The Rabbi

There's a general principle that "bad cases make bad laws." This is a good example of that principle.

I dont think that is correct.

States dont have the power to secede. That was settled by a little dispute we had c.1860-1865.

The gun is chambered for a black powder cartridge. Black powder is a lot less powerful than the smokeless in use today. If you were to load a modern cartridge in that, you would likely blow the gun up. Yes, I take it the gun was manufactured in the 1870s. You need a modern revolver capable of handling modern loads.

I submitted this to my friend who has forgotten more about obscure European weapons than anyone on this forum, me included. Here is his reply:

It doesnt happen easily nor should it. That's one of the penalties of being a felon. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Besides, isn't defense more a function of mindset than equipment anyway?

Convicted felons can already apply to have their rights restored. No one is prohibiting them from defending their homes. They just cant do it with guns.

Right, I didnt mean a legal requirement. I think people ought to be able to buy and carry guns with very minimal restrictions. I meant as a recommended skill level for someone.

Let me clarify: A guy comes to you. He doesn't really know anything about guns and he isnt into shooting, doesnt have the time, etc. But he feels like he needs one for protection. He wants you to teach him everything he needs to know so he will be safe either at home or on the street. So what skills do you aim for? (I am assuming the basic rules of gun handling were already covered.)

Just because I like to stir the pot: What are the minimal skills someone ought to have to go armed or even have a gun at home? My own list is: -Ability to get all shots on an 8" pie plate at 20 feet (that's actually an NRA standard) -Ability to load and unload the gun without looking at it. -Ability to clear a malfunction in a timely manner. -Ability to manipulate all controls (e.g. safety, slide release) under pressure. -Ability to fire from retention.

No way. "Romanov" would be indicated with a P, the cyrillic character for R. This looks like "Royal", meaning from the royal armory, i.e. made for British troops. The Webley type hammer and funny device on the side further suggest some British make.

Defintely look like British proof markings. I would need my Blue Book to check them out. I have a box of 32-20 in the shop. It is not something you will find just anywhere. I would bet Reloaders Bench in Mt Juliet also has some.

That was my very next thought....

The hammer is a Webley type hammer. THis could be anything, maybe a Spanish copy of something else. As for ammo, when you say "too big" do you mean too long or too wide? If too long then try .32 S&W (short). If too wide then try 32-20.

I want to see this at the next IDPA match.

How about a Saiga 12ga with the 20 round drum mag? I really wish folks would schedule matches for Sundays some time so those of us (OK, me) unable to compete on Saturdays could still shoot. Sounds like a ton of fun.

You obviously weren't paying attention when I wrote that the US recently deported illegals for the fourth and fifth time. To Nigeria. You want to pay the airfare, go right ahead. As for voting, what people on this board will vote for is irrelevant. Someone might want to ask JD Haynesworth how deportation of illegals worked in his campaign.

-1 on the Kel-Tecs. I know I know, everyone who has one swears he can shoot 2 inch groups at 50 yards and the gun will feed rusty bolts reliably. Maybe. My experience was bad. I couldnt hit anything reliably more than 8 feet away and the gun broke on more than one occasion and had feed problems. It seems people either get good ones and love 'em or bad ones and hate 'em. If carry weight isnt an issue I would recommend a Rossi in .357 or .38 or one of the Armscorp .38s. They arent the nicest guns in the universe but will work reliably and if the gun gets seized for whatever reason or lost you won't cry over it.

In this great country of ours you can arrest anyone for anything. After an extensive and expensive trial and possible appeals you might be vindicated. You might even get a formal apology from the police chief. It aint worth it to me.

People propose more and more absurd situations and insist you have train for them because "you never know." Of course said situation maybe happened once. But thats enough, because you never know. And yeah at a certain point you just say "if it came to that I'd be dead anyway."

Besides, what would you do if you were in that situation trying to break out of prison and didnt have a belt?

Whether to get it or not will depend on lots of things. The cost of the insurance being one. I learned a great truth some time ago: insurance is there to pick up risks that you cannot afford to take yourself. So for me, a $5,000 medical bill will not push me into bankruptcy. I can afford to pay it. So my medical deductible starts at $5k. Similarly I tend not to get the extended warranties etc that everyone offers. Here, how likely is it that a) you'll be involved in a self-defense shooting at all, you will damage something or someone that you will be responsible for, 3) That the damages will be enormous in nature? Given that for me personally the answer to #1 is pretty darn unlikely, #2 even less so, and #3 so-so, I will be unlikely to take the insurance unless it is really cheap.

You didnt read the article. That is exactly the point. People will not vote for a candidate running on the "stop all illegal immigration" platform. The record of those who did isn't encouraging. This is why I posted this: regardless of your feelings on it, if the GOP candidates hope to win in '08 they had better formulate something better than "close the border, ship 'em home." The Dems have gun control, a small vocal minority pushing them to do something that will lose them voters at the polls. Immigration is the GOP's version of this.

I am told the 1911 was specifically designed so it could be racked by catching the rear sight on the edge of the belt and pushing down. Me, I clear malfunctions by pulling the trigger again.

As someone once wrote: So why is that good for you, but not good for someone else? No one is talking about open borders (whatever that means). Unemployment rates: Illegal immigration has had no effect on unemployment. So the argument they are "taking jobs from Americans" is hogwash. But they are doing something, right? Not every one of them is sitting at home sponging off Uncle Sugar. And if they are working then they are solving problems, specifically low labor participation rates in certain industries, especially agriculture, hospitality, and construction. Without them those industries would either die altogether or outsource to another country.