INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: matthe on August 07, 2009, 11:06:06 PM
-
got some, want some, cant have one, or want them all melted.
lets talk about guns
-
Have:
Remington 870 Wingmaster 12 gauge
Ruger 10-22
Mossberg 500 12 gauge
Had:
Para Ordnance P14-45
Want:
Glock 21
-
Have a pretty good number. Want more but I am cutting back on new purchases to be able to travel.
-
yeah i think 40 is prolly enough ppk.
dude you dropped your optics. comical results of the quest for bigger and faster handgun bullets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V0hL_rwHfI
-
I have two of these:
:zoinks:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
dude you dropped your optics. comical results of the quest for bigger and faster handgun bullets.
:LMAO: Maybe should have had Guntite on the screws.
I have two of these:
:zoinks:
Is that the famed 88 magnum Phlexor. :lol:
-
yeah wtf is that?
-
looks like a handheld railgun
-
:green:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
lmao its a wii controller holder. can you tell im not much of a gamer?
-
I want a bee bee gun. I want to shoot those stupid slutty girls with their stupid boyfriends who only like slutty girls. it would hurt them and hearing the screams would be funny :zoinks:
-
Why has TheoK not posted in here yet? Is it because the thread is obviously already about guns and so there is no need to turn the subject to guns and hence no challenge? :P
-
I love rail guns. The potential is enormous if they could compact the design and reduce wear and tear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun)
-
Can anyone recommend an affordable, widely available handgun, revolver or otherwise?
-
smith and wesson, ruger or glock are all good names and somewhat affordable. theres alot of less expensive brands out there but you pretty much get what you pay for. what do you want to use it for?
-
Why has TheoK not posted in here yet? Is it because the thread is obviously already about guns and so there is no need to turn the subject to guns and hence no challenge? :P
No, there was a thunderstorm here for 12 hours, so I unplugged the computer.
I still want a Beretta Cheetah.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
<drool>
(http://www.great-lakes.org/graphics-2/Smith&Wesson/rev-10-16-06/327TRR8-Rail-R.jpg)
something for under the pillow
-
lol wow thats big
-
lol wow thats big
that's what she said
-
Have:
Marlin 70HC
Mossberg 500 (20gauge with pistol grip only)
Keltec SU16 with side folding stock
Keltec PF9
Rossi M711 .357magnum
Ruger P89
Wife has a Keltec P32 and we have a pink Crickett .22 for my daughter to shoot.
Want: Marlin lever gun in 30-30 or .357 (can't decide), M1A, 1911.
Here's a link to some pics. Keep in mind I'm a writer not a photographer.
http://s916.photobucket.com/albums/ad4/toddbayliss/Guns/
-
Have:
Marlin 70HC
Mossberg 500 (20gauge with pistol grip only)
Keltec SU16 with side folding stock
Keltec PF9
Rossi M711 .357magnum
Ruger P89
Wife has a Keltec P32 and we have a pink Crickett .22 for my daughter to shoot.
Want: Marlin lever gun in 30-30 or .357 (can't decide), M1A, 1911.
Here's a link to some pics. Keep in mind I'm a writer not a photographer.
http://s916.photobucket.com/albums/ad4/toddbayliss/Guns/
Nice tools, bro. :thumbup:
-
we have a pink Crickett .22 for my daughter to shoot
For some reason that makes me uneasy as hell :zombiefuck: Especially the fact that it's pink as if it was a girly toy.
-
we have a pink Crickett .22 for my daughter to shoot
For some reason that makes me uneasy as hell :zombiefuck: Especially the fact that it's pink as if it was a girly toy.
.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
:aff:
-
:thumbup:
-
we have a pink Crickett .22 for my daughter to shoot
For some reason that makes me uneasy as hell :zombiefuck: Especially the fact that it's pink as if it was a girly toy.
I started her out on my Marlin, but it's just too big for her to shoot well and I didn't want her to lose interest.
So, it's pink and girly, but she is well aware that it is not a toy. All guns in our house, whether real or pretend are treated like real, loaded guns and the four basic rules are strictly followed. She has to recite anytime we get the guns out and she will even point out when someone is being unsafe on TV.
A gun is just a tool. Like electricity, a car, or a hammer. Something to be respected but not feared.
-
Even though I am not keen on guns, I must admit you are very sensible about them :laugh:
-
we have a pink Crickett .22 for my daughter to shoot
For some reason that makes me uneasy as hell :zombiefuck: Especially the fact that it's pink as if it was a girly toy.
I started her out on my Marlin, but it's just too big for her to shoot well and I didn't want her to lose interest.
So, it's pink and girly, but she is well aware that it is not a toy. All guns in our house, whether real or pretend are treated like real, loaded guns and the four basic rules are strictly followed. She has to recite anytime we get the guns out and she will even point out when someone is being unsafe on TV.
A gun is just a tool. Like electricity, a car, or a hammer. Something to be respected but not feared.
I wish I had a gun that shot electricity or cars or hammers. That would be cool 8)
-
Even though I am not keen on guns, I must admit you are very sensible about them :laugh:
the vast majority of gun owners i know are. pink guns however are not sensible and should be banned. nice rossi, always wanted to try one.
-
we have a pink Crickett .22 for my daughter to shoot
For some reason that makes me uneasy as hell :zombiefuck: Especially the fact that it's pink as if it was a girly toy.
I started her out on my Marlin, but it's just too big for her to shoot well and I didn't want her to lose interest.
So, it's pink and girly, but she is well aware that it is not a toy. All guns in our house, whether real or pretend are treated like real, loaded guns and the four basic rules are strictly followed. She has to recite anytime we get the guns out and she will even point out when someone is being unsafe on TV.
A gun is just a tool. Like electricity, a car, or a hammer. Something to be respected but not feared.
I looked to see what a pink Crickett is and I see that it is a single shot .22 rifle.
(http://www.crickett.com/225a.jpg)
How old is your daughter?
My brother has taught his nine year old daughter to shoot a rifle, just like he taught his son when he was younger.
-
We were allowed to shoot with grandpa's .22 and shotgun when I was 16 and my brother was 11, under supervision, of course. :thumbup:
Hemingway was 4 when he could handle a gun. :litigious:
-
i like purple
(http://www.countrysidewalk.com/ImagesProducts/Firearms/Ruger/Charger/RugerChargerMag300.jpg)
-
i like purple
(http://www.countrysidewalk.com/ImagesProducts/Firearms/Ruger/Charger/RugerChargerMag300.jpg)
Cool, I like it. What caliber? It kind of looks like a 10/22 action and magazine.
My daughter will turn 8 in a few days. The pics of her shooting on my web page were from a couple of years ago. I can't seem to find the pics of her with the Crickett.
Her favorite target is "Barney".
The Crickett is a great gun to start out the little ones on. It's a single shot bolt action that has to be manually cocked after the round is chambered. It's scaled down to "Pint sized" so that the length and height of the comb are right for short arms (my wife likes it too!) and it has an aperture sight so they can focus more on trigger control and less on sight alignment.
-
tis in fact a readily available ruger 10/22 "charger"(albeit with a 30 round not quite so available mag)
-
tis in fact a readily available ruger 10/22 "charger"(albeit with a 30 round not quite so available mag)
Midway has a lot of 25 and 32 round mags for the 10/22.
http://www.midwayusa.com/browse/BrowseProducts.aspx?pageNum=1&tabId=7&categoryId=15089 (http://www.midwayusa.com/browse/BrowseProducts.aspx?pageNum=1&tabId=7&categoryId=15089)
-
i bought a couple 25'ers for mine before the regulations went into effect. they snap together so i get 50 orunds with a flip of the wrist.
you know im not sure they are regulated here, just havent seen them in the stores like i used to.
thanks for the link :thumbup:
-
ooooh they have a 50rd one!, wonder how reliable that is...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk&feature=channel
-
:lol: :plus:
-
Dammit, I just missed a really good deal on a pistol I really wanted.
(http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/s2k848/Glock30/1028092219a.jpg)
(http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/s2k848/Glock30/1028092216b.jpg)
Glock 30, .45ACP.
Perfect conceal & carry weapon.
-
I used to have one of those. Very solid performer. Light recoil even with +P loads.
-
My buddy chucki ruined my BB guin so he payed for it. With the pay back and some of my birthday money from relatives I got a BB gun rifle and a pisol. They came in one pack. it was $50 and their not bad. I like to shoot my dads beer cans with them. They also come in handy when we get big birds like ravens and owls in our yard.
why would I shoot them? becuase they prey on our 6 pound Yorkshire terrier and miniature-dachshund-Chihuahua. THIS DOES HAPPEN BIG BIRDS WILL PREY ON YOUR SMALL DOGS. Farmers in our community have lost baby sheep that have had their eyes brutally stabbed out by birds of prey.
Anyways here are my new guns. God i'm such a tomboy :zoinks:
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9936/snapshot200911041.jpg) (http://img23.imageshack.us/i/snapshot200911041.jpg/)
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9943/snapshot20091104.jpg) (http://img12.imageshack.us/i/snapshot20091104.jpg/)
Their not real guns but still. those BB's can bounce back at you and you could lose an eye.
-
:thumbup: Nicely done. Your tattoo looks good too.
-
I want an L85A2 w/SUSAT and L17A2...
Also, a Davy Crockett. For the lulz.
-
I'd like some black powder guns
-
My buddy chucki ruined my BB guin so he payed for it. With the pay back and some of my birthday money from relatives I got a BB gun rifle and a pisol. They came in one pack. it was $50 and their not bad. I like to shoot my dads beer cans with them. They also come in handy when we get big birds like ravens and owls in our yard.
why would I shoot them? becuase they prey on our 6 pound Yorkshire terrier and miniature-dachshund-Chihuahua. THIS DOES HAPPEN BIG BIRDS WILL PREY ON YOUR SMALL DOGS. Farmers in our community have lost baby sheep that have had their eyes brutally stabbed out by birds of prey.
Anyways here are my new guns. God i'm such a tomboy :zoinks:
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9936/snapshot200911041.jpg) (http://img23.imageshack.us/i/snapshot200911041.jpg/)
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9943/snapshot20091104.jpg) (http://img12.imageshack.us/i/snapshot20091104.jpg/)
Their not real guns but still. those BB's can bounce back at you and you could lose an eye.
girls with guns are hot!
ive been drooling over bear guns again.
remington 750 carbine in 35 whelen (pictured on the bottom)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
:thumbup: 35 Whelen.
-
:thumbup: 35 Whelen.
Meh! The .338-06 can push a 250gr bullet faster than a Whelen can. :zzz:
-
Dammit, I just missed a really good deal on a pistol I really wanted.
Glock 30, .45ACP.
Perfect conceal & carry weapon.
The .40 S&W is better for concealed carry if you ask me.
-
:thumbup: 35 Whelen.
Meh! The .338-06 can push a 250gr bullet faster than a Whelen can. :zzz:
whelen 35 has similar knock out and bigger caliber for a more deadly shot on bigger game, with significantly less recoil, than the 338.
a quote from somewhere online (somewhat reputable)
35 Whelen 250 grain at 2550 = 32.6
338 Win mag 250 grain at 2,700 = 32.6
for bear and mountain lion protection in the wild, ill take the extra stopping power, and less recoil of the 35 over the unneeded velocity of the 338.
im not intending to hunt from 400yrds here. i intend to take out a bear or lion thats charging in short range. and the lighter recoil will allow for multiple shots if i miss. (25lb recoil for whelen 35, 33lb for 338)
but yeah, if im hunting elk at long range, id prolly prefer the 338 WM, or just a 300WM or 30-06 (more meat for eat, less splat)
for deer id definetly prefer the 22-250. although doing so is illegal in some states because of minimum caliber restrictions.
-
whelen 35 has similar knock out and bigger caliber ... , than the 338.
.358-.338=.020" That's the difference of about 8 human hairs. :wanker:
a quote from somewhere online (somewhat reputable)
35 Whelen 250 grain at 2550 = 32.6
338 Win mag 250 grain at 2,700 = 32.6
Those loads are a little too hot.
.. ill take the extra stopping power, and less recoil of the 35...
For every action, there is an equal, and opposite, reaction. All else being equal, More stopping power=more recoil
(25lb recoil for whelen 35, 33lb for 338)
Those numbers are made up.
but yeah, if im hunting elk at long range, id prolly prefer the 338 WM, or just a 300WM or 30-06 (more meat for eat, less splat)
The .30-06 doesn't shoot flat enough for Elk at long range.
for deer id definetly prefer the 22-250. although doing so is illegal in some states because of minimum caliber restrictions.
That's because .22 calibers wound far more deer than they kill. A .243 is minimum for all but the smallest deer. .243 to 7mm-08 are the best cartriges for deer.
-
whelen 35 has similar knock out and bigger caliber ... , than the 338.
a).358-.338=.020" That's the difference of about 8 human hairs. :wanker:
a quote from somewhere online (somewhat reputable)
35 Whelen 250 grain at 2550 = 32.6
338 Win mag 250 grain at 2,700 = 32.6
b)Those loads are a little too hot.
.. ill take the extra stopping power, and less recoil of the 35...
c)For every action, there is an equal, and opposite, reaction. All else being equal, More stopping power=more recoil
(25lb recoil for whelen 35, 33lb for 338)
d)Those numbers are made up.
but yeah, if im hunting elk at long range, id prolly prefer the 338 WM, or just a 300WM or 30-06 (more meat for eat, less splat)
e)The .30-06 doesn't shoot flat enough for Elk at long range.
for deer id definetly prefer the 22-250. although doing so is illegal in some states because of minimum caliber restrictions.
f)That's because .22 calibers wound far more deer than they kill. A .243 is minimum for all but the smallest deer. .243 to 7mm-08 are the best cartriges for deer.
a)human hair=10 micrimeters=~.0004 inches
.020 inches diference = .0004 inches x 50
so thats roughly 50 human hairs or one half (.508) mm.
even touugh your math is off a little, i can agree with what you are saying here. its not that much difference.
in balistics though, a half millimeter is significant enough to mention. for example .41 mag vs .44 mag(.019 difference) is similar but anyone who has shot both many times can tell you that they are a bit different.
b) those loads are probably alot hot, and heavy.
c)there are many variables in recoil not just the weight of the bullet, but the weight of the gun, the load, the type of shell, the action(bolt or semi), barell length and rifling, etc.
so in this case the reaction would be different if the action(phisics) differed, even if some of the variables where the same, some are still different.
ive heard that its the case shape that makes the difference here. ie- significantly less bottleneck on 35W compared to 338WM
d) fudged or estimated more likely...they came from the op here...
http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=36085 (http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=36085)
seemed like reputable info to me, and im too lazy to dig up any real info, if its even available. (if you know where to find info like this with truly controlled variables i would be very happy to see it. i love balistics charts)
e)depends on the gun, round, shooter, and how long of range.
should be good up to 250-300ish at least, with a good gun, round, shooter
f) thats because of shitty shooters, not the round. if you cant ensure a kill with every hit, then use a bigger gun.
but IF you are a great shot, the 22 250 will do fine, cause its extremely acurate at long range.
many states regulate deer hunting to centerfire cartriges only, with no restrictions on caliber.
az is one of them, allowing ANY centerfire cartrige to be used on ANY large game, including bear and elk :P
you seem pretty knowledgeable in hunting. what kind of kills have you made?
ive never been hunting for big game, but i know some people know that alot about this stuff from years of experience.
in typical aspie fashion, I learn alot of details about cirtain things (like guns) but have little real life experience in doing them.
ive been rabbit hunting with hundreds of kills(22 and club), worked as a professional indoor pidgeon extterminator(22 birdshot) close to a hundred kills, and ive shot shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, and even a fully-auto. 12ga,20ga,410ga,30-06,22-250,300 weatherby,22 hornet,22mag,22lr,9mm,44mag,40s&w,357mag,38spl,and 223, im sure i forgot a few.
the purpose of this gun is solely for brown (but maybe grizly) bear and mt. lion(big) protection while in extreme remote wilderness. not hunting.
i need a semi, pump, or lever action gun thats less than 8 lbs, portable, accurate and able to kill from 20 to 200 yards, and something that i can whip out on short notice.
ive looked at lever marlin lever, BLR, remington 750, and some hand cannon revolvers in 30/30, 450M, 460 s&w, and 45/70. am considering a rifle/revolver combo if i can keep the overall weight down.
i want something bigger than 338 but not TOO powerful. cause im a little guy(6ft 160lbs) with shoulder injurys.
something thatll kill a good sized bear or cat, with preferably less recoil than a 30-06(i know that last part is a little unrealistic)
also it needs to be new or relatively new. i dont want to fuck with a messed up used barel.
what would you recomend?
