedure at all. TWO nationawide. The reason it is LEGAL, is the same creeping laws, that just nibble away at the decision of when life begins. If we say NO past 32 weeks…..then there will be a study that says 30, then 29, then 18 then XXX hours. The "Rational Laws" are the proverbial foot in the door.

Look at this guy from Colorado - OK he had a 100 round clip. The news is screaming aout how many rounds he bought and had a his apartment.
At what point do you get the Barney Fifes - saying you may only have 1 bullet and it has to be stored locked in a different room than the gun? 
Hey great ban the 100 round… how about taping two 30 round mags together.. quite common.








Feel better?
Us average joes canot own machine guns…. yet the dumasses in congress and the media, don't know semi-auto from automatic. They just say "we need an assault weopans ban", limits on magazine sizes and and and and and. Yet it doesn't make a difference. 
Yet the seemingly innocuous common sense laws are ALWAYS expanded upon - - - That is what the NRA fights


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

the original M-16 ammo could destroy the human body, without ever touching it. The shock wave of the passing bullet could, and did, seperate body elements. I've seen it.

Gotta call 'Bovine excrement' on this. Physically impossible.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Dirt ….I don't think it's about one gun being "evil" and one being "good"..how about certain types being appropriate for civilian ownership, and maybe certain types should just be just for military and police use…I still say while citizens have the right by the constitution to own guns, why is it necessary for the general public to be able to own semi automatic, and in some states automatic weapons and large capacity magazines? These types of weapons/accessories are for one thing only..killing…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

+1 OldMarine -

Brad that is the slippery slope…. When the anti gun pundits start talking about and decideing what do people NEED.

Maybe they shoudl decide for us that because a revolver takes longer to reload than a pistol with a magazine, whether 8 rounds or 16….that no civilian should own a glock???

Lets have Barbara Boxes explain to all of us what constitutes a Magazine that is TOO LARGE

By the way there are very few guns that were not developed for killing.
The fact that people like to shoot sporting clays with their 12 guage, or targets in the biathalon, doesn't mean they weren't inventing for killing people or animals.

You are already arguing the first point that nobody needs a semi-automatic weapon….

My Remington shotgun is Semi-Auto - - holds 3 shots….. oh my god!!! it is a semi-automatic weapon… Lets Ban it???

That is exactly the reason the NRA exists.
Some will use guns (legal or not) for nefarious purposes, and NO law can prevent it.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

True all guns are pretty much for killing….I guess I should have said..made for one thing..killing quickly, efficiently, and in large numbers..
But really though..what reason does a civilian need weapons like that?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The idea that we need stricter laws because one of the 300+ million people could go postal, is not rational lawmaking.

And the guy going postal just inflicts his wrath on the law abiding.

Hey the Aurora Theatre and mall are declared gun free zones. Lot of good that does.
But there are proposals for airport metal detectors at the theatre now.


----------



## JBfromMN (Oct 19, 2010)

Hey the Aurora Theatre and mall are declared gun free zones. Lot of good that does.
But there are proposals for airport metal detectors at the theatre now.

A feel good measure to please some group of people. The gunman in Aurora came in through another door that was propped open from the inside. Whether it was the gunman himself that went out the door to suit up and grab the weapons, or an accomplice that let him in I have not seen yet. Does not matter in this case, what good are metal detectors at the entrance going to do?


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

It seems most gun enthusiasts are quick to say they have a right to own semi automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, but none of them can ever offer up a logical reason why they need to own stuff like that other than saying that they are allowed to, waving the second amendment in your face..


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

It seems most gun enthusiasts are quick to say they have a right to own semi automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, but none of them can ever offer up a logical reason why they should be allowed to own stuff like that other than waving the second amendment in your face..

Last I heard, you have to prove I DON'T have the right.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

No one NEEDS a BMW…no one NEEDS a jet….you don't NEED a lot of things - this has nothing to do with the conversation. Just because I don't need a rifle doesn't mean someone else has the right to come and tell me I CAN'T have one. 
This isn't a question of needing something or not, or a question of should I be allowed to have something or not

Seems to me there are two arguments. Some are putting the blame on the weapons themselves as being the problem, and others are putting the blame on the person using/owning the weapon. Think logically about this. There is no inherent danger in a gun. Without a human being handling it, it's a paper weight; a hunk of metal. People think comparing this to a knife is completely different but it isn't. The knife is an inaniment object - there is no inherent danger in one unless the human using it is dangerous themselves. The same applies to a gun. The danger lies within the human not within the tool. Guns are extremely safe actually when used correctly. This isn't a gun problem we are talking about, it's a social problem.

We'll never come to the right answer unless we ask the right questions. We need to stop asking which guns are safe, and which magazine a person should be allowed to have, and blah blah blah. We need to start asking what is wrong with our society that is producing such hate and anger and confusion in people's lives to allow themselves to succumb to such violence. Lets stop pointing fingers at the gun makers and gun owners (the VAST majority of which have never killed anyone) and get down to the real problem: our society


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Just as I thought..just wave that second amendment…which most of you grip it like it's your bible..I didn't ask you whether you had the right to own one..I asked you why YOU need TO OWN ONE…BIG DIFFERENCE..

Again, scientist..thanks for stating the completely obvious..


----------



## MontanaBob (Jan 19, 2011)

dakremer, you hit the nail on the head, but I'm sure some will not agree..Humans need food, water, air, everything else is want….good luck with that


----------



## timpletcher (Dec 25, 2009)

I though that this was all about wood working…

**NRA lifer!*


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

The one big problem with guns is that they can kill a lot of people very fast. Knives and spoons can not. Bombs can also kill a lot of people very fast. All are save if nobody touches them. Both Bombs and guns are bad news when a nut-job gets hold of them.
Bombs are illegal, and I think the same logic should be used for guns.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Brad asks "why YOU need TO OWN ONE…"? How about "It's none of your damned business!!"

the original M-16 ammo could destroy the human body, without ever touching it. The shock wave of the passing bullet could, and did, seperate body elements. I've seen it. 
I would love to see any actual proof of that one!!


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

First, to piss of the right. You are out of your mind if you think there should be no restrictions on keeping and bearing arms. And I'm sure that none (or at least very few) do believe this. To test this, and being that I am addressing this part to the right, I will indulge your sensibilities to show how ridiculous it is.

A Muslim man, no a gay Muslim man, has said repeatedly that he wants to destroy New York City; (no that won't do) he wants to destroy Texas. Now this gay Muslim liberal is really rich and is going to openly buy a nuke from Pakistan. He has said once he gets it he is going to blow the rodeo's straight to hell. So this gay Muslim atheist liberal buys the bomb and starts driving to Texas.

So, do we set back and say, well, it's his right to keep and bear arms, can't stop him? Didn't think so. Now this is clearly an extreme unrealistic scenario, but just a little thought experiment to see if you believe in NO restrictions on any kind of person owning any kind of arms.

The problem is as technology has grown to be well beyond what the founders could have envisioned; we did not adapt correctly. What we should have done is have a constitutional amendment updating the second amendment once we started having TNT, M2's, and nukes added to the world. It's about time we stop and look at what is the purpose for the weapons, how, if at all, can they be controlled from getting to unstable people, and what as a society should be the cut off.

Now, to the left. What the hell is wrong with you people? You sit and type as the "enlightened" ones, asking someone to justify why they should be allowed to own an assault rifle, when it is already just about impossible, or impossible to own one anyway depending on your state. Are you really trying to count semi-autos as assault weapons, because they look like assault weapons? Case in point was the assault rifle ban of 94, which didn't ban assault rifles (they already were banned), it banned hi-cap magazines and most guns that looked like an assault rifle. There was a list of guns and a list of features, even if the make wasn't on the list, if it had two or more features it was banned. Really important stuff such as heat shields, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc. Which I'm glad they did, I am so sick of hearing about the constant bayonet killing in the US.

