I like guns despite their obvious flaws

Post Reply New Topic

maybe there should be a anti car group. most people wouldn't past a surprise drivers test . many would run a person in a wheelchair over if it meant saving them 5 seconds. really no one obeys most driving laws. its highly irritating. yet all the laws and all the regulations does nothing to stop them.

Were you not just advocating for firearm training every year in the public school system? That would require more people than I have called for to receive education on the subject (although I am not opposed to it). The biggest complaint I have with the NRA is their refusal to do anything other than try to convince everyone that big bad government is out to steal your guns. If they were willing to have rational discussions like grown ups, I would not be have such dislike for them. I am far from the only gun owner to have gotten sick of the NRA's paranoia peddling. I have gone into aspects of my ideas for a registry on multiple occasions, and see no point in doing so again, as it is opinion based (just like everything you bring to the table) which you dismiss without addressing.



They are in parts of Mexico. They still are in parts of Columbia. They are throughout mkost of Central America. I'm pretty sure Russia didn't ship them over en masse.



And again you make assumptions about me.

Ok, we both think that WMDs ahouldn't be available to the average civilian. We both believe that handguns should be (although I think there should be more requirements than you do). All I really want to know is where you draw the line? At what point do you think weapons should come under heavier regulation?



So do you think that a distributor should be allowed to sell any firearm on Amazon and have it shipped next day air anywhere in the country as long as you have a valid credit card? And before you lose your sh*t over it, I know that it is not the way things currently are, I'm just asking if you think it should be allowed.



I chose 9mm ptrecisely because it is most familiar to non-gun owners, of whom I'm certain a few have read this thread. And again, I have never said that it is possible to happen, just that in your ideal no regulation world, it would be. But again you assume that anything I say is a lie because I do not agree with you 100% on everything. It seems your answer to where zero regulations could lead is "you ain't no gun owner."

We have been through this argument before as well. I have outlined my experience with firearms from a very early age multiple times. I have discussed my qualms about irresponsible gun owners I have known multiple times. And yet you always find some sort of imaginary way to "prove" that I don't hunt or that I don't enjoy sighting in a rifle. But go ahead, play it again.



Since you threw hyperbole around first, what does that say about you?



I have at no point said that I have a legal leg to stand on. I have repeatedly said that I would like to, though.



Why bother? I'm sure any regular visitors to this site have seen it plenty of times. "Butt-hurt" is a term you use fairly regularly, and you often talk about things that you say/enjoy because of the way it upsets liberals.



It is more to point out that this is the majority of your argument on the subject. If you wanted to discuss rather than dismiss or insult, perhaps you wouldn't be so bothered by my mentioning it.



Since you apparently didn't read my response, I'll state it again:
And when have I ever said it was?

And when have I ever said it was?



I think that is part of the enjoyment you get out of it. Being the last man standing, so to speak.



^This. Right back at you.

Also, they're expensive.

Poor people like me really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and make do with pure function over anything else:

My "deer" rifle is a secondhand $150 H&R Handi Rifle (.44 Magnum).

You bet I would have wanted a new $999 Ruger 77/44 bolt gun instead (same cal).

I want to perserve my right to be a peaceful man with rights to own an AR that fires .300 win mag rounds than have to fight for my other rights with a .22 short against my opressive gov't.

Why do you think they care about you being able to fight back so much?

Damn, that's pretty big for a deer rifle. :O Most people around here use a .30-06

If you're in bear country it isn't. Plus a .44 mag single shot compared to a 30-06 with a mag of say 7 rounds? It is pretty even if not less. With a break barrel or single shot bolt gun you want a powerful round or else what you shoot might still be alive.

Nah, just different. .30-06 has more potential energy (due to the much higher velocity, plus it retains it better due to more aerodynamic projectiles), which allows for longer ranged shots. That feels like target shooting to me though, so I've never been too much of a fan.

I'm not a fan of shooting anything past 100 yards (except targets), so the big and relatively slow .44 Magnum, which puts big holes through things no matter how fast it's going, is what I like.

It helps that I live in mountainous woodlands too. There's really no shot higher than 100 yards.

Both are suitable for deer/elk within their range limits. The .44 Mag can probably hit buffalo range if you use hardcast 300 grain projectiles, but when you get to that point, you're probably wealthy enough to buy something more suitable.

I'm also a fan of shotgun slugs and buckshot for deer, which cuts your range down even further (50 is nice for basic slugs, and as close as possible for buckshot). My "deer" shotgun is a $100 single shot affair too.

Already explained and rationalised at least once.


Proves you either don?t know the NRA or you?re just regurgitating anti-gun propaganda. I?d say it?s more the latter but includes some of the former.


I don?t have a clue WTF you?re talking about here but it?s safe to say you?re dodging the question.


Already discussed.


I?m not the one trying to make changes, you are. I know I?m not going to get guns delivered to my doorstep (although I?d like to) but again it ain?t gonna happen so I?m not trolling the internet campaigning for it. You seem unable (read that unwilling) to make that distinction.


About all you know about current gun regulation you got from me in these debates since you definitely didn't come into this armed with any knowledge.. Arguing with you on this subject is like giving a laxative to a starving man. All I get out of you is what I gave you.


Yeah, I pointed out your hyperbole so I must be guilty of it as well. Didn't you call me a troll at some time? I think so. If that?s the case and using your logic you must be a troll as well and the more I read the more I?m convinced.


