guns...yeah, shootings a sport

[hitekredneck]

ok, guys and ladies....i know a bunch of ya's are anti-gun screwballs that think i have no right to protect and defend myself and my family, but i'm on the opposite side of the road...i love guns....love to go plinkin with the .22, like long-range practice with the 7mag, and i can hit it if i can see it up to around 500 yds, like blowin shit up with my shotgun...hadda buddy got ahold of some sabot rds...WOW...i know who knows what i'm talkin here...hehe....ok, anybody else have a fav?:cool:

[yea_thats_right1]

guns scare me so i dont have a fav... my husband on the other hand LOVES guns and loves to go hunting.. hes from some po-dunk town in iowa.. go figure :D

[hitekredneck]

guns scare me so i dont have a fav... my husband on the other hand LOVES guns and loves to go hunting.. hes from some po-dunk town in iowa.. go figure :D

you shouldn't let em scare you...they're a tool same as a wrench or shovel...in some cases a toy..;)

[yea_thats_right1]

you shouldn't let em scare you...they're a tool same as a wrench or shovel...in some cases a toy..;)

too loud... i tried to shoot a shotgun once.... i asked my hubby to shoot first so i could see it..(it was dark out) i saw a flame and went deaf for 5 mins... lol idont like guns... bb guns i can handle... anything else...well ya know:p

[starry123nights]

We're not afraid of guns here in the south. I used to be a lit scared until my husband showed me how to handle a gun properly and how to shoot one. I'm glad we have a right to bear arms in the south. Break in my house and I'm defending my family. My personal favorite is his shotgun. (though, I have given myself a bruise or two for not holding it correctly) You can't miss the target shooting that. I love shooting the spoiled watermelons in the summertime that grow in the field behind us.

[Ape-Shit]

I just purchased a s&w .38 K Masterpiece 14-4 6" bbl. It's a beauty and I love it. I have a farm which borders NC. We have a lot of Fox's, Bob Cats and Black Bear. None of which I would want to shoot, but just scare away. I use the .38 with snake shot just for the snakes. (We have a lot of snakes too).

Other weapons are .30-06, .30-30, 12g auto 1187 Premier and various others. These are my favorites.

My wife has her own s&w .38 spl. (Little snub nose).

[hitekredneck]

I just purchased a s&w .38 K Masterpiece 14-4 6" bbl. It's a beauty and I love it. I have a farm which borders NC. We have a lot of Fox's, Bob Cats and Black Bear. None of which I would want to shoot, but just scare away. I use the .38 with snake shot just for the snakes. (We have a lot of snakes too).

Other weapons are .30-06, .30-30, 12g auto 1187 Premier and various others. These are my favorites.

My wife has her own s&w .38 spl. (Little snub nose).

don't really care for shooting shot out of a pistol...scars the barrel...but i know what ya mean about snakes...like the 30-30 fer brush...bullets heavy enough to punch thru, but drops too much for good distance shooting...big fan of the .06...one of the best all-purpose cals out there...with my 7mag, i get a shot group of <1.5" @ 300 yds

[Ape-Shit]

[QUOTE=hitekredneck<1.5" @ 300 yds[/QUOTE]


Now...That's Pretty Damn Good.....!

Currently my property is thick with brush and trees. I am in the process of clearing out some of the area for later use. I'm so far back in the woods, I need some type of protection from mostly snakes and Rabid Animals.

[starry123nights]

Now...That's Pretty Damn Good.....!

Currently my property is thick with brush and trees. I am in the process of clearing out some of the area for later use. I'm so far back in the woods, I need some type of protection from mostly snakes and Rabid Animals.

not trying to change the post. You know geese are excellent for keeping snakes away, except they shit alot. I live in the country too.

[hitekredneck]

Now...That's Pretty Damn Good.....!

Currently my property is thick with brush and trees. I am in the process of clearing out some of the area for later use. I'm so far back in the woods, I need some type of protection from mostly snakes and Rabid Animals.

if i may make a suggestion, i can't remember the exact manufacturer, but there is a double barreled, side by side .410-.45 calibre...sorry i can't give ya more information, i used to have one and it shot very well....45 not very accurate after about 35 ft, but whattya expect from a 4" barrel?;)

[Ape-Shit]

Appreciate the info, although I might end up putting the Geese on my plate and not leave them in the yard. Ha, Ha...!:p

[hitekredneck]

Appreciate the info, although I might end up putting the Geese on my plate and not leave them in the yard. Ha, Ha...!:p

a man's gotta eat!:D

[starry123nights]

Appreciate the info, although I might end up putting the Geese on my plate and not leave them in the yard. Ha, Ha...!:p

With all the animals you have in the woods, why would you want to eat that. Shoot a deer, have deer steak, or sausage. Oh yeah back to the original post GUNS

[Ape-Shit]

With all the animals you have in the woods, why would you want to eat that. Shoot a deer, have deer steak, or sausage. Oh yeah back to the original post GUNS


Ha,Ha,Ha...You got a point. Yeah the place is loaded with Deer. I'm in the process of re-clearing the logging roads and putting up stands just for that purpose. We also have Turkeys, Squirrels and Rabbits etc. etc. You know what I'm talking about if you live in the country.

My farm is a tree farm. Pines and Hardwoods. Some areas or very wet others are not. Nevertheless, one needs some type of protection way in the back.

As Emirl would say.......................Bam, Bam, Bam Bam....!

[hitekredneck]

Ha,Ha,Ha...You got a point. Yeah the place is loaded with Deer. I'm in the process of re-clearing the logging roads and putting up stands just for that purpose. We also have Turkeys, Squirrels and Rabbits etc. etc. You know what I'm talking about if you live in the country.

My farm is a tree farm. Pines and Hardwoods. Some areas or very wet others are not. Nevertheless, one needs some type of protection way in the back.

As Emirl would say.......................Bam, Bam, Bam Bam....!

stands suck to me...when i hunt, i generally end up hiking up to 20 miles in a given day...truth be told, it's about the only exercise i get all year long with the exception 16 oz curls:D
besides, hunting's much more satisfying when you stalk your prey:cool:

[starry123nights]

stands suck to me...when i hunt, i generally end up hiking up to 20 miles in a given day...truth be told, it's about the only exercise i get all year long with the exception 16 oz curls:D
besides, hunting's much more satisfying when you stalk your prey:cool:

out here in north carolina where we live in the country you gotta have stands to go deer hunting at night.

[theicidal maniac]

you shouldn't let em scare you...they're a tool same as a wrench or shovel...in some cases a toy..;)

Yeah, pretty much the same, except every once in a while your kid gets a hold of your wrench and accidentally beats himself to death with it.

[hitekredneck]

Yeah, pretty much the same, except every once in a while your kid gets a hold of your wrench and accidentally beats himself to death with it.

wrong, you cave dwelling troglodyte...my kids know about firearms and safety as well...they don't play with em, i take em out shooting whenever i go, and my younger son's a chip off the block when it comes to target practice...you anti gun screwballs have no fuckin business interfering with my second amendment rights...you will not deprive me of my right to defend myself and my family, so if you don't like the subject, leave it alone:mad:

[theicidal maniac]

wrong, you cave dwelling troglodyte...my kids know about firearms and safety as well...they don't play with em, i take em out shooting whenever i go, and my younger son's a chip off the block when it comes to target practice...you anti gun screwballs have no fuckin business interfering with my second amendment rights...you will not deprive me of my right to defend myself and my family, so if you don't like the subject, leave it alone:mad:

Cave dwelling troglodyte...Does that fall above or below double-wide dwelling shit eater on the food chain?

Great teach your kids that stuff. It actually makes them statistically LESS likely than other kids to shoot someone. And that's great. Unfortunately, just HAVING a gun in the house makes your 15 year old that you are so proud of 22 TIMES, not 22 percent, but 22 TIMES more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting as either the shooter or the shot. That's not my opinion, that's the evidence.

Being around a gun makes you more likely to be shot by a gun. If you never in your life are near a gun, you have virtually no chance of being shot. Someone could break in and steal your guns. Your children could let their friends "see" your guns. You could have an accident...you don't see it coming, that's why it's an accident. To quote YOU:
life is full of endless possibilities that you have no idea of.

And certainly someone as quick to anger as you apparently are (inbreeding???) definitely should not have the "right" to own a deadly weapon. Guess what, Tom Jefferson didn't know that any old hilbilly dipshit Jesus-freak would be able to get his or her hands on an automatic assault rifle, or that some fucked-up kid would be able to pack a few of them into school and shoot the place up, so don't give me that 2nd ammendment "right" bullshit. Deadly weapons posession shouldn't be ANYONE'S right in a civilized world. "If you don't like the subject leave it alone"? FUUUUUCK YOU. It's not the subject I don't like. It's dumb fuckin rednecks who think that it's ok to kill cause God will sort em all out later.

[starry123nights]

Cave dwelling troglodyte...Does that fall above or below double-wide dwelling shit eater on the food chain?

Great teach your kids that stuff. It actually makes them statistically LESS likely than other kids to shoot someone. And that's great. Unfortunately, just HAVING a gun in the house makes your 15 year old that you are so proud of 22 TIMES, not 22 percent, but 22 TIMES more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting as either the shooter or the shot. That's not my opinion, that's the evidence.

Being around a gun makes you more likely to be shot by a gun. If you never in your life are near a gun, you have virtually no chance of being shot. Someone could break in and steal your guns. Your children could let their friends "see" your guns. You could have an accident...you don't see it coming, that's why it's an accident. To quote YOU:

And certainly someone as quick to anger as you apparently are (inbreeding???) definitely should not have the "right" to own a deadly weapon. Guess what, Tom Jefferson didn't know that any old hilbilly dipshit Jesus-freak would be able to get his or her hands on an automatic assault rifle, or that some fucked-up kid would be able to pack a few of them into school and shoot the place up, so don't give me that 2nd ammendment "right" bullshit. Deadly weapons posession shouldn't be ANYONE'S right in a civilized world. "If you don't like the subject leave it alone"? FUUUUUCK YOU. It's not the subject I don't like. It's dumb fuckin rednecks who think that it's ok to kill cause God will sort em all out later.

There's nothing wrong with the right to bear arms. Teach your kid (when they reach a responsibile age) how to handle and safely shoot a gun. We don't make guns an issue here. Our kids don't BRAG about daddy's gun. Shit, almost everyone I know in the south owns a gun. If someone broke into our houses they'd have to break into a gun cabinet to get the guns and even then we aren't dumb enough to keep the bullets in the same place as the guns. I NEVER keep a loaded gun in the cabinet and the one gun that is loaded has a lock on the trigger. And yes if someone broke into my house, yes I'd shoot the fucker. If I saw someone like you coming to my house, I'd be damn glad I owned a gun. I love the things you say about someone being a redneck inbreed. Do you think we are all like that? This is not a civilized world. Accidents happen everyday. YOU could walk down the road a get wasted by a big ass truck too. We don't kill for fun, dumbass. Any animal my husband has ever killed we have eaten. And just how many people do you really think have NEVER been around a gun. Shit guns are illegal in alot of states, (CA for example) and they have one of the highest crime rates due to killings with guns. Check your statistics out on people killed by weapons in states that is legal to have a gun and states that is illegal. Tell me which one has more fucking crime. Dude, some of the things you say on here sometimes are so full of shit. And hey you look like your full of shit too.

[General Septem]

There's a list of guns I want to own:

.44 Magnum
S&W Model 500
Colt M1911
Heckler & Koch Mark 23 Mod 0
.38 Special snub nose revolver
Accuracy International AS50
H&K USP
MAC-10

some others

:D

[theicidal maniac]

There's a list of guns I want to own:

.44 Magnum
S&W Model 500
Colt M1911
Heckler & Koch Mark 23 Mod 0
.38 Special snub nose revolver
Accuracy International AS50
H&K USP
MAC-10

some others

:D

No gold-plated Desert Eagle? Too heavy?

[theicidal maniac]

There's nothing wrong with the right to bear arms.
Except that people think it's a RIGHT. Is it a right to own weapons of mass destruction? Those are arms. What about just a cannon, a bazooka, or maybe a grenade or 2? Is that a right that you want your neighbor to have?

Shit, almost everyone I know in the south owns a gun.
And what a shining model of utopian society the South is!

And yes if someone broke into my house, yes I'd shoot the fucker. If I saw someone like you coming to my house, I'd be damn glad I owned a gun.
Interesting...of all home robberies in the U.S. about 2&#37; of them are thwarted by a gun-weilding home owner, despite the fact that "everyone in the south owns a gun"...seems like there's a 98% chance that you ACTUALLY WOULDN'T stop me if you saw me coming. On the other hand, again, you are 22 times more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting in your home involving family members.

I love the things you say about someone being a redneck inbreed. Do you think we are all like that?
Yes. Wait, we who? Southerners or PEOPLE WHOSE SCREEN NAMES ARE HITEKREDNECK?????????? Get a fuckin clue.

This is not a civilized world. Accidents happen everyday. YOU could walk down the road a get wasted by a big ass truck too.
But a truck was not designed to kill me. It's quite different. Guns were made to kill. Trucks were not. Trucks have many productive uses that better human life. If I walk into a moving truck chances are it was an accident of human error. If I die by gunshot wound, the gun did exactly what it was engineered to do. Guns end lives, by design.

We don't kill for fun, dumbass.
You're huntin hubby doesn't enjoy hunting then? I am certain that is not true. He likes killing. Just hasn't moved to people, yet.

Any animal my husband has ever killed we have eaten.
You don't need to hunt. The over-population argument is bullshit, it was shown to be flawed by Thomas Malthus in the early 1800's. We have refrigeration, grocery stores. One of the things that seperates US from primitive humans is our ability to predict weather patterns and manipulate soil so we can plant food. But ole Bocephus jus won't feel like a man unless he kills him a deer this year.

And just how many people do you really think have NEVER been around a gun.
Everyone who lived before guns were invented...several billion people. People who live in rural parts of the world today, also. And guess what....none of those people died of gunshots.

Shit guns are illegal in alot of states, (CA for example)
I don't know what a shit gun is. Is that a southern thing? Y'all shoot eachother with it fer fun?

and
Shut up

they have one of the highest crime rates due to killings with guns.
Would that still be true IF THEY HAD NO GUNS?

Check your statistics out on people killed by weapons in states that is legal to have a gun and states that is illegal. Tell me which one has more fucking crime. Dude, some of the things you say on here sometimes are so full of shit. And hey you look like your full of shit too.
The places with more gun crime have more guns and more people. Statistically speaking, they WOULD have more vioulent gun deaths, based on population size alone. More people means less close-knit communities, more exposure to conflicting ideals, lower depths of poverty, latch-key kids with no supervision...etc. How does that effect YOU? How does that guarantee you a right to ALSO own a long-range deadly weapon, just like all them death-dealin city-folk you's talkin bout?

