For you Law Abiding Gun Enthusiasts.....

[Snorri1234]

Because Vigilante-justice is such a splendid idea.

[Napoleon Ier]

Because Vigilante-justice is such a splendid idea.

The police seem to get us precisely dick in this country with the ethnic and council-house violence problems.

[Frigidus]

Because Vigilante-justice is such a splendid idea.

I never really pegged Nappy as the type to get behind populist mobs. Besides, all they'd succeed in doing in this sort of climate is fucking up some rich-looking guys and looting stores.

[Napoleon Ier]

I dunno... I was thinking more about something along the lines of the Freikorps, or maybe the Texas Rangers, than a disorganized mob. You'd have rank hierarchy and organizations. Then they'd patrol the countryside and cities alike, rescuing damsels from social undesirables and generally looking fucking cool.

[dewey316]

HOWEVER... I also got pretty darned tired of being told that walking in our public forest alone WITH ORANGE all over was dangerous and "ill-advised" (granted, NO ONE but hunters go out here during the 2 weeks of deer season ....).

We have been over this a dozen of times Player. When I mentioned the potential danger of wild animals, that is not the context I was talking about. You are trying to so hard to paint all gun owners into this this little box, that you seem to think everyone fits into. I haven't gone hunting in any form, for several years. But, when I go back-packing out in some of the more remote area's of the western US. I darn well want to have something with me, in case I run across a really hungry beer, or a cougar who isn't timid.

Should I start a countdown now, until you respond with how you once knew someone who did x, y, and z?

EVERY YEAR people get shot and killed ... some are hunters in the woods, some are just sitting peacefully in their houses. (2 cases in PA last year alone!).

And those of us who carry and use our firearms responsibly, are equally upset about those situations. The negligent shooters need to be held responsible. Don't use your above whole drawn out rant about how you deem hunting to be completely safe, if it wasn't for other hunters, and that to try to make it look like every gun owning citizen in the US, is just some trigger happy crazy, who will pop a shot off at any time. That is far from the case.

[KoolBak]

Nicely laid out Dewey.......lol.....some people need to vent I guess.

Pedro - I did manage to stock up; primarily it simply makes me happy....I am not one of those end of the world types; I live in one of the nicest communities in the Pacific Northwest.......I like to take my son out plinking / target shooting if we feel like it.

What I HAVE reconsidered is blindly letting my friends and their kids burn thru all MY ammo when we go target shooting....lol. Just blew a lot of money this morning at a gun show and I think I'll save a little of it for me ;o)

[Neoteny]

I dunno... I was thinking more about something along the lines of the Freikorps, or maybe the Texas Rangers, than a disorganized mob. You'd have rank hierarchy and organizations. Then they'd patrol the countryside and cities alike, rescuing damsels from social undesirables and generally looking fucking cool.

While I can't deny the attractiveness of looking fucking cool, that perspective seems as inclined toward the idealistic as all those adjectives you use to describe your usual opposition.

[PLAYER57832]

HOWEVER... I also got pretty darned tired of being told that walking in our public forest alone WITH ORANGE all over was dangerous and "ill-advised" (granted, NO ONE but hunters go out here during the 2 weeks of deer season ....).

We have been over this a dozen of times Player. When I mentioned the potential danger of wild animals, that is not the context I was talking about. You are trying to so hard to paint all gun owners into this this little box, that you seem to think everyone fits into. I haven't gone hunting in any form, for several years. But, when I go back-packing out in some of the more remote area's of the western US. I darn well want to have something with me, in case I run across a really hungry beer, or a cougar who isn't timid.

I wasn't talking about wild animals at all.... and I probably have a LOT more experience in the woods than you. I pretty much speant my life there, not just backpacking, but living there... and frankly, if you need a gun to protect yourself against wild animals in America (other than the grizzly and now some Mt lions), .... you haven't speant that much time there. That's nothing against carrying a gun for hunting, or in the few places where they are needed, but first rule of hunting is understanding the animal.

Nor am I anti-gun by a long stretch.

