I like guns despite their obvious flaws

Post Reply New Topic

There is no definitive method of determining the number of gun owners or guns in circulation.


Actually it started in early 2009 when Obama took office. Given his stand on gun control, there was some concern he'd push a load of draconian anti-gun legislation through and that triggered people getting while the getting was still good. I don't think most people bought that scare about Obama but once the buying increased it triggered a hoarding spree and even those that didn?t believe a wave of gun control was going to hit were buying what they would have normally bought in advance of supplied being depleted by hoarding. Not just the guns but ammo and reloading components, too. It took a few years for that to die down. Then Sandy Hook came along in Dec. '13 and the whole thing started over again. During both of this mass buying sprees a new crop of gun owners rose. Gun shops and shooting ranges across the country reported droves of new customers. The anti?s who were all the sudden losing ground by the mile had to cook up numbers via ?polling? to demonstrate that gun ownership had actually fallen and that it was only the dyed in the wool paranoid gun fetishists that were adding to their stashed.
This was an obvious bandwagon propaganda approach to voluntary disarmament.
?Hey everyone, look; it?s just the deranged NRA hat wearing gun nuts that are stocking up! Everyone else who is normal are abandoning their guns for the freedom of being sheep like me. You don?t want to be associated with those wannabe commandos and fat limpdick old republican racist NRA gun nuts do you?! Of course not; jump on the bandwagon and be free of that horrible disease known as gun ownership. Come on and join in; millions already have!?
But it?s not working and the fear and anger of the antis is working overtime.

People are waking up after years of mental poisoning by an anti-gun Hollywood, shrill protectionists, a gun hating news media, and even the misleading bleatings of anti-gun gun owners. I have people approach me regularly and ask where to get a gun and what it takes to ?register? one with the police or whatever. They are surprised when I tell them that there is no requirement to register them but they are usually also relieved that they don?t have to. Most people are not as stupid and gullible as the anti-gunners wish they were. All it takes is to turn the light on for them and they?ll usually figure out the rest on their own with little to no help.


Yes, one of the things that drove the surge in new gun owners is general and growing mistrust of government. It?s not just about gun bans or door to door gun seizure but the lack of confidence in government to handle emergencies and effectively fight crime.
If approached by someone I don?t know, my response to ?are you a gun owner?? or ?do you have a gun at home?? is a flat ?nope?. I?m not going to take a moment to ask or assume their intent or purpose because they have no need to know what I consider personal information. People with good sense tend to be more guarded about personal information.

Back to you finally

I haven?t gotten up on a soapbox here and campaigned for the repeal of any gun laws like you have done to introduce new ones. I?d like to see them gone and if put to a vote I?d vote to scrub any or all of them off of the books in a skinny minute. As a realist I don't see that happening so I don't screech incessantly about it.
You?re the one that wants more gun laws or to replace the existing with more draconian ones, so the monkey is back on your back to rationalize them. I think just about anyone can see that you tried to spin this one.


? Last time I went to any gun shop I didn?t see any tanks, bombers, cruise missiles, howitzers, biological or nuclear weapons for sale so I think we can limit it to the common AR-15, AK?s, and the like since your type argues that they are more dangerous than ?regular gunz?. Throwing unaffordable destructive devices or WMS?s in there is weak and typical of someone grasping at straws.

? People who aren't permitted to own or purchase firearms are already covered by current law. If those laws have proven partially ineffective it should speak volumes about the futility of those laws and/or that a fix-all is a pipe dream.


Guns don't emit radiation or release toxic agents. I don't need to wear a dosimeter when I'm carrying a gun or call in a toxic cleanup crew if I spill some ammo on the floor. Guns are acted upon and are only as dangerous as the users. Stop trimming your sails already and just admit you want the manufacturers to be on the hook for product misuse that are outside their control.


Mmm hmm??.


That right there is evidence indicating that you are not a gun owner, or at least have been out of the procurement loop for decades. And don?t bemoan about how I've "attacked" your credibility when you just did it to yourself for anyone relatively familiar with the subject to see.


I have only discredited your stand on this subject and maybe a few other topics as invalid and unfounded. If you dug your hole deep enough to get some s**t on you then oh well.




Those two pretty much speak for themselves and my posting history serves as evidence.


That?s indicative of a persecution complex. I take shots at postings and threads that are off the wall or goofy without regard to who posted them. Many I just let slide either because I don?t have time or not enough of a vested interest in them. Some people tend so to make targets of themselves more than others, though. I have certainly been ridiculed but I just fart it off and press on undaunted.