[hitekredneck]

No gold-plated Desert Eagle? Too heavy?

i actually used to own a .357 desert eagle...was one of my favorite pistols...

[starry123nights]

Theicidal maniac
I saw your picture. It explains everything. You know what we call guys who brush their hair to to top of their head? We call it their QEER PEAK

[something]

Theicidal maniac
I saw your picture. It explains everything. You know what we call guys who brush their hair to to top of their head? We call it their QEER PEAK

And what does that have to do with this thread?

[starry123nights]

And what does that have to do with this thread?

I'm making a statement to what's his name....oh yeah full of bullshit. His theory on owning a gun is well....this is bullshit.com....just returning the favor

[hitekredneck]

Cave dwelling troglodyte...Does that fall above or below double-wide dwelling shit eater on the food chain?

Great teach your kids that stuff. It actually makes them statistically LESS likely than other kids to shoot someone. And that's great. Unfortunately, just HAVING a gun in the house makes your 15 year old that you are so proud of 22 TIMES, not 22 percent, but 22 TIMES more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting as either the shooter or the shot. That's not my opinion, that's the evidence.

Being around a gun makes you more likely to be shot by a gun. If you never in your life are near a gun, you have virtually no chance of being shot. Someone could break in and steal your guns. Your children could let their friends "see" your guns. You could have an accident...you don't see it coming, that's why it's an accident. To quote YOU:

And certainly someone as quick to anger as you apparently are (inbreeding???) definitely should not have the "right" to own a deadly weapon. Guess what, Tom Jefferson didn't know that any old hilbilly dipshit Jesus-freak would be able to get his or her hands on an automatic assault rifle, or that some fucked-up kid would be able to pack a few of them into school and shoot the place up, so don't give me that 2nd ammendment "right" bullshit. Deadly weapons posession shouldn't be ANYONE'S right in a civilized world. "If you don't like the subject leave it alone"? FUUUUUCK YOU. It's not the subject I don't like. It's dumb fuckin rednecks who think that it's ok to kill cause God will sort em all out later.

of course i'm quick to anger when somebody tries to take a liberty afforded to me by the constitution, you self-righteous, supercilious, self-centered windbag... :cool:
and here's a direct quote from yer buddy, tommy jefferson:
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest.

you, my fickle, distrusting, pissed off buddy, seem to be of the former.
some other useful information, whether you choose to educate yourself or not:

from david kopel, former asst d.a. in manhattan:
Few public policy debates have been as dominated by emotion and misinformation as the one on gun control. Perhaps this debate is so highly charged because it involves such fundamental issues. The calls for more gun restrictions or for bans on some or all guns are calls for significant change in our social and constitutional systems.

Gun control is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons. Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure. It most severely victimizes those who most need weapons for self-defense, such as blacks and women.

The various gun control proposals on today's agenda--including licensing, waiting periods, and bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Indeed, persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime.

The gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people?

and finally, here's something by john stossel:
October 19, 2005
Myths About Gun Control
By John Stossel

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.
"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted 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" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

for every study you give me showing gun control reduces crime of any sort, i can give you FACTS showing otherwise.
btw, if you read my definition of a redneck, maybe you'll understand why i don't consider it an insult...can't ya come up with somethin more creative?...you seem to be somewhat intelligent, but then, i've been wrong before:D
http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=745&page=2

[starry123nights]

Except that people think it's a RIGHT. Is it a right to own weapons of mass destruction? Those are arms. What about just a cannon, a bazooka, or maybe a grenade or 2? Is that a right that you want your neighbor to have?

And what a shining model of utopian society the South is!

Interesting...of all home robberies in the U.S. about 2% of them are thwarted by a gun-weilding home owner, despite the fact that "everyone in the south owns a gun"...seems like there's a 98% chance that you ACTUALLY WOULDN'T stop me if you saw me coming. On the other hand, again, you are 22 times more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting in your home involving family members.

Yes. Wait, we who? Southerners or PEOPLE WHOSE SCREEN NAMES ARE HITEKREDNECK?????????? Get a fuckin clue.

But a truck was not designed to kill me. It's quite different. Guns were made to kill. Trucks were not. Trucks have many productive uses that better human life. If I walk into a moving truck chances are it was an accident of human error. If I die by gunshot wound, the gun did exactly what it was engineered to do. Guns end lives, by design.

You're huntin hubby doesn't enjoy hunting then? I am certain that is not true. He likes killing. Just hasn't moved to people, yet.

You don't need to hunt. The over-population argument is bullshit, it was shown to be flawed by Thomas Malthus in the early 1800's. We have refrigeration, grocery stores. One of the things that seperates US from primitive humans is our ability to predict weather patterns and manipulate soil so we can plant food. But ole Bocephus jus won't feel like a man unless he kills him a deer this year.

Everyone who lived before guns were invented...several billion people. People who live in rural parts of the world today, also. And guess what....none of those people died of gunshots.

I don't know what a shit gun is. Is that a southern thing? Y'all shoot eachother with it fer fun?

Shut up

Would that still be true IF THEY HAD NO GUNS?

The places with more gun crime have more guns and more people. Statistically speaking, they WOULD have more vioulent gun deaths, based on population size alone. More people means less close-knit communities, more exposure to conflicting ideals, lower depths of poverty, latch-key kids with no supervision...etc. How does that effect YOU? How does that guarantee you a right to ALSO own a long-range deadly weapon, just like all them death-dealin city-folk you's talkin bout?

I love how you only pick certain parts of what someone says and turn it around to your liking.

Weapons of mass destruction are not legal. It's not like your average person owns one. We own guns legally here.

If I saw you breaking in my house, I'd take my chances I'd know you were there and I'd be that 22 times more like to be involved in a shooting and shoot your ass.

I could careless what yu think of REDNECKS.

I was using the analogy of a truck because you said accidents happen all the time with guns. Accidents happen walking across the street. (getting hit by a truck)

You know my husband so well. Yes, he likes hunting. But again you only picked out the words you wanted. Just because they hunt deer does not mean they would like killing people. (your way of thinking here is way out there....way out there) Who the hell are you to tell us if we should be hunting. I can get awole lot of meat out of a deer and save money of not having to buy it at the grocery store. We grow our own fruit and vegetables here too. It saves us money and oh yeah it's something we like doing, kinda like hunting. We enjoy it.

Oh yeah, your mister grammer correctol here. so you know EXACTLY what I was saying. Why didn't you quote what I said about gun safety? I treid tying this grammically correct. Let me know if it's wrong and I'll let you fix it for me.

[hitekredneck]

just another lil anecdotal info for ya...
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/moreguns.htm
you pompous, sewer spewing, spunk-head;)

[theicidal maniac]

Theicidal maniac
I saw your picture. It explains everything. You know what we call guys who brush their hair to to top of their head? We call it their QEER PEAK
Awww geez...now you've made me cry. It's spelled queer, and evidence shows that most homophobes have homosexual tendencies and are aroused by homosexuality, so what does your statement say about you??

I'm making a statement to what's his name....oh yeah full of bullshit. His theory on owning a gun is well....this is bullshit.com....just returning the favor
Good comeback by the way. So what part of my "theory on owning a gun" is bullshit. I mean, I've never really discussed it with you before, so I doubt you know it. And as for the evidence I put forward, well, it's research data, mostly from the FBI, so.....which part is bullshit?

Maybe the bullshit part is where you couldn't think of anything smart to say in response to my argument so you just resorted to name calling...AH, you're making humanity proud!

[theicidal maniac]

I love how you only pick certain parts of what someone says and turn it around to your liking.
I actually included EVERYTHING you said.

Weapons of mass destruction are not legal. It's not like your average person owns one. We own guns legally here.
Based on the "right to bear arms." So, grenades are arms, why should you be denied your "right" to them? Because some guy said it's illegal? What the hell is the distinction between an assault rifle and a grenade?

If I saw you breaking in my house, I'd take my chances I'd know you were there and I'd be that 22 times more like to be involved in a shooting and shoot your ass.
And as I said before, your chances are 2%

I was using the analogy of a truck because you said accidents happen all the time with guns. Accidents happen walking across the street. (getting hit by a truck)
I understand that. But guns are designed to kill me and you. End of story. If they kill someone then they did WHAT THEY WERE BUILT TO DO. Why do you take such pride in owning something that was designed to kill humans, and then try to say that it's a "right." That's ludicrous. This is based on the idea that people are inherently bad, and that they are out to get you somehow, typical conservative view

[theicidal maniac]

of course i'm quick to anger when somebody tries to take a liberty afforded to me by the constitution, you self-righteous, supercilious, self-centered windbag... :cool:
Ahhh, yes . I'm self-centerd, because I am concerned about the welfare of my fellow human beings. I don't want people to get shot and killed. I'm such an arrogant, selfish bastard!

and here's a direct quote from yer buddy, tommy jefferson:
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest.
I couldn't agree more. Conservatives fear and distrust people. They think they need weapons to protect themselves from others. They think others are just bad. Us=good, them=bad. Brilliant! I have much confidence in people, but people get misinformed and make bad decisions. Then their kid gets shot in an accident.


some other useful information, whether you choose to educate yourself or not:
Gun control is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons. Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure. It most severely victimizes those who most need weapons for self-defense, such as blacks and women.
As I said before, I don't believe in illegal search and seizure, I believe we need to STOP making MORE guns, and we need to keep better tabs on all long-range, rapid-fire, deadly weapons. Anything that was designed to kill humans MUST BE REGULATED.

The various gun control proposals on today's agenda--including licensing, waiting periods, and bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Indeed, persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime.
I lived in Alaska. There is no waiting period. There is no control. Everyone hunts for a living. It's mostly what YOU'D call a utopia...yet in many areas MORE THAN HALF THE MALE POPULATION HAS COMITTED HOMICIDE, usually with a gun. Your source here is just throwin out opinions...where's the facts?

The gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people?... guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally
(THIS IS MISLEADING, BECAUSE THEY ARE USED 22 TIMES MORE OFTEN ACCIDENTALLY THAN THEY ARE DEFENSIVELY)
it's an illusion of safety

When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.
that's not what the FBI found...what studies would those be, John?? You didn't mention them. Statistically speaking, Susan is more likely to have the gun taken from her and be shot with it than she is to shoot the intruders. This statement that guns are used defensively is a totally bogus claim. As for all that info about criminals and laws etc, I AGREE! That's why we need to CHANGE THE LAWS! Not wallow in our own crapulence.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted 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" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

for every study you give me showing gun control reduces crime of any sort, i can give you FACTS showing otherwise.
btw, if you read my definition of a redneck, maybe you'll understand why i don't consider it an insult...can't ya come up with somethin more creative?...you seem to be somewhat intelligent, but then, i've been wrong before:D
http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=745&page=2

hmm...what facts are those? John Stossels misleading opinuendo? Studies ARE facts. Media coverage is intended to be persuasive, it is biased by nature. You failed to retort to any of the facts and studies that I provided on the other post on this topic. What is it with you and faiure?

[Ausinus]

Well the second amendment may not necessarily grant individuals the right to bear arms.

[hitekredneck]

first off, thei, thanks for the debate, as not many are willing to actually research this issue...tho i probably will never change your mind, at least i know that you're paying attention to my points and i respect that...now, as for your talking points on your earlier posts, i'm gonna try to break this down in a limited time, so bear with me if i have to break away for a while...:)

you said:
Ahhh, yes . I'm self-centerd, because I am concerned about the welfare of my fellow human beings. I don't want people to get shot and killed. I'm such an arrogant, selfish bastard!
now after seeing some of my posts, you should know me better than to think that i want people shot and killed...

you:
I couldn't agree more. Conservatives fear and distrust people. They think they need weapons to protect themselves from others. They think others are just bad. Us=good, them=bad. Brilliant! I have much confidence in people, but people get misinformed and make bad decisions. Then their kid gets shot in an accident.
now where in the hell do you figure that i fear anybody?...nor do i distrust anybody until they prove to me otherwise. yes, people get misinformed and all humans make bad decisions...that's just the way of life...here's some more by jefferson that might help enlighten you:

Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

you:
As I said before, I don't believe in illegal search and seizure, I believe we need to STOP making MORE guns, and we need to keep better tabs on all long-range, rapid-fire, deadly weapons. Anything that was designed to kill humans MUST BE REGULATED.

ok, now not manufacturing, as i'm sure you're aware, is a pipe dream...as for keeping tabs?..hell, i don't have a problem with anybody know i have guns, nor how well i shoot, as that should deter most people from attemting stupidity upon myself or my family

you:
I lived in Alaska. There is no waiting period. There is no control. Everyone hunts for a living. It's mostly what YOU'D call a utopia...yet in many areas MORE THAN HALF THE MALE POPULATION HAS COMITTED HOMICIDE, usually with a gun. Your source here is just throwin out opinions...where's the facts?

yeah, i'ld love it in alaska...at least during the summer:D
now i ask, where's your proof or statistical data? you asked for some from me, so here ya go...the following excerpts can be found from this link:
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times.
you gonna call this bogus as well?

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."
of course, the study doesn't show if all the victims were armed with firearms...

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.
'nuff said:D

* When the conceal and carry law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.
good god...ya mean that there ARE responsible adults that live in florida?

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
hey, you said ya wanted facts

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

now imagine that!
* As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

maybe we should ban those too?

* In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been 9 "school massacres."
i know you're gonna say this proves your point, but as i mentioned earlier, you aren't gonna stop em from makin em....at the same time, gun control doesn't necessarily help

* In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived.
just another "bogus" case of using a gun defensively

* 1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents


* For Children 14 and Under

Motor Vehicles 3,059
Drownings 1,024
Fires 883
Choking 213
Firearm 181 (2.7% of fatal accidents)
Falls 127
Poisonings 80

i dunno bout anybody else, but it looks like guns are safer than cars..

now let me explain something to you...you are one of those people that would prefer to leave your safety and well being in the hands of the police...that's all well and good, but it's impossible for the cops to be everywhere at once. if we as a nation, got more involved in our neighborhoods and took responsibility for our own safety and well-being, then i seriously doubt we would even be having this discussion...answer me this, thei,...if you were outside, and found somebody with a knife against your wife's/gf's throat and you had a gun in your hand, what would you do?
me?...well, i'm sure you know the answer to that...and something else...being ex-military, i double-dog dare anybody to take my pistol away from me...i take my prior training very seriously, and still take combat courses when i have free time...my children will also take these classes, as we should all be responsible for our personal safety as well as our neighbors...
ok, i'm ready for your next arguments:D

[starry123nights]

I actually included EVERYTHING you said.