I am FOR fun owners being responsible, because it is the idiots that will result in gund being taken away from the rest.

Should I start a countdown now, until you respond with how you once knew someone who did x, y, and z?

skip it .. its irrelevant. Try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions like Oh, she's liberal and obviously against guns.

EVERY YEAR people get shot and killed ... some are hunters in the woods, some are just sitting peacefully in their houses. (2 cases in PA last year alone!).

And those of us who carry and use our firearms responsibly, are equally upset about those situations.

Which we are.

The negligent shooters need to be held responsible. Don't use your above whole drawn out rant about how you deem hunting to be completely safe, if it wasn't for other hunters, and that to try to make it look like every gun owning citizen in the US, is just some trigger happy crazy, who will pop a shot off at any time. That is far from the case.

No, I am saying that you cannot blame Obama or any politician for why so many people ARE anti guns, for why there will be more and more restrictions, you need to blame those who carry. And yes, it is up to all of us who do use guns (though admittedly, I don't use one any more) to ensure they are used responsibly.

[jonesthecurl]

HOWEVER... I also got pretty darned tired of being told that walking in our public forest alone WITH ORANGE all over was dangerous and "ill-advised" (granted, NO ONE but hunters go out here during the 2 weeks of deer season ....).

We have been over this a dozen of times Player. When I mentioned the potential danger of wild animals, that is not the context I was talking about. You are trying to so hard to paint all gun owners into this this little box, that you seem to think everyone fits into. I haven't gone hunting in any form, for several years. But, when I go back-packing out in some of the more remote area's of the western US. I darn well want to have something with me, in case I run across a really hungry beer, or a cougar who isn't timid.

Should I start a countdown now, until you respond with how you once knew someone who did x, y, and z?

EVERY YEAR people get shot and killed ... some are hunters in the woods, some are just sitting peacefully in their houses. (2 cases in PA last year alone!).

And those of us who carry and use our firearms responsibly, are equally upset about those situations. The negligent shooters need to be held responsible. Don't use your above whole drawn out rant about how you deem hunting to be completely safe, if it wasn't for other hunters, and that to try to make it look like every gun owning citizen in the US, is just some trigger happy crazy, who will pop a shot off at any time. That is far from the case.

Um, I don't think Player is anti-gun, just anti-irresponsible gun, At least, that's how I read it.

[edit] she's said so herself, and I hadn't got all the way down the page...

[dewey316]

I wasn't talking about wild animals at all.... and I probably have a LOT more experience in the woods than you. I pretty much speant my life there, not just backpacking, but living there... and frankly, if you need a gun to protect yourself against wild animals in America (other than the grizzly and now some Mt lions), .... you haven't speant that much time there. That's nothing against carrying a gun for hunting, or in the few places where they are needed, but first rule of hunting is understanding the animal.

It is the same reason I take a first-aid kit, and water filtration with me. 99.99% of the animals, of course are not going to be a problem. It is unexpected run-in with an animal that for some reason might become a danger to me. Honestly, I don't need to justify my taking a gun with me into the wilderness. My point is that, many of us own and carry guns for a vast array of reasons. That reasons do not always include just hunting, and are perfectly legitimate.

Nor am I anti-gun by a long stretch.

I know you are not, but at the same time you also try to un-legitimize everyone elses reasons for owning or using firearms. Instead of doing that, why don't you work on educating people about responsibile use, and ownership of guns.

I am FOR fun owners being responsible, because it is the idiots that will result in gund being taken away from the rest.

See above. The first post you painted a picture that hunters in general, are a trigger happy irresponsible group.

skip it .. its irrelevant. Try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions like Oh, she's liberal and obviously against guns.

Where did I ever say anything about liberal? I was pointing out the over generalization of your original comment.

Which we are.

Hey, common ground!

No, I am saying that you cannot blame Obama or any politician for why so many people ARE anti guns, for why there will be more and more restrictions, you need to blame those who carry. And yes, it is up to all of us who do use guns (though admittedly, I don't use one any more) to ensure they are used responsibly.

