I like guns despite their obvious flaws

Post Reply New Topic

You might not have used that word but you preach that the NRA is basically unhinged. You don't mind the anti's having their gun hater club but screech about the NRA. The true measure of an anti-gunner. To further insult yourself you want the NRA to play a part in drafting anti-gun legislation.


You cried about my "incivility" first.


You're the one that wants change. The onus is on you to justify it which after all this time you still can't.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......


Who cried first?


Now it's a "personal attack", eh?

? You want national gun registration.
? You're shamefully unaware of current laws or the history of gun legislation
? You want to target gun owners by name by mandating safety training (missing a huge and potentially effected number of people) instead of training en masse virtually anonymously.
? You want stricter controls for "assault weapons".
? You've opined ad nauseam that regulated shooting ranges are dangerously contaminated with black helicopter theorists in favor of having people clutter up the wilderness by shooting someplace off the beaten path. We've been over and over this one so don't act like you didnt say it or or your old standby "That's not what I meant".

The first four put you firmly in the anti-gun camp so you'd may as well just admit what you are.
The fifth is just plain kooky and self-insulting.

This is the gist of what all you write. Then you manufacture some offense and get all butthurt when someone disagrees as if you're entitled to your opinion and no one else can challenge it.


Yes, by countering your endless and openly expressed river of gun grabbing desires.


Raptors are nothing if not thorough.

Last edited by Raptor on 11 Aug 2014, 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

" I'd still go after bear with my H&R single shot though if that's all I had (no bear where I live)." As long as you had a backup. Too easy to loose a big animal like that with only one shot.

But what if the bear wasn't in a cage??????

What if it was a good sized grizzly or even black bear coming at you on a run???

Do you think the thought might flit through your mind that "maybe I should have done this differently?"

I live in black bear country,a single shot is not a good idea.

I don't like the gun haters (or anyone else's) screeching any more than I like yours, but so far none of them (on this site, anyway) attack my views on the issue with a complete lack of substance.



My justifications are based on opinion, which you think I am not entitled to have. Seeing as how your opinions are the basis for your arguments, I fail to see how you have the high ground here. You don't want many of the regulations currently in place (which would also be change), yet your only justification has no more factual basis than mine.



The way you narrowly define pro- and anti-gun, your reasoning is more along the lines of if it can swim and is not in the desert, it must be a duck.



So the old "you started it" argument is your only response? I'll let you cry on my shoulder some more. I don't mind.



I do. Albeit not in any of its current iterations. I have been through this with you many times and all you ever have to say is that some unspecified "they" want to take all your guns away.



How exactly would you know that? We rarely discuss current regulation (other than your inaccurate assumptions that I don't think any exist). I barely even get to discuss the regulation I'd like to see before it devolves into your flippant and dismissive responses which I return in kind.



And you want to force an entire population to be forced into firearm training whether or not they will ever even touch one rather than require training for those who will own and use them. Again, we bpoth want something (firearm education), but disagree on how far reaching they should be. Only this time you are in favor of regulation which would impact a greater number of people. So when I want limited mandatory education (for those that I think will be most affected), I'm an anti-gun liberal? What does that make you when you call for requiring it of every single person with no exceptions?



I want strict controls for all firearms, which would increase in their strictness with increases in their capabilities (which is one of many reasons I think the NRA should be heavily involved). I don't think that any firearm should come with no strings attached (other than maybe an air gun only capable of firing <150 ft/s or so).



Once again you exagerate. I did indeed say that I stopped going to ranges because there were too many of the ultra-paranoid for my taste, not that they were a majority. I am thoroughly disgusted by them and it does not take many of them to poison the water, so to speak. You are just a few steps short yourself with all your paranoid garbage about how any type of regulation must inevitably lead to full scale confiscation. I have said and will again say that I prefer to shoot in the woods by myself than go to a range. I don't see how either of those things have any relevance. It is personal preference. I grew up in the country. I learned how to shoot in the country. I hunt in the country. It isn't full of blow-hards talking just to hear themselves talk. I like it out there.

And btw, you are generally the one who brings gun ranges into these discussions, not I.