Based on the "right to bear arms." So, grenades are arms, why should you be denied your "right" to them? Because some guy said it's illegal? What the hell is the distinction between an assault rifle and a grenade?

And as I said before, your chances are 2%

I understand that. But guns are designed to kill me and you. End of story. If they kill someone then they did WHAT THEY WERE BUILT TO DO. Why do you take such pride in owning something that was designed to kill humans, and then try to say that it's a "right." That's ludicrous. This is based on the idea that people are inherently bad, and that they are out to get you somehow, typical conservative view


right now I have some REAL bullshit going on in my life so I;ll get back to you on this later. I'm not going to be posting for awhile. It's not because of this though.

[hitekredneck]

Well the second amendment may not necessarily grant individuals the right to bear arms.

proof, ya friggin aussie...in other words, show me the money!:D

[Ausinus]

proof, ya friggin aussie...in other words, show me the money!:D

Oh shut up you bloody redneck. :D

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

It may just mean that well regulated militias ARE the people's right to bear arms.

[hitekredneck]

Oh shut up you bloody redneck. :D

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

It may just mean that well regulated militias ARE the people's right to bear arms.

well, ya friggin aussie...here's a lil present for ya...:D
* James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist papers. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers to explain, argue for, and support ratification of the Constitution.

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
see, they INTENDED the general public to be armed..so PPPPPPPPPHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBBBBBTTTTTTTT:D

[Ausinus]

well, ya friggin aussie...here's a lil present for ya...:D
* James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist papers. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers to explain, argue for, and support ratification of the Constitution.

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
see, they INTENDED the general public to be armed..so PPPPPPPPPHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBBBBBTTTTTTTT:D

He didnt say that individuals should be armed. Perhaps he meant that militias formed by the people and staffed by the people should be the right to bear arms. Besides, you dont have the universal right to bear arms anyway.

[hitekredneck]

He didnt say that individuals should be armed. Perhaps he meant that militias formed by the people and staffed by the people should be the right to bear arms. Besides, you dont have the universal right to bear arms anyway.

and who determines the universal rights?...wait a minute, just what the hell ARE universal rights?:confused:

[Ausinus]

and who determines the universal rights?...wait a minute, just what the hell ARE universal rights?:confused:

I was talking about you dont have the right to bear any arm you want.

[General Septem]

I was talking about you dont have the right to bear any arm you want.

That implies an infringement upon a right that shall not be infringed.

[hitekredneck]

I was talking about you dont have the right to bear any arm you want.

and exactly what determines whether i have that right or not?:confused:

[Ausinus]

and exactly what determines whether i have that right or not?:confused:

I dunno personally. What I do know is that you cant buy a hydrogen bomb.

[theicidal maniac]

hey redneck...kudos for returning to civility, but did you read those facts before you posted? Some of the things in there show them MY points to be true. For instance the Florida "right-to-carry"..the trend of the stats shows that there was MORE homicide after that law was passed.

Anyway, wait you are not really taking into consideration is that "gun" in the 1700's did not mean the same thing that "gun" means now. How long would it have taken Jefferson to fire off 12 rounds on one of HIS rifles? Probably about 10 - 15 minutes. That is not the same AT ALL as what we have available today. His definition of gun doesn't even apply today.

[hitekredneck]

I dunno personally. What I do know is that you cant buy a hydrogen bomb.

dammit...there goes my x-mas wish list...:mad:

[hitekredneck]

hey redneck...kudos for returning to civility, but did you read those facts before you posted? Some of the things in there show them MY points to be true. For instance the Florida "right-to-carry"..the trend of the stats shows that there was MORE homicide after that law was passed.

Anyway, wait you are not really taking into consideration is that "gun" in the 1700's did not mean the same thing that "gun" means now. How long would it have taken Jefferson to fire off 12 rounds on one of HIS rifles? Probably about 10 - 15 minutes. That is not the same AT ALL as what we have available today. His definition of gun doesn't even apply today.

first, like i said...i consider myliberties to be VERY important, so if i get a lil pissy, that's why...i don't mind a good debate, tho

you need to re-read those stat's, thei...
Florida United States
homicide rate -36&#37; -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%

the first number is florida, the next is the total us.

as for the rest, yeah, mebbe i don't need a .308 cal m-60, but that ain't gonna keep me from gettin one if i can afford it...and i shouldn't be kept from owning one...after all, i'm a responsible adult, well, for the most part...and i pay my taxes...and i have no intentions of climbing to the top of the nearest tower to commit murder...unless we get invaded, of course:)

just a quick note...i will remain civil as long as my liberties aren't threatened or undermined...but please, thei...come up with some better insults...redneck isn't one to me..lmao

[theicidal maniac]

first, like i said...i consider myliberties to be VERY important, so if i get a lil pissy, that's why...i don't mind a good debate, tho

you need to re-read those stat's, thei...
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%

the first number is florida, the next is the total us.

as for the rest, yeah, mebbe i don't need a .308 cal m-60, but that ain't gonna keep me from gettin one if i can afford it...and i shouldn't be kept from owning one...after all, i'm a responsible adult, well, for the most part...and i pay my taxes...and i have no intentions of climbing to the top of the nearest tower to commit murder...unless we get invaded, of course:)

just a quick note...i will remain civil as long as my liberties aren't threatened or undermined...but please, thei...come up with some better insults...redneck isn't one to me..lmao

That's great that YOU don't plan on goin sniper...real noble. Unfortunately it's the ACCIDENTAL shootings that are the bigger problem. Also, you do not have your guns in your possession 24 hours per day. So you cannot be 100% sure that they won’t be used by someone else. The best you can do is take preventative measures, teach your kids about gun safety, get a safe and a gun lock…but even then you do not have 100% certainty that your guns won’t be used BY YOU, ON PURPOSE. The only way to ABSOLUTELY ASSURE THAT is to not have them; for them to be destroyed, essentially. When you die, you no longer have ANY control over the guns. Assuming that they were never wrestled away from you and used against you, (statistically probable if you ever have to use it) and assuming that you are never involved in an accidental shooting with them (also statistically probable), then it is very likely that it will happen to whoever you pass the guns on to. It is safe to assume that whoever you pass them on to will ALSO have THEIR OWN guns. Eventually there will be too many for this person to either control or keep track of, and they will end up in someone else’s hands…either given or taken or stolen. These are inevitabilities. These are things that WILL happen at some time in the history of the guns you currently own. And the manufacturers keep on making more.
I am reminded of an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon where itchy pulls a pistol, then Scratchy pulls a bigger one, then Itchy a bigger one, then Scratchy an even larger one, bigger and bigger and bigger in an insane arms race that ends up destroying the world. And the initial cause? The existence of the guns. We don’t need to make new guns, and everyone in the world doesn't need to own them, just because someone who lacked foresight in military technology wrote a clause in a document 230 years ago. That's almost a quarter of a millenium. And those are the folks making YOUR laws?

[hitekredneck]

That's great that YOU don't plan on goin sniper...real noble. Unfortunately it's the ACCIDENTAL shootings that are the bigger problem. Also, you do not have your guns in your possession 24 hours per day. So you cannot be 100&#37; sure that they won’t be used by someone else. The best you can do is take preventative measures, teach your kids about gun safety, get a safe and a gun lock…but even then you do not have 100% certainty that your guns won’t be used BY YOU, ON PURPOSE. The only way to ABSOLUTELY ASSURE THAT is to not have them; for them to be destroyed, essentially. When you die, you no longer have ANY control over the guns. Assuming that they were never wrestled away from you and used against you, (statistically probable if you ever have to use it) and assuming that you are never involved in an accidental shooting with them (also statistically probable), then it is very likely that it will happen to whoever you pass the guns on to. It is safe to assume that whoever you pass them on to will ALSO have THEIR OWN guns. Eventually there will be too many for this person to either control or keep track of, and they will end up in someone else’s hands…either given or taken or stolen. These are inevitabilities. These are things that WILL happen at some time in the history of the guns you currently own. And the manufacturers keep on making more.
I am reminded of an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon where itchy pulls a pistol, then Scratchy pulls a bigger one, then Itchy a bigger one, then Scratchy an even larger one, bigger and bigger and bigger in an insane arms race that ends up destroying the world. And the initial cause? The existence of the guns. We don’t need to make new guns, and everyone in the world doesn't need to own them, just because someone who lacked foresight in military technology wrote a clause in a document 230 years ago. That's almost a quarter of a millenium. And those are the folks making YOUR laws?

they don't make the laws, and you know that, ya goofball...but they did lay down the foundation to set laws today...and as i keep telling you, as long as mankind exists, there's gonna be conflict enough for people to use weapons on each other...love the itchy and scratchy reference, wish they'ld put em in there own series..:D
yes, i'll make damned sure my kids and their kids, and, god willing, their kids know all about firearms use and safety, because i'm afraid eventually if we don't destroy each other, society will completely break down into anarchy...may not happen, but i want my family prepared...if it don't, then at least i know my family will be well prepared to defend themselves without depending on outside sources like most people today...and see, that's another aspect of gun ownership you have a tendency to ignore..
if we as a people were to hold ourselves more accountable for our own safety and not rely so much on the government, i don't think we would have as much of a crime problem as we do...people are generally more polite when everybody's armed:cool:
btw, only way i'ld go sniper is if we're invaded, which really is a possibility, if not a probability...and as i've stated, my long-range skills are quite adequate ;)

[theicidal maniac]

they don't make the laws, and you know that, ya goofball...but they did lay down the foundation to set laws today...and as i keep telling you, as long as mankind exists, there's gonna be conflict enough for people to use weapons on each other...love the itchy and scratchy reference, wish they'ld put em in there own series..:D
yes, i'll make damned sure my kids and their kids, and, god willing, their kids know all about firearms use and safety, because i'm afraid eventually if we don't destroy each other, society will completely break down into anarchy...may not happen, but i want my family prepared...if it don't, then at least i know my family will be well prepared to defend themselves without depending on outside sources like most people today...and see, that's another aspect of gun ownership you have a tendency to ignore..
if we as a people were to hold ourselves more accountable for our own safety and not rely so much on the government, i don't think we would have as much of a crime problem as we do...people are generally more polite when everybody's armed:cool:
btw, only way i'ld go sniper is if we're invaded, which really is a possibility, if not a probability...and as i've stated, my long-range skills are quite adequate ;)


Don't you see, we will only destroy ourselves with guns and WMD's if we HAVE guns and WMD's, and have them in sufficient quantities.

[hitekredneck]

Don't you see, we will only destroy ourselves with guns and WMD's if we HAVE guns and WMD's, and have them in sufficient quantities.

we already have them in sufficient quantities...we have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over...there's enough nerve gas and biological agents to depopulate the planet...hasn't happened yet...sure, it might soon, esp if those damned extremists get ahold of em....all you can do is be prepared, man:cool:

[theicidal maniac]

we already have them in sufficient quantities...we have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over...there's enough nerve gas and biological agents to depopulate the planet...hasn't happened yet...sure, it might soon, esp if those damned extremists get ahold of em....all you can do is be prepared, man:cool:

Extremists are people who think that they have certain God-given rights and are willing to kill those who "threaten their rights"

[hitekredneck]

Extremists are people who think that they have certain God-given rights and are willing to kill those who "threaten their rights"

wrong, bucko...extremists are people willing to sacrifice anybody including innocent people to force their views on others, i.e. the islamic jihadists...i'm not forcing my views on anybody...they're also people unnwilling to listen to all of the data prior to making a decision, and a stubborn refusal to look at hard facts.

[theicidal maniac]

wrong, bucko...extremists are people willing to sacrifice anybody including innocent people to force their views on others, i.e. the islamic jihadists...i'm not forcing my views on anybody...they're also people unnwilling to listen to all of the data prior to making a decision, and a stubborn refusal to look at hard facts.

Hmmmm, so would an extremist say things like this:

"i will remain civil as long as my liberties aren't threatened or undermined"

"of course i'm quick to anger when somebody tries to take a liberty afforded to me by the constitution"

"you anti gun screwballs have no fuckin business interfering with my second amendment rights...you will not deprive me of my right to defend myself and my family"

Your "civil liberties" are completely arbitrary. In other countries civil liberties are entirely different, some better, some worse, some just different. The ability to possess deadly weapons like guns isn't some god-given right, in fact it isn't even a right at all in most of the world. You happen to live in a country where it's allowed due to a 250 year old document (a country that has more gun deaths than any other country) and you act like it is some intrinsic hereditory right of human beings to have access to the tools of the destruction of other human beings.

Interesting that you would see this as "defending" yourself, when you seek weapons of offense. Do you "defend" yourself from a buck by shooting it? You think that your right to bear arms is defended by the right to bear arms, an intellectually indefensible position of circular logic and dangerous militarism.

[hitekredneck]

man, i'm not trying to duck you, just had some terrible shit go on today...we'll continue this debate hopefully in a wekk or so, provided my luck takes a turn for the better...right now my luck's so bad i could fallinto a barrel of titties and come up sucking my thumb...later all:(

[MrJim]

How does a thread starting about hunting/shooting for sport evolve into a thread about jihad/extremists and the danger of a world with nukes ?

[theicidal maniac]

How does a thread starting about hunting/shooting for sport evolve into a thread about jihad/extremists and the danger of a world with nukes ?

Hmmmmmm.....how does a thread about weapon usage turn into a thread about weapon users? Hmmmmmmmm?????

[MrJim]

Hmmmmmm.....how does a thread about weapon usage turn into a thread about weapon users? Hmmmmmmmm?????

I'll betcha there's no spots at the shooting range to test your nukes and chemical agents...

[theicidal maniac]

I'll betcha there's no spots at the shooting range to test your nukes and chemical agents...

No...that'd kill everyone at the range, but there are several nuclear testing ranges in Nevada (my next door neighbors) that are big enough to accomodate the tests.

[MrJim]

No...that'd kill everyone at the range, but there are several nuclear testing ranges in Nevada (my next door neighbors) that are big enough to accomodate the tests.

No shit? At least they picked a good place for them... what a shitty state... Unless you like gambling I guess.

[starry123nights]

I don't give shit what anyone says with their statistics and facts of how bad guns are. I'll continue shooting them at target pratice. We'll continue hunting and killing animals to eat. And you can take all your this leads to this and this could happen and shove it right up your ass.

[General Septem]

No shit? At least they picked a good place for them... what a shitty state... Unless you like gambling I guess.