-
The pressure difference between the two seems nominal but in the Speer manual it shows a slight adfvantage to the 338 with 250 grain bullets ~ 150 fps. And with the same weight bullet the Grand Slam @ 250 grains is .33 bc in .358 versus .43 bc in .338. But I have always seen the Whelen referred to for short to medium range work. Never fired one. Aside from a 50 BMG single shot the most poerful rifle I fired was either a 30-06 or 7mm Remington magnum. They didn't feel that different to me in terms of felt recoil.
-
The pressure difference between the two seems nominal but in the Speer manual it shows a slight adfvantage to the 338 with 250 grain bullets ~ 150 fps. And with the same weight bullet the Grand Slam @ 250 grains is .33 bc in .358 versus .43 bc in .338. But I have always seen the Whelen referred to for short to medium range work. Never fired one. Aside from a 50 BMG single shot the most poerful rifle I fired was either a 30-06 or 7mm Remington magnum. They didn't feel that different to me in terms of felt recoil.
ppk,
youre walking though the wilderness, just enjoying the scenery and thinking about the meaning of life. suddenly a enormous bear (900 lbs) rolls up on you and stands up, checks you out, and then charges. hes about 150yards away and closing FAST(30 mph).
what gun or guns would you want to have?
if you dont kill it before it gets to 20 yards, your best bet is to play dead and prey it doesnt maul you.
(any gun that is available for less than 2000 usd. ammo must be readily available. must be less than 8 lbs. fully auto is not allowed. )
-
I've never been to Alaska but I suppose either a 12 guage loaded with 1.25 oz Federal slugs or a Marlin 45-70 loaded with wide meplat hardcast 400 grain solids @ 1600 fps. I have a 460 XVR that I have put about 80 460 rounds through and about 200 454 Casulls.
-
the problem with the 12ga slug would be acuracy. i wouldnt want it to get THAT close. :-\
45/70 is kinda out of the pic for me considering its about 150 years old. 450 marlin or 444 id consider though.
460? when did you get that? i wanna play. :eyebrows:
i wish someone would make a lever rifle in 460. would be perfect for bears, heard theres some casul levers available, but ive also heard theyve been discoed cause a couple of em blew up :(
its mostly black bears around here, but if im gonna buy a bear gun id want it to be good for all areas. always wanted to go to alaska.
-
ive heard that its the case shape that makes the difference here. ie- significantly less bottleneck on 35W compared to 338WM
Oooooooooooooooooh that makes sense now. You were quoting figures for the .338 Win Mag. I was talking about the wildcat .338-06. No wonder the stats you were quoting for the .338 seemed too high. The .35 Whelen and .338-06 are ballisticaly very close. The .338 outperforms the .35 in bullet weights from 250g on down for the reason you just mentioned. The slight increase in bottleneck improves the efficiency of the case. The .338 seems to be a ballistic sweet spot with the -06 case. It outperforms both larger and smaller bores.
you seem pretty knowledgeable in hunting. what kind of kills have you made?
Half a dozen Coastal Blacktail Deer, a couple dozen wild pigs and hundreds of long range Ground Squirrels. My best shot on a Ground Squirrel was 600 yards with my .243, 87gr Hornady V-Max @ 3400fps
ive never been hunting for big game, but i know some people know that alot about this stuff from years of experience.
in typical aspie fashion, I learn alot of details about cirtain things (like guns) but have little real life experience in doing them.
ive been rabbit hunting with hundreds of kills(22 and club), worked as a professional indoor pidgeon extterminator(22 birdshot) close to a hundred kills, and ive shot shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, and even a fully-auto. 12ga,20ga,410ga,30-06,22-250,300 weatherby,22 hornet,22mag,22lr,9mm,44mag,40s&w,357mag,38spl,and 223, im sure i forgot a few.
the purpose of this gun is solely for brown (but maybe grizly) bear and mt. lion(big) protection while in extreme remote wilderness. not hunting.
i need a semi, pump, or lever action gun thats less than 8 lbs, portable, accurate and able to kill from 20 to 200 yards, and something that i can whip out on short notice.
ive looked at lever marlin lever, BLR, remington 750, and some hand cannon revolvers in 30/30, 450M, 460 s&w, and 45/70. am considering a rifle/revolver combo if i can keep the overall weight down.
i want something bigger than 338 but not TOO powerful. cause im a little guy(6ft 160lbs) with shoulder injurys.
something thatll kill a good sized bear or cat, with preferably less recoil than a 30-06(i know that last part is a little unrealistic)
also it needs to be new or relatively new. i dont want to fuck with a messed up used barel.
what would you recomend?
Damn, that's a tough one. A gun that's lightweight and has enough knockdown power for a Grizzly (Brown Bear, same thing) is going to kick the crap out of you. A 12ga Pump or semi-auto comes to mind. Otherwise a .375 Winchester lever-action if you can find one.
-
the problem with the 12ga slug would be acuracy. i wouldnt want it to get THAT close. :-\
It is what is often recomended for fishing in Alaska though.
45/70 is kinda out of the pic for me considering its about 150 years old. 450 marlin or 444 id consider though.
My Hogdon manual shows 405 grain LFP loads @ 1700 fps in trapdoor rifles. The 45-70 Marlin Guide Gun can be loaded to about 2000 fps with a 400 grain hardcast.
460? when did you get that? i wanna play. :eyebrows:
January of 2006. It puts out ungodly muzzle flash in the shape of a figure 8 because of the comp. :green: I have no practical use for it, I just wanted a giant fucking revolver. Here it is next to my 629 6.5" and below that my Les Baer TRS. I got rid of the fucking slim grips and put Esmereldas Cocobolo grips on it.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2646ips.jpg)
(http://i36.tinypic.com/1zge0e1.jpg)
-
Half a dozen Coastal Blacktail Deer, a couple dozen wild pigs and hundreds of long range Ground Squirrels. My best shot on a Ground Squirrel was 600 yards with my .243, 87gr Hornady V-Max @ 3400fps
Great shot Scrap! :thumbup: Thanks for the info on the effect of the different bottlenecks, I was wondering about that difference myself.
-
Half a dozen Coastal Blacktail Deer, a couple dozen wild pigs and hundreds of long range Ground Squirrels. My best shot on a Ground Squirrel was 600 yards with my .243, 87gr Hornady V-Max @ 3400fps
Great shot Scrap! :thumbup: Thanks for the info on the effect of the different bottlenecks, I was wondering about that difference myself.
Here's the weird part though, when you keep necking the -06 case down, the peformance decreases at .30 and 7mm, then increases at .277 and, then decreases again at .264, .257 and .243. Internal ballistics is still a bit of a black art and what goes on iside the case when it goes bang isn't precisely understood.
-
Half a dozen Coastal Blacktail Deer, a couple dozen wild pigs and hundreds of long range Ground Squirrels. My best shot on a Ground Squirrel was 600 yards with my .243, 87gr Hornady V-Max @ 3400fps
Great shot Scrap! :thumbup: Thanks for the info on the effect of the different bottlenecks, I was wondering about that difference myself.
Here's the weird part though, when you keep necking the -06 case down, the peformance decreases at .30 and 7mm, then increases at .277 and, then decreases again at .264, .257 and .243. Internal ballistics is still a bit of a black art and what goes on iside the case when it goes bang isn't precisely understood.
Robert Rinker has alluded to that sort of anomalus stuff in the book Understanding Firearm Ballistics which I have only worked partway through but it is very comprehensive. If you don't have a copy you might want to get one. Mine was $25 at a gunshow.
-
Half a dozen Coastal Blacktail Deer, a couple dozen wild pigs and hundreds of long range Ground Squirrels. My best shot on a Ground Squirrel was 600 yards with my .243, 87gr Hornady V-Max @ 3400fps
Great shot Scrap! :thumbup: Thanks for the info on the effect of the different bottlenecks, I was wondering about that difference myself.
Here's the weird part though, when you keep necking the -06 case down, the peformance decreases at .30 and 7mm, then increases at .277 and, then decreases again at .264, .257 and .243. Internal ballistics is still a bit of a black art and what goes on iside the case when it goes bang isn't precisely understood.
Robert Rinker has alluded to that sort of anomalus stuff in the book Understanding Firearm Ballistics which I have only worked partway through but it is very comprehensive. If you don't have a copy you might want to get one. Mine was $25 at a gunshow.
Sounds fascinating, but I'd only be interested in it if it had some kind of benchrest worthy reloading techniques.
-
what would you recomend?
Now that I've thought about it some moar, this would be just what you're looking for: Find a Savage Model 99 in .308 Win or some cartrige based on that. The Savage 99 is often overlooked, but has one VERY nice feature, a detachable, 5 round, box magazine. Have it re-barreled in .358 Win or the .375 version of that cartridge, or you could go crazy and neck it up to .416. Of course this would mean having to rent out a set of reamers to give to your gunsmith and buying expesive custom reloading dies ($120 or more). The .358 Win is the easiest route though, since some factory ammo is available, although I'm pretty sure it's all loaded with round-nose bullets. In that case, you'd want to reload anyways to take advantage of the fact that you can shoot pointed bullets out of a Savage 99.
-
i had a dart gun, a machine gun, 2 water pistols and another pistol. i had a zorro sword, a regular sword, a light saber and an aladdin sword.
-
Oooooooooooooooooh that makes sense now. You were quoting figures for the .338 Win Mag. I was talking about the wildcat .338-06. No wonder the stats you were quoting for the .338 seemed too high. The .35 Whelen and .338-06 are ballisticaly very close. The .338 outperforms the .35 in bullet weights from 250g on down for the reason you just mentioned. The slight increase in bottleneck improves the efficiency of the case. The .338 seems to be a ballistic sweet spot with the -06 case. It outperforms both larger and smaller bores.
aha, ill check that out.
Half a dozen Coastal Blacktail Deer, a couple dozen wild pigs and hundreds of long range Ground Squirrels. My best shot on a Ground Squirrel was 600 yards with my .243, 87gr Hornady V-Max @ 3400fps
:thumbup:
Damn, that's a tough one. A gun that's lightweight and has enough knockdown power for a Grizzly (Brown Bear, same thing) is going to kick the crap out of you. A 12ga Pump or semi-auto comes to mind. Otherwise a .375 Winchester lever-action if you can find one.
ive got a remington 1100 12ga. not exactly something id want to pack around. thought about the mossberg JIC but id have to practice shooting from the hip, and still prolly wouldnt feel comfortable taking on a bear with it.
375 win is too far out of production, i dont want a fucked up old 20 year old gun. but thats generally what im looking for. i like that it was available in 20" barrel, i could pack that pretty easily.
either of you shot a 405 winchester? looks like theyre making some new 1895s in 405. i have a feeling itd maim my shoulder though. and id have reservations buying a new 100 year old gun.
does anybody make a 338-06 lever with a 20" barrel? what about the 338 marlin express?
ill check savage, but i dont want anything modified. and reloading my own bullets isnt something id want to get into.
...a giant fucking revolver...
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2646ips.jpg)
the 460 is looking more practical for packing. think itd kill a bear?
(did i just refer to the 460 as practical? time for bed)
i had a dart gun, a machine gun, 2 water pistols and another pistol. i had a zorro sword, a regular sword, a light saber and an aladdin sword.
what about your rail gun? you forgot about that one.
-
There is a 460V model with a 5" barrel Matthe, 1" of it is comp. It weighs 62 oz, mine w/8.375" barrel weighs 72.4 oz on my postal scale.
-
Hey matthe,
I just found out that Savage did make the Model 99 in .358 Winchester (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=145533109). The .358 Win is just the .308 necked up to .35, its ballisticaly close to the .35 Whelen, but should have managable recoil. I also checked on ammo availability, and Winchester and a few other companies, still make ammo for it. The factory load is a 200gr Silvertip spitzer @ 2500.
As far as recoil goes, have you thought about wearing a padded shooting jacket? You could also add a soft rubber recoil pad to the buttstock and one last thing is to add one or two of those mercury filled recoil reducers.
BTW, I pulled a hair from one of the few places on my body that still has hair, grabbed my Brown&Sharp 0-1" mics, and the hair measured at .0022". :moon::razz: Don't believe everything you read.
Oh, one last thing, if you preffer the Browning BLR, they have one here (http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=96194).
-
Used to has my granddad's .38 Colt service revolver. In firing condition. It was sold as part of my father's estate. :(
-
i had a dart gun, a machine gun, 2 water pistols and another pistol. i had a zorro sword, a regular sword, a light saber and an aladdin sword.
`
and those ninja turtle things you hurl.
-
There is a 460V model with a 5" barrel Matthe, 1" of it is comp. It weighs 62 oz, mine w/8.375" barrel weighs 72.4 oz on my postal scale.
yeah 4 or 5 lbs seems alot more realistic than a 9lb rifle. id prolly go for the 8 or 10 inch. im thinking that might be the way to go cause i could shortload it and use it for dinner, without vaporizing dinner. have you tried the 45lc in that? it can shoot 460, 454 and 45lc right?
Hey matthe,
I just found out that Savage did make the Model 99 in .358 Winchester (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=145533109). The .358 Win is just the .308 necked up to .35, its ballisticaly close to the .35 Whelen, but should have managable recoil. I also checked on ammo availability, and Winchester and a few other companies, still make ammo for it. The factory load is a 200gr Silvertip spitzer @ 2500.
As far as recoil goes, have you thought about wearing a padded shooting jacket? You could also add a soft rubber recoil pad to the buttstock and one last thing is to add one or two of those mercury filled recoil reducers.
BTW, I pulled a hair from one of the few places on my body that still has hair, grabbed my Brown&Sharp 0-1" mics, and the hair measured at .0022". :moon::razz: Don't believe everything you read.
Oh, one last thing, if you preffer the Browning BLR, they have one here (http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=96194).
blr are supposed to be the best levers, but they are heavier too i think. need to do some more research...i had a dart gun, a machine gun, 2 water pistols and another pistol. i had a zorro sword, a regular sword, a light saber and an aladdin sword.
`
and those ninja turtle things you hurl.
numchucks.