So I can own a pistol that shoots shotgun shells, but if it has a buttsock the barrel has to be at least 18 inches. But my rifle can be 16, unless it's built as a "pistol" and you don't include the buttstock. Do these laws make any sense to anyone that knows the slightest thing about guns? And this is the biggest problem, we have law makers that know ******************** about firearms, and they make laws like that. That is why the right is scared. Almost every time they try "gun control" they pass dumb ass laws that make no sense and restrict stuff that doesn't do any good restricting.

When it comes to items that are not easily control, like hi-cap mags, it is true that only the law abiding are going to give them up. But hey, maybe the murders won't feel like adding a gun crime to their murder wrap. Of course, that should mean that the drug war is going swimmingly as well, and drug are pretty much not there in our society.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

That is the way rights are. Your rights are not at someone elses expense.

So Brad - - Why do you NEED free speech… not that it shouldn't be constitutional, but why do YOU need it….
same kind of logic you are applying.
You have a right to speech - doesn't cost others, but some want things like a Fairness doctrine…
You have a right to worship at the church of your choice - - again no cost to those around you
You have a right to be secure in your home, 
You have the right to own a gun… different than the swiss that require you to own and maintain one in your home, Some folks really get into it (wwith massive collections) others see the object as inherently evil, rather than the person.

These become the challenges of a free society. How many school shootings were there prior to the 70's? Yet gun laws were far more lax then, you could walk into the local Sears and walk out with as many guns as you could afford and carry. No registration, no waiting periods, no limits on clip size. But that didn't correlate to people shooting up theatres.

tragedies like Aurora are great foddor for the gun control lobby to push through their agendas, but we always ignore the problem of the latchkey kids with no moral compass get stupid ideas and decide they want to be "The Joker" and go on a killing spree. We don't ask about what is creating more and more disaffected sociopaths, we just talk about the tool they chose to use because their underwear was too tight on thursday, and say IF ONLY we didn't allow the gun this wouldn't have happened.

Oklahoma city was done with diesel fuel and fertilizer…...9/11 was accomplished with a box-cutter. It doesn't take much to wreak havoc on the population if you are so inclined.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

Dr dirt,
That last line cuts straight to the point. But then again a token law that does zero good is easier than trying to tackle tough issues


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I live in Maryland now and it has some of the strictest gun laws in the united states, yet there is so much crime here. I was born in West Virginia and lived there until I was 25 years old, I can count the number of people killed on one hand when I lived there About half of the gun deaths that I remember were hunting accidents where the person either shot themselves or shot someone thinking it was a deer. Prince Georges county Maryland (near Washington DC) had a murder every day for the first 60ish days last year and were finally happy when a day went by without discovering a body.

There were very few burgleries because damn near every house I knew of had guns in it and you were allowed to shoot someone that broke into your house. In Maryland you actually have to prove you tried to escape before you shoot someone that broke into your house or you will be the one going to jail.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

It's a simple question..I didn't ask for a fife and drum speech..I didn't ask for a lesson in the constitution..I just want to know why an average person needs to own a gun that fires that many bullets, that fast? Whats the reason?


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

to answer Brad Nailer…While I cant personally answer that question for you because I have no desire to own one of those guns…...the reason is probably similar to someone's reason behind wanting a Corvette instead of a Prius, or a cabinet saw instead of a portable contractor saw…. why arent you saying the same thing about the corvette or cabinet saw owners? People who like buying/using/collecting guns want the biggest and the best. Just like people who collect/enjoy cars want the biggest and the best. Just like woodworkers who want the biggest and the best. I dont see any harm in that what so ever.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I wish the NRA could spell better. It would make their case better. They always sound like dumb-asses


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

This is how liberal lawmaking runs amok creating more problems than they solve -
And it is ABC news not Fox…

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3758286

*Expelled for Possession of a Butter Knife*

Heinz said Amber opened her locker a week later, and the butter knife fell out. A fellow student made a wisecrack about the knife that was overheard by a teacher, who reported it to school officials, according to Heinz.

Amber was immediately suspended for five days, pending an expulsion hearing that officials say was mandatory under by the school's "zero tolerance" policy toward weapons or potential weapons.

Bailey told ABC News school *officials had no reason to believe Amber had any nefarious or violent intent *in transporting the butter spreader onto school property.

*"Certainly, if it was my child, I would have a different perspective," she said. "But if you're a school administrator, your perspective has to be broader. You have to consider the safety of the entire student population." *

We just toss out the word SAFETY in the school setting and everybody can just check their brains at the door.

Gun laws tend to work the same way - and are enforced and proposed by well intentioned folks, but become a substitute for using any kind of common sense or discretion.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

(madts) I wish anti-NRA people like yourself wouldnt bring the conversation down to the level you're taking it to….the 3rd grade. We'd probably have more respect for you, and your silly ideas….


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Dak answered it.

Watch some of the shows like Sons of Guns or any of he others and you see guys drop 15 grand on a rifle for alligator hunting….
I shake my head and say 15GRAND!!! are you F-ing kidding me. But I am not that into it, and I don't hunt gators either.
If somebody wants to piss away that kind of money good for them.
If somebody want to drop 3 million on a car at the Barrett Jackson auction fine and dandy.

None of that crap is about NEED

Who is ready for the Mitt Romney to create position for a lifetime appointee to tell you about what they think you NEED? What Car, Habitation Pod, Pet, School, Air Conditioner that you NEED?

All of the high capacity clips and AR-15's , and there are *millions* in service out there, it is not as if they custom make this crap *just for * James Holmes….only James went nuts.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

OK that's a valid answer..it.s more fun to shoot many bullets faster than fewer slower..i get it..It looks like fun to fire a .50 cal machine gun…but i still don't think average citizens should be allowed to own weapons like that..My cabinet saw cant be stolen from my house and used to kill many people quickly..


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

DAKREMER: (madts) I wish anti-NRA people like yourself wouldnt bring the conversation down to the level you're taking it to….the 3rd grade. We'd probably have more respect for you, and your silly ideas….

I by-passed that grade because I was too smart.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Chipmunk: I notice that the little infographic you posted seems to lack places where guns are legal without the deaths. It also misses other places where they are having problems. Why not point out Mexico where guns are already illegal. They had about the 15,000 killed in 2010. Current totals are over 40K, How many of the 9000 or so in the US were by weapons that were already illegal (or used by people who were already proscribed from possession?)

I understand the frustration and wanting to "Do Something." The issue is that it is a problem with society and not inanimate objects. I didn't see an outcry to ban diesel after McVey et al, blew up the Murray Building (although the nitrate fertilizer is tracked a bit better). If the guy in Colorado had firebombed the theater with gasoline, would you call for a ban on gasoline? If he had driven a car through a crowd and killed people, would you want laws outlawing cars? If they had mixed household cleaners and gassed everyone with chlorine gas, would we outlaw them as well? Where does it end?

The only way you will overturn the 2nd Amendment is with another amendment. It doesn't matter if *you* feel that the "Well regulated militia" part doesn't include the citizenry at large, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it does. The minority doesn't get to make the rules. If you want the rules changed, you need to convince enough people to agree. Welcome to Democracy.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

While I didn't answer your question Brad, I wasn't intending too. But I will try to give a reason why we "need" them.

Why do cops need them? We found out in the 90's when a couple bank robbers had AK's and the cops had 9mm pistols, that it's not good to be out gunned. The cops need them because there are bad guys.

Sometimes, though rare, things go real bad. Like LA riots, Katrina, watts, Oakland a while back, Anaheim now. So yes, I need a semi automatic weapon, because a bolt action doesn't do any good when you may have a group of people trying to cause mayhem to your family.