Perfect place for having nuclear tests though. It's a gamble who will survive. :D

[Ape-Shit]

The Police Officer asked; "Why did you shoot the guy in the pool"? The father answered; " I thought he was a Shark after my Daughter"!:p

[starry123nights]

The Police Officer asked; "Why did you shoot the guy in the pool"? The father answered; " I thought he was a Shark after my Daughter"!:p


hahaha....way too funny. It's good to laugh.

[theicidal maniac]

I don't give shit what anyone says with their statistics and facts of how bad guns are. I'll continue shooting them at target pratice. We'll continue hunting and killing animals to eat. And you can take all your this leads to this and this could happen and shove it right up your ass.

You are exactly the type of person who SHOULD NOT have a gun. I trust ME with a gun, I trust no one else with a gun, to varying degrees. For instance, my friend Clif, ex-marine, i trust HIM with his gun more than I trust someone like you who just SNAPS when someone TYPES something you don't like. So you'd basically be at the bottom of the bastardry barrel. Even though i trust me, though, I know that being around a gun increases my chances of being hurt or killed by it, the same way that a person standing on a grenade has an increased risk of being blown to bits by it as compared to a person who has never been within a hundred yeards of one. That's true no matter WHAT you choose to ignore.

[Ape-Shit]

My daddy was a Pistol........,

I'm a Son of a Gun.............!:p

[General Septem]

You are exactly the type of person who SHOULD NOT have a gun. I trust ME with a gun, I trust no one else with a gun, to varying degrees. For instance, my friend Clif, ex-marine, i trust HIM with his gun more than I trust someone like you who just SNAPS when someone TYPES something you don't like. So you'd basically be at the bottom of the bastardry barrel. Even though i trust me, though, I know that being around a gun increases my chances of being hurt or killed by it, the same way that a person standing on a grenade has an increased risk of being blown to bits by it as compared to a person who has never been within a hundred yeards of one. That's true no matter WHAT you choose to ignore.

Yes, but the chances of being injured by your own gun are offset by the decreased risk of being injured by someone else's gun, like when they are trying to pop a cap in your ass.

[theicidal maniac]

Yes, but the chances of being injured by your own gun are offset by the decreased risk of being injured by someone else's gun, like when they are trying to pop a cap in your ass.

Obviously you haven't been following the debate...I'll get you up to speed:

A gun is used to fend off an attacker in 2&#37; of all home invasions, according to the FBI. Having a gun in your home makes you 22 TIMES more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting.

There is really no offset in the safety direction.

[yea_thats_right1]

you dont need a gun.. just a tire iron and a big ass knife :D

[theicidal maniac]

you dont need a gun.. just a tire iron and a big ass knife :D

I've said that for years.

[yea_thats_right1]

hell you could kill a man with a simple playing card

[who897]

I find much more pleasure in killing folks with a gun then a playing card.

[theicidal maniac]

I find much more pleasure in killing folks with a gun then a playing card.

I prefer a rainbow trout, myself.

[Ape-Shit]

Some women can kill guys, with just their looks.:p Smells better too!

[hitekredneck]

That's great that YOU don't plan on goin sniper...real noble. Unfortunately it's the ACCIDENTAL shootings that are the bigger problem. Also, you do not have your guns in your possession 24 hours per day. So you cannot be 100&#37; sure that they won’t be used by someone else. The best you can do is take preventative measures, teach your kids about gun safety, get a safe and a gun lock…but even then you do not have 100% certainty that your guns won’t be used BY YOU, ON PURPOSE. The only way to ABSOLUTELY ASSURE THAT is to not have them; for them to be destroyed, essentially. When you die, you no longer have ANY control over the guns. Assuming that they were never wrestled away from you and used against you, (statistically probable if you ever have to use it) and assuming that you are never involved in an accidental shooting with them (also statistically probable), then it is very likely that it will happen to whoever you pass the guns on to. It is safe to assume that whoever you pass them on to will ALSO have THEIR OWN guns. Eventually there will be too many for this person to either control or keep track of, and they will end up in someone else’s hands…either given or taken or stolen. These are inevitabilities. These are things that WILL happen at some time in the history of the guns you currently own. And the manufacturers keep on making more.
I am reminded of an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon where itchy pulls a pistol, then Scratchy pulls a bigger one, then Itchy a bigger one, then Scratchy an even larger one, bigger and bigger and bigger in an insane arms race that ends up destroying the world. And the initial cause? The existence of the guns. We don’t need to make new guns, and everyone in the world doesn't need to own them, just because someone who lacked foresight in military technology wrote a clause in a document 230 years ago. That's almost a quarter of a millenium. And those are the folks making YOUR laws?

ok...first off, that very same 230 yo document that you seem to dislike is one of the reasons this country is so great...the constitution is what it's called, in case you missed that lesson in school. that very same document gives you the right to spout all of that vitriolic socialist sewage you seem to enjoy so much. as for our laws, they're actually based on a series of writings by sir william blackstone in the mid-1700's...
i would actually prefer to follow the letter of what blackstone wrote, but hey, i'm just an uneddicated redneck wid a buncha guns, ya'll...
something else...tho i thought you were maybe a lil more intelligent than most of utah's residents, (again, guess i misjudged), after reading some of your past posts to others, i've noticed that you have a disgusting habit of attacking people based on their beliefs. i've come to realize that you distrust your fellow man, you don't believe in your country, and you seem very insecure, otherwise you wouldn't need to flame people like ajk or starry...
ajk, whom i feel gets a bad deal sometimes just because of his fervor, at least doesn't attack anybody, just tries to get his point across....starry hadn't really said anything until you flamed her...and you accuse ME of being reactionary?
you obviously have no idea of what the word redneck means, you poor miserable, misguided pseudo-intellectual, or just choose to ignore it..don't bother me, just further shows your ignorance and unwillingness to educate yourself...but you DO seem to have way too much time on your hands to go around rambling about your atheistic socialist dogma as you try to attack anybody holding a different view...
this thread started about guns...my love of guns, and you first attacked my right, given to me by the same 230 yo piece of paper that allows you to spread your distrust of your fellow man...silly goose...yes, i reacted, and would react similarly again and again...i take my rights seriously, and it's people like you that try to take my rights away, tho the very constitution you despise gives you the same rights...
well, mr maniac...i'm gonna kick back and wait for your answer to this...have a good day and don't get shot in the ass...wouldn't want you to suffer brain damage :D
p.s. during this entire post, i keep seeing you refer to a single fbi study claiming that you're 22x more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting if you own a firearm...i've been unable to find that study...is that your only source?

[General Septem]

hell you could kill a man with a simple playing card

Maybe if you shoved it down their throat or something, but you actually can't kill someone by throwing a card at them, this was debunked on mythbusters.

[hitekredneck]

Maybe if you shoved it down their throat or something, but you actually can't kill someone by throwing a card at them, this was debunked on mythbusters.

i dunno...theoretically you could cut their throat with it....paper cuts are pretty real, but i can't see myself taking the time.... ;)

[something]

i dunno...theoretically you could cut their throat with it....paper cuts are pretty real, but i can't see myself taking the time.... ;)

Or someone bets his life in poker. Belive me, it happends. A russian guy bet his wife, he loosed, and hes wife actually married the guy who won the game :eek: frigging russians. :D

[hitekredneck]

Or someone bets his life in poker. Belive me, it happends. A russian guy bet his wife, he loosed, and hes wife actually married the guy who won the game :eek: frigging russians. :D

:D you sure he lost?...i know a lot of married men that would dispute that :D

[MrJim]

:D you sure he lost?...i know a lot of married men that would dispute that :D

Ha ha ha, get a table full of Al-Bundy types playing poker and betting their wives, then even if they lose, everyone's a winner! :cool:

[theicidal maniac]

ok...first off, that very same 230 yo document that you seem to dislike is one of the reasons this country is so great...the constitution is what it's called, in case you missed that lesson in school. that very same document gives you the right to spout all of that vitriolic socialist sewage you seem to enjoy so much. as for our laws, they're actually based on a series of writings by sir william blackstone in the mid-1700's...

I don't hate the document, but everything else in our society should evolve with us, including our ideas about governance. No piece of paper gives rights to humans. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THEN YOU MUST ALSO FACE THE FACT THAT BY THE SAME THINKING A PIECE OF PAPER CAN RIGHTFULLY ENSLAVE BILLIONS. The fact that I was born with this mouth and this mind gives me the ability to speak. Rights are totally contrived human concepts that do nothing but define boundaries. Laws and "rights" create LIMITS, as does our biology. One set is natural, one is man-made. Nature is bound by physical laws, while man-think is subject to the whim of the thinker and is therefore nothing more than opinion. It's just a piece of paper, and it's an old one, an outdated one. Humans have moved forward a great deal since the 1700's...why haven't our laws?
What is socialist sewage? What bad can you possibly say about sharing???


something else...tho i thought you were maybe a lil more intelligent than most of utah's residents, (again, guess i misjudged), after reading some of your past posts to others, i've noticed that you have a disgusting habit of attacking people based on their beliefs. i've come to realize that you distrust your fellow man, you don't believe in your country, and you seem very insecure, otherwise you wouldn't need to flame people like ajk or starry...

Your position is morally indefensible; it's bankrupt. You want to say that the greater morality should honor everyones "right" to speak their mind and believe as they choose. But guess what, some people (religious people) believe that it is their RIGHT and their DUTY to destroy the enemies of their god in any way possible; politically, financially, OR MORTALLY. And that is not a "right" that is worth defending. It deserves to be exposed and then eliminated. I have no ethical problem with people believing in fantasy topics such as gods or life after death...but when those beliefs are loaded with faith-based intolerance and impregnated with violent teachings and commandments IT NEEDS TO END.


starry hadn't really said anything until you flamed her...and you accuse ME of being reactionary?

What Starry said to me:

Dude, some of the things you say on here sometimes are so full of shit. And hey you look like your full of shit too.
I guess that was in response to what I said to her which was, OH THAT'S RIGHT I HAD NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO HER!!!


this thread started about guns...my love of guns, and you first attacked my right, given to me by the same 230 yo piece of paper that allows you to spread your distrust of your fellow man...silly goose...yes, i reacted, and would react similarly again and again...i take my rights seriously, and it's people like you that try to take my rights away, tho the very constitution you despise gives you the same rights...

While I'm certainly sorry that you are such a slave that you actually believe that your rights, what you are and are not capable of, come from the constitution, I most certainly did not attack your "rights." I merely made a joke based on your rampant misunderstandings of multiple topics. You then got all defensive, because, I assume, you've shot a gun and know first hand just how deadly they are, and you must know that people are killed by gunshot wounds every day. This is your cross to bear, not mine. Mine is trying to avoid crazy fundy conservatives who can't let go of "the glory days," which were, if the truth be told, bad times for everyone. You need to take into consideration that fact that the interest groups who are lobbying for gun "rights" are making a boatload of money from guns. Their motives are not freedom, their motives are to keep you suckling at their teet, even if that means that a few million of us die.


well, mr maniac...i'm gonna kick back and wait for your answer to this...have a good day and don't get shot in the ass...wouldn't want you to suffer brain damage :D
p.s. during this entire post, i keep seeing you refer to a single fbi study claiming that you're 22x more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting if you own a firearm...i've been unable to find that study...is that your only source?

If you recall from a previous thread about gun control YOU ASKED ME FOR SOURCES BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED YOU COULD REFUTE THEM INTELLIGENTLY. You did not however, even respond to any of my postings from multiple, reputable sources, after you yourself, personally requested them. YOU FAILED. You pussed out, don't try to put that on me.

[hitekredneck]

I don't hate the document, but everything else in our society should evolve with us, including our ideas about governance. No piece of paper gives rights to humans. The fact that I was born with a mouth and a mind gives me the ability to speak. Rights are totally contrived human concepts that do nothing but define boundaries. Laws and "rights" create LIMITS, as does our biology. One set is natural, one is man-made. It's just a piece of paper, and it's an old one, an outdated one. Humans have moved forward a great deal since the 1700's...why haven't our laws?
What is socialist sewage? What bad can you possibly say about sharing???



Your position is morally indefensible; it's bankrupt. You want to say that the greater morality should honor everyones "right" to speak their mind and believe as they choose. But guess what, some people (religious people) believe that it is their RIGHT and their DUTY to destroy the enemies of God in any way possible; politically, financially, OR MORTALLY. And that is not a "right" that is worth defending. It deserves to be exposed and then eliminated. I have no ethical problem with people believing in fantasy topics such as gods or life after death...but when those beliefs are loaded with faith-based intolerance and impregnated with violent teachings and commandments IT NEEDS TO END.



What Starry said to me:

I guess that was in response to what I said to her which was, OH THAT'S RIGHT I HAD NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO HER!!!



While I'm certainly sorry that you are wuch a slave that you actually believe that your rights, what you are and are not capable of come from the constitution, I most certainly did not attack you "rights." I merely made a joke based on your rampant misunderstandings of multiple topics. You then got all defensive, because, I assume, you've shot a gun and know first hand just how deadly they are, and you must know that people are killed by gunshot wounds every day. This is your cross to bear, not mine. Mine is trying to avoid crazy fundy conservatives who can't let go of "the glory days," which were, if the truth be told, bad times for everyone.