-
There is a 460V model with a 5" barrel Matthe, 1" of it is comp. It weighs 62 oz, mine w/8.375" barrel weighs 72.4 oz on my postal scale.
yeah 4 or 5 lbs seems alot more realistic than a 9lb rifle. id prolly go for the 8 or 10 inch. im thinking that might be the way to go cause i could shortload it and use it for dinner, without vaporizing dinner. have you tried the 45lc in that? it can shoot 460, 454 and 45lc right?
Yes it will shoot all of those loads but a mid range 454 will be the lightest I bother shooting in it. The 45 ACP is too close to the performance of the standard 45 Colt for me to shoot 45 Colt out of it, although I am sure a 250 grain SWC @ ~ 850 fps would be a pussycat in a 72 ounce revolver.
-
... The 45 ACP is too close to the performance of the standard 45 Colt for me to shoot 45 Colt out of it, although I am sure a 250 grain SWC @ ~ 850 fps would be a pussycat in a 72 ounce revolver.
That's why you reload for the .45 Colt. I can push 250gr'ers out to 1500-1550 in my Redhawk. 8)
-
Melt them all >:D
-
Kill them all >:D
fixed 8)
-
this was my gun in the military*
(http://remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g3/g3a3.gif)
i was in a lazy-platoon, we didnt get any other handguns. i shared a browning M2 heavy machinegun w another guy.
i really like the G3 tho, so much i included it in my flag!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v466/zegh/flagghaha.png)
^the slight difference in the grip-shape is not an accident. the grip on the above pic is from the newer models.
*mandatory.
with the internet consisting of 99,9% americans, i cannot stress that enough. mandatory, mandatory, mandatory.
military or one year in prison guys :]
-
this was my gun in the military*
(http://remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g3/g3a3.gif)
i was in a lazy-platoon, we didnt get any other handguns. i shared a browning M2 heavy machinegun w another guy.
i really like the G3 tho, so much i included it in my flag!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v466/zegh/flagghaha.png)
^the slight difference in the grip-shape is not an accident. the grip on the above pic is from the newer models.
*mandatory.
with the internet consisting of 99,9% americans, i cannot stress that enough. mandatory, mandatory, mandatory.
military or one year in prison guys :]
Were you in the Bundeswehr??
-
this was my gun in the military*
(http://remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g3/g3a3.gif)
i was in a lazy-platoon, we didnt get any other handguns. i shared a browning M2 heavy machinegun w another guy.
i really like the G3 tho, so much i included it in my flag!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v466/zegh/flagghaha.png)
^the slight difference in the grip-shape is not an accident. the grip on the above pic is from the newer models.
*mandatory.
with the internet consisting of 99,9% americans, i cannot stress that enough. mandatory, mandatory, mandatory.
military or one year in prison guys :]
Were you in the Bundeswehr??
no, i was in Forsvaret ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_6th_Division <--- there i was, norways only (and paradoxally 6th :D ) division, i was part of a triple group, transport, mechanics and supplies. i was in supplies, thereof the "lazy-platoon" :D i suspect nobody did less than we did :D
-
ive got a remington 1100 12ga. not exactly something id want to pack around. thought about the mossberg JIC but id have to practice shooting from the hip, and still prolly wouldnt feel comfortable taking on a bear with it.
Then the question is, how fast can you haul ass? :green:
-
ive got a remington 1100 12ga. not exactly something id want to pack around. thought about the mossberg JIC but id have to practice shooting from the hip, and still prolly wouldnt feel comfortable taking on a bear with it.
Then the question is, how fast can you haul ass? :green:
You only have to out-run the guy next to you. >:D
-
no, i was in Forsvaret ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_6th_Division <--- there i was, norways only (and paradoxally 6th :D ) division, i was part of a triple group, transport, mechanics and supplies. i was in supplies, thereof the "lazy-platoon" :D i suspect nobody did less than we did :D
Our supply platoon was the same way. Too much time on their hands.
-
aspergers nudity cumshot
-
ive got a remington 1100 12ga. not exactly something id want to pack around. thought about the mossberg JIC but id have to practice shooting from the hip, and still prolly wouldnt feel comfortable taking on a bear with it.
Then the question is, how fast can you haul ass? :green:
some can run as fast as 30mph. i can run pretty fast, but not that fast.
from arizona dept of game and fish...
To discourage a black bear, immediately:
Alter your route to avoid a bear in the distance.
Make yourself as large and imposing as possible if the bear continues to approach. Stand upright and wave your arms, jacket or other items. Make loud noises, such as yelling, whistles, and banging pots and pans.
Do not run and never play dead.
Give the bear a chance to leave the area.
If the bear does not leave, stay calm, continue facing it, and slowly back away.
If a bear is in your yard, scare it away from inside the house, keeping the door closed.
In an emergency: Black bears usually avoid people, but if they start to associate people with food they may become aggressive. On the rare occasion that a black bear becomes aggressive, do the following:
If a black bear attacks, fight back with everything in your power – fists, sticks, rocks and E.P.A. registered bear pepper spray.
notice it says dont run, and fight back
You only have to out-run the guy next to you. >:D
the only reason im worried about bear attack, is that im usually alone, increasing chances of attack by 10 fold. bear attacks usually happen to 1 or 2 people.
i plan to do a 23 mile back country trip in the spring, solo, in bear and cat country, where the bears and cats are not used to seeing people. i need something just in case. :-\
-
My current armory:
Glock26 9mm
RIA 1911 .45acp
Tangfoglio Witness 10mm Auto
Desert Eagle .44mag
CZ52 7.62X25
S&W Model 19 .357mag
Walther P22TB .22lr
Ruger MKIII .22lr
Keltec P3AT .380acp
Iver Johnson break top .38s&w
Remington 870 Wingmaster 12ga 20" tube with 8 round extension
J.C. Higgins 16ga 18" tube threaded muzzle
Taurus Model 62 Stainless .22 with threaded barrel
Ruger 10-22 .22lr with threaded barrel and custom stock
Winchester 422 .22lr
WASR2 5.45x39 with folding stock
Bolt action 22-250 that I built from a blank
I'm looking at getting one of those new MACs from masterpiece arms, they seem just my style. Kinda wishing I hadn't sold my FiveseveN right now either, the price has skyrocketed and the ammo has improved, teach me to be an early adopter.
-
: o FiveseveN is hot! why did you sell it?
-
Kinda wishing I hadn't sold my FiveseveN right now either, the price has skyrocketed and the ammo has improved, teach me to be an early adopter.
Such errors are fixable. I sold my first P7PSP in 1990, it took me until 2007 to get a replacement. :thumbup: To the Glock 26, here are my two 26s w/27, MK9 and Ultra CDP II. Multiculturalism. :indeed: I need to redo my subcompact picture, add in my P2KSK and M&P9c.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/5jwap4.jpg)
-
: o FiveseveN is hot! why did you sell it?
Cause I bought it for $800 new, sold it for $1500 on the street ;D. I used the money to buy a bunch more guns, but I still kinda wish I still had it. Oh well, I bought the IOM model that had the funny round guard and came with the preban 10 round mags, if I buy a new one it will be the USG with the more conventional guard and 3 20 rounders standard :zoinks:.
-
thats what hasan used, reportedly.
get one while you still can.
theyve been tring to ban them, for years, and now, with the terrist stigma, they just might get it done.
i cant afford cool stuff like that. :'(
-
thats what hasan used, reportedly.
get one while you still can.
theyve been tring to ban them, for years, and now, with the terrist stigma, they just might get it done.
i cant afford cool stuff like that. :'(
If they do, you can always buy a 10mm and make a simmilar cartridge, with a custom barrel
-
thats what hasan used, reportedly.
get one while you still can.
theyve been tring to ban them, for years, and now, with the terrist stigma, they just might get it done.
i cant afford cool stuff like that. :'(
If they do, you can always buy a 10mm and make a simmilar cartridge, with a custom barrel
Forget that, just get yourself a CZ52 (about $175 used) and beef up the springs and load up on Bulgarian submachinegun ammo, it's a 7.62mm steel core round that does about 1900fps out of a handgun... You don't get the nifty 20 round capacity, but the price is hard to beat. Or you could get real creative with the handloading setup and try loading up some pulled AK APIT rounds, the Russkies actually used 7.62 as their pistol caliber so they could use the same equipment to make all their barrels, so an AK round may be a bit heavy but should fit right. Nothing says "fuck the police!" quite like a bullet that zips through their vest AND sets them on fire...
-
... the Russkies actually used 7.62 as their pistol caliber so they could use the same equipment to make all their barrels...
I thought that had to do more with the fact that they liked the performance of the 7.63 Mauser Broomhandle cartridge and made an almost exact copy.
It seems to me it would be bad practice to do this for an extended period of time because the gun drilling machines would wear unevenly and if you made a rifle barrel on a machine that has been worn in making pistol barrels, the drill would start walking in the last few inches.
-
drill from the breech, and cut off the end of the barrel, viola, carbine!
-
From what I understand, the real economy was that they used the same 7.62x25mm round in their submachineguns, and they made the barrels by cutting the barrel of a Mosin Nagant in half and running a chamber reamer into the cut ends... If you look at a Tokarev barrel, you'll notice that the locking lugs go all the way around so they could be quickly cut on a lathe, I think they just turned out huge amounts of 7.62 "tubes" and simply cut them to length depending upon what they needed at the time. Sneaky Russians...
-
From what I understand, the real economy was that they used the same 7.62x25mm round in their submachineguns, and they made the barrels by cutting the barrel of a Mosin Nagant in half and running a chamber reamer into the cut ends... If you look at a Tokarev barrel, you'll notice that the locking lugs go all the way around so they could be quickly cut on a lathe, I think they just turned out huge amounts of 7.62 "tubes" and simply cut them to length depending upon what they needed at the time. Sneaky Russians...
Hmm, that makes sense. the Tokarev isn't the best round in the world, but it gets the job done I suppose.
-
bump.
I lika talking about guns. 8)
-
What kinds of guns do you have?
I don't have one yet.
-
^ Then buy a semi-auto 12 Ga shotgun.
You can buy or have a friend reload, light target loads that don't hurt your shoulder.
It's hands down, the best home defense weapon there is. It's better than a pump shotgun for the following reason: If you shoot at an intruder, he returns fire and hits your arm, you can no longer operate a pump-action shotgun because it takes 2 good arms to operate the action. A semi-auto, on the other hand, can fire multiple shots with one hand.
-
If matthe ever returns, here's what he need to get. A .458 SOCOM (http://www.military.com/entertainment/outdoor-guide/ar-hunting/rifle-review-458-socom.html?ESRC=vr.nl) It gives you big game stopping power out of an AR-15 platform. 8)
-
^ Then buy a semi-auto 12 Ga shotgun.
You can buy or have a friend reload, light target loads that don't hurt your shoulder.
It's hands down, the best home defense weapon there is. It's better than a pump shotgun for the following reason: If you shoot at an intruder, he returns fire and hits your arm, you can no longer operate a pump-action shotgun because it takes 2 good arms to operate the action. A semi-auto, on the other hand, can fire multiple shots with one hand.
:thanks:
-
If matthe ever returns, here's what he need to get. A .458 SOCOM (http://www.military.com/entertainment/outdoor-guide/ar-hunting/rifle-review-458-socom.html?ESRC=vr.nl) It gives you big game stopping power out of an AR-15 platform. 8)
yeah ive seen that. very fucking cool, almost affordable too. :2thumbsup:
-
Keyword is almost.
-
Keyword is almost.
Que?
-
One of you bastards has to know this;
I have an AEG FAMAS, and I have a three-point sling.
I can wear the sling as a two-point, but I can't for the life of me work out how to wear it as a three point - I've done it once before, but I can't remember how.
In short; How do I three point sling?
*edit*
Oh fuck, stupid large image is stupid large.
Image was taken almost immediately after I bought it for a song and a dance, so before I cleaned it up - hence the sticky crap on the cheek rest/ejector port cover.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
One of you bastards has to know this;
I have an AEG FAMAS, and I have a three-point sling.
I can wear the sling as a two-point, but I can't for the life of me work out how to wear it as a three point - I've done it once before, but I can't remember how.
In short; How do I three point sling?
*edit*
Oh fuck, stupid large image is stupid large.
Yeah, I was about to say, jesusfuckingchrist! it's called a jpg resizer!!! 8)
-
truthfully, I've never messed with one of those.
Must have something to do with me being left handed and all...
-
truthfully, I've never messed with one of those.
Must have something to do with me being left handed and all...
It's ambidextrous, you just pull the cheek rest/ejector port cover (3) off and flip it over.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/FAMAS-F1_parts_assembled.svg/800px-FAMAS-F1_parts_assembled.svg.png)
-
Wait, I just wikied this.
Is this an airsoft gun or the real thing??
-
I have an AEG FAMAS, and I have a three-point sling.
I have an AEG FAMAS
AEG FAMAS
AEG
Automatic Electric Gun.
Ergo, airsoft.
I live in Britain for fuck sake, we're allowed air rifles, air pistols, shotguns and that's about it.
...What made you "wait, what?", anyway?
-
I didn't know what an AEG was. I'm an American. I play with the real things. 8)
Got me an AK, and an FN-FAL. :tooledup:
-
I didn't know what an AEG was. I'm an American. I play with the real things. 8)
Got me an AK, and an FN-FAL. :tooledup:
Well, Fuck you. :LOL:
I want an L85A2 with a SUSAT, but hot damn, I'm not paying £300 (that's what, $500-600 at the moment?) for an AEG then another buttload half that again for the SUSAT. Even if it is full metal and weighs the same as the real steel. :-\
-
Too bad you don't have a thriving black market for guns yet. The real thing can be a lot of fun. Plus, it makes the cops respect you a lot more. They tend not to fuck with people who they know can shoot back.
-
There is a pretty big black market for guns in Europe, but you usually have to know someone who is a criminal to get one. The criminals have their own "monopoly on violence", just like the pigs.
I regret that I was actually law-abiding for most of my life.
-
truthfully, I've never messed with one of those.
Must have something to do with me being left handed and all...
It's ambidextrous, you just pull the cheek rest/ejector port cover (3) off and flip it over.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/FAMAS-F1_parts_assembled.svg/800px-FAMAS-F1_parts_assembled.svg.png)
Never figured you for the weapons type... :orly:
-
Never figured you for the weapons type... :orly:
Srsly?
-
Never figured you for the weapons type... :orly:
Srsly?
Yeah, I thought you were all about the computers and games! Though I have a vague memory of you owning a sword,
or maybe that was just another misfire from my addled old brain? :duh:
-
Never figured you for the weapons type... :orly:
Srsly?
Yeah, I thought you were all about the computers and games! Though I have a vague memory of you owning a sword,
or maybe that was just another misfire from my addled old brain? :duh:
No, I own a couple of sabres, a swordcane, a couple of junk swords, a few bows, a gas pistol and an AEG.
-
lmao its a wii controller holder. can you tell im not much of a gamer?
Good for you, young mate. I am not a gamer, either.
My weaponry is all very real and the majority have historical significance as well as still being quite lethal if ever called back into active service.
I have listed a few pieces of my extensive collection of interesting military items (seriously, I get typer's cramp before I get halfway through listing just the contents of my three safes that I can recall from instant memory) in the past, but honestly, I always end with becoming quite bored with the ensuing conversations. (either someone wants to bitch about some arbitrary quantity I have exceeded, that is expected to be a maximum, or someone who is into such items begins to focus on one singular type of rifle or pistol or accessory. ) Absolutely NO ONE seems to get it!