Yes, more personal insults that somehow count as valid points in your little world of the imagination. Go ahead and whine some more about how I started it and I'm so mean and that it doesn't really bother you at all, but I totally started it.



Hereis the gist of your arguments are:

If you think any firearm regulations should be different you are anti-gun.
If you want any regulation that doesn't exist you are anti-gun.
If you don't like shooting at the range you are anti-gun.
If you aren't a member of the NRA you are anti-gun.
If you have any views that even remotely liberal (by my definition) you are anti-gun.
If you think that guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands you are anti-gun.
If I don't like you you are anti-gun.
Despite the fact that the NRA has a database with your name and address already (and I'm fairly certain that means the government could easily get their hands on it), any form of registration whatsoever will definitely lead to the government knowing my name and taking my gun away.
I don't think guns should be regulated, but they already are, but they shouldn't be, but I don't have to justify my opinions and you do because you want change, but I want less regulations but I don't have to justify anything.
I think extremely dangerous weapons should be regulated, but I will stay vague about it and only include WMDs when it comes to specifics.

Did I miss anything?



Once again you use words equally applicable to yourself.



And exactly at what point have I advocated firearm confiscation?

But I guess that doesn't fit in with your wacky worldview of "conservative or liberal and nothing in between," does it?

rather have my ar in 5.56 . the whole no chance against the government is a silly lie.

sonofghandi, you seem to support a lot of the same things the anti gun people do, this is why you come off as anti gun like it or not.


I would repeal the NFA laws of 1968. I don't think short barrel guns should require a tag stamp, a 15" rifle isn't any more deadly then a 16" one. its just a way of making money and yet the money isn't put towards improving the system. it takes way to long to get a tag stamp for a SBR, though now you can just do a ar pistol iwth a "Pistol brace"

$200 was a lot back in 1920s but now its nothing. I think new full autos should be allowed to be made, I am borderline on continuing the tag stamp/background check for them, but people should be able to get new ones. all this law does is drive up the price of a gun that should be $1000 to $16,000. though its not ilegal to make more the atf doesn't approve them. needs fixed.

a simi automatic rifle isn't a "assault weapon" or "weapon of war" the m1 garands he targeted were but aren't now.

More crying about attacks. Lord, I?m glad I was depussified at an early age.


So by that rational I guess if someone wanted to they could voice the opinion that all anti-gunners should be rounded up and imprisoned in political re-education camps as a "freedom protection" measure. Hey, what?s the harm in a mere opinion? If no one has to justify their opinion you'd be ?attacking? them with any rebuttal or request for rationalization.
What?s good for the goose?..


It?s not an a la carte menu. You?re in for the whole meal or you?re not.


You wish.


There you go again. What current ?iterations?? There IS no national gun registration aside from NFA weapons, not that you know what NFA stands for without me telling you or looking it up. ?Iteration? isn?t even the right word.


You demonstrate your lack of basic knowledge each time but I?ve already been over this several times.


Okay, by your logic there should be no fire safety training in schools since not everyone is going to be a fireman. Yeah, that?s real smart. Tell me again how I?m supposed to be all sweet and supportive of this kind of "logic" and not knock holes in it.


You want the NRA, an organization that by your description is full of paranoid yahoos, to be a party to f*****g its members. Yeah, I guess you do think they?re all dumb yahoos. You?re in dire need for some new material.


And you?re telling this to an RO of all people. Surely if this were true I?d know it.
And you can always tell these ersatz shooting ranges because that?s where I did most of my shooting as a kid. Trash strewn about full of bullet holes to include not just soda cans but old appliances, busted bottles all over the place for animals to cut their paws on, typically an abandoned stolen car shot full of holes, toxic waste, over the top unsafe gun handling with the resultant occasional accident, stupid people to include the black helicopter types. This is in more than one state that I?m talking about.
The fact that you?d support this over the obviously better alternatives speaks volumes.
If I had to guess I?d say that you got tossed off of a range or two when you tried to lecture an RO on how your idea of safety trumped the rules.
?Hey, put that gun down while the range is cold!?
?But I can handle lit it if it?s not loaded, though.?
?No, you put it down NOW and step back away from it!?
?You don?t know how to run a shooting range. you're just on a power trip!?
?Alright, pack up and leave and don?t ever come back.?