So while I hope, and probably won't, ever need it; I will not need it and not have it. I will never see my family over taken, wife raped, etc; while I am on the phone with 911. I will do everything in my power to prevent it, including having a semi-automatic weapon. We everyone decides to start getting along and the police feel they no longer need them; I will give up mine.

As long as I am legally allowed to own them I will legally own them, if it becomes illegal, well, I guess they just made another law breaker.

"Molon Labe"


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Dang Neanderthal…. bringing in a quote fro the battle of thermopolae 480 BC…. you really are old….LOL

Well put though


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

just because you skipped that grade doesnt meant you can't take the conversation down to a 3rd grade maturity level….you sure you werent held back????

My cabinet saw cant be stolen from my house and used to kill many people quickly..

I could steal your cabinet saw and rent and air plane and drop the saw into a large crowd, most likely killing many people quickly


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

We Neanderthals have been around a hot minute.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Brad -
In case you didn't know it, it's already illegal to own a .50 cal machine gun - and has been for years. As far as firing a fully automatic weapon it's only fun the first couple of times you do it. In full auto you burn up a lot of ammo (expensive ammo, usually) very quickly and they're hard to control. The smart guys "tap" off 2-3 rounds at a time.

I once fired a Thompson and by the time I released thr trigger I was elevated around 45*. Those things are a SOB to control. All that John Wayne crap in the movies is hogwash.


----------



## joebloe (Feb 13, 2012)

The reason I carry a pistol is that donut eating cops are to dam heavy to carry.and the reason I carry a 45 acp is they haven't made a 46 acp yet.I would rather have it and not need it ,than need it and not have it.enough said.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm no expert…but I know a few things about weapons….my uncle was a marksman that taught State Troopers to shoot… unfortunately my mother didn't want us involved with the guns..or I would have had my permit as soon as I was old enough…..my stepbrother for 4 years had a huge gun collection..everything from a black powder blunderbuss, pistols, shotguns, to a lever action 30/30 Winchester, ..and I shot every one of them. I have a friend that owns a Mac 11, and he has the federal License for it. I told him I wanted to shoot it (he says the best is to shoot it at dusk with the flare suppressor off) and we sat down and based on current reloaded ammo prices it was going to cost a couple hundred dollars to shoot it..and that was in short bursts..and only for about 10 minutes or less of actual shooting..but it sounds like fun..


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

The biggest gun I ever shot was an AR15. Not too exciting. Here in Iowa it's all about shotguns. Boring


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Not sure if its true or not a friend of mine said this kooks AR-15 jamed up pretty soon after he began firing and most of the killings were from the shotgun and pistol.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

His AR jammed, and I'm willing to bet because of the mag. Those 100 drums are the best thing for gun safety. You can only get a few rounds off before they malfunction. Total POS for wants be cowboys.

Give me 4 regular AR mags and 90% of the time I'll get 120 rounds of before the guy with that dumb ass drum gets his 100 ran through.


----------



## RetiredCoastie (Sep 7, 2009)

Never would I have thought there would be so many who are un-informed as I see in this thread. To blame the NRA is just plain ignorance of the facts. To blame an organization for this horrific incident would be the same as blaming BOEING for 9/11, or GM, FORD etc etc for drunk drivers getting behind the wheel and killing other people. The NRA is not some corporation that's privately owned. It's an organization made up of your fellow citizens so to say they are to powerful and suggest they shouldn't have power is to take away the voice of our citizens that believe in our Constitutional rights. There may come a time when you'll be glad our citizens are armed given the constant attacks on our freedoms. One only has to look back in time to countries that disarmed their populace such as Russia, that didn't turn out so great did it! If our populace wasn't armed in the past we would still be part of the British empire.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Here is a piece from the right wing mouthpiece ABC


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

For OldMarine and Newage - I didn't believe it either. You had to be there to see it, because it is possible. Shock waves can do mean things to a human body. Just ask my Sister, who was across the street from McVeigh's collateral damage. Of course she will not be able answer to "Bovine excretment" wordage of someone who is unknowing about such things, due she is dead from the shock wave.


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

Brad types:
"why is it necessary for the general public to be able to own semi automatic, and in some states automatic weapons and large capacity magazines? "

Brad, please show us a state where fully automatic weapons are legal for the general public….

Why is it neccessary for the general public to own semi-automatic weapons? Well, I figure it's because the founding fathers wanted us to have the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. Aside from hunting and target shooting, that is the reason we have to fight to keep the right to own arms. I think it's partriotic for responsible citizens to own any kind of firearm they so choose. In fact, some countries like Switzerland require their citizens to keep automatic weapons in their homes.

That might be too much for you to swallow, but they are MY rights, and you can't take them.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

I'm goiong to change my moniker and come back as a grasshopper.


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

Sawkerf:

"I once fired a Thompson and by the time I released thr trigger I was elevated around 45*. Those things are a SOB to control. All that John Wayne crap in the movies is hogwash."

LOL! I tried that once with a .45 MAC 10 at an indoor gun range. The ceiling tiles loooked like popcorn coming down….  Yes, I got chewed out by the range owner, and I deserved it. Someone should have warned me, but I saw those people in the movies do it with one hand all the time….


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I think I will be grasshopper11


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

For OldMarine and Newage - I didn't believe it either. You had to be there to see it, because it is possible. Shock waves can do mean things to a human body.

My comment was in regard to a passing bullet, not the pressure wave of an explosion. There is no comparison.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

OldMarine - Ah, but there is. Did you ever see the aftermath of an "original" M-16 bullet in a near miss on the human body ? I have. It was a shock wave that knocked an arm off a VC.

Grasshopper signing off.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanks Chipmunk - Now I know I didn't have a bad dream, as usual.


----------



## MontanaBob (Jan 19, 2011)

How near do you have to be, to get an arm shot off with a near miss?? I wouldn't want to pull the trigger on a firearm able to do that…it would blow your head, arm, balls right off, plus wound or kill anyone close….I once killed a duck with a near miss, couldn't prove it-I ate that duck…


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Chipmunk -
That vulture only has about 10% - 15% of the mass of a human. Of course the shock wave could hurt it - if the bullet came close enough.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

Neither a gun or a knife is inherently dangerous. They are inaniment objects..pieces of metal….paper weights. The danger lies in who uses them. Its impossible to answer that question without knowing the person who is using them. If someone doesn't know how to operate a gun, then a knife would be more dangerous in their hands, and vise versa
You're asking the wrong questions here. The question shouldn't be which is more dangerous - the gun or the knife. The question should be why are these people crazy and how can society prevent/change/reduce this

It is foolish to think that you can separate the tool from it's user. Of course in an ideal world society would be such that anyone could own any kind of potentially harmful object and we need not worry about them because no one would every use such objects in a manner that would cause harm to others. Sadly, we do not live in such a world. There are crazy people out there and it is next to impossible to separate out the crazy people from the not so crazy.

It is axiomatic that crazy people with guns are inherently more dangerous than crazy people with steak knives because guns can kill a lot of people very quickly and at a distance. Anyone with half a brain can see that if that nut job had gone to the cinema in Aurora with a steak knife (or even a whole set of them) far fewer people would have been killed or injured.

We are responsible for the societies in which we live - after all we, collectively, are society. It's time we took responsibility for the society we have created and acknowledge that we are not grown up enough to let people have easy access to dangerous toys because even though the vast majority of us would use them safely, the harm that can be done by gun toting crazies outweighs the value that the non-crazies get for owning said toys.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Using Chipmunk's infographic of 9484 gun deaths and the 32,885 auto deaths in 2010, why are you not advocating to outlaw cars? That would save many more lives than outlawing guns. It would even eliminate drive-by shootings and make people doing bad things with guns easier to catch.