If you recall YOU ASKED ME FOR SOURCES BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED YOU COULD REFUTE THEM INTELLIGENTLY. You did not however, even respond to any of the postings from multiple, reputable sources. You pussed out, don't try to put that on me.

yeah, i'm gonna quote the whole fuckin thing...first off, i did refute your statements, but went clean back to the beginning of this thread and not once, did i find any other reference to any studies except you ever-present fbi...secondly, you failed to refute any of the findings i posted...third, the constitution EVOLVES, what the fuck do you think ammendments are for?
fourth, yeah, i gotta big fuckin problem with socialism...anytime you can take what a man has earned with his blood, sweat and tears to "share" with all, including lazy, low-life, non-productive parasites...well, lemme put it this way...you got plenty of socialism in this world to choose from if you don't like it here...well, you know the rest...
i like how you have the tendency to pick apart my posts and answer only what you choose...i'm still waiting for you to prove your numbers on gun control, btw...and still find your arguments non-sensical...you remember saying that before guns were invented, man never died of a gunshot?
guess what, genious...they died from sword wounds, knives, clubs, arrows, maces, all of which are way more debillitating than a bullet wound...and they died a lot more frequently as well...
as for your statements about rights, well, talk about morally indefensible...if we have no rights, the what's to keep us from doing exactly what you fear the most and blowing each other away?...it makes no sense...kinda like your arguments about not having guns...it's a pipe dream, man...they're here to stay, as long as there's 2 people that don't see eye to eye, there's gonna be weapons... :cool:

[theicidal maniac]

yeah, i'm gonna quote the whole fuckin thing...first off, i did refute your statements, but went clean back to the beginning of this thread and not once, did i find any other reference to any studies except you ever-present fbi...secondly, you failed to refute any of the findings i posted...third, the constitution EVOLVES, what the fuck do you think ammendments are for?
they are very limited in scope and in range. You can only ratify something so many times before it's just a useless rag. Plus the ammendments still must fit within the existing framework already established in the constitution. It was the best thing the 1700's had to offer. Very revolutionary, for the time. It is now 2007.

yeah, i gotta big fuckin problem with socialism...anytime you can take what a man has earned with his blood, sweat and tears to "share" with all, including lazy, low-life, non-productive parasites...well,
Interesting statement. So you think movie stars and talk show hosts deserve their billions? Hard working single moms who bust their asses for their families every day for their entire adult lives deserve the peanut shells that employers toss them? Americans love celebrities cuz they make us think that we could become celebrities ourselves, so we don't wanna let go of a failing system, just in case we could make it. But statistically speaking, we DON'T make it. This country is so in love with the flashy superfices of celebrity that it ignores the fact that it is rotting from the inside out. You are telling me that what Oprah Whinfrey does is WORTH billions and that what a teacher does is worth roughly $26,000 annually? Cause that's what YOUR system says. You like to think that capitalism rewards hard work, but it doesn't. It rewards entertainment. The entertainment industry rewards our laziness. Our fundamental structure gets neglected. Those who work hardest have the least. Those with advantages, often unfair advantages, have more access to fiscal success.

lemme put it this way...you got plenty of socialism in this world to choose from if you don't like it here...well, you know the rest...
Brilliant...this is just one of my favorite things that people like you say. "Don't bother trying to SOLVE the problems that you see, just ignore them and walk away." Ah, the founders of this land would be SO proud!

i like how you have the tendency to pick apart my posts and answer only what you choose...i'm still waiting for you to prove your numbers on gun control, btw...
Interesting, I can't think of a time when I haven't responded to each and every one of your points. Again the aforementioned post in the previous thread presented a wealth of information, which you did not bother with.

and still find your arguments non-sensical...you remember saying that before guns were invented, man never died of a gunshot? guess what, genious...they died from sword wounds, knives, clubs, arrows, maces, all of which are way more debillitating than a bullet wound...and they died a lot more frequently as well...
gee, ya don't say? I'll have to look into that, never heard of that before. What'd you call them? Sords? GUNS KILL FROM LONG DISTANCE, indiscriminantly, often accidentally (far less often than with other types of weapons kill accidentally; when is the last time someone you know was accidentally killed by a sledgehammer?), and at rapid speed and are designed for maximum damage. And again, swords are deadly weapons, invented to kill humans. You aren't suggesting that I would fight for everyone's right to own SWORDS are you? What the hell is your point with this one? That's it's ok to kill cause people have always killed eachother? Is THAT your point? I'd like to see where you got the "they died more frequently" bit too, since there were less humans on the planet in those times, they couldn't possible keep up with today's mortality rates.


as for your statements about rights, well, talk about morally indefensible...if we have no rights, the what's to keep us from doing exactly what you fear the most and blowing each other away?...it makes no sense...kinda like your arguments about not having guns...it's a pipe dream, man...they're here to stay, as long as there's 2 people that don't see eye to eye, there's gonna be weapons... :cool:


What a poor argument you have assembled here. What's to CAUSE us to all kill eachother? How do rights keep me from killing you and vice versa. Unless of course you distrust your fellow man and think that the only thing keeping you safe is your gun. If so then explain the fact that I am safe and do not own a gun. Plus, I never said there were no rights. I said our rights are arbitrary, and they don't exists through parchment.



HERE: I'll refer you to the thread under NEWS AND MEDIA, the thread is called GUN CONTROL BULLSHIT ON TV. I posted at your request, you never replied.

[MrJim]

I'll just use my shotgun to shoot cans. Afri-cans, mexi-cans....

[who897]

I'll just use my shotgun to shoot cans. Afri-cans, mexi-cans....

And the French!

[MrJim]

I don't hate the document, but everything else in our society should evolve with us, including our ideas about governance. No piece of paper gives rights to humans. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THEN YOU MUST ALSO FACE THE FACT THAT BY THE SAME THINKING A PIECE OF PAPER CAN RIGHTFULLY ENSLAVE BILLIONS. The fact that I was born with this mouth and this mind gives me the ability to speak. Rights are totally contrived human concepts that do nothing but define boundaries. Laws and "rights" create LIMITS, as does our biology. One set is natural, one is man-made. Nature is bound by physical laws, while man-think is subject to the whim of the thinker and is therefore nothing more than opinion. It's just a piece of paper, and it's an old one, an outdated one. Humans have moved forward a great deal since the 1700's...why haven't our laws?

Your position is morally indefensible; it's bankrupt. You want to say that the greater morality should honor everyones "right" to speak their mind and believe as they choose. But guess what, some people (religious people) believe that it is their RIGHT and their DUTY to destroy the enemies of their god in any way possible; politically, financially, OR MORTALLY. And that is not a "right" that is worth defending. It deserves to be exposed and then eliminated. I have no ethical problem with people believing in fantasy topics such as gods or life after death...but when those beliefs are loaded with faith-based intolerance and impregnated with violent teachings and commandments IT NEEDS TO END.


You've totally lost me in here somewhere. You seem to outright support anarchy in the first paragraph by discussing how "No piece of paper gives rights to humans" and secondly "A PIECE OF PAPER CAN RIGHTFULLY ENSLAVE BILLIONS", apparantly declaring that laws should be removed to free us from those "outdated" opinions cast upon us by our forefathers.

Then, in the second paragraph you want to deny rights to anyone believing in "fantasy topics", while saying at the same time that you have no problem with people believing in them. "but when those beliefs are loaded with faith-based intolerance and impregnated with violent teachings and commandments IT NEEDS TO END."

So a piece of paper declaring laws should only be allowed if it supports nonbelievers and denies rights to believers? That doesn't sound ethical if I'm reading it that way ... or are you talking about people who perform violent acts like 9/11?

[theicidal maniac]

You've totally lost me in here somewhere. You seem to outright support anarchy in the first paragraph by discussing how "No piece of paper gives rights to humans" and secondly "A PIECE OF PAPER CAN RIGHTFULLY ENSLAVE BILLIONS", apparantly declaring that laws should be removed to free us from those "outdated" opinions cast upon us by our forefathers.
If that's what you think I said then I DID lose you. I'm no anarchist. But rights don't exist because someone put some ink across some pressed wood pulp. They are negotiations of a society, and ours are very old; they no longer address our needs. I think we should have laws, we should try to expand our view of what "rights" are, and we should do it constantly.

Then, in the second paragraph you want to deny rights to anyone believing in "fantasy topics", while saying at the same time that you have no problem with people believing in them. "but when those beliefs are loaded with faith-based intolerance and impregnated with violent teachings and commandments IT NEEDS TO END."
Again you are not following. You can believe what ever you want, but if your belief is dangerous, if it includes a hateful or disdainful attitude towards others that justify violent acts toward them, like the bible or the qur'an do) then there is a problem, it is not about holding a belief, it is about fascism. It's things like condemnation for other human beings that I have a distaste for. Pick up a Bible, or a Qur'an. they're all chuck full of "We believe in X, kill your neighbor if he believes anything other than X"

So a piece of paper declaring laws should only be allowed if it supports nonbelievers and denies rights to believers? That doesn't sound ethical if I'm reading it that way ... or are you talking about people who perform violent acts like 9/11?
Never said anything about denying rights to "believers." But who are "believers." I believe in molecules, am I a believer? My wife believes that turkey tastes great...does that make her a believer? My cat believes that I will feed him if he stares at his food dish and cries. Is my cat a "believer?" Oh of course you mean religious beliefs...well, which ones? Are Christians believers or are Muslims believers? Are Hindus believers or are Wiccans? Which one are you attempting to endorse? How do you even define "believer"? UNTESTABLE HYPOTHESES? That's the common denominator that I see. They can't ALL be true, but they all claim to be the ONLY true one, with no evidence and all of the major ones (hinduism, Islam, Xtianity, and Judaism) condone violence against those who believe differently than you do. That's an ethical problem. Like I've said before, you have the "right" to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, but when you believe that 5 is violently jealous of four and wants you to kill anyone who believes that 4 is the natural outcome of 2 + 2 then we are looking at severe negative implications for humanity.

[starry123nights]

We're NEVER going to agree on this. Whatever works for you, works for you. I will still shoot a gun, you will still give me the satistics on how bad guns are. It's good to agree to disagree on things.

[Ape-Shit]

I prefer shooting off my Guns than to listen to someone shoot of their mouth.:p

[something]

Ha ha ha, get a table full of Al-Bundy types playing poker and betting their wives, then even if they lose, everyone's a winner! :cool:

Speaking of Al Bundy, is "Marrige with children" still on air?

[ajk]

In rerun form yes.

[theicidal maniac]

We're NEVER going to agree on this. Whatever works for you, works for you. I will still shoot a gun, you will still give me the satistics on how bad guns are.....

....people will still continue to be needlessly shot and killed, death tolls will rise, children will die, etc. Great philosophy.

[something]

In rerun form yes.

But they'ren't making any new ones?

[starry123nights]

....people will still continue to be needlessly shot and killed, death tolls will rise, children will die, etc. Great philosophy. why don't you ever quote the WHOLE quote. You pick out what you like. I SAID.... Can't we agree to disagree. In your case, I guess we can't agree on this. It's not a philosophy. Well maybe in your mind it is.

[theicidal maniac]

why don't you ever quote the WHOLE quote. You pick out what you like. I SAID.... Can't we agree to disagree. In your case, I guess we can't agree on this. It's not a philosophy. Well maybe in your mind it is.

Because those parts are irrelevant. When you write a paper and cite a line from a book, do you just quote the WHOLE book so that you don't leave anything out? NO. If you feel sleighted then here's the rest of your post


It's good to agree to disagree on things. Hmm..what positive or negative bearing did that have on the point I was making? None. Thus I didn't include it before. As far as agreeing to disagree, it's a lot less noble a philosophy when human life is at stake.

[starry123nights]

You know...it's pointless. I think I'll do better talking to my dog. I'm not quoting...you know who I am talking to.

[starry123nights]

oh yeah back to the original post guns as a shooting sport. My son came down to visit from CA about a month ago. We went in the back of the property to do some target shooting...and damn his girl could shoot better then him.

[MrJim]

If that's what you think I said then I DID lose you. I'm no anarchist. But rights don't exist because someone put some ink across some pressed wood pulp. They are negotiations of a society, and ours are very old; they no longer address our needs. I think we should have laws, we should try to expand our view of what "rights" are, and we should do it constantly.

What difference does it make whether laws are "On paper" or filed in a governmental database? Which particular laws are troublesome to you? Of course you have a problem with the right to bear arms, but you don't seem to realize the BAD GUYS will always have guns, be it legally or through a dark underworld-type order. GOOD PEOPLE just won't have them for protection or enjoyment.


Again you are not following. You can believe what ever you want, but if your belief is dangerous, if it includes a hateful or disdainful attitude towards others that justify violent acts toward them, like the bible or the qur'an do) then there is a problem, it is not about holding a belief, it is about fascism. It's things like condemnation for other human beings that I have a distaste for. Pick up a Bible, or a Qur'an. they're all chuck full of "We believe in X, kill your neighbor if he believes anything other than X"

So everyone that believes in this handful of religions is a dangerous person? Most seem to walk around happy and enlightened, not angry with an intent for vengeance, only some of them lose their shit and suicide bomb folks. By the same token atheists/agnostics can be dangerous too. Like the columbine bunch, weren't they atheist?


Never said anything about denying rights to "believers." But who are "believers." I believe in molecules, am I a believer? My wife believes that turkey tastes great...does that make her a believer? My cat believes that I will feed him if he stares at his food dish and cries. Is my cat a "believer?" Oh of course you mean religious beliefs...well, which ones? Are Christians believers or are Muslims believers? Are Hindus believers or are Wiccans? Which one are you attempting to endorse? How do you even define "believer"? UNTESTABLE HYPOTHESES? That's the common denominator that I see. They can't ALL be true, but they all claim to be the ONLY true one, with no evidence and all of the major ones (hinduism, Islam, Xtianity, and Judaism) condone violence against those who believe differently than you do. That's an ethical problem. Like I've said before, you have the "right" to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, but when you believe that 5 is violently jealous of four and wants you to kill anyone who believes that 4 is the natural outcome of 2 + 2 then we are looking at severe negative implications for humanity.

Ok everyone's a believer in something, asinine or not. But your statement before seemed to take the tone that rights should be removed from who YOU think is "asinine", since it is their fault we have shitty laws, and passed on to to people who believe like you.

[who897]

OK, I'll say it, shooting is not a sport. It's no more of a sport then poker. I mean shit, when is the last time you came back from the range huffing and puffing and was like "damn, I need a beer I'm exhausted. You know, I haven't shot in years, perhaps my endurance is hindered, I think I'll hit the gym to make myself a better shooter. Shit I am all cramped up I better stretch."

[General Septem]

OK, I'll say it, shooting is not a sport. It's no more of a sport then poker. I mean shit, when is the last time you came back from the range huffing and puffing and was like "damn, I need a beer I'm exhausted. You know, I haven't shot in years, perhaps my endurance is hindered, I think I'll hit the gym to make myself a better shooter. Shit I am all cramped up I better stretch."

Well obviously this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya7FiJc_NoU needs to get pumped up. Can't even handle a .600 cap pistol. :D

[theicidal maniac]

What difference does it make whether laws are "On paper" or filed in a governmental database? Which particular laws are troublesome to you? Of course you have a problem with the right to bear arms, but you don't seem to realize the BAD GUYS will always have guns, be it legally or through a dark underworld-type order. GOOD PEOPLE just won't have them for protection or enjoyment.

Man you don't get it. I am not opposed to laws. I'm opposed to these idiots that think that they have rights because someone put it on paper. That assumes that humans had no rights before these papers were written, but these same people also believe the part of the paper where it talks about "god-given rights." So which is it? I submit that we have "rights" and abilities and possibilities that are completely autonomous of the social structures we live in.