Understand that my collection of weaponry was begun almost fifty years ago and I have items that were gifted to me that are over one hundred years old, such as the Colt and holster that MY own great, great uncle (my grandfather's great uncle - however that works out) used as a Texas Ranger in the eighteen nineties. I have fired it. It is quite serviceable to this day. It shoots Long Colt .45, all fucking day long!
Suffice it to say that if we have to protect our streets tonight, I can issue a weapon of some kind, along with substantial quantities of proper ammunition, to every adult in my quadrant of the city. Only one other person in this city knows this, but there is also a Fed presence that surely knows of my collection, since most of my weapons are legal to own.
-
Never figured you for the weapons type... :orly:
Srsly?
Yeah, I thought you were all about the computers and games! Though I have a vague memory of you owning a sword,
or maybe that was just another misfire from my addled old brain? :duh:
No, I own a couple of sabres, a swordcane, a couple of junk swords, a few bows, a gas pistol and an AEG.
Oh good LORD. Let's see, I have a hammer lying around here somewhere, some kitchen knives, a dull set of manicure scisssors, some spray cans of air freshener... :zoinks:
-
:lol:
I like that.
I own a number of Sinatra discs. Attackers will have NO chance!
<snores>
-
:lol:
I like that.
I own a number of Sinatra discs. Attackers will have NO chance!
<snores>
Back at my parents' house, I still have an old Barry Manilow album. :evillaugh:
-
I didn't know what an AEG was. I'm an American. I play with the real things. 8)
Got me an AK, and an FN-FAL. :tooledup:
I really like my AK , very easy to maintain....scares the shit out of would be attackers
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
-
I didn't know what an AEG was. I'm an American. I play with the real things. 8)
Got me an AK, and an FN-FAL. :tooledup:
I really like my AK , very easy to maintain....scares the shit out of would be attackers
Not to mention salon customers who try to leave without tipping! :evillaugh:
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
That image makes me sad. (emo)
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
That image makes me sad. (emo)
Hey sorry. I was just trying to join in. :o
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
That image makes me sad. (emo)
Hey sorry. I was just trying to join in. :o
I know. I just hate the thought of anything bad happening to any brain.
I :pinkbeat: brains.
-
Ahh. Me too. :laugh:
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
errrrrr , not all head shots kill....
-
The last Finnish school shooter killed 10 people and then committed suicide with a .22 pistol. Too bad people like him are used by the gun haters to promote anti-gun laws.
-
The last Finnish school shooter killed 10 people and then committed suicide with a .22 pistol. Too bad people like him are used by the gun haters to promote anti-gun laws.
Too bad people like him, who plan to commit suicide anyway, feel entitled to kill others first. :thumbdn:
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
errrrrr , not all head shots kill....
That one will, trust me. The damage the bullet does is extensive.
-
The last Finnish school shooter killed 10 people and then committed suicide with a .22 pistol. Too bad people like him are used by the gun haters to promote anti-gun laws.
too bad people that do murder-suicide, dont do the suicide part first
-
The last Finnish school shooter killed 10 people and then committed suicide with a .22 pistol. Too bad people like him are used by the gun haters to promote anti-gun laws.
too bad people that do murder-suicide, dont do the suicide part first
Great minds think alike! See my similar post above! :thumbup:
-
Lol mivehind.
-
The last Finnish school shooter killed 10 people and then committed suicide with a .22 pistol. Too bad people like him are used by the gun haters to promote anti-gun laws.
too bad people that do murder-suicide, dont do the suicide part first
Yes, that too. Though the anti-gun morons use two school shooters among two million Finnish gun owners as an "argument" for banning guns or at least restricting them as much as possible.
-
Lol mivehind.
I see what you did there! Mivehind = hivemind! :laugh:
-
I never did find out how to use a threepoint sling.... :-[
-
I never did find out how to use a threepoint sling.... :-[
FFS :google:
-
Once the kids are gone I will begin my collection
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
That image makes me sad. (emo)
Hey sorry. I was just trying to join in. :o
I know. I just hate the thought of anything bad happening to any brain.
I :pinkbeat: brains.
"My brain...that's my second favorite organ!" --Woody Allen
-
A 22 rifle is the best assassin's weapon. Its lightweight, easy to carry, you can drill holes in the stock to keep extra equipment and rounds...
And shooting someone in the head will garauntee death. The bullet will bounce around in their skull, scrambling their brain.
That image makes me sad. (emo)
Hey sorry. I was just trying to join in. :o
I know. I just hate the thought of anything bad happening to any brain.
I :pinkbeat: brains.
"My brain...that's my second favorite organ!" --Woody Allen
Now I have to think of those books of J. Auel. And all those men with organs, and mammoth with organs.
I kept seeing men showing musical instruments from behind their loin-cloths.
-
I never did find out how to use a threepoint sling.... :-[
FFS :google:
:lol:
-
Once the kids are gone I will begin my collection
In Sweden you need a special license for collecting guns and then you need a separate license to fire them and an own bank vault (literally!) to keep them in.
For an "ordinary" gun owner the authorities think it's suspicious to own more than 6 rifles or even 2 pistols if they have the same calibre. The average Swedish gun owner owns about 3 guns, most of them rifles. Only 8% of the population own a gun at all.
-
Anybody tries to take mine away i'll kill them. ;)
-
Once the kids are gone I will begin my collection
In Sweden you need a special license for collecting guns and then you need a separate license to fire them and an own bank vault (literally!) to keep them in.
For an "ordinary" gun owner the authorities think it's suspicious to own more than 6 rifles or even 2 pistols if they have the same calibre. The average Swedish gun owner owns about 3 guns, most of them rifles. Only 8% of the population own a gun at all.
Here I could get one illegally within 24 hours if I wanted but I want to go the legal route
-
Once the kids are gone I will begin my collection
In Sweden you need a special license for collecting guns and then you need a separate license to fire them and an own bank vault (literally!) to keep them in.
For an "ordinary" gun owner the authorities think it's suspicious to own more than 6 rifles or even 2 pistols if they have the same calibre. The average Swedish gun owner owns about 3 guns, most of them rifles. Only 8% of the population own a gun at all.
Here I could get one illegally within 24 hours if I wanted but I want to go the legal route
If you know a criminal here, you would of course get one quick too.
-
Once the kids are gone I will begin my collection
In Sweden you need a special license for collecting guns and then you need a separate license to fire them and an own bank vault (literally!) to keep them in.
For an "ordinary" gun owner the authorities think it's suspicious to own more than 6 rifles or even 2 pistols if they have the same calibre. The average Swedish gun owner owns about 3 guns, most of them rifles. Only 8% of the population own a gun at all.
Here I could get one illegally within 24 hours if I wanted but I want to go the legal route
If you know a criminal here, you would of course get one quick too.
I know people here who can get you anything ID, Guns you name it :laugh: It comes from working in construction in bad areas with sometimes shady contractors
-
ahhhh ,the black market
-
The black market is good, but it's not so good for guns in Europe, at least not in Scandinavia, if you don't know the crooks in person.
A very cheap pistol on the black market here would cost at least US$1000, but the hardest thing would be to find a willing dealer.
Most black guns here are either stolen, very old that were never licensed or smuggled in from Eastern Europe during some war, the latest probably after the wars in ex-Yugoslavia. Many black guns are WWII ones, a few even from WWI.
-
Black market here you have to know someone but you can get almost anything. I had a friend who knew document dealers and others whose family owns one of those shady pawn shops
-
Once you have had a federal license (I maintained one for over fourteen years, buying buttfucking loads of guns and ammo for all my associates and massive quantities of ammunition to feed all those guns in our club - If there was really a problem with the USA FED, I would be one of those who go directly to jail, DO NOT PASS GO, etc ... etc ... etc...), you can still get just about anything, with proper licensing.
I have not bought a "gun" in a long time, but my last purchase was that of a Springfield, M14, heavy, with a Viet Nam era sniper barrel. It was perfectly legal, semi-automatic (the music says 3000meters of deadly accuracy, but I know the round well enough to know that, mostly, that is hype and bullshit. -- what's your target size? How much energy do you need downrange? --This range is over stated by at least one quarter. meh!) ... 7.62mm ... blah blah ... blah ... and I have it at my own home, not locked away, but in my media closet, at the top, well above my LPs.
Mostly, the investigations I have had to endure (back in the nineties, when I still kept perfect records of my exchanges - most of which went to police officers who had no other way of acquiring weaponry outside of normal chains of command and a "NEED" had to to be established in that realm, if they wanted to acquire a form of weaponry outside the normal duty rosters. There was no way, outside of siding with a hack like me for those guys, other than something outside the law. It was still perfectly legal to own anything in those days, except for rocket launchers and such.) came from curious federal inquisitions related to my (mid thirties era - John Dillinger style) Thompson sub machine gun and its associated hundred round .45 ACP drum magazine.
The fact is, I have a perfectly legal license to own a sub-machine gun (re-newed every year). The fact of owning the hundred round magazine seems to be more of a problem these days than the actual weapon is, which is licensed as fully automatic. I only own three automatic weapons, but for some reason this one is a NO-NO!!
:yikes:
.... if anyone stopped to think for a moment ... LoL!!
GAWD, where's teh Take-a-Shower smiley!
-
weapon of mass destruction
-
Once you have had a federal license (I maintained one for over fourteen years, buying buttfucking loads of guns and ammo for all my associates and massive quantities of ammunition to feed all those guns in our club - If there was really a problem with the USA FED, I would be one of those who go directly to jail, DO NOT PASS GO, etc ... etc ... etc...), you can still get just about anything, with proper licensing.
Well, there's the rub. You can defend yourself against "ordinary" scum, but you can't defend yourself against your own government if you'd have to, since they know what you own. You could of course take plenty of them out, before they took you, which is a great advantage compared with many countries in Europe, but that is the whole thing what's wrong with licenses in the first place, that they know what people have and can take them out one by one if they would want to.
You could have a light machine gun at home in Sweden too just 15 years ago, if you were a member of the Home Guard. Then a moron, who wasn't a Home Guard man but an army second lieutenant, massacred seven people because his girlfriend had dumped him, and since then they keep all sub-machine guns locked up at the Home Guard stations. I think just some hundred people or so have a license for a private machine gun in this country, most of them (former) cops, soldiers or collectors.
-
boys and their toys
-
boys and their toys
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/skyblue1110/P4280001.jpg)
Yours? :orly:
-
boys and their toys
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/skyblue1110/P4280001.jpg)
Yours? :orly:
Whoops, duh, you said upthread that you had an AK. :duh:
-
cbc and I are going to have a rubber band shoot-out. Anyone want to be our seconds?
-
rubber bands arent very accurate........
-
rubber bands arent very accurate........
You're assuming that cbc and I are accurate. We're so bad we couldn't hit each other if we tried or didn't try.
-
sounds like your seconds may be the ones getting hurt
-
rubber bands arent very accurate........
You're assuming that cbc and I are accurate. We're so bad we couldn't hit each other if we tried or didn't try.
It'll be fun though! :dance:
-
boys and their toys
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/skyblue1110/P4280001.jpg)
:thumbup:
rubber bands arent very accurate........
You're assuming that cbc and I are accurate. We're so bad we couldn't hit each other if we tried or didn't try.
It'll be fun though! :dance:
More fun to actually hit people in rubber band fights. :LOL:
-
boys and their toys
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/skyblue1110/P4280001.jpg)
:thumbup:
rubber bands arent very accurate........
You're assuming that cbc and I are accurate. We're so bad we couldn't hit each other if we tried or didn't try.
It'll be fun though! :dance:
More fun to actually hit people in rubber band fights. :LOL:
I'd have to have a target I was angry at though. I couldn't purposely hurt Weakling. :)
-
I'd have to have a target I was angry at though. I couldn't purposely hurt Weakling. :)
Good point. That is a major difference between boys and girls. As boys we generally did not take it personally when we got nailed hard in a dirt clod fight. :2thumbsup:
-
Maybe it's more of a kid thing. We used to punch each other, or maybe my friends were just weird too.
-
Maybe it's more of a kid thing. We used to punch each other, or maybe my friends were just weird too.
You're probably right. I havent thrown a dirt clod at anyone for decades. :LOL:
-
You're probably right. I havent thrown a dirt clod at anyone for decades. :LOL:
Some ideas are inspiring though, aren't they?
-
You're probably right. I havent thrown a dirt clod at anyone for decades. :LOL:
Some ideas are inspiring though, aren't they?
Yes :indeed:
-
Recently, I took my eleven year old son to the range and we fired a twenty two rifle (Ruger 1022) and a shotgun (Remington 1100, 12 gauge). He was very impressed with m shotgun, to say the least.
He was very surprised that guns were so powerful. (His gaming days seem to be over, for a while. He now knows what he is really doing with the games his friends play).
We were at an outdoor range and I brought four "milk jugs" full of water with red paint added to show him what happens when you use a shotgun on a liquid target, such as a human. I was worried that I was pushing him (Hell, I was hunting rabbits and doves and eating them at eleven, so I thought he might be ready), but he showed how strong he is once again. He is indeed a regular boy.
-
I'm really starting to "accessorize" my TC Encore.
I've bought a couple new barrels for it and I just ordered a left handed thumbhole stock set.
Since both barrels are meant for long range, I'm going to have to buy a couple of expensive (>$600) scopes for them.
I'm also going to buy a muzzleloader barrel for it since there are special hunts here for deer and elk that are muzzleloader only.
-
Recently, I took my eleven year old son to the range and we fired a twenty two rifle (Ruger 1022) and a shotgun (Remington 1100, 12 gauge). He was very impressed with m shotgun, to say the least.
I used to have one of those, it was excellent. I handed it in during the buy back we had here when all semi autos were banned.
Prior to that I used a very old Brno .22 bolt action for a while, that was just a superbly accurate rifle. Later I bought my own Brno, a .22 semi automatic.
-
I'm really starting to "accessorize" my TC Encore.
I've bought a couple new barrels for it and I just ordered a left handed thumbhole stock set.
Since both barrels are meant for long range, I'm going to have to buy a couple of expensive (>$600) scopes for them.
I'm also going to buy a muzzleloader barrel for it since there are special hunts here for deer and elk that are muzzleloader only.
You are making me want an Encore, now.
Ages ago I had a Contender in .243 and it was pretty cool. I fired it quite a bit, worked up an accurate load, but never took any game with it.
I ended up giving it away to a "friend" in need for a couple hundred bucks, well below what it might have sold for in another set of circumstances.
Never had a shoulder stock for it. Kind of not the point for a pistol hunter.
I took it out twice, but ended up using one my several hoglegs when it was time to shoot.
-
Recently, I took my eleven year old son to the range and we fired a twenty two rifle (Ruger 1022) and a shotgun (Remington 1100, 12 gauge). He was very impressed with m shotgun, to say the least.
I used to have one of those, it was excellent. I handed it in during the buy back we had here when all semi autos were banned.
Prior to that I used a very old Brno .22 bolt action for a while, that was just a superbly accurate rifle. Later I bought my own Brno, a .22 semi automatic.