Happens often enough and there are often butthurt words or hollow little threats muttered in parting.
But here again I'm not up on a soapbox about people shooting in off the beaten path makeshift ranges.


That was probably when I qualified some of my knowledge and experience being an RO.


More spinning things around and manufacturing offense. Do you ever get tired of touting the same things?


Again, you?re the one that wants the changes, not I so it falls back on you to provide rationale.
Hint: ?I want?, ?I think?, ?this is how they do it in Eastern Slobovia?, and last but not least ?because you're a troll? aren't rationalizations.


Who shed the first tear and called who uncivil?


The ultimate goal of gun controllers is disarmament. Go figure.


Diving into the liberal vs. conservative diatribe, eh?.

Well, I think this little row has gone on long enough so I?m going to put on the big boy hat end my part in it since it is going nowhere.

I'm kind of the same belief for most AR's, especially the M4 type. I wouldn't mind having an AR-10 in .308 set up as a sniper rifle, though.
I've never heard of any AR in .300 win mag. I think Bushmaster makes some kind of AR inspired sniper rifle in .338 Lapua, though.

Heh, I don't know why everyone who argues the whole "insurrection" thing misses this point; it wouldn't be a conventional battlefield, it would be an insurgency, which means small quiet weapons employed against policemen, politicians, etc, and not big loud weapons in pitched battles vs soldiers.

Me.

Though .22 Long Rifle would be better than Short, as you have a much larger selection of ammunition and very reliable killing power with a head shot (Shorts can be kinda iffy past 75 yards with some deflection; people move their heads a lot). Also, you can quietly take out cameras, computers, disable cars, and other soft materiel (plus police dogs). You can also store a lot of ammunition. Assassination and disruption are the words you want here.

.300 Win Mag is too noisy and with too much muzzle flash, for too little gain. Sure, you can take out a soldier here and there (even from 800 yards+ if you're good), but the odds of you surviving dramatically go down the larger your footprint is.

The point of insurrection is to pick and choose your fights, going with the easiest targets that offer the maximum return with little in the way of risk (comparatively speaking).

Sure, you can have your "fighting" rifle for the times when it's needed, but you aren't going to rely on it against a government. You also don't want to be in a situation where you need to rely on it, as you're probably already lost.

With saying all that, sabotage is the word you should think of. Demolitions. Flooding. Fires. Power outages. IEDs. Car bombs.

By the time it gets conventional, you'll be given all the weapons you want by whichever side you're on.

If you're a good shot you don't need a big rifle to take down a bear. I know a few people who have taken down bears around here, and none of them used anything as large as a .44 mag. That said, 12 gauge shotguns are pretty common here, but I think they're used more for birds than for larger game.

i've heard too many bad things about ar's in 308 due to the DI system. nope if i'm going for 308 I want a scar17 or at least a piston gun.

I do support some things that anti-gun people support.

But I am not against people owning firearms; I just think they should be regulated. And before Raptor jumps in and says that I don't know anything because they already are, I know that regulations are in place.

As for the '68 NFA laws, I wholly agree that they are poorly written and poorly implemented. Hence part of my personal belief that all existing legislation should be reviewed and revised (the irrelevant and ineffective portions removed with realistic portional aspects included). The arbitrary definitaions in most gun legislation were defined by people who have never held any type of firearm, which is why we need experienced people. This is why I think the NRA should be involved; otherwise it will happen at the hands of people who don't know anything about it.

Like it or not, eventually an incident so drastic will occur that gun legislation is going to get ram-rodded through congress, whether you like it or not. If things stay the way they are, then people a whole lot more anti-gun than me are going to be the ones writing every single word of it.

Amusing, considering how much you've been crying about my words to you.



So no one should be allowed to have opinions because some of them are the wrong ones? My beliefs and opinions are the basis for my rationalizations, same as you.



BS. This does not apply to anything that does not involve scientific fact and data analysis (and not even always in those cases).



We've been through this before, but since you have a selective memory, I'll say it again. I don't think that any of the proposed legislation involving registration is ecven remotely realistic or usable. That is what I mean by iterations. But you go ahead and make some more gross assumptions and over-simplifications.