Wait, I know-it is because you *like* cars and *don't like* guns. Even worse because cars are just a convenience.


----------



## CptWingnut (Feb 3, 2011)

What if there were softer gun controls and someone in the theater had a gun to shoot back with? I'm not defending the NRA but the 2nd amendment is in place to ensure the populous has a defense from any form of government/dictatorship, not for hunting alone. (For the spelling police, in case I have any mispelligns I can tell you now I don't care, and you aren't going to hurt my feelings if you use them to belittle me.)


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

gooseforsupper wrote:
Brad, please show us a state where fully automatic weapons are legal for the general public….

I'm not positive but I believe there are some states that allow private citizens to own class 3 weapons (like Colorado, and Texas..and I think Louisiana)...I saw it on a Sons Of Guns episode!
I live in Ct. and I know a guy personally that owns a Mac 11…and he has the Federal stamp to legally own it..


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

That is exactly the point though. Lets give cars a pass because more people use them and want them. They are more popular. More people die because of supersized fast food than guns. Even the vast majority of criminal use of guns is not to shoot people but to intimidate.

It is much like the effect of people seeing a plane crash and being afraid of flying when the greatest risk is driving to the airport. In the case of the Colorado shooting, there is just no way of deterring a determined crazy person that is not afraid of the consequences and probably intended to die. There is no test to see if someone will become unbalanced at some time in the future. I imagine if you sat down and talked to him, he would seem quite sane and lucid in a controlled environment. You can't generally tell insane people by looking at them. I doubt very seriously that he would have been deterred by worrying that his liability insurance coverage would go up as a result of the rampage.

As far as the licensing of cars, I doubt that it would be the same if there were a constitutional amendment giving the right to a car. Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. Different rules apply. As I have said before, if you don't like the status of gun ownership requirements, the only way it will be changed is through a constitutional amendment. The courts have already chosen their interpretation of the second amendment.

Also, the Second Amendment was in no way intended to mean for people to have guns for hunting or target practice. It was specifically regarding having weapons that would be able to shoot and kill people in defense of themselves from each other and the government.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

I can't really say that I am a gun apologist. I just don't think guns themselves are the problem. We have a screwed up society. I am really surprised that nobody has really picked up on the irony that those poor people were sitting in a theater to be entertained by the depiction of the same kind of mayhem that the shooter brought to them in real life.

If you are going to make the case for restrictions on firearm ownership, there are some really valid points to be made. We are not living in the wilderness where the nearest law enforcement is days away. A burglar alarm is more effective than a gun in the home for protection. Someone pulling out a gun in defense is more likely to escalate to a shooting incident what would more likely be a property crime. The likelihood of you pulling out a concealed weapon against someone who is already alert with a gun trained on you is next to nil. The odds of someone being there with a weapon witnessing a shooting spree and in a position to use it has about the same potential for being ready for the zombie apocalypse. The risk of needing a weapon as an actual militia is as likely as the alien invaders it might save us from. The chance of you getting resupplied with ammunition if it really came down to real anarchy is unlikely because the thugs would get it first.

On the other hand I also don't begrudge people sleeping better because they have a gun in the nightstand or in the car with them when they are travelling although recognizing it is mainly a placebo effect.


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

_ Every day any whacko can walk into a gun show and buy a firearm without restrictions such as a background check or for that matter he need not even give a valid ID and thus remain anonymous._

Not true.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Everyday people are killed because gun owners leave their gun laying around. 
And what law(s) would you support to stop this? Last I heard, there was no way to legislate common sense.

Every day any whacko can walk into a gun show and buy a firearm without restrictions such as a background check or for that matter he need not even give a valid ID and thus remain anonymous.
Where do you get your information about this?


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

Wow, I talk about gun restrictions and the opposition says restriction and/or laws don't work. I then go on to show one example of restrictions not working and the opposition fires back…."Not true" well if it's not true then I guess they do work. You can't have it both ways.

No, you talk about people who are breaking existing laws, then want more laws.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Life Member. Certified instructor since 1995. You can hate gun owners all you want; I'll still protect you with mine.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

While it's true that people break the law, is the solution better enforcement of those laws, or passing even more laws that will be broken.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Bertha - I do not hate gun owners. See my previous about my guns.

grasshopper


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I think this horse is toast.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

You are kidding? I thought if we talked about it here, it would get solved!

Tell me it ain't so!!!!


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

chipmonk bobtuley's website is actually refering to the shockwave in the body caused by the projectile and not the shockwave in the air around the free traveling projectile. Air is a compressible fluid (the reason an aircompresser works) but once the projectile enters a noncompressible fluid/solid mash up (out body) then the shockwave can not compress the material and thats what the temporary wound cavity is caused by.

Also you (and many others) make it sound like gun show vendors dont have to do a background check, believe it or not most do. It is the non-dealer private citizens that dont. Nothing makes the gun show special for this, the same could be done in a walmart parking lot, over craigslist. etc etc.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Federal Firearms Liscensed dealers have to do everything that they have to do if they sale a gun in their store.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/bruce-w-krafft/gun-show-loophole-what-gun-show-loophole/

*Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Federal Firearms Licensees (a.k.a., gun dealers or FFLs) at a gun show must fill out their ATF Form 4473s and do their FBI background (NICS) checks just as if they were at their shops (or their homes for that matter).*


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Im not saying those people didn't break the law. I am just saying what the law is.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

The argument that cars should be banned too is spurious. Cars do indeed cause many deaths and injuries, but on the flip side they contribute enormously to our lives - to the point where they are often considered to essentials. In addition, large parts of our national economies are based around and dependent on the car. The benefits of cars (both to the individual and to society) outweigh the harm that they do.

The same cannot be said for guns, ownership of which does nothing at all for "the national good" and contributes nothing to society. In these times, guns are little more than toys - and we could have a whole new debate on why grown men and women need such toys.

I live in New Zealand, where guns are legal, but highly regulated. People are still able to hunt and target shoot (and many do), but it's much more difficult here for a crazy person to get a firearm.

It is perfectly possible that the US could adopt regulations that still enabled people to own guns (and thereby maintain their 2nd amendment rights), while limiting the chances of a nutcase getting hold of one. That the US does not enact such regulations is down to the selfishness of gun owners who care more about their toys than they do about the safety of their fellow citizens.


----------



## Sodabowski (Aug 23, 2010)

I didn't expect the LJs forum to be a Jerry Springer's show lookalike


----------



## lullabies1023 (Jul 27, 2012)

a accessory for casting stones or added missiles that consists, typically, of a abbreviate band with a continued cord at anniversary end and that is operated by agreement the missile in the strap, and, captivation the ends of the strings in one hand, addled the apparatus about in a amphitheater and absolution one of the strings to acquittal the missile.

Woodworking Machinery


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

The point I was making about the cars was not that they should be banned. I was questioning that people single out gun ownership saying oh so many lives would be saved without any basis in reality. The 12 people were killed in this brutal attack. Yes, it is tragic. More than 12 were killed in cars but is just "an acceptable loss" because people don't want to lose the convenience of having a car.

You say that the reduced access in NZ has kept crazy people from getting weapons and prevented similar events. I say it is more likely that you just have fewer crazy people. It is also more likely that your society has less stresses that set off crazy people. It is also possible that your mental health system reaches out and helps people before it gets that bad.

There are people here that are afraid of elements of our society and our own government and for them, the expense and ownership of weapons offers some protection and contributes to their own survival. We have had events in our recent history that might support that view: Several rounds of riots, Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians in Waco, World Trade Center, Drug cartels, Murray Building in OKC, and Hurricane Katrina just to name a few. Do I personally feel the need to arm myself? No, but I do understand it.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

Car's are an essential part of modern society - more that just a 'convenience'.

Its perfectly possible that you have more crazy people than we do - in which case why make it easy for them to get guns?