I have a number of .22 rifles, including three Ruger 1022s, all normal looking. I do not get into making a 22 look like a Special Ops weapon with useless crap hung on it. Two of mine are blued with original birch stocks and one is black with composite stock. All are scope sighted.
We have been shooting many times since this ancient post, even with my daughter. She after less experience is a better shot than my son. Especially with a handgun. I only bought that Ruger 9mm because my son had a "thing" against old, "too big" guns from the WWI era.
He has since gained an education and can strip and clean my 45s quickly and gets it, finally.
The 45 auto is just cumbersome in my daughter's girl hands. I am planning to get her a smaller, compact 9mm, soon. Just have not had time. I want her to come with me to the gun shop and "try on" several before she chooses one.
Oh, nd my son has learned how to reload hand gun ammo using a single stage press (I have two Rock Chuckers).
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MammothSmugBluewhale-size_restricted.gif)
-
M&P 15-22...scoped, she's fun, but has a tendency to jam. Probably my favorite for plinking at targets along with the 9mm and a couple of others.
-
Guns (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/27/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting)
-
Yeah. Another one that drank the kool aid Trump has been doling out. :(
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-suspect-threatened-jewish-groups-pushed-migrant-caravan-n925256
-
Yeah. Another one that drank the kool aid Trump has been doling out. :(
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-suspect-threatened-jewish-groups-pushed-migrant-caravan-n925256
It's hard to take seriously, an author who calls 4chan "far right".
-
Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?
:thumbdn:
-
They'll make more.
-
My question to each of these occurrences was and will be:
What "well regulated militia" did these killers belong to?
-
My question to each of these occurrences was and will be:
What "well regulated militia" did these killers belong to?
+
-
Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?
:thumbdn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
-
My question to each of these occurrences was and will be:
What "well regulated militia" did these killers belong to?
The 2nd Amendment contains 2 clauses, one to protect the right of the People (that is, the same people in the 1st amendment, the general population as determined by case law) and the use of this right to supplement state militias.
There hasn't been a need to use the first clause since WWII, when it was deemed useful in case of Japanese invasion of the west coast.
-
No. The clauses run together. There were municipalities which
drastically limited firearms. Yet, the musket was a vital tool
in most of the country.
The general right is definitely grounded in fear of federal restrictions -
but someone stockpiling military-only weaponry (like cannon) would
have been an issue at the local level, almost anywhere. Likely so would
assembling large caches. Rather, any local militia would perhaps be wielded
in opposition to federal overreach.
The population density of many regions of the country today rivals that of
large towns in the 18th century. Yet, if anything, local control of weaponry
(including drilling the militia) has largely disappeared outside of the largest
cities. Open carry, often flat-out illegal in even frontier towns, has become a
rallying cry for a culture that no longer sees guns as tools so much as some sort
of symbol.
-
No. The clauses run together.
Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."
Open carry, often flat-out illegal in even frontier towns, has become a
rallying cry for a culture that no longer sees guns as tools so much as some sort
of symbol.
Open carry is perfectly legal in the majority of the state of Orygun, there's several videos that have been done about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHG2VuXwol0
-
Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?
:thumbdn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Anything but your precious guns.
-
No. The clauses run together.
Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."
Open carry, often flat-out illegal in even frontier towns, has become a
rallying cry for a culture that no longer sees guns as tools so much as some sort
of symbol.
Open carry is perfectly legal in the majority of the state of Orygun, there's several videos that have been done about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHG2VuXwol0
It's hilarious but also very sad how your arguments focus on an 18th century wording intended for a very different world rather than admitting that sticking to that wording has failed miserably. People sometimes wonder how many more must die before you catch up with the civilised world but I'm actually wondering if you ever will.
-
Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.
I'm sorry. I forgot that the courts redefine reality, and not just the law.
It's really odd how the interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed - led by
supposed strict constructionists.
-
Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.
I'm sorry. I forgot that the courts redefine reality, and not just the law.
It's really odd how the interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed - led by
supposed strict constructionists.
The reality is, it's simply too vague. It will always mean whatever the supreme court says it means, so it will always have the potential to change.
-
The reality is, it's simply too vague. It will always mean whatever the supreme court says it means, so it will always have the potential to change.
My belief is that that was intentional. That there was enough disagreement, even then, that
it couldn't be hammered out properly.
-
Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?
:thumbdn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Anything but your precious guns.
It's official, odeot is an NPC. :hahaha:
-
Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?
:thumbdn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Anything but your precious guns.
It's official, odeot is an NPC. :hahaha:
Is this #1 again? Your dishonesty is staggering today. What did you do? Stream Trump's latest hate speech? Masturbate to KKK pamphlets?
-
The reality is, it's simply too vague. It will always mean whatever the supreme court says it means, so it will always have the potential to change.
My belief is that that was intentional. That there was enough disagreement, even then, that
it couldn't be hammered out properly.
I strongly suspect that you are correct Cal.
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably. I find it difficult to believe that men of such intelligence and education would have been so incompetent when it came to putting together a simple sentence.
On the other hand if the intention was to come up with a sentence whose precise intended meaning was pretty much impossible to nail down, then they did a remarkably fine job.
In my case, I'm pretty happy about living in a country with sensible gun laws. I don't need an arsenal of weapons in my house, or any weapons at all really, and I feel a lot safer that way. I get that Americans love their freedom to own whatever type of gun they like and as many guns and as much ammo as they like and to swagger around with their guns sticking out as much as they like. And I really can't see that changing. But I don't live there so it isn't my problem.
-
We had some mighty strong anti-federal feelings in that (and every?) era.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
Clear as mud.
Clear communication is probably the most important skill in my job. I know that if I were trying to communicate what you and Pappy seem to think the drafters of this amendment were trying to communicate, then I'd have a subheading "Well regulated militia" describing what that meant, and another subheading "right to bear arms" describing exactly what that meant and who it was relevant to. Because I know from experience that if you want to communicate 2 separate concepts, including them in a single sentence with just a comma separating them is gonna make a lot of people think that those concepts are somehow interdependent. Whether that was the intent or not.
But sometimes I need to leave things open to interpretation, and in those cases I may deliberately structure my use of language in such a way that it is open to interpretation. So I know what deliberately ambiguous language looks like.
It's all good, I live in a country that has reasonably strict gun laws. I grew up in a house full of guns and I have owned a number of guns myself when I was younger, but then we had one really bad massacre and the people decided that enough was enough. We didn't have anywhere near the gun culture that the US has, obviously, and those who liked guns were seriously outnumbered by those who didn't like massacres.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
#alternativefacts. ::)
Here's a vid that demonstrates odeot's level of gun knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_vSaNMrG0
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
#alternativefacts. ::)
Here's a vid that demonstrates odeot's level of gun knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_vSaNMrG0
I did know that the NRA sold guns, but I do want that mystery gun that has some kind of special magazine that shoots all the bullets at once.
I would also like to see one of those unloaded gun that still kills people. Definition of an unloaded gun pending.
Oh, and the Supreme Court is wrong. FFS!
I am thinking of joining the group buy (already over two pallets of magazines for just one gun club in Indiana that I know of) to make sure that the last of the "full capacity" magazines go to deserving hands.
These types in your vid feel sorry for me/us because we feel a need to protect ourselves, but when this shit they think only happens to others because they have guns, actually happens to them, instead of hoping some else calls 911, I will be the one who calls 911.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
#alternativefacts. ::)
Here's a vid that demonstrates odeot's level of gun knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_vSaNMrG0
Not going to watch your video. Why not use your own words, just this once?
-
Just a courtesy call, but the vid is a few kids being asked questions about guns on college campuses who know nothing about guns but wanting them gone forever and then the best part is watching the Senators and popular activists make fools of themselves with a complete lack of knowledge about what they want to ban.
But then, I probably missed the main point while being so entertained.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
Clear as mud.
Clear communication is probably the most important skill in my job. I know that if I were trying to communicate what you and Pappy seem to think the drafters of this amendment were trying to communicate, then I'd have a subheading "Well regulated militia" describing what that meant, and another subheading "right to bear arms" describing exactly what that meant and who it was relevant to. Because I know from experience that if you want to communicate 2 separate concepts, including them in a single sentence with just a comma separating them is gonna make a lot of people think that those concepts are somehow interdependent. Whether that was the intent or not.
But sometimes I need to leave things open to interpretation, and in those cases I may deliberately structure my use of language in such a way that it is open to interpretation. So I know what deliberately ambiguous language looks like.
It's all good, I live in a country that has reasonably strict gun laws. I grew up in a house full of guns and I have owned a number of guns myself when I was younger, but then we had one really bad massacre and the people decided that enough was enough. We didn't have anywhere near the gun culture that the US has, obviously, and those who liked guns were seriously outnumbered by those who didn't like massacres.
You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.
-
(https://i2.wp.com/memecrunch.com/meme/SPDN/a-well-regulated-militia/image.jpg)
-
You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.
There are two amendments which are worded in this particular style. The 2nd and the 4th. In both cases,
historically, they had served to set the boundaries of the restriction. If there were no boundaries, in the
case of the 2nd, you wouldn't have any gun control at all. For the 4th, what comprised 'unreasonable' would be left in doubt.
Up until the recent radical judicial activism on the right, expressed in Heller, this was understood - that the
founders were not iconoclasts, trying to completely overthrow the existing terms that a society would operate
under. Literalists are a different matter though.
-
MOSW, that's a funny picture, but yes, that's probably exactly what they meant. At the time of the writing of the constitution there was no truly organized militia, no national guard. The US militia at the time was what's now considered an unorganized militia, but even still today the US reserve militia consists of every able bodied male 17-45 who is not already a member of the national guard or naval militia. The man in the photo appears to meet those requirements.
-
You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.
There are two amendments which are worded in this particular style. The 2nd and the 4th. In both cases,
historically, they had served to set the boundaries of the restriction. If there were no boundaries, in the
case of the 2nd, you wouldn't have any gun control at all. For the 4th, what comprised 'unreasonable' would be left in doubt.
Up until the recent radical judicial activism on the right, expressed in Heller, this was understood - that the
founders were not iconoclasts, trying to completely overthrow the existing terms that a society would operate
under. Literalists are a different matter though.
Thinking the only real boundaries of restricting constitutional right are to hinder states from eliminating rights completely. It's hard to think of much that hasn't been determined by the courts to be conditional. Agree with the point of literalists. Probably correct in saying the writing is vague intentionally. Vague means adaptable, and that adaptability is why it still works.
-
You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
Is the first part of the sentence a qualifier for the second part of the sentence, or is it a separate statement? If you want to make two separate statements there are ways of doing that, and people with a reasonable grasp of clear communication in the English language know that if you want to clearly communicate a couple of independent concepts, you don't just whack 'em in the same sentence with a comma in the middle (lots of sentences have commas, it's not really a "forget about the first part of the sentence, get ready for clause 2" kinda thing).
"The people". Well, since the same sentence started out talking about well-regulated militias, wouldn't that imply that "the people" means "the people who are part of a well-regulated militia". It doesn't say "the people of the United States of America" as other parts of the constitution do when they mean "the people of...". I don't actually believe that << BUT if I really wanted to believe that is what it meant, I'm sure I could convince myself of that. That is the whole point, the way that the language is structured leads the door open for that sentece to be interpreted in many different ways.
"Bear arms". You can be armed with a sword, you can be armed with a potato gun, you can be armed with a stick. It seems to have evolved to mean "any type of gun, but not a cannon or a tank".
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.
I think we just became new "friends," since you have explained it fairly well.
I do have to re-point you one issue. I have had a Class III License for over thirty five years. I have to pay a tax every year and submit a current photo and have my finger prints updated. Trust me, the BATFE knows who owns every legal automatic or silenced weapon in the country. As long as I am legal then my guns are legal, but I have a license to renew every year. Not a small thing.
This used to be a Department Of Treasury concern, when I first got my license, but I have come to understand that this is now a part of the Department Of Justice, like even closer to being shut down.
If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
-
You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.
There are two amendments which are worded in this particular style. The 2nd and the 4th. In both cases,
historically, they had served to set the boundaries of the restriction. If there were no boundaries, in the
case of the 2nd, you wouldn't have any gun control at all. For the 4th, what comprised 'unreasonable' would be left in doubt.
Up until the recent radical judicial activism on the right, expressed in Heller, this was understood - that the
founders were not iconoclasts, trying to completely overthrow the existing terms that a society would operate
under. Literalists are a different matter though.
All of them may try, but not attending every single word they all still struggle to find legitimacy in anything they write.
You brought up the Fourth Amendment which seems fairly clear at first, but again, up for grabs as to what intent might have been implied or left out.
Just for clarity, here it is:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-
All kinds of ways to screw that up.
The first thing is to define the exact terms of every single word, which has been attempted.
-
This is actually becoming boring. Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.
:autism:
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
In other words it means whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean.
Which is pretty much what deliberately ambiguous language is designed for.
-
This is actually becoming boring. Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.
Yes it is, but there's not much else at the moment. :laugh: Good point on mommy voting. If one really wants to get into the intent of the time it was written, then we the people were probably just we the men of the united states. In terms of our reserve militia, it still means that.
-
This is actually becoming boring. Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.
Yes it is, but there's not much else at the moment. :laugh: Good point on mommy voting. If one really wants to get into the intent of the time it was written, then we the people were probably just we the men of the united states. In terms of our reserve militia, it still means that.
May be for most, but I know a "lady" five ten, one hundred seventy pounds of solid girl muscle, still after all these years since her service, that no one could take down who is a part of the local reserves.
Wife to one of my Neighborhood Watch buddies, who has also offered us a bit of training in security, but she is one bad ass.
Did two tours back ten years ago and came back home in one piece. Now it is all about her adopted kid. I am not jealous of my pal for having a bonafide, proven warrior woman in his home, but I wonder how he is worthy. He is just a regular guy. Not a subject I would ever approach.
There are some gals out there who still serve in the reserves and such. Do not discount them.
Not sure if that is what you meant, but the Reserves is as close as we get to a "Well Regulated Militia" these days.
Oh, forgot to mention, they have guns and they both know how to use them.
Pretty sure I am the only one in the neighborhood who keeps a Class III license though.
The mommy point was a look toward the FACT that we still have to re-think everything. Fucking all of it!
-
I say "We The People" were the most important words written in those times.
Figuring out how to include everyone in that preamble has been and always will be our biggest challenge.
-
MOSW, that's a funny picture, but yes, that's probably exactly what they meant. At the time of the writing of the constitution there was no truly organized militia, no national guard. The US militia at the time was what's now considered an unorganized militia, but even still today the US reserve militia consists of every able bodied male 17-45 who is not already a member of the national guard or naval militia. The man in the photo appears to meet those requirements.
It's not. They meant a community, organized for its own defense. Something like the Branch Davidians
or the Militia Movement. They also meant ALL arms. So, localities made their own rules, for their own protection,
free from federal or state interference. Which allowed municipalities (like the city of Washington) to
make their own appropriate restrictions. It also allowed communities to buy a fucking cannon, if
that's what they needed to protect them from natives.
And this was all so bloody obvious at the time that no one thought to challenge it.
-
Thinking the only real boundaries of restricting constitutional right are to hinder states from eliminating rights completely. It's hard to think of much that hasn't been determined by the courts to be conditional. Agree with the point of literalists. Probably correct in saying the writing is vague intentionally. Vague means adaptable, and that adaptability is why it still works.
Yes. We shouldn't be bending over to figure out what the founders meant. We should be looking at
what is best for society right now, within a reasonable interpretation.