Again, I never made a single political statement. People are anti-gun for many reasons, some of them are valid concerns, some fear. Either way, it doesn't matter. The responsible gun owners in our country need to stand united, and stand up for our rights. We need to do a better job of educating new gun owners, and also of educating non-gun owners. There are a lot of things we need to change, and one of the most important things, is peoples perception of gun-owners. In your post, you did a good job of summing up, the negative stereo types.

[PLAYER57832]

I Nor am I anti-gun by a long stretch. I am FOR fun owners being responsible, because it is the idiots that will result in gun being taken away from the rest.

I know you are not, but at the same time you also try to un-legitimize everyone elses reasons for owning or using firearms. Instead of doing that, why don't you work on educating people about responsibile use, and ownership of guns.

Uh-- I do!

See above. The first post you painted a picture that hunters in general, are a trigger happy irresponsible group.

No, I spoke specifically.

And your reaction is part of the problem. Even though I said quite clearly I am for guns and said I was talking specifically about my area, and a few "bad apples"... you still see it as an "anti hunting tirade". Failure to examine the problem is part OF the problem!

skip it .. its irrelevant. Try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions like Oh, she's liberal and obviously against guns.

Where did I ever say anything about liberal? I was pointing out the over generalization of your original comment.

My comment was directed at the intial posting, blaming Obama and saying he is going to take everyone's guns away.

Which we are.

Hey, common ground!

No, I am saying that you cannot blame Obama or any politician for why so many people ARE anti guns, for why there will be more and more restrictions, you need to blame those who carry. And yes, it is up to all of us who do use guns (though admittedly, I don't use one any more) to ensure they are used responsibly.

Again, I never made a single political statement. People are anti-gun for many reasons, some of them are valid concerns, some fear. Either way, it doesn't matter.

Again, I was addressing the intial post. I read some of the intervening posts, but not all. I rarely do that.. and this is one reason why.

The responsible gun owners in our country need to stand united, and stand up for our rights. We need to do a better job of educating new gun owners, and also of educating non-gun owners. There are a lot of things we need to change, and one of the most important things, is peoples perception of gun-owners. In your post, you did a good job of summing up, the negative stereo types.

[/quote]
Yes ... and that was my point.

You cannot expect anyone but gun owners to change the publics opinions of gun owners. And part of that means some better acknowledgement of the many plain idiots out there who really ought not to own guns.

[KoolBak]

Well all....I have said my piece and made my point. It is at this stage that these "discussions" that some of you love so much start to sicken me. Having been married for over 20 years, I get enough "discussions" in my life as is.....lol.

Thanks for your time

[dewey316]

See ya later. I had fun playing, where in the world is koolbak.

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.republicmagazine.com/just-re ... -ban-list/

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm

[got tonkaed]

Ill be the first to admit the sort of catch all clauses and the just because it could be used for sport doesnt mean it is designed for it kind of suck for gun owners. So does putting a guy at the head of the job who is pretty clearly anti gun.

Its still an awfully hard sell that quite a large number of those weapons are really meant for home ownership.

[GabonX]

They are meant to empower the masses, people shouldn't be afraid of their governments but governments should be afraid of their people and all that. Clearly they are afraid which shows that we are doing well in the States.

In addition, these kind of weapons acts to discourage foreign powers from interfering here. It has been recorded that the Japanese chose not to invade the continental United States durring WW2 because the Generals knew Americans were well armed.

[got tonkaed]

They are meant to empower the masses, people shouldn't be afraid of their governments but governments should be afraid of their people and all that. Clearly they are afraid which shows that we are doing well in the States.

In addition, these kind of weapons acts to discourage foreign powers from interfering here. It has been recorded that the Japanese chose not to invade the continental United States durring WW2 because the Generals knew Americans were well armed.

I can go with that i suppose. But if your planning on invading a nation with nuclear capabilities at this point the game (its possible Japan didnt know at the time i would presume) then maybe you shouldnt be the barometer for rational military policy, and therefore i dont know how relevant it is to contemporary discourse.