Ruby Ridge and Waco would not have happened had the protaganists not been heavily armed and an armed populace contibuted nothing to the other events you list.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Chipmunk -
Nobody who has taken even high school physics questions that a projectile creates a shock wave. That's elementary. We called BS, however, when you claimed that the shock wave from a passing bullet (i.e. a near miss) maimed or killed someone. A near miss can do lots of things (jack up your blood pressure, relax your bladder and/or sphincter, or just scare the hell out of you), but those are from fear - not the shock wave.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Whether right or not, there are many here that believe Ruby Ridge and Waco were avoidable tragedies and could have been defused peacefully. They view it as the government going in with needless violence. The other events are not that they would have been better for society with guns but rather that people feel the need to protect themselves when they do not believe the authorities can or will protect them.

The ones who own guns feel that they are essential as well. Many feel that they not only a right but a responsibility to help protect their families and neighbors as well.

Would it have been better if the killer in Colorado had used Molotov cocktails instead or driven a truck into a crowd instead? Then we could have been relieved and say "Well, at least he didn't have a gun. He might have hurt someone."

It is easy to point at firearms but it is a much deeper problem than that. We thrive on violence in our entertainment. We glamorize vigilantism. We glamorize criminals.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

We thrive on violence in our entertainment. We glamorize vigilantism. We glamorize criminals. *AND* we make lethal wepons easy to get.


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

For those who want to screen "whackos" to keep them from getting guns: why stop there? If you think it could ever be possible to screen whackos, why not screen everybody as a matter of course and find all the whackos?

You don't honestly believe such a scheme would never be abused by somebody with an axe to grind, do you?


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Sodabowski: Would you rather we were discussing politics?

While it has not been a discussion everyone agrees on, I don't remember seeing any name calling or personal attacks in this thread. It has been exceedingly civil. If it had fallen apart as some others have, I would have bailed out long ago. Life is too short.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Here is the problem though. As long as the bad guys are armed, the good guys are not going to budge. Just making them illegal doesn't solve the problem. I live about 7 miles from Mexico where guns are illegal and the criminals have automatic weapons, hand grenades and more and have frequent gunfights in the streets.

In a perfect world we could put the criminals and crazy people somewhere safe and we wouldn't even need for the police to be armed. It wouldn't matter if we stuck an automatic weapon in our kid's backpacks so they could get in a little target practice on the way home from school. I was out hunting by myself at 10-12 years old. Many friends were as well. It never even crossed our minds to do the crap people do now.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

The real problem is that people buy into the myth that by owing a gun they are reducing the possibility that they will become a victim of crime.

You *can *have a regulated environment whereby good honest law abiding people can own guns but crims and nut jobs have difficulty in getting their hands on them. I know this because I live in such a place - even the cops here don't routinely carry firearms. The US could certainly do the same, but won't because the gun owning voters care more about their guns than they do about the well-being of their society.

The reason the bad guys have guns is because the "good guys" insist on guns being easy to get.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Sodabowski - Me neither. If I could delete this crap shoot I would.

aka grasshopper


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

You are so anxious to find fault with anything I say that you are grasping at straws.

Simmer down Chipmunk. I was responding to rosebudjim and mistakenly looked at your post right after his. No straws involved here.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Sawkerf,

While in VietNam with the 1st Div / 5th Mech Bde, we were out there somewhere between KheSan and Tchepone, and attacked by some VC. We fired back not knowing if we hit anybody. We found two bodies, one was hit in the chest, because he had no chest remaining, and the other one was missing his left arm, which we found under him. There were no bullet markings to indicate he had been hit. We believed this to be because of the "shock wave" that the ORIGINAL M-16 bullet would produce, as told by the instructors at small arms training at Ft. Lewis, WA.

I know numerous military experts will tell you not so, that there was no original M-16 bullet. I know different.
When I was in basic at Lackland, 1965, we had to qualify in the M-1, of which I did as expert marksman. In the range behind us, Colt Arms Engineers were testing the M-16. So - - - three of us were "volunteered" to police their brass the rest of the day. They had the M-16s fixed in vices, and were firing 20 mags one after the other, full auto, to see if the weapon would hold up as required. The engineers let us fire as many mags as we wanted, as they were bored with it all. Those M-16s were so hot the barrels were turning colors. Those Engineers told us about the shock wave effect the bullet would cause - dismemberment if the bullet passed close enough to a human, or animal. Yeah, right ! I was made a believer upon seeing film taken in VietNam, and by seeing it myself, in the flesh [ so to speak ]. Some experts would say the bullet tumbled - not so - it wobbled in flight. Also, the muzzle velocity of the orginal bullet at a hundred yards was the same as a .45 at one inch. As I said before, we would knock down concrete bunkers from WWII the Japanese had built, that's what kind of destructive power it had.

I can already hear the naysayers out there that this all a bunch of BS. All I got to say to them is; Were they there ?


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

That you saw a body with its arm severed doesn't mean a thing. The whole thing was a myth - a myth that started because the original M16 had a rifling twist rate too slow to stabilize the bullet properly. It was marginally stable in flight, so it tended to tumble easily when it hit something. They didn't know this at first; all they knew was that that tiny bullet seemed to do damage out of proportion to its size; the rumor mill took over, and the myth was born. Modern M16s and AR15 clones have had the twist rate stepped up, and the tumbling has stopped.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Now, there's a myth I can believe in ! One down - 47 bzillion to go - not going to say which 47 bizillion, don't want to start another crap shoot that everybody will be shouting and cranking to each other.

Thanks JJohnston, that part of my synapses will rest easy. I see those two guys, and others, all the time in my nightmares.


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

I can already hear the naysayers out there that this all a bunch of BS. All I got to say to them is;* Were they there ?*

Yeah, I was. 15 months worth, Nov '67-Mar '69. 12th Marines. I was at Khe Sahn.

I still don't believe near-miss dismemberment.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

If someone has a limb torn off what makes you think you would even see an entry wound? Even a trained medical examiner would have trouble doing that.

I found this on Wikipedia.
The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were actually caused by projectile fragmentation, which was created by a combination of the projectile's velocity and construction.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Chipmunk:

I don't have any idea about the shockwave idea but I do know that some of the variants of that rifle were banned under the Geneva convention because the severe tissue damage they caused. So many experimental variations on some of those weapons and ammunition that nobody will ever really know what was out there.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

A shock wave can definitely dismember a human - if the bullet hits him. The human body is mostly water which is an incompressible fluid. On impact, the bullet's energy creates a hydrostatic shock wave that spreads with devastating results. Exit wounds are bigger than entry wounds because the hydrostatic shock wave literally blows the tissue out of the body. Even though the M16 round was small caliber (.223 in), it traveled at supersonic velocity which gave it very high kinetic energy.

If the bullet fragments on impact (like the early M16 rounds), the energy is spread over a wider area since the single projectile is now several, smaller, projectiles. Have you ever heard of dum-dum bullets? They were designed to fragment on impact and cause much more severe wounds. Hollow point bullets don't fragment, but their construction causes them to "mushroom" into a larger cross sectional area which increases the area receiving hydrostatic shock and the severity of the wound.

None of this can happen, however, without actual bullet impact.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I enjoy data - - interesting that all this back and forth about M16 rounds and assault rifles - but most crimes are handguns.
The EVIL ASSAULT WEAPONS + ALL OTHER GUNS COMBINED have the same rate of use in murders as knives.
Must be the 100 round clip from Satan?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Of course, in the world of multiple 24hr news networks they have to do something to get people glued to the set. I think all the coverage is what encourages these people, gives them the idea even.

I remember a few years back a news bit showing that all a terrorist had to do to kill alot of people was open "this unlocked door at this address and put poision in the water supply, right here…."