But that's not an argument the gun lobby makes. Because, then things like studies on gun violence
enter into the picture, and not some overweening right, derived out of a fantasy of what this country
once was like.
-
This is actually becoming boring. Like in eighth grade, OK Daddy can have a gun, no one is allowed onto our property, mommy can not vote, OH wait!
Now it is ninth grade.
Yes it is, but there's not much else at the moment. :laugh: Good point on mommy voting. If one really wants to get into the intent of the time it was written, then we the people were probably just we the men of the united states. In terms of our reserve militia, it still means that.
May be for most, but I know a "lady" five ten, one hundred seventy pounds of solid girl muscle, still after all these years since her service, that no one could take down who is a part of the local reserves.
Wife to one of my Neighborhood Watch buddies, who has also offered us a bit of training in security, but she is one bad ass.
Did two tours back ten years ago and came back home in one piece. Now it is all about her adopted kid. I am not jealous of my pal for having a bonafide, proven warrior woman in his home, but I wonder how he is worthy. He is just a regular guy. Not a subject I would ever approach.
There are some gals out there who still serve in the reserves and such. Do not discount them.
Not sure if that is what you meant, but the Reserves is as close as we get to a "Well Regulated Militia" these days.
Oh, forgot to mention, they have guns and they both know how to use them.
Pretty sure I am the only one in the neighborhood who keeps a Class III license though.
The mommy point was a look toward the FACT that we still have to re-think everything. Fucking all of it!
Wasn't trying to discount anyone. Had interpreted your statement about women voting to be a reaction to MOSW talking about what the people meant. Past tense. Of course that's what it meant. As far as the regulated militia goes, it means the same thing today it meant then, able bodied males of a certain age.
-
In other words it means whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean.
Which is pretty much what deliberately ambiguous language is designed for.
You have to remember, probably no one envisioned that the supreme court would evolve
to what it has become either. :D
Marshall took an EXTREME step of judicial activism in seizing upon the power to determine the
limits of what the federal government could do.
-
MOSW, that's a funny picture, but yes, that's probably exactly what they meant. At the time of the writing of the constitution there was no truly organized militia, no national guard. The US militia at the time was what's now considered an unorganized militia, but even still today the US reserve militia consists of every able bodied male 17-45 who is not already a member of the national guard or naval militia. The man in the photo appears to meet those requirements.
It's not. They meant a community, organized for its own defense. Something like the Branch Davidians
or the Militia Movement. They also meant ALL arms. So, localities made their own rules, for their own protection,
free from federal or state interference. Which allowed municipalities (like the city of Washington) to
make their own appropriate restrictions. It also allowed communities to buy a fucking cannon, if
that's what they needed to protect them from natives.
And this was all so bloody obvious at the time that no one thought to challenge it.
One can still own a cannon. :laugh:
-
The telling part of that first clause, to me, is that it is the very rationale for the amendment.
And, we abandoned having such. But, I wouldn't suggest that's reason enough to
invalidate the whole thing.
-
Yes. We shouldn't be bending over to figure out what the founders meant. We should be looking at
what is best for society right now, within a reasonable interpretation.
Uum yeah, you really don't want to go there.
That would be a 100% ban on all Blacks and Hispanics from owning guns.
It would potentially cut our gun homicide rate by 60%. :nerdy:
-
I thought the 'spics preferred knives
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.
Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.
"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.
Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.
"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.
Thinking it would be more problematic if it weren't debatable. The only reason it can be argued as unclear about who are the people the constitution grants rights, is based in arguments of what it meant then. That the meaning of who qualifies as a people has changed, is only matter of social evolution, so yes, that vagueness is important.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.
The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.
Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.
"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.
Thinking it would be more problematic if it weren't debatable. The only reason it can be argued as unclear about who are the people the constitution grants rights, is based in arguments of what it meant then. That the meaning of who qualifies as a people has changed, is only matter of social evolution, so yes, that vagueness is important.
I think you'd be better off without it, tbh, all things considered.
I realise you're not the only country in the world with ancient pieces of legislation but most others are doing away with the stuff that no longer fits. You're not; you're simply debating the phrasing, after all these years.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.
The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.
A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.
We'll have to disagree on this one.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.
The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.
A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.
We'll have to disagree on this one.
Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.
-
I do not think it is all that hard. Considering the time it was written and it in context.
The British were rejected and by force. The Founding Fathers saw the value of arming the common person and how an armed populace could be if a government may turn tyrannical. That a populace being able to readily arm themselves and form an organised militia, could throw off efforts to subjugate a populace.
So it is hardly rocket science. You can say "but they did not realise that the Government would have better weapons and the scale of the weaponry." or "The Founding Fathers did not realise that some of these guns would be used to kill children in schools" or any other such argument. Cool, you can have these types of arguments. None of these in any way invalidate the original premise.
-
Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.
-
If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.
That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.
But it's not.
Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.
Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.
"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.
Thinking it would be more problematic if it weren't debatable. The only reason it can be argued as unclear about who are the people the constitution grants rights, is based in arguments of what it meant then. That the meaning of who qualifies as a people has changed, is only matter of social evolution, so yes, that vagueness is important.
I think you'd be better off without it, tbh, all things considered.
I realise you're not the only country in the world with ancient pieces of legislation but most others are doing away with the stuff that no longer fits. You're not; you're simply debating the phrasing, after all these years.
But it does still fit. Laws are constantly changing and evolving as society changes; there are always new circumstances with no precedent requiring a new look at what laws mean. The constitution is simply a foundation and should never be more than that. Ripping up the foundation would negate what's been built subsequently. Though not certain if you mean getting rid of the constitution entirely, or only the second amendment. Will assume the latter, because have never heard this type of argument against the constitution concerning any other rights. No one says I'd be better off without my freedom of speech or peaceful assembly, simply because they have limitations debated in and decided by the courts. The only reason the second amendment would no longer fit, would be in the instance of a ban. Is a ban what's suggested?
-
Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.
And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.
-
Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.
And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.
Any hard foundationalism views regarding the constitution are in conflict with the constitution, because it's fundamentally designed to be amended.
-
Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.
And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.
Any hard foundationalism views regarding the constitution are in conflict with the constitution, because it's fundamentally designed to be amended.
They wouldn't be in conflict, because it's ambiguous. The difference being, that instead of taking that
ambiguity properly into account, they want hard evidence of the views of those who agreed to it -
and the reasons for these very clever men to choose such ambiguous wording is simply not present.
Thus, to the foundationalist, it doesn't exist - even though the evidence is right before them.
Literalists are even scarier. Such, if taking the view properly, would remove the major power
from the Supreme Court at all, one which is not present in the Constitution. They would be
experimenting with a government form which has never existed for this country.
Honestly though, a Foundationalist should be espousing the same: there was no indication
that the Founders desired such a massive power for the courts.
-
Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.
And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.
Any hard foundationalism views regarding the constitution are in conflict with the constitution, because it's fundamentally designed to be amended.
They wouldn't be in conflict, because it's ambiguous. The difference being, that instead of taking that
ambiguity properly into account, they want hard evidence of the views of those who agreed to it -
and the reasons for these very clever men to choose such ambiguous wording is simply not present.
Thus, to the foundationalist, it doesn't exist - even though the evidence is right before them.
Literalists are even scarier. Such, if taking the view properly, would remove the major power
from the Supreme Court at all, one which is not present in the Constitution. They would be
experimenting with a government form which has never existed for this country.
Honestly though, a Foundationalist should be espousing the same: there was no indication
that the Founders desired such a massive power for the courts.
Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. :laugh: Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.
-
I like guns, sometimes.
-
Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. :laugh: Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.
That's because you're used to the context.
The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).
Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.
The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.
A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.
We'll have to disagree on this one.
Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.
But there isn't. We're just repeating the same stuff over and over again, getting nowhere while people are being shot over there. How many have lost their lives while we've been doing this?
-
Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. :laugh: Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.
That's because you're used to the context.
The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).
Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.
It may not be so much used to the context, as much as personal bias of approval, seeing it as constituently correct, just, necessary, and a power that isn't viewed as abused. The constitution explicitly states the supreme court has judicial power over all legal cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states, so it seems odd to say the founders didn't desire the supreme court to have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional acts. The decision wasn't liked but that could have been about pride; it was also accepted and that should be enough to understand most people did read it that way.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.
The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.
A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.
We'll have to disagree on this one.
Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.
But there isn't. We're just repeating the same stuff over and over again, getting nowhere while people are being shot over there. How many have lost their lives while we've been doing this?
Were you expecting either of us to get somewhere? If you answer my previous question, then I'll look up the US national averages for gun homicides per day and multiply that by the number of days we've been doing this. It was my attempt to get you to discuss something different. Have in the past noticed you don't outright say gun ban, and can get defensive when others imply you mean gun ban. Thinking this is only the third time extensively discussing guns here, so not certain I'm repeating myself. Have probably brought up the constitution in the context of gun discussions, stating it's irrelevant to imposing restrictions on the grounds of owner vs operator, but can't recall participating in a gun discussion which the constitution is the context.
-
Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. :laugh: Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.
That's because you're used to the context.
The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).
Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.
It may not be so much used to the context, as much as personal bias of approval, seeing it as constituently correct, just, necessary, and a power that isn't viewed as abused. The constitution explicitly states the supreme court has judicial power over all legal cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states, so it seems odd to say the founders didn't desire the supreme court to have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional acts. The decision wasn't liked but that could have been about pride; it was also accepted and that should be enough to understand most people did read it that way.
The point is that the decision was such a radical departure from the courts of the time.
Especially once it comes to not just balancing competing rights and laws, but actually
overturning laws enacted by Congress. As far as I know, this was an absolute first
in the world - a decision essentially crafted by a single man's seizure of an un-enumerated
power, the extent of which is truly astounding, even for that turbulent time.
-
Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. :laugh: Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.
That's because you're used to the context.
The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).
Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.
It may not be so much used to the context, as much as personal bias of approval, seeing it as constituently correct, just, necessary, and a power that isn't viewed as abused. The constitution explicitly states the supreme court has judicial power over all legal cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states, so it seems odd to say the founders didn't desire the supreme court to have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional acts. The decision wasn't liked but that could have been about pride; it was also accepted and that should be enough to understand most people did read it that way.
The point is that the decision was such a radical departure from the courts of the time.
Especially once it comes to not just balancing competing rights and laws, but actually
overturning laws enacted by Congress. As far as I know, this was an absolute first
in the world - a decision essentially crafted by a single man's seizure of an un-enumerated
power, the extent of which is truly astounding, even for that turbulent time.
The wording of the constitution makes me think it was not only intended but also foreseen, that congress could one day enact unconstitutional law. There's no denying it was a monumental precedent; it was brilliant. Though the brilliance wasn't the act; it was the circumstances. The first instance of the supreme court exerting its power over the government was to deny power granted to the supreme court. There's a level of genius to it to make it sly, and yet a level of honor to make it awe inspiring. Even if it hadn't happened, it seems a precedent that would have been set eventually; still monumental yet not quite so extraordinary.
-
The wording of the constitution makes me think it was not only intended but also foreseen, that congress could one day enact unconstitutional law.
I think what seems 'obvious' today is only so because it's known. There's absolutely no evidence
that I'm aware of that anyone foresaw this usage.
You have to remember, the Bill of Rights was something of an afterthought to the Constitution
itself. And that's where most of the court decisions found root. Without it, the federal govt would
seem a supreme body. With it (and the 10th amendment most particularly), there were inevitable
conflicts between what were seen as sovereign bodies. Conflicts that would lead to war, if not for
the step.
The funny thing is that the ACW largely destroyed that. By not resolving the secession crisis in the
framework of the court (or by negotiation), the fragile structure was upended.
-
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.
If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.
The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.
A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.
We'll have to disagree on this one.
Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.
But there isn't. We're just repeating the same stuff over and over again, getting nowhere while people are being shot over there. How many have lost their lives while we've been doing this?
Were you expecting either of us to get somewhere? If you answer my previous question, then I'll look up the US national averages for gun homicides per day and multiply that by the number of days we've been doing this. It was my attempt to get you to discuss something different. Have in the past noticed you don't outright say gun ban, and can get defensive when others imply you mean gun ban. Thinking this is only the third time extensively discussing guns here, so not certain I'm repeating myself. Have probably brought up the constitution in the context of gun discussions, stating it's irrelevant to imposing restrictions on the grounds of owner vs operator, but can't recall participating in a gun discussion which the constitution is the context.
It was a rhetorical question. It's, I guess, as good an illustration of the problem as anything else, but it's just that. An illustration.
As for my opinions on an outright ban, I'm not sure. A ban would fix a lot of your problems but also create others.
-
Oh, and no, I wasn't really expecting us to get anywhere, no. :P
-
The wording of the constitution makes me think it was not only intended but also foreseen, that congress could one day enact unconstitutional law.
I think what seems 'obvious' today is only so because it's known. There's absolutely no evidence
that I'm aware of that anyone foresaw this usage.
You have to remember, the Bill of Rights was something of an afterthought to the Constitution
itself. And that's where most of the court decisions found root. Without it, the federal govt would
seem a supreme body. With it (and the 10th amendment most particularly), there were inevitable
conflicts between what were seen as sovereign bodies. Conflicts that would lead to war, if not for
the step.
The funny thing is that the ACW largely destroyed that. By not resolving the secession crisis in the
framework of the court (or by negotiation), the fragile structure was upended.
The evidence is article three, and the articles of confederation weren't an afterthought. Why grant judicial power over the laws of the United States without considering judicial power would be exerted over the laws of the United States? There are a number of modern constitutional cases which the founders could have never possibly foreseen, but it doesn't make sense this is one of them. Foreseen may not even be the best term, but it's logical it was considered. Even from a rudimentary understanding of government structure, what's obvious is congress has the power to enact unconstitutional laws. Yes, it's obvious today the powers of the three branches create a system of checks and balances for central government, but it's difficult to understand the viewpoint this balance is evolutionary rather than intelligent design. Is that even what you're saying or is it more of an agnostic stance, based on it's impossible to know what they were thinking?
-
The evidence is article three, and the articles of confederation weren't an afterthought.
WTF? Article three doesn't imply anything of the sort. It sets up a federal judiciary. One presumably
based upon the English equivalent, with no right to invalidate laws of parliament, regardless
of any common-law (the constitution as such of the brits) precedents.
Why grant judicial power over the laws of the United States without considering judicial power would be exerted over the laws of the United States?
It's NOT "over the laws".
The article very clearly states that it is UNDER the laws that Congress may enact.
As to the Articles of Confederation themselves, they didn't even establish a judiciary.
However, I'll grant you that it appears that the judicial act of 1789 - and its after-affects -
show that some of the founders were definitely thinking more in this direction. A bit
of learning for me that definitely made this a worthwhile engagement.
*tips hat*
-
You wanna know the last time I heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means?
It's a trick question. I've never heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means. Or any other constitution for that matter. Apart from the US constitution, of course. You guys have been arguing about what it really means for a couple of hundred years now and you still can't agree. Let me spell it out for you: if you spend more than 200 years arguing about what something really means, it isn't all that clear.
I'm glad that I live in a country where people were horrified by mass killings, one in particular (Port Arthur in 1996) and demanded that something be done. So we changed the law so you could still have guns that were good for hunting, but you couldn't have guns that were good for slaughtering lots of people.