Of course Bad Guys have guns. And manufacturers keep pumping out more and more despite a gross surplus. Again, statistically speaking the "GOOD GUYS" actually ARE NOT protecting themselves with their guns, cuz bad guys always have surprise on their side. As far as enjoyment, hey, like I said I love to shoot guns. I've shot one of almost every kind of gun I can think of (besides a few sub-mg's) and I absolutely love it! It's tons of fun. But it's not my only source of fun and if giving it up would save a few lives, I'll gladly give it up. I'm surprised that I don't hear the christians on this page who are supposed to abhore murder and everything that causes it, who are supposed to "turn the other cheek" instead "returning fire" aren't saying the same thing. Actually I'm not surprised because they will justify the deaths of any who don't accept Jesus.


So everyone that believes in this handful of religions is a dangerous person? Most seem to walk around happy and enlightened, not angry with an intent for vengeance, only some of them lose their shit and suicide bomb folks. By the same token atheists/agnostics can be dangerous too. Like the columbine bunch, weren't they atheist?

I have no idea if they were atheist. The only thing that "atheist" entails is that you don't believe in god. There are atheists out ther who believe that we humans are the creation of a master race of Aliens, that we are a genetic experiment gone wrong. There is certainly no more proof for that than there is for religious nonsense like virgin birth. I'm a secularist, and that happens to include that I don't believe in God because there is no evidence, and therefore no reason to even consider it a viable posibility, so I am an atheist. As I have said, I look forward to a day when the term "atheist" holds no meaning, because a belief in god would seem a prehistoric atavism. Certainly there are atheists who are bad people, and certainly there are religious people who are wonderful examples of what people SHOULD be. That said, there is nothing INHERENT in atheism that promotes violence, because there is really nothing INHERENT in atheism, PERIOD. Atheists don't have stone-aged texts pushing them towards anti-semitism, zionism, martyrdom, inquisition, suicide bombing, etc. Religions DO offer that, though, and unfortunately a great many people in the short history of humanity have felt compelled to act according to the imagined wishes of a vengeful, blood-thirsty deity.


Ok everyone's a believer in something, asinine or not. But your statement before seemed to take the tone that rights should be removed from who YOU think is "asinine", since it is their fault we have shitty laws, and passed on to to people who believe like you.

Negative. I'm not really sure how you got that, or why you are quotating "ASININE" (something I don't think I have EVER typed in my life until just this moment) but I'll lay it down like this:
We all have to live together, so inevitably when our personal spaces encroach on eachothers and we are forced to coexist, we end up having to negotiate rules of engagement, laws, etc...kind of like guidelines as how to interact with one another. These rules constantly change. If it doesn't happen smoothly and naturally then it will happen later, and violently, with a revolution. We can still possibly avoid a revolution. Also on an individual basis, when the rules are established, if a person breaks certain rules he is looked at with a skeptical eye. Society needs to evaluate that persons role within the society. If it is detrimental and dangerous, then they will remove that person if possible. This happens everywhere. I think (and THIS is my opinion, I will say that) that the most noble way for us to examine this persons effect and if and how he is removed should be based on his effect on human suffering. Real, actual suffering, not this "burn in hell for time eternal" garbage, but actual suffering. As humans we all enjoy happiness (as happiness is a feeling of joy) so why should happiness not be our goal, and suffering, the enemy?

[hitekredneck]

OK, I'll say it, shooting is not a sport. It's no more of a sport then poker. I mean shit, when is the last time you came back from the range huffing and puffing and was like "damn, I need a beer I'm exhausted. You know, I haven't shot in years, perhaps my endurance is hindered, I think I'll hit the gym to make myself a better shooter. Shit I am all cramped up I better stretch."

one word fer ya....biathalon:D

[hitekredneck]

Interesting statement. So you think movie stars and talk show hosts deserve their billions? Hard working single moms who bust their asses for their families every day for their entire adult lives deserve the peanut shells that employers toss them? Americans love celebrities cuz they make us think that we could become celebrities ourselves, so we don't wanna let go of a failing system, just in case we could make it. But statistically speaking, we DON'T make it. This country is so in love with the flashy superfices of celebrity that it ignores the fact that it is rotting from the inside out. You are telling me that what Oprah Whinfrey does is WORTH billions and that what a teacher does is worth roughly $26,000 annually? Cause that's what YOUR system says. You like to think that capitalism rewards hard work, but it doesn't. It rewards entertainment. The entertainment industry rewards our laziness. Our fundamental structure gets neglected. Those who work hardest have the least. Those with advantages, often unfair advantages, have more access to fiscal success.

ok...this part kinda bothers me, because you're telling me that all of my hard work is for nothing....while i agree that "superstars" aren't worth what they make, they still earn it. i also agree that teachers are way underpaid, while congress and politicians are grossly overpaid...anybody that can vote themselves a payraise has too much fucking power. under capitalism, everybody has the same opportunities to "make it" whether you want to admit it or not. i started my company just last year, and i'm already thinking about another truck and hiring another driver. that driver won't be underpaid, i'll pick the best candidate for the job, whether it's a single mom, LEGAL alien, or a stupid redneck like me. :D i know of quite a few single moms out there that're doing quite well, and i know of even more that are nothing more than baby-making factories (no abortion arguments, please) and if i had my way, anybody the recieves welfare would "earn" that money in some way, i.e. picking up trash, or even washing cop cars. i also wish it were more equal, as i know personally of people, not just women, that sometimes need assistance, but can't get it because they made too much money in the past 6months...

[something]

Are they still making any new episodes of marrige with children?

[hitekredneck]

Are they still making any new episodes of marrige with children?

not for several years....:(

[theicidal maniac]

ok...this part kinda bothers me, because you're telling me that all of my hard work is for nothing....while i agree that "superstars" aren't worth what they make, they still earn it. i also agree that teachers are way underpaid, while congress and politicians are grossly overpaid...anybody that can vote themselves a payraise has too much fucking power. under capitalism, everybody has the same opportunities to "make it" whether you want to admit it or not. i started my company just last year, and i'm already thinking about another truck and hiring another driver. that driver won't be underpaid, i'll pick the best candidate for the job, whether it's a single mom, LEGAL alien, or a stupid redneck like me. :D i know of quite a few single moms out there that're doing quite well, and i know of even more that are nothing more than baby-making factories (no abortion arguments, please) and if i had my way, anybody the recieves welfare would "earn" that money in some way, i.e. picking up trash, or even washing cop cars. i also wish it were more equal, as i know personally of people, not just women, that sometimes need assistance, but can't get it because they made too much money in the past 6months...

It's nice that you have met a few exceptions to the rule. Everybody does not have the same chance under capitalism. Would you try to tell me that Bill Gates' children have the same chance as the child of a family in poverty or homelessness. Because you'd be wrong. You'd be denying that there are advantages and disadvantages in society, and that is a foundation of capitalism in the first place.

[MrJim]

OK, I'll say it, shooting is not a sport. It's no more of a sport then poker. I mean shit, when is the last time you came back from the range huffing and puffing and was like "damn, I need a beer I'm exhausted. You know, I haven't shot in years, perhaps my endurance is hindered, I think I'll hit the gym to make myself a better shooter. Shit I am all cramped up I better stretch."

Then auto racing wouldn't count either. Or Golf.

[who897]

one word fer ya....biathalon:D

Is a that an athalon that swings both ways?

[theicidal maniac]

So then is a triathalon an athalon that will "tri anything once?"

[hitekredneck]

Is a that an athalon that swings both ways?

biathalon=ski+shoot:D

[hitekredneck]

It's nice that you have met a few exceptions to the rule. Everybody does not have the same chance under capitalism. Would you try to tell me that Bill Gates' children have the same chance as the child of a family in poverty or homelessness. Because you'd be wrong. You'd be denying that there are advantages and disadvantages in society, and that is a foundation of capitalism in the first place.

there are advantages and disadvantages of every type of political system...ipersonally think that we have the best one around, tho you need to realize that i'm not saying it's even close to utopia or perfection...to me, socialism is completely unfair as it's just a means of wealth redistribution...communism, hell, that hasn't worked anywhere...even china has had to adapt to modern trade practices, as capitalism is the best way to run the economy...
yeah, bill gates' kids will have the same chances...just more advantages...that's why we work so hard to better our situation in life...gates' busted his ass to steal jobs' ideas and gui from the early apple, then wroked even harder to make microsoft the semi-monopoly that it is today...i'll probably never even come close to that type of wealth, but with careful planning and much hard work, i can leave my children better than i had it....:cool:
btw, i was very disturbed to hear what happened in charlie square (i drive thru slc everyday, and can't stand the traffic) the other day...i hope you understand why i believe in the right to carry arms...the black hats will always have guns, the, and if somebody had been there with a firearm, they might have saved more people....i know you're gonna rail against me for this, but it's my opinion, and i doubt we'll ever agree on it

[theicidal maniac]

even china has had to adapt to modern trade practices, as capitalism is the best way to run the economy...

Actually they remain VERY COMMUNIST and VERY SUCCESSFUL. The only "adapting" they've done is that they are allowing other countries to pay them and fund their communism. That's brilliant! Chinese countries are corniering the market on everything. There was a woman on The Colbert Report last night saying, go through your clothing drawers, probably 90-100&#37; of the things in there were made in China. (paraphrase)


yeah, bill gates' kids will have the same chances...just more advantages

Did you REALLY just say that? Advantages effect chances. GREATLY. For example, if I have two legs I have an "advantage" over someone who has one leg when it comes to walking. I will have a better "chance" of being able to do it. My "chance" of being able to successfully run a business can depend greatly on the "advantages" of investment capital, good education, and established family name, past results, powerful friends, etc etc etc...the Gates will beat a poor kid on every one of the specifics I just listed. Therefore they have a better chance.


btw, i was very disturbed to hear what happened in charlie square (i drive thru slc everyday, and can't stand the traffic) the other day...i hope you understand why i believe in the right to carry arms...the black hats will always have guns, the, and if somebody had been there with a firearm, they might have saved more people....i know you're gonna rail against me for this, but it's my opinion, and i doubt we'll ever agree on it

Hey I will admit to you right now that the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the news was "what if I were there?" I would have wished I had a gun, for sure. I told myself that I would have shot the guy. But ya know what, I have to remind myself that in the real world, it doesn't really happen that way. I hope you don't think that I misunderstand your position, I just don't agree.

When the Winter Olympics came to Salt Lake City I went to several events, including the biathalon. While I will agree that in this case shooting certainly IS a sport, IT SHOULDN"T BE. At least not a televised one or one with a stadium. Talk about BORING.

[Ape-Shit]

Anybody ever drive nails with a .22?

[General Septem]

Hey I will admit to you right now that the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the news was "what if I were there?" I would have wished I had a gun, for sure. I told myself that I would have shot the guy. But ya know what, I have to remind myself that in the real world, it doesn't really happen that way.

You were doing good for a second but then you swerved into a head-on collision with a whole truckload of dumbass. What makes you think it wouldn't have happened that way? Do you have any facts to support this evidence?

And before you quote statistics on me - how many of the "statistics" were just yahoos who thought they were Charles Bronson but didn't know one end of the gun from another?

[theicidal maniac]

Anybody ever drive nails with a .22?

Yes...it's awesome. At least for the first 3 or four times...

[theicidal maniac]

You were doing good for a second but then you swerved into a head-on collision with a whole truckload of dumbass. What makes you think it wouldn't have happened that way? Do you have any facts to support this evidence?

And before you quote statistics on me - how many of the "statistics" were just yahoos who thought they were Charles Bronson but didn't know one end of the gun from another?

Yeah, I've been posting them non-stop!

[hitekredneck]

Anybody ever drive nails with a .22?

tried it with the 7mag, but couldn't hit em str8 enough to drive em...:mad:

[hitekredneck]

Actually they remain VERY COMMUNIST and VERY SUCCESSFUL. The only "adapting" they've done is that they are allowing other countries to pay them and fund their communism. That's brilliant! Chinese countries are corniering the market on everything. There was a woman on The Colbert Report last night saying, go through your clothing drawers, probably 90-100% of the things in there were made in China. (paraphrase)



Did you REALLY just say that? Advantages effect chances. GREATLY. For example, if I have two legs I have an "advantage" over someone who has one leg when it comes to walking. I will have a better "chance" of being able to do it. My "chance" of being able to successfully run a business can depend greatly on the "advantages" of investment capital, good education, and established family name, past results, powerful friends, etc etc etc...the Gates will beat a poor kid on every one of the specifics I just listed. Therefore they have a better chance.



Hey I will admit to you right now that the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the news was "what if I were there?" I would have wished I had a gun, for sure. I told myself that I would have shot the guy. But ya know what, I have to remind myself that in the real world, it doesn't really happen that way. I hope you don't think that I misunderstand your position, I just don't agree.

When the Winter Olympics came to Salt Lake City I went to several events, including the biathalon. While I will agree that in this case shooting certainly IS a sport, IT SHOULDN"T BE. At least not a televised one or one with a stadium. Talk about BORING.

i agree with you that it shouldn't be an olympic sport...it actually came about from wartime exercises...go figure...but there's tons of olympic events that shouldn't even be considered...curling?
as for communism...it's failed...china has bastardized the original concept not to mention their stance on human rights...and people lose their identity when they get lumped into one big group...the greatest thing about the us is our individuality, whether you agree or not...:cool:

[theicidal maniac]

i agree with you that it shouldn't be an olympic sport...it actually came about from wartime exercises...go figure...but there's tons of olympic events that shouldn't even be considered...curling?
as for communism...it's failed...china has bastardized the original concept not to mention their stance on human rights...and people lose their identity when they get lumped into one big group...the greatest thing about the us is our individuality, whether you agree or not...:cool:

So are you trying to say that China has abandoned communism or that it has poor human rights because it is communist...they can't both be true. Individuality?? In capitalism? Everyone is striving toward the same goal. Everyone wants $ $ $. That's what capitalism is all about. In the end all of the famous capitalists are looking for a standard formula for monitary success so they are actually SEEKING homogenity. Everyone is trying to come out on top. Honestly, no I don't think communism can work. Cause people don't deserve it yet. And they don't believe they deserve it. But if you look at the places where it is actually practiced (not under the name communism) it works great. The Quaker and Amish communities, as well as several fundamentalist Mormon societies on the Utah-Arizona border pull it off magically. You may say "but they are religious and communism is against religion," well, they conquer the problem of religion by having a totalitarian religion that isn't a church, but the actual CENTER of their society. They don't think of it as their religion, they think of it as "the way things are," and every aspect of their culture ties in. Everyone has employment, everyone has a home, everyone has enough to eat, everyone has a place. And while they may sound like brainwashed robots to us, to be honest, we are all brainwashed. All of our thoughts are conditioned responses, no matter what you believe.