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

To all,

As I explained in my last disertation of how a shock wave, as told by the Colt dudes and watching films by the military, how could not one believe in this theory? Especially when all the small arms range instructors verified the myth. Plus the ACLU continued the story, if my memory serves my right [?], by suing the government of gross negligence and torture of enemy combatants, by using this type of weapon. So, in retrospect, and as explaned by JJohnston, who is, by looking at the badge of his avatar, is an EOD type, I concede.

Now - - - This end this crankyness.

aka grasshopper

And, I know, I know, here it comes…..........................more ! We did find an M-16 shell casing jammed into the chamber of an AK we captured.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

Rosebud,
It was conceded that you can force close some AK's on an 5.56 . Especially on the original round, like you say. The M193 was lighter and shorter than the M855 (55gr vs 62gr). You can even get it to fire, once, it wont cycle the weapon.

I understand the "they can use ours, we can't use theirs" story is applied to just about every caliber in NATO vs soviet block. But its just the 81mm vs 82mm mortar that is works correctly for. 
Not:
5.56X45 vs 7.62X39
9X19 vs 9.13X18
7.62X51 vs 7.62X54R
12.7X99 vs 12.7X108


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

I'm not EOD, nor have I ever claimed to be - that's just the "nose art" on my potato cannon. See it in my blog and projects. I do enjoy my guns, however, and I do like to study my hobbies, plus I have an engineering education, which includes some physics.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I've looked and I can't find anything on cartridges that have a muzzle velocity of up to 4800 fps being able to cause damage with a miss from the shockwave. I also looked for the ACLU suit over the original M16 rounds and can't find it. I would appreciate if someone could point me to it.

I say if people care enough about this to fight over it, send the myth into mythbusters and see if they will take it up.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I little side trip if you will!

I live about 5 miles from the Winchester Mansion … the same Winchester of firearms fame.

When her husband William Winchester died she left Connecticut and moved to San Jose to build her mansion with a nearly endless supply of cash. It is a very interesting place and if you ever get to San Jose ("Do You know the way to San Jose") the 10th largest city in the U.S. you should visit the mansion.

If not, here is a link to the website


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

You left out the part about how she never stopped building on the place for fear of the ghosts of the people killed by Winchester firearms. The "Winchester Mystery Houuse" is one of the weirdest buildings you'll ever see.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

16 Undeniable Truths About Guns and Gun Control
Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
Free men do not ask permision to bear arms.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
You don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stay alive.
Assault is a behavior, not a device, eg a gun.
Some 84 million gun owners did not kill anyone yesterday, and won't kill anybody today.
The United States Consitituion circa 1791.
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the other Amendmants.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?
Guns have only two enemies, rust and politicians.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Chipmunk I've always had the impression of why should the US sign a treaty that restricts something it doesnt do anyway when the nations that it is aimed at may sign it but usually show no regard for the treaty in the first place. How many agreements did we have with North Korea that they wouldnt develope nuclear weapons, we paid the bribe and they went ahead and did it anyway.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Sawkerf,*

My original post included that but something kicked me off line and I lost it all!

Wouldn't have been so bad if I had my PC (it's being de-wormed) but on my tablet with a virtual keyboard I didn't want to retype all of that again.

I also had made mention of the fact that she was very short and had a stairway zigzag back and forth with risers less than 4" ... talk about a long climb. She also had a doorway in the stables that was not obvious as it was very very short. Those are just a few of the really different things. She was also very innovative with her building that she introduced some outstanding concepts for that time.

A very interesting woman, family, mansion and …....... firearms museum. The website has all kinds of information if you can't make here or "Don't know the way to San Jose" ..... yes, one more time!


----------



## b2rtch (Jan 20, 2010)

Guns kill, period. 
That's what they are made for.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

You are oversimpllifying, this has happened countless times, why trust them when they haven't proven trustworthy?


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I've lived in San Jose since '73 and been to the Mystery House 3-4 times.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

No Bert, people kill. Guns are just one of a long line of force multipliers that started when the first caveman picked up a rock or a sharp stick. No gun, knife, ax, sword, club, bomb, or poison deliberately kills without human involvement.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Chipmunk - See Newage's reply.

JJohnston - So the myth has not been debunked, along with false leads.

Newage - I don't believe I said it would have a continuous fire rate when the original round entered the chamber.

Bert - Exactly.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Hell, I don't know …..................oh yeah, about what he said about some casing being stuck in an AK ? You must have been real good at camoflaugeing [sic] [?] when you saw what I saw , because I didn't even see you behind that tree.


----------



## Zinderin (Jul 24, 2012)

Please stop … Rwanda didn't allow ANY guns, and neither did any of the countries around it … yet when they quit tracking it in 1994, over 800K people had been clubbed to death and machete'd to death.

Maybe, if those people had guns to fight back, 10,000 people a day wouldn't have been slaughtered.

And I submit to anyone who believes in gun control … please consider how many would have been saved, if the adults people in the theater had been packing guns to defend themselves and their kids.

NEVER will bad people not be able to get guns. Gun control is a ruse. Any chance of keeping guns out of the hands of the bad-guys went by the wayside with the corrupt governments and drug lords of central and south America.


----------



## Zinderin (Jul 24, 2012)

You overlook the fact that the reason its in the Constitution in the first place was to allow the American citizens to over-throw the government if needed, just as they had just done with the British. The constitution is not about hunting or sports rifles … so stop trying to make -that- the debate.

So to answer your question, yes, in the context of what the second amendment is about, we need 30 round magazine.

As for your point about the dark … a) it wasn't that dark. b) you've clearly never been in a firefight in the dark … there's no problem seeing your opponent.

But it doesn't matter, I'm not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me. So let's take the discussion OFF the wood working web-site.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

If you get shot at in a Wal-Mart parking for scratching someones car you and everyone else would drive much more carefully wouldn't they.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

I dropped out of this discussion a few days ago because…I was working in my shop of all things! But a few observations…
The whole argument about if we outlaw "assault" weapons we should outlaw cars and other inanimate objects also that kill people is completely absurd…cars, swimming pools, spoons…they aren't designed to kill… their main function of design isn't to kill..The ONLY designed application for a weapon that fires that much ammo that fast is to kill and kill quickly and efficiently..spray as much lead at your enemy as fast as you can. Cars only kill when re purposed for that..either intentionally or accidentally. When the Thompson was invented, at the end of WW1, it's nick name was the trench broom..for it's ability to spray bullets at a high rate, with marginal accuracy…kill as many men as fast as it can..period.

The argument that if other adults were allowed to have guns then the death toll in Colorado might have been less. That's true in theory..but personally, I don't want the wild west popping up over my head. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are proficient with the weapon…you might have only shot it a few times since you got your permit. It's bad enough we have to deal with gang bangers that are bad shots, now I have to worry about standing in line at a 7-11 and some junkie pulls out a pistol that he found in a garbage can and then 10 gun crazy vigilantes draw down on him and I'm caught in the 2nd amendment crossfire. Also, just because you own a gun, doesn't mean you are capable of pointing it at another human being and shooting them. There are allot of paper tigers out there that own guns and talk a big game..but when it comes down to brass tacks, and they are in the moment when they are supposed to be shooting the evil person, they are pissing on their gun in fear rather than firing it. There's a big difference between shooting a target, and shooting a human being.

There's just something strange and unnerving about people that protest too much about loosing their ability to own any gun you want. I'm not for full gun bans or controls, but I do think that there isn't a valid reason for civilians to own these types of weapons. You can defend your family with a host of other lethal types of weapons… shotguns and rifles and pistols…you don't need military style assault weapons..they should only be in the hands of police and the military…period. I get the whole 2nd amendment argument…but you have to take it in context a little..that was written before there were serial killers or assault weapons..but again, I'm not saying ban ALL guns. I just get a little uneasy when some people start screaming "you can have my AK when you pry it out of my cold dead hands"..well OK if that's the way you want it..you sound like a little child ranting when mommy wants to take away your favorite toy. Sorry, but if society deems it that way then you will have to give up your blessed killing machines..Guys who use weapons to define themselves are allot like 60 year old successful men who buy Corvettes..or short guys that buy monster trucks..