We didn't disappear up our own arses and buy more guns and argue over what someone really meant by some ambiguous piece of text written more than 200 years ago.
And, despite significant immigration from some pretty murderous parts of the world, we haven't had a single mass shooting since then and our murder rate has continued to fall and it is a fraction of the murder rate in the US.
-
You wanna know the last time I heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means?
It's a trick question. I've never heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means. Or any other constitution for that matter. Apart from the US constitution, of course. You guys have been arguing about what it really means for a couple of hundred years now and you still can't agree. Let me spell it out for you: if you spend more than 200 years arguing about what something really means, it isn't all that clear.
I'm glad that I live in a country where people were horrified by mass killings, one in particular (Port Arthur in 1996) and demanded that something be done. So we changed the law so you could still have guns that were good for hunting, but you couldn't have guns that were good for slaughtering lots of people.
We didn't disappear up our own arses and buy more guns and argue over what someone really meant by some ambiguous piece of text written more than 200 years ago.
And, despite significant immigration from some pretty murderous parts of the world, we haven't had a single mass shooting since then and our murder rate has continued to fall and it is a fraction of the murder rate in the US.
This.
Now, I realise there are people who like guns without feeling they need to kill somebody. I'm assuming all sorts of things are appealing about guns, most of which have little to do with killing another human being. I don't see it but then, most people don't understand my interests either.
But.
I'm thinking Dolby processors did not ever kill anyone. Maim, maybe, but not kill. They don't weigh enough to kill when dropped on people's heads. If they had, en masse, I'd probably understand there would have to be restrictions in place. I know I'd think twice before buying another one.
But this never happens when it comes to guns, even though we're talking about something that was designed for the purpose. To kill people. There have been court cases declaring that the blind people of Iowa have the right to a weapon for chrisskes, but people are not stopping to consider if all this is reasonable in the first place.
And here we are, debating the phrasing of something written down in the 18th fucking century.
-
We didn't disappear up our own arses and buy more guns and argue over what someone really meant by some ambiguous piece of text written more than 200 years ago.
Aw shucks. Your gun manufacturers just were never that big a thing.
I mean, seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Firearm_manufacturers_of_Australia
-
As for my opinions on an outright ban, I'm not sure. A ban would fix a lot of your problems but also create others.
My views on a ban don't involve weighing pros and cons; it's more a matter of likelihood and taking the path of least resistance. There's only two ways it can happen, quickly like ripping off a bandaid, or slowly chipping away at it. The bandaid scenario doesn't doesn't seem anything more than a daydream due to the complexity of amending the constitution. The problem with chipping away is it requires support of the federal government. Personally support strict national gun control laws, but that's true of most of the population. That doesn't matter though, because I also see no point in new laws when the federal government doesn't enforce the ones we already have.
-
NO amount of reasonable speaking, delightful to know, fun to talk to foreign country folk who have already had their guns taken away are going to have any argument that makes We The Free, We The Brave want to give up ours. Our troubles are tough and we will deal with them, in our own way.
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is never going to be an acceptable answer to a self respecting American.
This is where we are.
There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.
It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.
I know that many of you will drop ass all over me for this position, but I do not care. I think most already know where I stand.
-
The evidence is article three, and the articles of confederation weren't an afterthought.
WTF? Article three doesn't imply anything of the sort. It sets up a federal judiciary. One presumably
based upon the English equivalent, with no right to invalidate laws of parliament, regardless
of any common-law (the constitution as such of the brits) precedents.
Why grant judicial power over the laws of the United States without considering judicial power would be exerted over the laws of the United States?
It's NOT "over the laws".
The article very clearly states that it is UNDER the laws that Congress may enact.
As to the Articles of Confederation themselves, they didn't even establish a judiciary.
However, I'll grant you that it appears that the judicial act of 1789 - and its after-affects -
show that some of the founders were definitely thinking more in this direction. A bit
of learning for me that definitely made this a worthwhile engagement.
*tips hat*
Correct in under not over, but the presumption of having no rights over congress is a huge leap. Article three not only established the judicial branch, but also assigns their power. It's also been a worthwhile engagement for me. Found this today; thought you might like it. Wikipedia led me to it. :laugh: Hamilton appears to make it clear this is an intended authority of the court. He also takes the time to say it doesn't mean the judicial branch is superior to the legislative, but it is their responsibility to interpret the constitution and remedy conflicting statutes. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp
-
There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.
It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.
The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"
The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.
The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.
-
An outright ban is almost a strawman. It would not work, it is not practical, it is completely unfair to people who use guns for legitimate purposes such as hunting and target shooting.
Pro-gun lobbyists like to make it sound like the choice is between an outright ban and freedom for anyone to own whatever guns they want. That's not the choice at all. It's a false dichotomy.
I am aware that it would be exponentially more difficult to impose sensible gun laws and restrictions in the US than it was in Australia or the UK or Norway or the many other places it has been done. Because of the strength of the gun lobby, the financial backing of the gun lobby, the pro-gun culture. The widespread belief that widespread gun ownership makes people safer.
-
An outright ban is almost a strawman.
Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban. All matters of practicality or fairness aside, right now it simply seems an impossibility. That doesn't mean it's a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.
I am aware that it would be exponentially more difficult to impose sensible gun laws and restrictions in the US than it was in Australia or the UK or Norway or the many other places it has been done. Because of the strength of the gun lobby, the financial backing of the gun lobby, the pro-gun culture. The widespread belief that widespread gun ownership makes people safer.
It's not just gun Americans do this; it's everything. There's something fundamentally American about apposing the federal government having too much to say about anything. History has shown the states do a better job than the federal government in regulating their own affairs in general, and gun control seems to be no exception. Probably because that's the way it was intended to be.
-
An outright ban is almost a strawman.
Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban. All matters of practicality or fairness aside, right now it simply seems an impossibility. That doesn't mean it's not a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.
An outright ban on guns would not work here in Australia, without the rampant gun culture. If you tried to implement that in the US you would have civil war on your hands. The way that gun culture and paranoia is now, I'm not even sure you could apply sensible restrictions without triggering something approaching a civil war.
I'm sure that some people in America do support the idea. That doesn't mean that it is likely or workable.
-
There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.
It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.
The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"
The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.
The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.
This is where we are.
-
That doesn't mean it's a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.
Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
-
An outright ban is almost a strawman.
Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban. All matters of practicality or fairness aside, right now it simply seems an impossibility. That doesn't mean it's not a point of view to be dismissed; some American do support the idea of a gun ban.
An outright ban on guns would not work here in Australia, without the rampant gun culture. If you tried to implement that in the US you would have civil war on your hands. The way that gun culture and paranoia is now, I'm not even sure you could apply sensible restrictions without triggering something approaching a civil war.
I'm sure that some people in America do support the idea. That doesn't mean that it is likely or workable.
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
-
An outright ban is almost a strawman.
Not in the context it's being discussed, and that's the comment of being better off without the second amendment. A ban would be the only reason to get rid of it, and getting rid of it would be required to implement a ban.
Eventually, maybe. But no, when the 2nd Amendment is being used to redirect measures that would
have passed previously in the US, I can see why some who still favor limited gun ownership (say for
hunting, sport, and reasonable self-defense) to pursue such a restriction. Hell, they won't even
accept putting chemical signatures into the gunpowder to aid in crime solving.
-
There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.
It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.
The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"
The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.
The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.
This is where we are.
So? Can we not look either forward or backward to times when we weren't having as many mass shootings?
Or, is the gun company profit so damned important?
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
-
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
I am inclined to take people at their word. I believe DirtDawg when he says that he would not give up his guns without a fight. I don't believe that such an attitude is unusual in the US.
So if all guns were banned, who would be tasked with confiscating guns from people who refuse to surrender them? What happens when military or police refuse government orders to use potentially lethal force against those who refuse to give up their guns? Civil wars have broken out over less.
Why even ban all guns? That just seems to be going from one ridiculous extreme to another.
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.
-
Why even ban all guns? That just seems to be going from one ridiculous extreme to another.
Because, it's not the edge case 'assault rifles' that account for the majority of gun deaths.
Those are just the most spectacular instances. Are we okay with the overall scourge of gun
violence, but just want to be spared the marquee events?
-
I believe DirtDawg when he says that he would not give up his guns without a fight.
Where did he say that?
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.
It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.
-
Why even ban all guns? That just seems to be going from one ridiculous extreme to another.
Because, it's not the edge case 'assault rifles' that account for the majority of gun deaths.
Those are just the most spectacular instances. Are we okay with the overall scourge of gun
violence, but just want to be spared the marquee events?
Australia's gun laws have been quite effective. A private citizen can basically own a bolt action rifle, not sure if the size of the magazine is restricted.
Guns are available on the black market, I was just reading that a pistol generally costs $10K to $20K. The penalties for being in possession of a banned firearm are pretty severe, so they tend not to be carried or used very often.
-
I believe DirtDawg when he says that he would not give up his guns without a fight.
Where did he say that?
DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?
Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.
-
It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.
Pedant :)
I doubt very much whether all branches of military and law enforcement would support the federal government using force against US citizens. There would be division and potential violence akin to a civil war. Obviously gun banning advocates won't take up arms against gun nuts.
-
DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?
Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.
It's right here is this discussion.
If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.
It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.
Are you completely lacking in imagination?
If there's a coup, and the army splits, what the fuck do you want to call it?
-
There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.
It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.
The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"
The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.
The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.
This is where we are.
So? Can we not look either forward or backward to times when we weren't having as many mass shootings?
Or, is the gun company profit so damned important?
Our troubles are tough and we will deal with them, in our own way.
Of course. Take lessons from the past to improve the future. It usually helps.
Pretty sure most of those companies are quite secure, especially the ones who make explosives.
-
DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?
Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.
It's right here is this discussion.
If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.
Actually the fight is already on. It is a fight of the pens to determine distribution of the swords at this point.
But to reiterate, I will not get shot by a SWAT team if the war of pens goes bad and they insist I give up my Class III weaponry.
I can only speak for myself, though.
-
It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.
Pedant :)
I doubt very much whether all branches of military and law enforcement would support the federal government using force against US citizens. There would be division and potential violence akin to a civil war. Obviously gun banning advocates won't take up arms against gun nuts.
You could possibly correct. In the many cases mentioned here, I can not believe that All OF THOSE "TANKS," as someone called the mechanized divisions, would be pointed toward the civilians standing up for our constitution.
-
DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?
Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.
It's right here is this discussion.
If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.
He has stated differently in other threads. Maybe just rhetorical. I will try to find it.
-
DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?
Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.
It's right here is this discussion.
If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.
He has stated differently in other threads. Maybe just rhetorical. I will try to find it.
When I was younger, I had a different mindset. It is and was not rhetoric, but merely the progress of maturing. When I was still young and strong I felt differently about a great number of things, then children came and dad stuff began to influence my thinking, many things were not as clear as before. I even set myself up as an organ donor - many things changed in my mind during the twelve years I have been a member of this site.
Fighting to the death to defend my family? I am still there and I have enough in and about me to give myself AND my family a substantial edge in that fight.
Going up against the police or any other government agency (outside of a courtroom) has never been a part of my mindset.
I do think that many could and and such groups would give the government forces fits, but I have never been a part of any cult like that. I HAVE stated that such anarchy can and will likely happen.
You are possibly confusing what I say will happen with what I have said that I will do.
-
DD I disagree with a lot of what you say but I do believe that you are no embellished of the truth. I must have misread one of your posts and apologies if I've misrepresented you here.
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.
It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.
Are you completely lacking in imagination?
If there's a coup, and the army splits, what the fuck do you want to call it?
Can I imagine a bunch of melodramatic things I don't really believe would happen? Yes. Though the reality seems to be, over 99% of the population appears to value not being in jail. First we're only talking about a third of population. Thinking the extreme vast majority would simply comply. Of those who would be willing to be a criminal to keep a gun, the vast majority of those would try to hide them. Yes, there is an extremist fringe who would actually fight, but they would likely be sneaky about it, rather than the stereotypical image of Billy Bob vs. a tank while screeching about his cold dead hands. There would potentially be small pockets of civil unrest and/or terroristic acts toward the government, but extremist's numbers aren't large enough to create the level of upheaval being implied. Yes it would create problems, but really don't think the government, the military, or society would suddenly burst into flames.
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.
It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.
Are you completely lacking in imagination?
If there's a coup, and the army splits, what the fuck do you want to call it?
Can I imagine a bunch of melodramatic things I don't really believe would happen? Yes. Though the reality seems to be, over 99% of the population appears to value not being in jail. First we're only talking about a third of population. Thinking the extreme vast majority would simply comply. Of those who would be willing to be a criminal to keep a gun, the vast majority of those would try to hide them. Yes, there is an extremist fringe who would actually fight, but they would likely be sneaky about it, rather than the stereotypical image of Billy Bob vs. a tank while screeching about his cold dead hands. There would potentially be small pockets of civil unrest and/or terroristic acts toward the government, but extremist's numbers aren't large enough to create the level of upheaval being implied. Yes it would create problems, but really don't think the government, the military, or society would suddenly burst into flames.
Ok, so you're just being ridiculous, and shifting the goal. The premise was a coup, and now you're
claiming that's impossible.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but discussion with you is pointless if you claim something
based upon a premise, and then start attacking the premise to defend your ridiculous conclusion.
-
Can I imagine a whole lot of chaos and violence if someone tries to ban guns outright in the US? Absolutely.
It is the climate of fear that someone will ban private ownership of guns that is keeping the NRA and the gun manufacturers in the powerful and influential position they are in now. Take that off the table and you might get somewhere.
That was never even on the table here, without anything like the sort of gun culture you guys have.
-
Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.
That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.
I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun? :laugh:
The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.
It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.
Are you completely lacking in imagination?
If there's a coup, and the army splits, what the fuck do you want to call it?
Can I imagine a bunch of melodramatic things I don't really believe would happen? Yes. Though the reality seems to be, over 99% of the population appears to value not being in jail. First we're only talking about a third of population. Thinking the extreme vast majority would simply comply. Of those who would be willing to be a criminal to keep a gun, the vast majority of those would try to hide them. Yes, there is an extremist fringe who would actually fight, but they would likely be sneaky about it, rather than the stereotypical image of Billy Bob vs. a tank while screeching about his cold dead hands. There would potentially be small pockets of civil unrest and/or terroristic acts toward the government, but extremist's numbers aren't large enough to create the level of upheaval being implied. Yes it would create problems, but really don't think the government, the military, or society would suddenly burst into flames.
Ok, so you're just being ridiculous, and shifting the goal. The premise was a coup, and now you're
claiming that's impossible.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but discussion with you is pointless if you claim something
based upon a premise, and then start attacking the premise to defend your ridiculous conclusion.
Not claiming it's impossible, but rather unlikely for exactly the reasons previously stated. The premise of a coup was based on the circumstance of needing military to forcibly seize guns from the public. Don't think there would be a great need for force, and similar to the public, the ones unwilling to follow orders would be passively non compliant, and the few who might aggress wouldn't be a strong enough force to upend the entire system.
-
Can I imagine a whole lot of chaos and violence if someone tries to ban guns outright in the US? Absolutely.
It is the climate of fear that someone will ban private ownership of guns that is keeping the NRA and the gun manufacturers in the powerful and influential position they are in now. Take that off the table and you might get somewhere.
That was never even on the table here, without anything like the sort of gun culture you guys have.
