The Rabbi

People obviously believe that fewer guns=less crime because they propose and vote for it time and again. When the objections are raised as you did, the answer is more of the same, leading to total confiscation. Of course it is impractical and unrealistic to expect that. Sort of like identifying and deporting 10M people. But I digress. But, as often mentioned, gun control is less about guns and more about control. Virtually every regulatory scheme is sold as "benefitting the consumer." In fact, it benefits those who are initially regulated, like liquor wholesalers in this state. Take a look what it would take to get a taxi cab company started in Nashville. Should give you some idea. Why is it that non-sporting weapons are banned from import? The US gun companies welcomed that measure to protect against competition.

I had a Sigma .40 in the shop and took it out and shot it. It was OK. It did everything a gun ought to do, was reasonably accurate. For the price I couldnt complain at all. The mini-sigma, otoh, was the worst gun I ever owned. See the thread on guns you regret buying.

You're right. Maybe if we ignore this thread it will go away.

Actually you probably could. That thing isn't mutilated--er ported, is it?

Not bad advice. I found the P32 hard to shoot with a really lousy trigger. The only advantage to the gun is its size. Maybe price as well. After that its all downhill. I'd recommend the Polish P64 with a trigger job over the kel tec any day.

I dont know what niche that is. Law enforcement standard? There's nothing wrong with Glocks and I sell them all the time (did so yesterday in fact to a green-card alien). They are a good safe choice, like a Timex or family station wagon. But I dont see the comparison to S&W wheel guns.

A revolver isn't a gun. It's a work of art. I hear this stuff about the Glock and its nonsense. I agree that it has a barrel like a revolver, a trigger sort of like a revolver, and it shoots bullets. But that's about the only points of comparison. The trigger is in no way comparable to a revolver. This accounts for the large number of ADs with the gun compared to the revolver era. It isnt that the Glock isn't safe, it's that it is very unforgiving when people violate basic safety rules. A revolver will pack more punch into a smaller package than an auto more reliably any day. It will shoot more accurately than many semis because its barrel is pinned/screwed into the frame. It potentially will shoot faster because the shooter controls all the action in the gun. A revolver's ergonomics are worse than a semi and it takes longer to master one. So they are not really comparable at all. Both great weapons though.

I never understood this as an argument. You went through all kinds of pain, expense and hassle and now you want everyone else to have to go through it too? Pretty small-minded, if you ask me.

Give me a freakin' break. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.

This is a spin off another thread. What gun did you buy that after some time you thought "what in heck was I thinking???" For me two come to mind. The first was a Smith mini Sigma in .380 I think. Worst gun I ever owned. Jammed every 4th shot. Loud, horrible recoil, inaccurate, lousy trigger. It had no obvious take-down, even a gunsmith couldnt tell me. Only good thing was I bought it for about $100 and traded it for something else. The other was a Paraordnance 12 or 14 something or other. Double stack 1911 with LDA trigger. It sounded good at the time: 10 rounds (this was during the ban) of .45acp in a compact package. Little did I notice the gun weighed a ton fully loaded and was wide as a brick, making carry difficult to say the least. The gun came with a certificate for a 12 round "hi cap" magazine, at a cost of $98. I passed on that. Worst was when I lost a grip screw and emailed Para for a replacement. They told me they couldnt send one and I had to get it from Brownell's. $7.50 shipping on a $1.50 part. Fortunately one of the local smiths had a spare. It was a learning experience though.

I have that exact gun in the shop but DAO. I dont think I've ever regretted selling a gun. the only one, maybe, was a Colt Hammerless in .380 (you can see it on Oleg's website). But honestly I didnt have much use for the thing.

No, they have bought into the fad of thinking they need semi autos for their job. I know of no evidence that says people are better protected by the secret service because they switched from revolvers.

So that's 20M people not buying stuff, not renting or buying houses, not doing productive work that no one else is interested in but would have to be done or that co will go out of business. I'd go with massive unemployment, deep recession, and plunging tax revenues.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. As to the last question, the answer is no, there is no natural right to life that can be proven.

Gee, I carry a gun that was state of the art when it was designed in 1899, and standard Secret Service issue in 1960. It hasnt changed a lot since then nor do I see any reason to. And it works just as well now as then and is just as deadly, maybe more so with today's ammo.

People have all kinds of desires but that doesn't make them necessarily good. People have a desire for honor and self-aggrandizement but that doesnt mean giving in to those things is good.

Actually that's pretty much what you implied. No one has an instinct to procreate (ok, maybe women do). But people commonly and normally have an instinct to have sex. Once they've done it the instinct abates. So merely having an instinct for something does not legitimate it as a right, which is what you originally implied. OT: Did you hear about the new item at Fenway Park? It's called the Barney Frank. If you don't like it, you can stick it up your ass.

Tell that to Barney Frank....

You raise a good point. It is pretty much what the Nazis claimed: their actions only affected their own citizens so the rest of the world should butt out and mind their own business. WW2 settled that question. This was an issue that interested me in college: how do you prove something is immoral/wrong in the absence of appeal to divine religion? I concluded you cannot. And I became religious as a result of that.

No, it would not be a horrific violation of rights because obviously such people ceased to have rights, for whatever reason. I doubt the individual action would be moral, however, but that's another issue.

There's a natural instinct to have sex. Does that make rape a natural right?

Depends. If you are asking about my religious views then yes, life ultimately depends on the Creator. If you are asking about my political views, then no, there are no rights that stem from the Creator. In fact Hebrew has no word for rights as we understand them.

Unfortunately, appeals to Divine Will tend not to carry much water in today's political climate. Further, plenty of clergy will blab about peace and turning the other cheek, etc. That's their problem, not mine. My point is that people who want to sit around and fart about 2A and natural rights are going to find themselves with no rights, as the anti's win the debate through sheer numbers. It is an attitude thing (which is exactly my point). Go to NY or Chicago and tell people there you are an avid gun owner and shooter. They look at you like you're crazy. No sane person owns guns, only criminals. 2A? Thats for militia. etc etc. Only when society agrees on rights in general do those rights exist. So we have to keep getting out there and beating this thing about a right to self-defense and RKBA. If people believe there is such a thing, then there will be. If they don't, there won't. Its pretty simple.

Nah, it wan't no fully, it was a semi-shooter. Dude got it then 'cause he had paper.

Ive got a case of that stuff and wish someone would come and buy it.