Where, in PPR? Any forum labeled Politics, Philosophy, and Religion should by that title tell you that it?s not for the weak hearted. There is even somewhat of a warning posted in the first thread or two about the special circumstances of this forum. I guess in the minds of liberals it?s okay to start threads along the lines of ?Conservative Christ-o-fascists are destroying freedom of speech!? or ?Republican trolls are out to destroy America!? or "Conservatives hate handicapped people" but not okay to counter them with equally salty or pointed rebuttals. To my credit I?ve never called anyone here an a**hole, ret*d, fuctard, and probably not even a douche bag but I have been called some or all of the above in this forum over the years. I even got a TOS for calling the troll a troll after the toll called me a troll. I didn't get all butthurt and pwn3d I adapted and started calling the troll a +r011.


You?re joking, right? I see posts like yours some others as being similar to bubble-warp; something I can effortlessly pop, bubble by bubble, and get some simple pleasure from.
If that leaves you feeling pwn3d then stop throwing bubble-wrap where I?ll find it.

What's their "flaws"?

I guess they're not 100 percent reliable the more complex and effective they become (even single shot breach loaders will fail). I've had pretty much every pistol I've fired have a failure to fire or feed at one point or another (except one 1911 which kept on going and going, but I'm certain it'd fail at some point).

They're freaking loud and damage your hearing if you don't wear protection. RIIIIIINNNNG.

No, I just want to replace the current ineffective laws with more effective ones, preferably with the assistance of at least one person who knows what they are talking about. And trying to spin other people's talking points is a fairly standard tactic of yours; just returning the favor.



Because they are not legal for civilians to own, obviously.



They are. Since you are aware that missiles and howitzaers are more dangerous, how do you justify saying that a single shot muzzle loader and an AK are somehow equally dangerous?



You are the one throwing those in there; I merely asked where you draw the line in terms of regulating weapons.



Anbd since these laws have proven partialy effective, it should speak volumes to you about the need to reform them to improve their effectiveness.



And chemicals and radioactive materials are only as dangerous as the users. There is a whole "cradle to grave" concept for dangerous materials and who receives them.



I am not saying that is legal. I know that it is not. I am saying that your desire to have limitations on the right to bear arms is patently absurd with an extreme example of why they are not. But you keep grasping at straws there. Why don't you just insult me for having opinions again?



You have done nothing more than say "I'm right. You're wrong. That means I have proved something."



I still fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand.



It is not just me that you insult and deride. Perhaps you do it in good faith as friendly ribbing, but you often come across as intentionally rude and insulting when you respond to anyone who does not share your exact views on any subject.



Frequently. You have often talked about the enjoyment you get from causing others "butt-hurt."



You missed my point. I'm saying that you can't really attack someone's opinion as worthless using nothing but insults to back it up. I'm not saying you do it with every post, just often enough to annoy me. Which is why I tend to reply to many of your posts directed at me in a similar tone.



And when have I ever said it was?



As have I. More than once. Your point?



I can generally handle what you throw at me. I just wish you would actual bring something concrete to the table other than just dismissing the opinions of others or trying to browbeat them until they go away.

The obvious flaw to me - ammo's way too expensive. It's one of the reason I can't get excited about going to the range.

Have you checked out reloading?

Yeah, more draconian and invasive ones (registration, mandatory safety training, some kind of "assault weapons" clause though you tap dance around it) and you want the NRA (which you have demonstrated utter contempt for) to help draft them.


Q: Can an AR-15 release toxins into the environment or emit radiation? A: No. Then it can't be considered any more dangerous. With all the AR's and AK's in circulation, if your theory had any merit the streets would be running red with blood. WHY ARE THEY NOT? < I've bolded and cap'd this because it is the crux of the whole pro-gun vs. anti-gun dogfight and one that your side can't provide an answer for. You would have to illustrate an honest and marked increase in shootings proportionate to the estimated number of what you call assault weapons before you can even begin to argue in favor of stricter laws. Even then it could be countered but at least you'd come to the table armed with something besides ?just because? and just in case? and ?you're picking on me?.


It?s your side of this that lumps WMD?s in with small arms, further demonstrating the cluelessness and desperation of the anti-gun crowd.


Polishing a turd in other words??


Yeah, I'm familiar with hazmat handling and all that but guns aren't covered under that except in the minds of people who are hysterical.