Already posted this and it may be where some of your misinterpretations of me emanate.
This is not actually me.
-
DD I disagree with a lot of what you say but I do believe that you are no embellished of the truth. I must have misread one of your posts and apologies if I've misrepresented you here.
No need for apologies, pal. Text is one of the many non-specific means of communication attempts and for now, that is all that you and I have with which to work.
I will make an effort to be more clear as I try to go forward.
You and I are both skilled in writing one thing while influencing another interpretation. I think this issue is too important to be so playful, though.
Our Second Amendment rights are under attack in this age and we must be watchful. I have tried to be very clear about this and My position should be quite clear. Those trying to undermine the very establishment and foundation of this country are in a questionable position in my view. I question their loyalties, outright.
The strongest legal weapon we have is our vote. Keeping the Senate under control of patriots who are willing to defend the Constitution is by all measures a win, win, win for the future of America.
Two years from now, another election cycle ensues and we will have to discuss this again, possibly. My stance will not change.
-
Not claiming it's impossible, but rather unlikely for exactly the reasons previously stated. The premise of a coup was based on the circumstance of needing military to forcibly seize guns from the public. Don't think there would be a great need for force, and similar to the public, the ones unwilling to follow orders would be passively non compliant, and the few who might aggress wouldn't be a strong enough force to upend the entire system.
In case you didn't get the message - I'm done with your waffling.
-
Not claiming it's impossible, but rather unlikely for exactly the reasons previously stated. The premise of a coup was based on the circumstance of needing military to forcibly seize guns from the public. Don't think there would be a great need for force, and similar to the public, the ones unwilling to follow orders would be passively non compliant, and the few who might aggress wouldn't be a strong enough force to upend the entire system.
In case you didn't get the message - I'm done with your waffling.
Waffling how? Have I said something inconsistent, or do you mean my speaking without purpose? If it's the latter then you're doing it too. This conversation has devolved into daydreaming about something that simply isn't going to happen by either stretch of our imaginations. If you want to stop though, that's fine. Want to know what I really think would happen if the federal government attempted to issue a ban on guns? A big bunch of nothing. Even the Brady act was declared unconstitutional before the NCIS even became live, and while it was allowed to stand, it would be as valuable as toilet paper without the legislature of individual states which echo it. If real change is to happen, it can only happen at the state level, because the federal government simply doesn't have that level of authority. Are you just looking for someone to agree with you? Fine. The only way the federal government could ever implement a gun ban would be to declare all out war against the states. It would rip everything to shit, and that's why it will never happen, because they would only succeed in destroying themselves. See how boring that was?
-
The point is that there are approx 100 million gun owners in the US (correct me if I am wrong). You are making an assumption that all but a tiny % of those gun owners will refuse to give up their weapons, despite the fact that a large % of those gun owners say that they will not give up their weapons.
There are basically 2 assumptions that one can make. One is that talk of refusing to give up weapons is almost entirely bluster and that gun owners will back down when the time comes and meekly hand over their weapons. The other assumption is that they mostly mean what they say. And, of course, there is an enormous grey area between those assumptions.
Your starting assumption is different to mine. Simples. There is no point discussing further.
-
The point is that there are approx 100 million gun owners in the US (correct me if I am wrong). You are making an assumption that all but a tiny % of those gun owners will refuse to give up their weapons, despite the fact that a large % of those gun owners say that they will not give up their weapons.
There are basically 2 assumptions that one can make. One is that talk of refusing to give up weapons is almost entirely bluster and that gun owners will back down when the time comes and meekly hand over their weapons. The other assumption is that they mostly mean what they say. And, of course, there is an enormous grey area between those assumptions.
Your starting assumption is different to mine. Simples. There is no point discussing further.
Thinking what I said was a tiny percent of people would use them in defiance. It's also easy for one to say they wont do something they know they wont have to do, but most people do obey the laws even if they view them as unjust. Though you do make a good point that even a small percent of people in the US is still a lot of people. It's estimated that three percent of the adult population own half of the guns, so even a passive disobedience by a small percentage could still mean an enormous amount of guns might could stay in the populace anyway.
-
The thing is that most people obey the law, but that is to a large extent because they see the law as just and fair. The laws that people obey are not ones that they have repeatedly committed themselves to opposing until death.
The fact that most people obey laws that say "don't throw rocks off overpasses" or "don't murder people", IMO, has little bearing on whether they will obey a law that they see as unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and a threat to their liberty and potentially their lives.
We get back to the starting assumptions.
-
The thing is that most people obey the law, but that is to a large extent because they see the law as just and fair. The laws that people obey are not ones that they have repeatedly committed themselves to opposing until death.
The fact that most people obey laws that say "don't throw rocks off overpasses" or "don't murder people", IMO, has little bearing on whether they will obey a law that they see as unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and a threat to their liberty and potentially their lives.
We get back to the starting assumptions.
My assumptions are based in the bias of life experience. Lived the majority of my life is some serious redneck territory and have known more many more men who are game hunters than those who aren't. there's not a single one who I believe would do anything more than fight for a longer bow season. Maybe it's just because I've never known a nutter who would turn terrorist over such a principle, It's hard to assume there really that many out there.
-
The thing is that most people obey the law, but that is to a large extent because they see the law as just and fair. The laws that people obey are not ones that they have repeatedly committed themselves to opposing until death.
The fact that most people obey laws that say "don't throw rocks off overpasses" or "don't murder people", IMO, has little bearing on whether they will obey a law that they see as unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and a threat to their liberty and potentially their lives.
We get back to the starting assumptions.
My assumptions are based in the bias of life experience. Lived the majority of my life is some serious redneck territory and have known more many more men who are game hunters than those who aren't. there's not a single one who I believe would do anything more than fight for a longer bow season. Maybe it's just because I've never known a nutter who would turn terrorist FREEDOM FIGHTER over such a principle, It's hard to assume there really that many out there.
FYP :)
-
:laugh:
-
Jack implied toilet paper isn't valuable. >:(
-
Jack implied toilet paper isn't valuable. >:(
Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?
-
Jack implied toilet paper isn't valuable. >:(
Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?
Want to help me with that? :zoinks: I have a problem with hoarding toilet paper. You can have my toilet paper when you pry it from my cold dead hands. :zoinks: Seriously though, I don't mind sharing my toilet paper, but if you try to take it all from me there's going to be a fight. :zoinks:
-
Jack implied toilet paper isn't valuable. >:(
Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?
Want to help me with that? :zoinks: I have a problem with hoarding toilet paper. You can have my toilet paper when you pry it from my cold dead hands. :zoinks: Seriously though, I don't mind sharing my toilet paper, but if you try to take it all from me there's going to be a fight. :zoinks:
Just make sure that you put my grass back where you found it.
:autism:
-
Jack implied toilet paper isn't valuable. >:(
Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?
Want to help me with that? :zoinks: I have a problem with hoarding toilet paper. You can have my toilet paper when you pry it from my cold dead hands. :zoinks: Seriously though, I don't mind sharing my toilet paper, but if you try to take it all from me there's going to be a fight. :zoinks:
I HOPE it's just new toilet paper you hoard....
-
Does a silencer keep things quiet when you rack the bolt?
-
Is it just me or are her arms a bit short? :-\
-
They're long enough to hold the baby I'd knock her up with. :M :dick:
-
Is it just me or are her arms a bit short? :-\
There does seem to be a slight photographic foreshortening of her forearm. I think her humerus length seems normal, though.
Camera phones or phone cameras pretty much suck.
This is why portrait photographers use long lenses and gradated lighting when photographing most people. The long focus lens tends to "flatten" the image (focus length of the lens does not affect depth of field, a common misconception. Depth of field is merely is function of lens aperture and subject Distance to acquire a specified image size at your film plane), getting rid of most anomalies associated with shorter focus lenses, such as foreshortening of limbs which are on an angle closer to the position of the camera rather than an angle closer to the perpendicular plane of focus. Then, of course, you have to put back the dimensional identifying shading and perception of depth with clever use of directional lighting strategies.
-
They're long enough to hold the baby I'd knock her up with. :M :dick:
That is another knocker joke, right?
-
She is gorgeous. Arms look okay to me, I think it's just the angle that makes them look short. The chest is way out of proportion on a girl who is so small-boned. I assume that it's a big set of implants. Implants are yuck.
-
They're long enough to hold the baby I'd knock her up with. :M :dick:
That is another knocker joke, right?
:LOL: No, it's a variation of an insider joke between me and one of my best buddies. Years ago, I had a S.O.F. magazine that had some want Ads in the back. One was a guy looking for a woman to share a "Christian survivalist lifestyle" with. We joked that he just wanted to make a family to indoctrinate with a white supremacist belief system. We called the kids he was looking to make "Hate Babies". That became our inside joke, any time we saw a hot blonde, especially a pro-gun country chick, we would look at each other and say "Hate Babies".
So yeah, I'd take that hot blonde to my survivalist compound and make "Hate Babies" with her. :evillaugh: :LOL:
-
She is gorgeous. Arms look okay to me, I think it's just the angle that makes them look short. The chest is way out of proportion on a girl who is so small-boned. I assume that it's a big set of implants. Implants are yuck.
HOW DARE YOU!!?!!???
Honestly, I do not know her. BUT you're harshin' my buzz, Dude!
-
They're long enough to hold the baby I'd knock her up with. :M :dick:
That is another knocker joke, right?
:LOL: No, it's a variation of an insider joke between me and one of my best buddies. Years ago, I had a S.O.F. magazine that had some want Ads in the back. One was a guy looking for a woman to share a "Christian survivalist lifestyle" with. We joked that he just wanted to make a family to indoctrinate with a white supremacist belief system. We called the kids he was looking to make "Hate Babies". That became our inside joke, any time we saw a hot blonde, especially a pro-gun country chick, we would look at each other and say "Hate Babies".
So yeah, I'd take that hot blonde to my survivalist compound and make "Hate Babies" with her. :evillaugh: :LOL:
Hate Babies? EEWWW!
I was hoping racking the bolt would have inferred a possible double meaning.
:cbc:
-
I was hoping racking the bolt would have inferred a possible double meaning.
:cbc:
Oh, I got the double meaning, It just went in a different direction by the time I posted. ;)
-
She is gorgeous. Arms look okay to me, I think it's just the angle that makes them look short. The chest is way out of proportion on a girl who is so small-boned. I assume that it's a big set of implants. Implants are yuck.
HOW DARE YOU!!?!!???
Honestly, I do not know her. BUT you're harshin' my buzz, Dude!
You want me to pretend they're real from now on when you post pics of girls with obvious implants? Can do. Should i say "those are real FOR SURE!!!" or should I just pretend I didn't notice the humongous things and just comment on how pretty her face and hands are?
-
I didn't get the double meaning.
-
She is gorgeous. Arms look okay to me, I think it's just the angle that makes them look short. The chest is way out of proportion on a girl who is so small-boned. I assume that it's a big set of implants. Implants are yuck.
HOW DARE YOU!!?!!???
Honestly, I do not know her. BUT you're harshin' my buzz, Dude!
You want me to pretend they're real from now on when you post pics of girls with obvious implants? Can do. Should i say "those are real FOR SURE!!!" or should I just pretend I didn't notice the humongous things and just comment on how pretty her face and hands are?
Harsh, Dude and to think, I had a buzz.
:lol1:
I hope you never meet my seventeen year old daughter. She is not skinny, about one hundred thirty pounds, but sports a 42 DD (mommy took care of this measuring stuff when she had to have a strapless set up for her choir costume. She said damn, hers are bigger than mine) and I know for a fact that she has never had implant surgery.
OH, then mom had to get to work and I was in charge of the shopping trip to acquire said specialized girl equipment. Imagine the looks an old bearded guy gets when he is shopping for a big bra AND how quickly the place clears out.
:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:
-
I didn't get the double meaning.
Racking the bolt is what you have to do to "cock and load" a typical magazine fed gun of many sorts.
I might also refer to tit fucking if one were to be so inclined.
-
I didn't get the double meaning.
Racking the bolt is what you have to do to "cock and load" a typical magazine fed gun of many sorts.
I might also refer to tit fucking if one were to be so inclined.
I grew up around bolt-action guns, so I'm familiar with racking the bolt. And I can imagine a plethora of double meanings for it. I just didn't make the connection.
-
She is gorgeous. Arms look okay to me, I think it's just the angle that makes them look short. The chest is way out of proportion on a girl who is so small-boned. I assume that it's a big set of implants. Implants are yuck.
HOW DARE YOU!!?!!???
Honestly, I do not know her. BUT you're harshin' my buzz, Dude!
You want me to pretend they're real from now on when you post pics of girls with obvious implants? Can do. Should i say "those are real FOR SURE!!!" or should I just pretend I didn't notice the humongous things and just comment on how pretty her face and hands are?
Harsh, Dude and to think, I had a buzz.
:lol1:
I hope you never meet my seventeen year old daughter. She is not skinny, about one hundred thirty pounds, but sports a 42 DD (mommy took care of this measuring stuff when she had to have a strapless set up for her choir costume. She said damn, hers are bigger than mine) and I know for a fact that she has never had implant surgery.
OH, then mom had to get to work and I was in charge of the shopping trip to acquire said specialized girl equipment. Imagine the looks an old bearded guy gets when he is shopping for a big bra AND how quickly the place clears out.
:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:
That is huge for a 130 pound girl. I was going to say "you're gonna have your hands full" before I realized how incredibly inappropriate that sounds. Anyhow, I'm sure that you'll think of ways to keep the boys on their best behaviour.
My daughter just turned 10, above the 98th percentile on height for age, she will be an amazon. Not having those sort of issues with undergarment shopping yet.
-
I go from thinking that I should meet them while sharpening one of my machetes with a primitive rock (it would be a prop - I have very specific sharpening stones for all my blades) to asking them for help cleaning a few of my shotguns, then freaking them out by showing I can re-assemble it in less than a minute.
Boils down to finding solace in the fact I have already done what I need to do so that I can trust my daughter's judgement.
But, yeah, my daughter is stacked and my hands are full.
-
Is it just me or are her arms a bit short? :-\
There does seem to be a slight photographic foreshortening of her forearm. I think her humerus length seems normal, though.
Camera phones or phone cameras pretty much suck.
This is why portrait photographers use long lenses and gradated lighting when photographing most people. The long focus lens tends to "flatten" the image (focus length of the lens does not affect depth of field, a common misconception. Depth of field is merely is function of lens aperture and subject Distance to acquire a specified image size at your film plane), getting rid of most anomalies associated with shorter focus lenses, such as foreshortening of limbs which are on an angle closer to the position of the camera rather than an angle closer to the perpendicular plane of focus. Then, of course, you have to put back the dimensional identifying shading and perception of depth with clever use of directional lighting strategies.
This one is really off, though, and it's not obvious what's wrong. It took me a while to realise why I was bothered about it.
-
8)
-
:zoinks:
(https://img.ifunny.co/images/6be43bc2fabe1b60c119fe93ed19e10c6f8072196e2463f1af7c0ee291dda9cc_1.jpg)
-
Pappy, that's a very clever meme (even though the picture is actually an 800mm gun).
I'm clearly spending too much time listening to my son talk about WW2.
-
Yes, I know.
That's the Schwerer Gustav.
It was more a penis extension than an effective weapon of war.
-
Looks pretty mean to me, though. Guessing it could do a lot of damage, so what was the problem with it?