[hitekredneck]

now you said you enjoy shooting, what and how well did ya do it?:D

[theicidal maniac]

now you said you enjoy shooting, what and how well did ya do it?:D

I'm a HORRIBLE shot with most rifles, but actually pretty good with pistols??? Not sure why, maybe cause I'm a paint-baller,...I dunno, that's really not the same thing at all. Last time I went shooting with my boss in Alaska he had some assault rifle that I can't recall (looked like an AR-15 but had some other name, can't remember, it shot .223 anyway), a Desert Eagle (can't remember if it was .50 or .45), a pair of springfield .45's, and a glock 9mm. (again there's no 5 day waiting period in Alaska for Alaska residents.) When he flew in from Anchorage with them he gave one of the .45's to his wife (he bought them as a his/hers matching set) and she grabs it and starts playing with it in the house...he takes it from her and tells her it's loaded, so he pop's out the clip and she starts playing with it again. She's pregnant by the way. She's pointing it around the house and then points it at her face and blows it like she's blowing the gun-smoke. I'm thinking "what a dumb-ass" and turn around to the tv and I hear !!BAM!!. There was one chambered. So I check my torso for holes, and I'm clean, and I turn around expecting to see a dead bitch, but there's everyone staring at the floor. She shot the floor. In this part of Alaska every house is on stilts so we go outside and look under the house and the exit hole is substantial. dumb bitch. That was the third time I have been around when a gun "accidentally" went off in a house. ANYWAY....

We went shooting with this guy who had served time for shooting his friend in the eye (he served 6 MONTHS...in JAIL!)...that made me kind of nervous. But that Eagle is amazing, there is hardly ANY kick to it. We shot a few at some bottles and eroded edge of the river bank. I think that is my favorite gun to date. But then again that rifle was fucking bad...I had never shot a semi-auto rifle before. That was fantasitic. I hate shotguns, can't hit a damn thing with em, plus I've had quite a few pointed at me, so, I just don't like em.

[conspiracy]

ok, guys and ladies....i know a bunch of ya's are anti-gun screwballs that think i have no right to protect and defend myself and my family, but i'm on the opposite side of the road...i love guns....love to go plinkin with the .22, like long-range practice with the 7mag, and i can hit it if i can see it up to around 500 yds, like blowin shit up with my shotgun...hadda buddy got ahold of some sabot rds...WOW...i know who knows what i'm talkin here...hehe....ok, anybody else have a fav?:cool:

My personal favorite is a the 22 for plinking. My friend though bought a 50BMG , you know the kind the army puts atop their Humvees? You should see what that does to a plastic deer target or a watermelon at 500 yards. FUN!

As far as protecting yourself ,there is a reason that the Constitution of the United States of America has that amendment. Our nation was built upon it. When the Democrats (and I firmly believe it will be that party) finally adhere to the gun laws that have plagued many other nations , this country will finally be in it's last stages of collapse.

[General Septem]

My friend though bought a 50BMG , .

Oh, hell yes. :D

[Ausinus]

Shooting is a sport? I had NO idea.

[conspiracy]

I believe you. You had no idea.....

[Ausinus]

I believe you. You had no idea.....

Oh bugger off.

[conspiracy]

Oh bugger off.

HMMM , well so much for the intelligent debate. Flustered?

[Ausinus]

I have to admit I dont like guns, but man, shooting requires some serious skill. :)

[General Septem]

I have to admit I dont like guns, but man, shooting requires some serious skill. :)

I'm pretty much a natural shot. I did a target practice simulator at the state fair once with a light gun and pretty much bullseyed every one. :D

[Ausinus]

I'm pretty much a natural shot. I did a target practice simulator at the state fair once with a light gun and pretty much bullseyed every one. :D

Lol. I actually wouldnt mind learning how to fire one. I already can use some lethal weaponry already :D Lol.

[hitekredneck]

I'm pretty much a natural shot. I did a target practice simulator at the state fair once with a light gun and pretty much bullseyed every one. :D

hate to disagree, gen...but those light guns aren't credible telltales for actual firearms...light travels in too str8 of a line, first, and then you miss the anticipation of the actual report (god i love things that go boom) and the recoil...i've fired the .50 bmg, and would dearly love to join the 2000 yd club, but it's simply too expensive, and it limits your target ranges...of course, my favorite is my 7 mag, firing 165 grain softnose handloads...i've clocked em at 3075 fps....little more kick, but effectively extends my range by a min of 150 yds...:)

[theicidal maniac]

hate to disagree, gen...but those light guns aren't credible telltales for actual firearms...light travels in too str8 of a line, first, and then you miss the anticipation of the actual report (god i love things that go boom) and the recoil...i've fired the .50 bmg, and would dearly love to join the 2000 yd club, but it's simply too expensive, and it limits your target ranges...of course, my favorite is my 7 mag, firing 165 grain softnose handloads...i've clocked em at 3075 fps....little more kick, but effectively extends my range by a min of 150 yds...:)

Yeah well, when a carnie tells you you're good at something and he thinks you'll win a prize on the next round, YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUE SINCERITY!!!

[General Septem]

hate to disagree, gen...but those light guns aren't credible telltales for actual firearms...light travels in too str8 of a line, first, and then you miss the anticipation of the actual report (god i love things that go boom) and the recoil...i've fired the .50 bmg, and would dearly love to join the 2000 yd club, but it's simply too expensive, and it limits your target ranges...of course, my favorite is my 7 mag, firing 165 grain softnose handloads...i've clocked em at 3075 fps....little more kick, but effectively extends my range by a min of 150 yds...:)

I know it's not the same, but I've got to believe that if you're that good at light guns you're much better equipped with the real thing. :D

[hitekredneck]

I know it's not the same, but I've got to believe that if you're that good at light guns you're much better equipped with the real thing. :D

not really, gen...imho, your best bet would be to pick up a lil .223 to begin with...small enough for little kick for long shots, yet heavy enough to determine true trajectory, windage, etc....then move yourself up to larger calibers...there's always a range somewhere in your area, it's just a matter of finding em...even in new york city...

[General Septem]

not really, gen...imho, your best bet would be to pick up a lil .223 to begin with...small enough for little kick for long shots, yet heavy enough to determine true trajectory, windage, etc....then move yourself up to larger calibers...there's always a range somewhere in your area, it's just a matter of finding em...even in new york city...

I think there's one on Studson actually. .223 is a rifle cartridge, isn't it?

[hitekredneck]

I think there's one on Studson actually. .223 is a rifle cartridge, isn't it?

usually...you can get a thompson contender pistol with a .223 barrel...hell, you can even get a 7 mag parrel, but you best have good wrists for that :D if you're looking to start pisto shooting, i would suggest starting with .38 specials, then move up from there...probably the best handgun i've shot was a desert eagle .357 baby eagle...almost no recoil whatsoever, but expensive as hell...nowadays it'll run upwards of $900 or better depending on your area

[Walter Weiss]

Shooting did not necessarily originate with war. Hunting for food and sustinence had nothing to do with war. The bowman and the rifleman are one and the same, only one pre-dates the other due to advances in chemistry.

Man is a hunter gatherer, and the man that could hunt and gather with his box or firearm, with the utmost demonstrated precision, was a pillar in the early community, for he fed and clothed and protected them from starvation and disease. In addition to marksmanship, he had to be able to think fast, run, chase, cover long distances in a single day, and be possessed of sufficient strength to get his job done, for he had great responsibility to his community. All of those skills are represented in the olympics since the beginning of time, because those skills were praiseworthy for those ancient reasons.

The organizing principal of any society is to establish it's war powers in an organized form in order to protect the society. The community turned to the bowman and muketeer to provide needed skills for the war powers organization, so that there was a guarantee in the safe and continued existance of the community. War is a fact of life. There has never been a time without war. There is always a conquerer, a tyrant, genocidal maniac, waiting to conquer the weak for any purpose ranging from greed to slavery to extermination. This created the need for war powers on an organized basis to fend off such an aggressor, and it expanded the role of the hunter gatherer element in society.

Communism has never worked. It is designed to make "sheep" of the masses, deprive them of ownership of even the most basic amenities, and it is meant to shackle minds into narrow confines, and this is why the by-product for the communized masses has always been depression and despair because there is no future for the masses in communism, other than slavery. They are merely slaves and puppets of propaganda with no hope. Communism is never worthy of praise, and anyone that would praise communism either needs psychological help, or they need to educate themselves further. In communism, there must always be a dictator. Putting such power in the hands of one man, or even a small group of people has never worked for the masses, and that is why communized masses are continuously fed propaganda, to keep them from realizing their predicament, and to keep them "down."

The first step to communism is creating sheep. The American hippie movement was born in a Moscow think-tank, in the late 1940s, by psych experts and militarists working on Stalin's staff. It was a 30 year model of propaganda and disinformation campaigns designed to destroy Western strength. The movement was propaganda and university based, particularly among the poli-sci students. It was modeled to a degree after the Gypsie subculture that roamed Europe for decades contaminating the minds of the young. In short, the aggressor realized that you cannot fight an effectively defensive war with a bunch of hippies, because all they are capable of is spreading weakness and decadence and social disorder. Nietzche says that out of the social disorder and caos will come order, because the weaker people begin to seek that order after being subjected to the problems that were created by design. That is when the communist "expert" steps in and creates the so called "order" that "sheep" will begin to seek after being subjected to artificially created disorder. Communism is an act of conquest. Sheep are easily created in America, and this is why America is so vulnerable. We must protect America from without and from within. We cannot protect America by standing behind a bunch of hippie-like decadent liberal trash ripe for the communist yoke. There is no such thing as peace in this evil world. There is only temporary tranquility. There is only temporary co-existance. The sword must always be sharp, and always in the hands of a man who knows how and when to use it to strike down an aggressor. The agressor is a permanent fixture on the planet. You will not change his mind with Jesus, wine, marihuana, faggotry, your virgin daughter or a bunch of daisies....these are the designs of sheep...of hippies...of the liberal. You will have to strike off the aggressor's head to stop him, in order to guarantee the idea of a community continually governing itself via elections and elected congressional efforts.

W. D. Weiss

[Nobody]

....have you ever heard of the "Medusa". I first heard of it a year ago. I don't remember what company makes it. Its a revolver that will chamber any pistol round, from a 32 cal to a 45. It has 9 twists in the barrel, I guess so balistics can tell exactly what gun the bullet came from. !000. dollar range.

[Nobody]

Over 20 years back, I was driving over the road,and exhausted. I pulled on to the shoulder of the Interstate, to grab a cat nap. During those days,night time traffic was pretty minimal. I carried a single action 375 mag. holstered in the traditional cowboy leather. I'm asleep on the wheel (literaly), when I'm awaken by someone banging on my door. I opened the window, to the tone of a harsh,chrotchity voice saying "HEY MAN, I WANT TO USE YOUR JACK " The instant it takes to look to the front, and back, (looking for aluminations from flashing 4- ways which I didn"t see), I told him I didn't carry a jack. But this guy insisted that Idid. "YEA MAN,I WANT TO USE YOUR JACK" At that point , I knew I was going to have to shoot this guy. I grabbed the handle, and drawed the hammer back, and the sound of the hammer clicking, echoed through that hollow door, and when i looked down, the dude was gone. That tells me that he knew the distinct sound of a gun being cocked, So was he up to no good? I believe . So, To me its not about "the right to bear arms". Its about self preservation. People can speak of what they "will do" or what they think they might do in a situation. But you cant know what will happen untill the situation arises.

[hitekredneck]

....have you ever heard of the "Medusa". I first heard of it a year ago. I don't remember what company makes it. Its a revolver that will chamber any pistol round, from a 32 cal to a 45. It has 9 twists in the barrel, I guess so balistics can tell exactly what gun the bullet came from. !000. dollar range.

won't work, man...take a .32 bullet and compare it to a .45

[theicidal maniac]

The Medusa chambers, fires, and extracts 25 different cartridges in the .38/9mm/.357 ammunition range...This does not include the .357 sig because the round is a .40 caliber cartridge that necks down to .357 (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Revolvers/Medusa_Model_47.htm)

No way .40's will be fired from THIS gun. You could however load it with several different types of ammo and cause the CSI people some initial confusion...Well, assuming that you emptied it into someone or something.

[hitekredneck]

The Medusa chambers, fires, and extracts 25 different cartridges in the .38/9mm/.357 ammunition range...This does not include the .357 sig because the round is a .40 caliber cartridge that necks down to .357 (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Revolvers/Medusa_Model_47.htm)

No way .40's will be fired from THIS gun. You could however load it with several different types of ammo and cause the CSI people some initial confusion...Well, assuming that you emptied it into someone or something.

you made me a believer, the...thanks for the info
wouldn't really confuse ballistics, tho...the markings onthe bullets regardless of calibre would still show the same rifling from the barrel

[General Septem]

Well any .357 Magnum revolver can chamber a .38 special too. Being able to chamber 25 different types of ammo isn't that big of a deal.

[theicidal maniac]

Well any .357 Magnum revolver can chamber a .38 special too. Being able to chamber 25 different types of ammo isn't that big of a deal.

Tell that to the guy who decided to well this gun for $900 +.

[Nobody]

The Medusa chambers, fires, and extracts 25 different cartridges in the .38/9mm/.357 ammunition range...This does not include the .357 sig because the round is a .40 caliber cartridge that necks down to .357 (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Revolvers/Medusa_Model_47.htm)

No way .40's will be fired from THIS gun. You could however load it with several different types of ammo and cause the CSI people some initial confusion...Well, assuming that you emptied it into someone or something.
....All thats immaterial. I'm glad someone else heard of it. Thanks for picking up the tab.

[Nobody]

won't work, man...take a .32 bullet and compare it to a .45....comon man. I heard it twice from the same guy. Don't that make it true?

[General Septem]

Tell that to the guy who decided to well this gun for $900 +.

That's not a lot for a good gun. The S&W website lists their M1911s for over a thousand.

[theicidal maniac]

That's not a lot for a good gun. The S&W website lists their M1911s for over a thousand.

You can get a great gun for HALF that price, even a third. Although I don't recommend stockpiling weapons, for reasons of safety, you don't have to spend that much for a good gun, and honestly, paying that much for a gun when you'll never live in the wild west is rediculous.

[hitekredneck]

You can get a great gun for HALF that price, even a third. Although I don't recommend stockpiling weapons, for reasons of safety, you don't have to spend that much for a good gun, and honestly, paying that much for a gun when you'll never live in the wild west is rediculous.

depends on the reason....i'm a collector...btw, i'm lookin for a revolving shotgon...4 shot, i believe colt made a few, but haven't been able to locate one in the area...