Oh it's more than just that. To think that enough people to bother counting would sell a kid a "9mm" (demonstratively the only handgun caliber that exists in the minds of antis) is pretty off the wall, not to mention it?s already covered by law, believe it or not. Besides, if you actually knew anything you'd know it would take a helluva lot of saved up milk money to buy any handgun.
Have you even been to a gun show? Seems not.
I think we can safely say that anyone having a dozen AR-15?s to sell at a gun show is an FFL licensee and is not going to risk his FFL license, business license, and freedom to sell guns without going through the sales and transfer drill that you seem to be clueless about.
Stop pulling the victim card, too. The more you talk on this matter of guns and regulation the deeper you dig your hole since with each post you demonstrate a lack of fundamental knowledge as you have done just in this one tidbit regarding selling guns to kids and gun shows. I don?t insult you, I just point out the errors. If you think it comes off with a dismissive or quippish tone it could only be because I've (actually we've to include others) been over it and over it and over it not only with you but dozens of others in this forum alone before you came along.


I?ve gone into considerably more detail in each thread with you and your kind than the discussions are worthy of. The bottom line is and will continue to be that you cannot qualify a need for what you propose.
Repeating over and over about how I?m the one spewing hyperbole, and spinning things only serves to demonstrate desperation on your part.


As I?m sure you do?.


More self-victimizing by proxy. If you?d read my posts objectively you?d see that on the average they are no more rude than what is typical and allowable per the terms of use in this forum. You?re just realizing you don?t have a leg to stand on in these gunz-r-bad threads and resorting to manufactured offense in an attempt to throw me off balance. It aint working.


Ah, schadenfreude is what you?re saying I?m guilty of. Well, go find a few examples and bring them here (including the links) and I?ll walk you through them, little good it?ll do??


If it does appear that I do that it?s only because the post I?m replying to has a built in self-insult and I just echoing it in my own words. Really, this is just more grasping at straws and cheap shots at discrediting me with charges of incivility or whatever?..


This gets back to the last point. Those three examples contain their own built in self-insult that are begging for confirmation by a second party.


It stands on its own without further explanation.



Doesn't look like it and that?s being generous.


More spinning made damningly evident by the fact that you can?t even qualify the need to ban or increase control on AR-15?s by bringing weapon sales vs. death toll figures to the table to even start a debate with.

Here you shoot your own charge against me in the ass. Seriously, if I actually enjoyed the suffering of others I?d want to keep them around for more fun at their expense, not drive them away.

In closing (for now) I don't really see you as a concern troll as one other individual has openly charged. Having said that, you do have a knack for intentionally fabricating (for lack of a better term) discord out of carefully selected and oftentimes spun tidbits from your opponent?s posts and spicing them with your own resentment of being challenged. I don't even know if it could be classified as trolling by current definition but I expect that the definitions and criteria for trolling to become more liquid over time.

Last edited by Raptor on 08 Aug 2014, 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

muzzle loader and black powder aren't considered firearms. you don't need to do a backround check. or register them in states. most don't count them as handguns either. this makes no sense to me as they are very capible of killing just as a gun that uses cased ammo.

Lately it's been getting better both in terms of price and availability. What is still behind (last time I looked) was the availability of just plain .22LR ammo. During this latest shortage it seems to have become the new gold standard. Even when I could find a brick of 500 it was $60!! We're talking just run of the mill hi-vel .22 blasting ammo, not the English and German made match ammo.
Between the two shortages/hoardings I managed to squirrel away about 8k rounds of .22LR (I shoot a lot of it) but even then I've been using it sparingly over the past 1 1/2 year.
Things will come back to normal or what passes for normal but it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that there will be another shortage/hoarding on the horizon. ...

I remember when MalWart had an item that was called bucket o'bullets,it was a gallon bucket of .22 bullets for a reasonable price.Can't find that anymore.

/\ Sometimes I go to Wal-Mart just to see if they have .22 ammo but they haven't even as of the past week. To my surprise their 9mm. 40, and .45 ammo has been noticeably more expensive than the gun shops. I wouldnt put it past them to gouge customers if they thought it might go unnoticed by the majority of them.

The amount of gun murders multiplied by 40,000.

Vehicle registration is still registration and it is by no means anti-car.

You don't have to register a car to own it, and there isn't a dedicated anti-car lobby that would love nothing more than to outlaw the things, for which an official list of who owned what would be very handy. The entire rationale is also very different; what purpose do you think a gun registry would fulfill? Remember, it's been done in other countries before, and the results are not reassuring.

No my good friend, but you do need to register it to use it.


A car also becomes a lethal weapon when in the hands of someone unfit to use it responsibly.

That's more of a revenue collecting task than having to do with driver competence. And as Dox said, there is no lobby or movement to regulate the s**t out of or ban cars. I'll add to it that driving a car is a licensed privilege and not an enumerated right in the constitution.