And please spare me the fife and drum speeches about the constitution, and tyranny, your rights to defend yourself..blah blah blah..its just rhetoric that you read in the NRA handbook..you just want to own the gun..tell the truth..it's not about the constitution, or even about protecting yourself or your family..you want the cool toy…


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

Chipmunk,
So, the basis of your whole argument seems to be on what makes you "feel much safer"?
Well, I "feel much safer" living in a country where free men are allowed to defend themselves. That's my right. A free man does not willfully give his rights away and stands up against the tyrant class that wants to do so. That may be why so many disagree with you…..


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

*There's a big difference between shooting a target, and shooting a human being.*

Well as soon as that "joker" douche opened fire he stoped being a human being.

If someone had returned fire he may have been the one that pissed his pants and curled up in a ball. He certianly turned into a lamb out in the parking lot when the cops approached him.

This whole "turn into the wild west" arguement has been used as long as I can remember and I have yet to see that happen. The closest thing to it is the George Zimmerman thing in Florida.


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

Well guess what. The Aurora shooter was a psychiatric patient.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/justice/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/us/colorado-theater-shooting-psychiatrist/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Sounds like the University of Colorado has some splainin to do…..

Why wasn't this psycho put in the instant background check system?

He walked right into Bass Pro Shop and passed a background check. So it looks like the system and the beauracrats screwed up again. I feel much safer now that I know the government and beauracrats are looking out for my safety…..


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Brad,

No, guns have purpose outside of killing. Most police and even the majority of military never kill (or even actually shoot at anyone) with a firearm. Most never even draw them other than at the shooting range. They are a symbol stating that someone has the capability to kill. They are a message to go screw with somebody else or be prepared for the consequences. It is like a steering wheel club or the little signs in the yard for a burglar alarm.

Even in warfare, most automatic fire is not intended to kill people. It is a strategic device to pin people down and prevent them from shooting you while you are in the open to move to a better position. If you want to kill people, you aim carefully and fire one bullet at them.

People say, "If he didn't have a gun available, it would have never happened." That is nonsense. If he didn't have a gun available, he would have just made a different plan. He would have used a bomb just like the booby traps he left in his apartment.

I understand not feeling like it is necessary for the general public to have one. The fact is that it is a minority opinion. I personally believe it is more dangerous having a minority making the decisions for "what is best for everyone" than for my neighbor to have an arsenal in his basement. I have the police to protect me from the nuts with the guns. The nuts deciding "what is best for me" have the police to enforce their agenda against me.


----------



## Zinderin (Jul 24, 2012)

Well, again, its moot. The ship has already sailed. You aren't going to stop people from owning or acquiring guns, owning assault weapons, owning large ammo clips or getting all the ammo they want.

The only people who pay attention to gun laws are the people who we aren't worried about.

But again, why are we arguing this on a woodworking website? Go argue it on Fox News' forums, or the NRA's.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Even in warfare, most automatic fire is not intended to kill people. It is a strategic device to pin people down and prevent them from shooting you while you are in the open to move to a better position. If you want to kill people, you aim carefully and fire one bullet at them.

Hmm..I guess those Germans behind the MG 42's were just trying to scare all the guys coming ashore at D day…kinda contradicts all the books I have read written by men who lived through it talking about guys getting cut in half as they ran out of the landing crafts…Whole groups of soldiers mowed down like wheat..

Believe it or not if you pull your head out of the NRA's ass for a moment..YOU are the minority with your opinion that the general public should be allowed to own assault weapons..Thats the fact…It's sickening the way politicians pander to the NRA…


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Brad:

You are building a strawman argument. Machine guns like that are already illegal to own without special permits which are not easy to obtain. Are you going to use tanks and naval guns as examples next? Machine gun fire like that is intended to pin people down so they can be blown up with artillery. Same as the barbed wire.

How can you say that the majority want it if the majority do not vote for it? Most every time it is brought to a vote, it fails. As far as my head being in the NRA's ass or politicians pandering, that is just rhetoric. The people's vote is what matters. Write up a constitutional amendment and go for it. If the majority want it, you will have your wish.

I am for the law. If the law is for them being banned, I am behind it all the way. Right now, the law permits it.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

If it is silly, it is because we elect bad representatives. How do you propose we get past that little problem? We have a whole bunch of idiots in our country that for vote for their favorite idiots. I am not picking on one side or the other. I personally can't think of a single member of Congress or Senate that shouldn't be run out on a rail right after we are finished running out the PACs, Lobbyists, and the Democratic and Republican party leadership.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

First thing tomorrow morning, Chipmunk, you should call your District Attorney's office and run that idea past them. Then come back and tell us how well that worked.

Is it time to re-fold your tin foil hat? - lol


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

Chipmunk,
Please provide an example of when the NRA has ever supported "enabling easy access to guns by anybody who can breath" That's sounds a lot more like a left talking point than a reasoned argument. But I would truly like some examples if you know of any. Because I have never heard of such a thing

I know they support having the current restrictions on felons, those adjudicated mentally deficient, etc. They even proposed that all federal and state IDs be marked if you are in one of the restricted categories, to ensure that private citizens, gun shows, etc have a fast easy way to check. As well as a system similar to a CCW number. Your card has your number, a federal website check, and instantly know if the person is legal to purchase a firearm. You apply for the number and if you ever become a felon, etc, its instantly marked.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

Chipmunk,
I was asking for a single example of where the NRA has ever supported allowing easy access to everyone (anybody who can breath, to use your words). You just say they always have, yet don't show a single case, statement, etc that shows they support that.

In fact, the NRA is regularly bashed by the JPFO and GOA for siding with restrictions on almost every case. Now granted, they might not want as many restrictions as you do, but they have always supported more strict restrictions and punishments. Since they are the biggest, they get the most fire from the left. However, they continually push for what they view as "legitimate, common sense" restrictions and increased punishment for gun law violations.

To claim that they are an origination that always pushes for unfettered access to firearms shows not only an ignorance of the NRA, but being over taken by group think. The same way Joe wants someone to prove the sky isn't blue to show that President Obama isn't a Muslim, I mean everyone knows he is, right?


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Make that call to the DA. They'll explain it to you. - lol


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

As an aside Chipmunk, the NRA supported FOPA which banned a whole new group of people from legal owning firearms. Such as:

-Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices.
-Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
-Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
-Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
-Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state.
-Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
-Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
-Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. 
-Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. 
-A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

Seems to me like some people in those groups might be breathers.

They also supported HR 2640. Which is considered by many pro-gun people to be an insane law. It propose things like, if you were diagnosed with ADHD as a child you can never own a firearm, as well as some nifty other restrictions


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I strongly believe in the right to own firearms for protection from man and beast. You anti gun types should come spend the summer at my place. I'll get rid of all my guns and you can depend on your hands if need be.


----------



## NANeanderthal (Jun 2, 2011)

Chipmunk,
I guess we will just leave it at there is nothing and call it a day.

You showed where the NRA opposed legislation making harder to get a gun. However, you failed to show any time, place, or bill; that the NRA has ever supported letting "anyone who can breath" easily get a gun. They continue to push for legislation that prevents a lot of breathing people from being able to own a gun. I sampled two of many in reply.

But then again, I guess facts aren't nearly as important as "what everybody knows" are they?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I can't tell for sure be it looks like you're feeding that bear. Highly illegal and doesn't say much you your smarts if that what your doing.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Just think of how many bears you could annihilate with an AK…oh, I'm sorry..you don't want to kill them you just want to pin them down in a compromising position so they can't return fire….