So you?re just spewing in an attempt to sow discord????.hmmm


You can blame it but you can?t name it, in other words.


More of falling back to these imaginary insults.


Parroting? Must be a new form of dodging?..


Then my toys would be gone. What value is that?


More spinning

A short barreled 12 gauge pump with slugs in addition to a .44 mag would be good bear protection medicine.

I know that the NRA does plenty other than its BS propaganda based garbage. That is just my biggest complaint about them. I still get mail from them, years and years after I let my membership lapse.



Just saying that most of the weapons used by major drug cartels in Central and South America come from the US. But I guess you don't really give a crap what happens with guns after they leave the warehouse.



And yet you have failed to provide an actual answer.



Since this isn't a journal article, I didn't bother doing a literature review providing scholarly sources. I assumed you knew the regulations (which you do) so did not bother to spew out things you already know. I wrrite most of these points from the viewpoint of what it would be like if there were no regulations and where I would like regulations to go, nothing more.



I did once. In a different thread. Months ago. Now who's playing the victim?



Just following your lead.

My initial foray in this particulathread was a post directed at the person who claimed there was school shooting once a week in an effort to clarify where that "statistic" came from and that it was not entirely honest, even if "accurate" from a technicality standpoint. You are the one who assumed I was out to persecute gun owners and started this exchange. I just respond to you in the same tone you respond to me.



And more whining about me calling you out on it.



Dodgning what, exactly? You are complaining about things that do not apply to me in any way other than in your own imagination.



Your "toys?" And yet you still deny enjoying antagonizing others.



^Right back at you again.

Further demonstrates what I said. No changes.


What's all this gibberish about cartels? Did you even read the question?


Refused to repeat it for you.


The record indicates otherwise when you want what already exists and imply the NRA is evil. All part of the gun grabber's repertoire that I know all too well. One example was that twice now you've implied that it's legal to sell a handgun to a kid and that milk money would cover it. I don't know what other conclusion to arrive at besides utter cluelessness. You can't just explain stuff like that away.


Thankfully, I lack your delicate feelings.


If you were following my lead you wouldn't have spent several pages in several threads defending an un-defensible argument with hyperbole and misinformation and trying to spin it around out of desperation.


Based on your historic anti-gun stand on this forum.


More spinning. Gee, you must be getting dizzy.


Nice try. Well, not a nice try but a predictable one.


You're the one that insists I'm just here to f**k with people.


I'm rubber, you're glue. What bounces off me sticks to YOU.

I reckon a lever gun and revolver, both in .44, would be a pretty good combination. I know lots of people look down on the .44 Mag when next to the bigger lever and revolver cartridges (.444 Marlin/.45-70 with modern loads and .500 S&W), but I highly doubt a 300 grain hardcast .44 would really give anything up in practical terms if you can put the lead where it's needed. I'd still go after bear with my H&R single shot though if that's all I had (no bear where I live).

Oh, and on a previous post; I'd rather a .22 Short rifle if I were fighting government power (compared to an AR pattern or large caliber bolt gun). No point in conventional warfare against something you have no chance against.

The .44 mag I'd have on my person ALL the time. The 12 gauge with slugs would always be close at hand when not carried slung. Shotgun slugs are a Motherf***er at close ranges and even out to 50 yards or better. I have a couple of .44 mags (Ruger and S&W) so I'm familiar with them.


I'd want a selection to choose from to fit various scenarios.

Then who's gonna defend you? I'd rather have a cosmically small chance than none at all. And I can fight off invaders better with a .300 win mag over a .22. If you love this country you don't let it fail you or die for that matter. Put up a fight rather than submit.

First of all, I never said the NRA is evil. Ever. I feel that you have not read my words carefully, as I have said what my biggest criticism of the NRA is, not that they are evil or that is all that they do. Secondly, I am not a gun grabber. I don't want to take away your guns. Thirdly, I have never said that it was possible for a kid to buy a gun with milk money, only that it would be possible in a hypothetical world where there are no regulations in an attempt to show that some firearm laws are important to have, not that we need to pass some that already exist. But since you have already made a ridiculous number of (erroneous) assumptions about me already, I can see why you would choose to believe otherwise.



And yet you continue to cry about it.



And what exactly have you been doing? You have provided nothing of substance at any point. Nothing whatsoever. The only reason you think my opinions are indefensible is that you either ignore them or dismiss them with no basis other than something along the lines of "I say you're wrong so that proves you're wrong." So who exactly is desperate here? All I have done is respond to your mostly empty ramblings about me personally. The majority of most of these posts are not even about guns.



You still think that I am anti-gun based on your assumptions that I am some over-the-top rabid gun grabbing liberal throughout. I am not anti-gun, but I am pro-regulation. You are pro-regulation as well; you just think that there should be very, very, very few regulations, whereas I think that there should be different ones. I have been very open about the fact that I am a pro-regulation kind of guy on many issues, not just firearms. In your mind, any person who does not agree with you 100% on every single aspect of every tiny facet in all its minutiae is a liberal anti-gun nut. Have some more fun living within the narrow confines of that schema your brain has constructed for you.



Likewise.



So I'll just leave this here for you to re-read and hopefully see how baseless and pointless this particular personal attack is.



And you are the one who provides ample evidence.

To be fair, though, I don't think that that is the only reason you are here, just that it is a big component of what goes into your writing style.

I agree an assortment is always better. Unless you are low on ammo.