[KoolBak]

Damn it...you pilgrims made me post again! lol

I have 10 or so weapons that fall in this disgusting generalization. I use all of them for plinking / target shooting / play time with friends / family. NONE of them are my hunting weapons although I could easily make those fall into this category with a few cheap alterations, not affecting the weapon in general at all. I am not a survivalist or a "world is ending" freak...I just like guns and they ONLY go up in value. My old chainsaws I collect are pretty damn dangerous too....lol.

No comment on the history.....we are safe gun owners and enjoy them. It would break my heart to see our country try to take this away......I, for one, won't play that game.

[GabonX]

They are meant to empower the masses, people shouldn't be afraid of their governments but governments should be afraid of their people and all that. Clearly they are afraid which shows that we are doing well in the States.

In addition, these kind of weapons acts to discourage foreign powers from interfering here. It has been recorded that the Japanese chose not to invade the continental United States durring WW2 because the Generals knew Americans were well armed.

I can go with that i suppose. But if your planning on invading a nation with nuclear capabilities at this point the game (its possible Japan didnt know at the time i would presume) then maybe you shouldnt be the barometer for rational military policy, and therefore i dont know how relevant it is to contemporary discourse.

If some entity did want to use nuclear weapons obviously rifles wouldn't avert that threat. With that said, there is a general consensus that nuclear weapons will not be used.

Not only would it completely destroy huge populations and trigger nuclear retribution but it also destroys the environment. An area that has hosted a nuclear explosion is of no use to anyone, whether that be the current population or an entity which would choose to take it from them. In addition, if too many nuclear bombs were to go off in one place in the world, there is a very real chance of a nuclear winter which would have adverse affects to all countries.

If China for example were to attempt to destroy the entire population of the United States with nuclear weapons, even if the attempt was completely successful and there was no nuclear retribution, the act would still have extremely adverse affects on the environment and infrastructure of China. An invading nation would likely want to preserve the resources of the nation it was taking in addition to their own resources.

[pimpdave]

If some entity did want to use nuclear weapons obviously rifles wouldn't avert that threat. With that said, there is a general consensus that nuclear weapons will not be used.

Not only would it completely destroy huge populations and trigger nuclear retribution but it also destroys the environment. An area that has hosted a nuclear explosion is of no use to anyone, whether that be the current population or an entity which would choose to take it from them. In addition, if too many nuclear bombs were to go off in one place in the world, there is a very real chance of a nuclear winter which would have adverse affects to all countries.

GabonX, stop being ridiculous. Of course a nation would use nukes as a weapon of last resort. Why else would nations keep stockpiling them or making more?

That's why we have to be very delicate as we pursue al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Seriously dude, how incredibly naive is it to say that nuclear weapons will not be used in a modern war when all modern nations have designs on getting them?

[GabonX]

I didn't state that a nation would not use nuclear weapons as a last resort or even as a first strike. I said that they are not viable in maintaing the resources of a given area.

Nuclear weapons would likely be used in strategic places against the United States. Military bases, Washington DC, and highly populated commercial centers. The rural areas and farmlands would not as likely see nuclear agression.

After destroying the first line of defense in the United States, the military, the agressing power would have to decide whether they wanted to occupy the heart of the United States or to leave the people there alone. If America's ability to deliver long range strikes no longer exists America would no longer present an external threat. If there were still a presence of firearms within the country it would be impossible to occupy the United States without a well funded military presence which would strain the agressor. In addition what ever military contingent would be there would be in a state of risk.

Relevant historical precedents of recent history include the Iraq war, the Russo-Afghanistan war and Vietnam.

[pimpdave]

I didn't state that a nation would not use nuclear weapons as a last resort or even as a first strike.

Yes you did.

there is a general consensus that nuclear weapons will not be used.

Don't forget your history, also, regarding the Punic Wars. What was it that Rome did to Carthage again? Something to do with ruining the environment, before the days of nuclear weapons...