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Not to worry chipmunk, I done plenty of dumb things in my life.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I like how you answered each and every point I made …

There were points in there? Looked more like the typical blather from people who go along with whatever they hear and can't or won't actually find out for themselves.


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

Chipmunk types:

"Well Goose, the truth is that 86% of the American public want background checks, 63% want a ban on high-capacity clips, 69% want limits on gun purchases, 66% want a national gun registry and 88% want a ban for those on the terror watch list. (source: media matters)"

LOL! You crack me up. First of all, Media Matters has been proven to be a leftist propaganda site so nothing they say has any merit at all. Secondly, you can't get Americans to agree on anything, let alone 66% wanting a national gun registry. That is nonsense. About the only statistic I see that is true any more is that around 30% of the population has bought into the socialist/leftist point of view. You know, the old hopenchange bull that they got suckered with the last go round.

Just because you choose a .410 single shot as your home defense weapon doesn't mean you can tell the rest of us what we deem appropriate for our own self defense. I would much prefer a 12 guage pump loaded with slugs if a bear was coming through my picture window….




























I know these three pictures you probably don't agree with, but that is the price you pay for living in a free country. Freedom, Independence, those are the most important things in the whole wide world. That's why people flock to this country, to escape the tyrannical rule of dictators and corrupt governments. What you are proposing is just another step to take our freedom and indpendence away, all so you can feel safer. You are willing to trade your freedom, and my freedom, for false security. No Thanks!

Remember history, and what happens when you disarm the people and let the government decide what is best for you. It has a remarkably steady and predictable outcome.










That is why us responsible owners of semi-automatic firearms, with high capacity magazines, won't allow or comply with a national gun registry. There are tens of millions of us, you know, behnd every blade of grass as Yomomote so precisely feared. It is the only true means of keeping our freedom and independence from dictators and a tyrannical government. Our Fouding Fathers were oh so wise to set up such a system where politicians were kept in check by such an ominous an subtle threat. God Bless their souls.

Get where I'm coming from? I am willing to accept the fact that mass killings happen everywhere in the world, as they always have and always will. That fact is no excuse to give up my freedom or independence in hope that the mass murderers will somehow cease to exist. Nope, not going to do it, and I will fight on the soapbox and ballot box, which is my right and duty.

I think I'll go hang in the wood shop for a while, so let the whining continue….


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I wasn't going to say anything about that .410 but I want a little more if I ever have to shoot a bear in defense of life or property.

I have a Remington model 870 3 inch mag with a 20 inch refiled barrel. My loads are from Dixie Slugs out of Florida. The loads are 3 inch magnums and 730 gr slug. They also make a 3 1/2 inch magnum.

You can read about them here, awesome performance.

http://www.dixieslugs.com/


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

I haven't made it to the shop yet, had to do some honey do's and refreshed the screen just to see if you opined yet….

LOL! I guess I would live in constant fear if I lived in Washington DC, New York, Chicago, or Detroit. You know, the leftist bastions of peace and justice…..

So to your arguments and put downs on my opinion, all I can say to that is "Whatever".


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Why do you think the Government wants to take out guns?

Why do you think the Governments wants to take our privacy away? 10 thousand drones flying over the U.S.A.

Why do you think the Government is building Fema Camps?

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=fema+camps

Why do you think the Government (Obama) wants to build a civilian security force as big and well equipped as our armies? If you haven't heard about this you not listening.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

If you just want to scare bears away"Bear Spray" is a better option. I have Bear Spray alway handy in the summer time.

http://www.udap.com/faq.htm


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Not that a bear has never been killed with a .22 long rifle but I sure don't what you to try and protect me from a charging bear with that toy.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Many places it is not considered humane to hunt deer with a .22lr and therefore you can't.

I hope your not saying its common sense to beat a bear with a broom.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Chipmunk:

Thanks for the videos. Those are great.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Be thankful he used an AR-15 instead of 5 gallons of gas!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

During the Clinton Administration, the Department of Justice conducted the Philadelphia Project. They determined the enforcement of existing gun laws had a dramatic impact on violent crime. They did not continue enforcement activities at the end of the project or expand the enforcement to do their fiduciary responsibility nationwide. The official reason was it was too expensive to enforce the laws of the land. Politically, they need the issue to keep the base stirred up. Without these issues, everyone would oppose all the corporate whores occupying WA DC!


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

That is just a bunch of feel-good nonsense.

1. The first item is against importing weapons. Last time I looked, the AR-15 was being made by Colt in the US. Then the only part of the AR-15 that is regulated is the lower receiver which people are making at home. Everything else can be ordered mail order no questions asked. Sounds more like they are worried about supporting U.S. gun makers than anything.

2. I am not sure what bearing guns go into Mexico has on the availability of guns in the US. It has no effect beyond maintaining good relations with Mexico. Not that I am for sending guns to Mexico. I think that someone gets caught smuggling guns to Mexico should be handed over to the Mexican authorities. Then face charges in the U.S. when Mexico is done with them.

3. I have no idea how many guns are actually stolen from dealers nor how many "Fire Sales" of guns take place. Most places I have seen have pretty good security when they have hundreds of thousands of dollars in inventory sitting around. They also tend to want to know the background of people they hire. I don't see how making new laws has any effect on people that are already breaking the laws already in place. Sounds more like an enforcement issue than a lack of laws.

If they are going to regulate ownership, they will need to overcome several difficulties. First being the registration of firearms. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a firearm, not the right to anonymity in their ownership. With rights come responsibilities as well. There should to be a way to have the original owner legally responsible for the weapon until it is certified to be out of their possession.

The next biggest being the rights of states. It means nothing to ban sales in New York City when all they have to do is cross the bridge to New Jersey and buy them. All they are doing is cheating themselves out of the sales tax. Another state's rights problem is that they will need a way to actually track every sale and have a current database to draw on as to who can legally buy them on a national level.

The last is to have a clear distinction of what weapons are legal and what is illegal beyond silly terms like assault weapon. A flat black colored weapon is no more dangerous than one with a pretty walnut stock.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Topa that was my thoughts exactly on the gasoline. Or even something as simple as mixing bleach and ammonia together could have been much worse.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I think he would have had a very difficult time generating enough volume of gas with bleach and ammonia to fill a theater quickly enough to do any real damage. I have long wondered about the crack pots using gas in a crowd. A fate far worse than being shot! ;-(


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21168162/no-state-gun-laws-do-job

http://www.gunauction.com/news/article/20120802-Armed-Utah-salt-lake-city-citizen-stops-knife-attack.cfm


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

What if the guys who wrote the constitution got it wrong and meant that nobody should carry guns. Has anybody thought of that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

My second cousin a few times removed, Roger Sherman, instigator of the Connecticut Compromise that gave you 2 houses in Congress; the only man to sign the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; was on the committee with John Vining and James Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights. I have a direct bloodline link, I can feel it in my bones, they did not get it backwards.

The War started at Lexington and Concord when the Brits came to confiscate arms and powder.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Maybe they also ment that there should be freedom of speech and religion too.

Although through the years their words have been twisted, disected, misused, reinterpreted etc their actions spoke pretty clearly.


----------



## gooseforsupper (Jul 18, 2012)

I'm glad the U.N. arms treaty was stopped. Time we kicked that corrupt oranization from our shores and quit funding them.


----------



## DavidWhite (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm glad the U.N. arms treaty was stopped. Time we kicked that corrupt oranization from our shores and quit funding them

You already did stop funding them - the US owes the UN 1.8 Billion dollars.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Eric Holder's view on brainwashing Americans






+100 for gooseforsupper's history lesson.


----------