If by over it several times you mean that when I say I support something that already exists you assume I don't know that it exists, then yes, we've been over this several times.



Selective memory again. I have said several times in this thread alone that I would not be opposed to firearm education in the school. I have also stated that I would much rather see it implemented for those who are actually going to be pulling a trigger. Yet another case where the disagreement between us is based on where lines are drawn. But in this case, you are the one who wnats something more far reaching.



I have never said they were dumb. I have many many times said they should be involved because they are knowledgable. The overly paranoid aspect of the organization is just my biggest criticism. I have other criticisms as well. They kow-tow to their most extreme members, they collect huge amounts of money from companies that want to completely destroy the types of habitat that I would much prefer to use for hunting, They absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the majority of gun owners (by which I mean non-members) by saying that they have the interests of all gun owners as their primary concern, and they refuse to speak to anyone who is in favor of any type of regulation, rule, ordinance, or recommendation by anyone other than themselves.

That being said, they do a whole lot of good things. They provide some top notch training (although I would prefer they spent more money promoting that than on buying DC politicians and sending garbage to people who let their membership lapse a decade ago), they are well aware of the fact that our nation will always have firearms and violent crime, they protect those who shoot recreationally or competitively extremely well, they know that firearms can be a vital component of self defense, they provide oversight for current gun registration (although there seems to be no accountability whatsoever in this regard), and they protect the commercial interests of those who manufacture, distrubute, and sell guns.

I just wish people would realize that this is the US and not anywhere else in the world. Guns are too big a part of our culture to be confiscated. Every attempt at confiscation in this country has led to MORE laws that STRENGTHEN gun rights and make confiscation even more unlikely. I just hate that the NRA uses scare tactics as a marketing tool. I think safety should be their primary message (seeing as how it is actually their primary mission).



Assume much. Your condescension provides zero support to your arguments. When have I ever questioned your abilities as an RO? When have I ever called out your range specifically? Your assumptions about my experiences are piss-poor. But I guess your mental picture of me prevents you from believing that I could be a responsible gun owner who is not a carbon copy of you.



I don't go to makeshift ranges, either. They are even worse, in my experience. Why do I have to hang out with other people when I shoot? All I'm doing is sighting in my rifle or actually hunting (for the most part). I don't feel the need to be around anyone else to get the job done.



And dismissing my experiences as invalid because I am not?



More spinning things around and manufacturing offense. Do you ever get tired of touting the same things?



Again, you want changes as well. Your rationale consists of nothing any more concrete. I have never rationalized anything by saying that this is how other places do it. That approach does not work in our unique nation.

And you continue to whine about me "calling you a troll," while insulting me as a response to my opinions.



And yet you continue to whine about it while doing the exact same thing



Yes, more of the for me or against me garbage. So if someone supports any form of background checks, or agrees with any existing legislation, or thinks we should have stricter laws on distribution (considering the massive amount of US made weapons end up in Central America), then they are just out to steal your guns?

Seeing as how there are some regulations that you actually support, does that mean your ultimate goal is also disarmament?



That seems to be where you argue everything from.



You are the one who engaged me this go around and that I have only been responding to your posts and nothing more. As I said toward the beginning of this current exchange, if you want to go through all this again, I'm game.

I was thinking more along the lines of a bear attack, more specifically the grizzly or Alaskan brown bear which tend to be bigger and more aggressive than the black bear. If an attack does occur it's going to be quick and at close range where I'd want big chunks of lead that could be delivered quickly.

Both of my AR's are 5.56 and have the traditional DI system. I have no intention of switching them to piston driven because that platform has existed since the 50's in one form or another without a piston so I fail to see the rationale for changing it now. Having said that, I don't have very much experience with that platform in .308 except for shooting other people's rifles which I didnt have to clean. The type of powder used is a factor since ball powders tend to foul more than stick powders. I wouldn't want a belt fed MG that uses direct impingement, given the volume of rounds it would see, but I have no qualms about a semi-auto rifle or carbine that uses that system. I wouldn't mind having a SCAR but can't see myself buying one in the foreseeable future.