[starry123nights]

depends on the reason....i'm a collector...btw, i'm lookin for a revolving shotgon...4 shot, i believe colt made a few, but haven't been able to locate one in the area...
where the hell have yu been? It's been dead boring around here. How ya doing?

[hitekredneck]

where the hell have yu been? It's been dead boring around here. How ya doing?

just working...running your own business takes much time and energy;)

[Nobody]

honestly, paying that much for a gun when you'll never live in the wild west is rediculous.[/QUOTE]....I don't understand what this line has to do with the old west.

[starry123nights]

honestly, paying that much for a gun when you'll never live in the wild west is rediculous.
regardless if it's a gun or something that I really want. If I want it and I can afford it. I buy it.

[Ape-Shit]

Hey Starry,

Check out my new toy. It's my official welcoming committee for the unwelcome in my home.

[something]

Hey Starry,

Check out my new toy. It's my official welcoming committee for the unwelcome in my home.

Ooooh, sexy ;) Wouldn't mind be shooten by that

[General Septem]

Hey Starry,

Check out my new toy. It's my official welcoming committee for the unwelcome in my home.

That's one of the most awesome revolvers I've seen. What's it chambered for? :D

[hitekredneck]

That's one of the most awesome revolvers I've seen. What's it chambered for? :D

smith & wesson, i would guess .44mag, but could be .357, right?

[starry123nights]

Hey Starry,

Check out my new toy. It's my official welcoming committee for the unwelcome in my home.

I like your new toy....cha-ching, cha-ching....thank you Las Vegas:D

[theicidal maniac]

honestly, paying that much for a gun when you'll never live in the wild west is rediculous.....I don't understand what this line has to do with the old west.[/QUOTE]

I am suggesting, mostly jokingly, that if you lived in the old west you would actually USE the gun everday, justifying the cost. Don't think about it too much...it isn't worth the time.

[Ape-Shit]

That's one of the most awesome revolvers I've seen. What's it chambered for? :D

Its a model 14-4 6"bbl .38 spl

It's mostly going to be used to shoot unwanted snakes and unwanted guest.

[Ape-Shit]

I like your new toy....cha-ching, cha-ching....thank you Las Vegas:D

Ha, Ha. Had it before Vegas. I also have the holster and belt to go with it. If I had Mr. Jims hat and probably Red's boots....I would look like a Matt Dillon.:p

[Nobody]

regardless if it's a gun or something that I really want. If I want it and I can afford it. I buy it.
....That came from manaic's post #149.

[theicidal maniac]

....That came from manaic's post #149.

Um, that's actually General Septem's comment I believe, or Starry's

[starry123nights]

....That came from manaic's post #149.

it's actually my post.

[theicidal maniac]

Yeah, how did that one get pinned on ME?

[hitekredneck]

Yeah, how did that one get pinned on ME?

you were convenient,i guess...lmao:D

[Ape-Shit]

Check this one out. I got another one just for all the Assholes out there.

[Walter Weiss]

Medusa---not a bad piece at all. I even saw one in a green finish. It was designed to be used in a war zone in which one might have to rely on scavenged ammo. The bore was designed to allow slight differences in bullet diameters. Chambers were designed to accept any 9mm / .380 / .357 / .38 cartridges whether they were rimless or not. It was a little bit expensive, but it was well made, and not a bad idea. It is not usual to find the Medusa at the gun shows. I dont believe that anyone is still making it now, and I dont know if the patterns were sold or traded off to another firm. If I find one, I think I will hang on to it as a definite collector.

WEISS

[hitekredneck]

Medusa---not a bad piece at all. I even saw one in a green finish. It was designed to be used in a war zone in which one might have to rely on scavenged ammo. The bore was designed to allow slight differences in bullet diameters. Chambers were designed to accept any 9mm / .380 / .357 / .38 cartridges whether they were rimless or not. It was a little bit expensive, but it was well made, and not a bad idea. It is not usual to find the Medusa at the gun shows. I dont believe that anyone is still making it now, and I dont know if the patterns were sold or traded off to another firm. If I find one, I think I will hang on to it as a definite collector.

WEISS

if you happen to get one,letmeknow how it shoots, will ya?...might get one just for the novelty.

[conspiracy]

depends on the reason....i'm a collector...btw, i'm lookin for a revolving shotgon...4 shot, i believe colt made a few, but haven't been able to locate one in the area...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=66916266


Here ya go, If you haven't found one already. I know this is a five shot but just in case it'll do for you.

[hitekredneck]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=66916266


Here ya go, If you haven't found one already. I know this is a five shot but just in case it'll do for you.

thanks...but the one i'm looking for i believe is a colt...it might be a 5-shot, i'm not sure...i want one for it'shistorical value...i'm a huge fan of the wild west...go ahead, theicidal, it's been a while since you've made some acerbic comments...lmao :D

[theicidal maniac]

Check this one out. I got another one just for all the Assholes out there.

HA HA HA...shooting people IS funny!!!

[theicidal maniac]

thanks...but the one i'm looking for i believe is a colt...it might be a 5-shot, i'm not sure...i want one for it'shistorical value...i'm a huge fan of the wild west...go ahead, theicidal, it's been a while since you've made some acerbic comments...lmao :D

Acerbic...I like that. I had never heard it used in this context before, but it's kinda cool. Anyway, uh, I'm pretty done with the whole gun conversation. I've said my piece, and nothing new has been said on this topic in several weeks, so, I guess I'm resigning from this one.

[hitekredneck]

Acerbic...I like that. I had never heard it used in this context before, but it's kinda cool. Anyway, uh, I'm pretty done with the whole gun conversation. I've said my piece, and nothing new has been said on this topic in several weeks, so, I guess I'm resigning from this one.

here's something new...lmao
http://www.officeguns.com/

[hitekredneck]

http://www.3dweb.no/galleri/stuestolbm/bilder/anim1.swf

[Nobody]

http://www.3dweb.no/galleri/stuestolbm/bilder/anim1.swf

I first thought that was Jim Stafford's stuff..thats alright.:D

[hitekredneck]

I first thought that was Jim Stafford's stuff..thats alright.:D

i thought it was funny as hell...:D ...like the "office" guns too...bet their bosses musta been surprised to see how much time they had on their hands to come up with those :)

[Walter Weiss]

A republican will pick a gun up, and use it properly when the time comes for sport shooting, hunting, collecting, home defense, etc. A demorat will see a gun and think how he can create votes out of the gun by creating "gun issues." The republican leaves his guns locked in his closet until he has a need for it. He doesnt USE guns for politics....demorats exploit the guns, and attempt to gain personal status by labeling themselves "anti0gun righteous persons" and by labeling his political opponents "red neck" for having a gun locked in that closet. Who is the more dangerous to this nation??? The lying coniving demorat gun control manipulator of government, or the republican that leaves the gun locked in the closet until he has a healthy use for it? WE NEED PEOPLE CONTROL....GUN CONTROL IS POINTLESS.....WE NEED TO CONTROL CRIME PROBLEMS, AND WE SHOULD START BY EXPOSING THE DEMORATS FOR THE MASTER EXPLOITERS OF FACT AND FICTION FOR WHAT THEY TRULY ARE!!!

[Nobody]

I was checking out a site called www.tannerite.com . If you enjoy shooting, this stuff is awesome. Explosive targets.
Line your drivewaywith these, and shoot at them when you have unwanted guests.

[hitekredneck]

I was checking out a site called www.tannerite.com . If you enjoy shooting, this stuff is awesome. Explosive targets.
Line your drivewaywith these, and shoot at them when you have unwanted guests.

those will be great for driving off jehova's witnesses... :D

[Nobody]

those will be great for driving off jehova's witnesses... :D

I did'nt think of those people.
The possibilities are endless.
I still have to have at least one case .
I want to know what it'll do to the inside of an old car.:cool:

[hitekredneck]

had to revive this one fer this shotgun...berretta's new extrema 2....i'ld be able to run off any number of my daughter's bf's with this thang!...check it out!
http://www.yikers.com/video_xtreme_shotgun.html

[General Septem]

had to revive this one fer this shotgun...berretta's new extrema 2....i'ld be able to run off any number of my daughter's bf's with this thang!...check it out!
http://www.yikers.com/video_xtreme_shotgun.html

I've got to get me two of those. :D

[hitekredneck]

I've got to get me two of those. :D

sucks that they're around 3g's fer one:(:mad:

[hitekredneck]

since old thread are poppin up, figgered i'ld bump this one just to see if anybody had anything to add to it :D

[LedZap]

This video is 28 minutes long. If you haven't time to watch it now, save it for when you do have time. It is well worth the watch!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2807602702866411553&hl=en

[ballzack]

I own guns. I enjoy the shooting sports. My right to do so is constitutionally protected. If anyone says differently, they are posting an argument that has no substance. Unless, as I have posted before, some left wing screwball wants to tell me what the Constitution OUGHT to say rather than what it says.

Used to go bird hunting regularly, Hitek. Lost my desire for hunting about five years ago. I fly fish mostly now for sport. But I still support hunting and all the shooting sports. I still have a full "reloading" bench with a plethora of loading dies and all accessories. Have to get back to that some day.

I also had to give up Skeet and Trap shooting. I did so much of that in the late 90's that I got a huge bruise on my shoulder from the recoil of the shotgun. Too bad since I really enjoyed Skeet. Trap was OK, but skeet really tests your skills, IMO.

Enjoy!

[hitekredneck]

I own guns. I enjoy the shooting sports. My right to do so is constitutionally protected. If anyone says differently, they are posting an argument that has no substance. Unless, as I have posted before, some left wing screwball wants to tell me what the Constitution OUGHT to say rather than what it says.

Used to go bird hunting regularly, Hitek. Lost my desire for hunting about five years ago. I fly fish mostly now for sport. But I still support hunting and all the shooting sports. I still have a full "reloading" bench with a plethora of loading dies and all accessories. Have to get back to that some day.

I also had to give up Skeet and Trap shooting. I did so much of that in the late 90's that I got a huge bruise on my shoulder from the recoil of the shotgun. Too bad since I really enjoyed Skeet. Trap was OK, but skeet really tests your skills, IMO.

Enjoy!


check out those tannerite targets, zack, they're the bomb!!! :D

[ballzack]

Looks interesting. Checked out their website. Thanks.

If I could use them for handgun target practice, that would work. My shotgun days are over. The shoulder still has a bruise and scar tissue from the severe recoil of the 12 ga. from years of target shooting! :eek:

[Comrade]

Sad to say I have Americanized myself and bought a gun - Beretta 87 Target 22 caliber semiautomatic. :p

[General Septem]

Sad to say I have Americanized myself and bought a gun - Beretta 87 Target 22 caliber semiautomatic. :p

Not bad, there's hope for you yet. :D

[hitekredneck]

Sad to say I have Americanized myself and bought a gun - Beretta 87 Target 22 caliber semiautomatic. :p

that's actually fairly decent for self-protection, if you're accurate enough to shoot say a 3/4" 5 shot group at 25 feet....once you get much beyond that, you'll find that little auto of yours notoriously unreliable...i got rid of my glock cause it didn't fit my hand comfortably, and am going to pick up a revolver, probably a .357/38 special, just because the ammo is cheaper :cool:

[ballzack]

38 special ammo Tek is probably the most readily available, and most cost-efficient of all handgun ammo. Totally agree. And -Plus P- or -Plus P Plus- 38 cal has ballistic profiles that are close to 357 - not as good as - but close ;).

I have a Taurus 357 wheel-gun for (to quote Foghorn Leghorn) "Just such an emergency"...... :)

Still prefer my S&W Sigma 40 cal.

[General Septem]

I still don't own any guns (for shame) but I want a .410 revolver for close encounters. With shotgun shells fired out of a rifled revolver, you'd have to really suck to not hit anything within 10 feet with it.

As far as semiautomatics go, I'd trust a GLOCK before a Beretta. That thing will shoot underwater. You could pour sand in it and it'll shoot. According to Sam Gerrard anyway. :D

Seriously, though, GLOCKs are tough. I saw a website once where someone put one through all kinds of torture testing, never cleaned it in five years, etc. It still shot straight. Those things kick ass.

[hitekredneck]

well, if i had the money, i'ld go back to my old desert eagle .357 auto...only auto more dependable than a glock...not to mention i could field strip it, clean and re-assemble in less than 4 minutes :cool: a little heavy at 24 oz, but no recoil what soever, and i could get a 3/4" 5-shot group at 50 feet... :cool:

[Comrade]

well, if i had the money, i'ld go back to my old desert eagle .357 auto...only auto more dependable than a glock...not to mention i could field strip it, clean and re-assemble in less than 4 minutes :cool: a little heavy at 24 oz, but no recoil what soever, and i could get a 3/4" 5-shot group at 50 feet... :cool:

I should probably pick up a Desert Eagle and see how well it shoots - I kinda like mine since it has such a smooth trigger action.

[hitekredneck]

I should probably pick up a Desert Eagle and see how well it shoots - I kinda like mine since it has such a smooth trigger action.

desert eagles are THE finest auto-loading pistol made, imho...of course, they're isreali made, and you know how middle easterners know how to build weapons, they've been getting in lots of practice :cool:

[hitekredneck]

here's an old review of the desert eagle, tho it's more about the .50 than the .357
http://remtek.com/arms/imi/desert/index.htm

[General Septem]

here's an old review of the desert eagle, tho it's more about the .50 than the .357
http://remtek.com/arms/imi/desert/index.htm

Nothing wrong with the .50. :D

[hitekredneck]

Nothing wrong with the .50. :D

yeah there is, gen....the .50 costs right at 2.75 per round...not as bad as their big bro, the barrett @ 9-10 bucks a pop, but more than i want to spend :cool:

[General Septem]

yeah there is, gen....the .50 costs right at 2.75 per round...not as bad as their big bro, the barrett @ 9-10 bucks a pop, but more than i want to spend :cool:

I can see how that would add up. It's probably not all that common compared to the .357 either, so it wouldn't be practical for a SHTF situation.

[hitekredneck]

I can see how that would add up. It's probably not all that common compared to the .357 either, so it wouldn't be practical for a SHTF situation.

don't get me wrong, if i had 9 grand to throw away i'ld own a brand spanking new barrett complete with 10 round mag...there's a custom job here in town, if i can get a pic of it i'll post it...it was specially modified and customized for the local chapter of Wounded Warriors, a non-profit group headed by disabled vets that helps out wounded, and disabled gi's and their families by footing mortgage, rent, and utility bills...that would be the best 9 grand i've ever spent :cool: