-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
100%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Everything posted by 9teeneleven
-
Did you actually read it? If you read ALL 6 parts, you will see that he comes around by the end. I found it to be a good comprehensive discussion of the problems that many of these PT1911s have, what causes them, AND how if you happen to get one that has feeding problems, how to remedy it fairly inexpensively. There are 6 parts
-
I am fairly well decided that I too am going the Taurus 1911 route. Here was a write up that helped me make that decision. http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2009/02/bb-works-it-out-part-6-taurus-pt-1911.html
-
Is it possible to turn on the search function for 3 letter searches. There are certainly a lot of gun related terms that are 3 letters that are hard to search for right now. PSL, USP, UZI, 9mm, SVD, SVT, etc.
-
I've been jonesing for one lately too. I've been checking them out a bit; I ended up buying a USP, but still find myself wanting one badly. May have to make a drive to Winchester and chase down that rumor.
-
Friends don't shoot friends so that their wife will let them have guns.
-
No, but I did expect a modicum of decency. Also, I didn't realize that being a "gun owner" meant that you had to unequivocally support ALL gun ownership. Does this mean I have to give my guns up? I also assumed that discuss meant discuss. Clearly it doesn't.
-
I am happy to answer, I just have at this point, at least 5 separate people asking questions, and at least 8 people personally insulting me simply because I had the audacity not to produce the correct response to the thread, i.e. GRRRR, posture, posture, posture, GRRR some more. If you look back over the thread, I fail to see how I am the one who deserved to be banned, when clearly the forum rules state that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Clearly, that rule only applied for certain people. I am leaving the thread, not because I am unwilling to try and answer anyone's post, but because frankly it is a waste of my time to sit here are get insults and rude comments hurled at me. I don't want to get into a pissing match. I was genuinely under the impression that when the forum title stated that this is a place to "discuss legal and political issues specifically regarding the Right To Keep and Bear Arms" it actually meant discuss. My bad. I was mistaken, and don't want to be a part of such a forum. There are plenty of places I can go and be around rude people, apparently this is one of them, so why do it on my free time.
-
OK, and on that note, I am done. Clearly, no one here likes to do anything but preach to the choir. Carry on. Sorry for the interruption.
-
The second amendment does not say anything about firearms, it says arms. Arms (from the OED)- I. pl. Defensive and offensive outfit for war, things used in fighting.
-
It is not. But, good luck converting a Remington 700 to auto. But, this actually brings up a good point, which contradicts something I said a moment ago, which is if people are going to convert an AR-15 it is a matter of law enforcement, not the inherent quality of the weapon as sold. Let's perhaps put this into a context. Consider North Mexico in its current state. Would that situation be different if the majority of the people were armed? The bad guys are certainly getting a large percentage of their arms legally in the U.S. in border states. The drug cartels also appear to be outgunning the Mexican government. Again, I really find the personal attacks offensive. I am simply trying to have a conversation about this issue. I have also openly admitted that it is an issue that I am not fully decided on, and also am very open to new positions. 10 years ago, I would not have considered owning any guns. I came here because I find enjoyment in the activity of shooting and collecting guns, and believe that there is value in an armed populace, and as such, wanted to engage in friendly conversations regarding guns, and the issues surrounding them. Nowhere in any of my posts did I present a combative attitude, yet I have received nothing by bad vibes, attitude, and direct attacks on my character and intellect in return.
-
Sorry, AR-15, you know what I meant.
-
This is an area I am happy to be educated in, but, in part, it seems there is a problem with defining AW. I think a semi-auto M16 or UZI are probably about as good a door stop as they are a semi-auto weapon. There are better tools for the job. Unless, they are being converted. These weapons were designed as far as I understand it, because research on the battle field showed that accuracy of individual bullets were overrated, and because most situations, particularly urban ones, dictated that the range of a traditional rifle was rarely utilized. So, as was pointed out earlier, the issue is at least in part one of collateral damage. An UZI is not a precision tool. However, in addition to collateral damage (which I don't find the most compelling part of the argument), there is the question of overall benefit/nuance. Weapons can protect the free state, but they can also undermine it. The traditional response to this is a) that we shouldn't restrict lawful gun owners on account of unlawful ones. To paraphrase, "when AWs are illegal, only criminals have AWs." However, this is not an issue of the gun ban itself, but an issue of law enforcement. A law is not unjust simply because it is difficult to enforce.
-
"And, yes, there was obvious irony between those two statements " You have failed to explain this irony.
-
I really don't understand the vitriol here. Well, I do, but that is beside the point. Can we not have a civil discussion. I am not entrenched in any position, and to be honest, there are many other issues that I have given far more intellectual attention to that this. As such, I am far from decided in this issue, though it seems like so many here are resistant to even engage any ideas that are not congruent with their own without including personal attacks. I am not an idiot, and find such comments to be both offensive, and counterproductive to any meaningful conversation. I enjoy bouncing topics back and forth in a civil manner, and will happily play devil's advocate for a position I am not particularly attached to. If at the end of the day I am convinced that position is not best, then I have gained two things, 1) a better position, and 2) a better defense for it because I understand the counter arguments better. That said, there is simply no irony or contradiction in those two statements. There is a clear difference between a statement of definition and scope (the first), and a statement of cause and effect (which a slippery slope fallacy deals with). See you at the range.
-
I'm happy to engage these questions, but need you to clarify them a little first. Can you please clarify "what evidence is there showing leniency in firearms during a ban?". I don't understand specifically what you are asking. Also, which non-AW Clinton ban items are you referring to? However, I think I can address this one right away without an answer. Defining anything is not universal. As such, any definition of "assault weapon" is imperfect (just as there will never be agreement between individuals as to what the scope of the second amendment should be). What I trust in is that the American system of government recognizes that all laws by necessity contain definitions that are imperfect, and as a result are in this way (and in others) also necessarily imperfect. As a product of the constitution (which itself is changeable), no American law, no matter what the wording is unchangeable. I have nowhere in this thread tied myself to this specific list, or said that I think a ban on assault weapons as currently defined is a good idea. What I have said is that if implemented, I would accept it, mostly because I think that a line should be drawn somewhere, and would accept if it were drawn where it is currently proposed. What we as a society (not just as individuals) need to decide is where that line should be drawn (that is how a democracy works, so on a side note, it is problematic to simply say government, or Obama is proposing to ban assault weapons when these are democratically elected officials, serving in large part as extensions of the American populace. If you question the ability of average American citizens to make decisions then, not only are you undermining your own argument regarding the right to bear arms and the individual choice it entails, but also the democratic institution that is the United States). The problem I have is two fold. First, I do not support a blanket ban on weapons that is decided based on cloudy terminology like "assault rifle." The second problem I have is that I firmly believe that the second amendment is not all inclusive. Partly, this is a grammatical issue. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is an introductory clause modifying everything the comes after it. It is also notable to look at the nouns in the second amendment. With the exception of the word "arms," all the nouns are inclusive, and only make reference to the individual and the individual right as part of and relative to a larger group:"militia," "State," "People." I see no mention of individual protection, or individual rights there at all. There are clear differences between arms, sometimes not of category, but of degree and effect. The second amendment makes such distinctions by virtue of the weapon's effect of the society as a whole, i.e. its success or failure in defending the free state (note again, there is no mention of defending the individual).
-
I agree that we can distinguish between categories of weapons. However, by doing so, you are undermining your first statement. There is no mention of aiming or collateral damage in the second amendment.
-
If I should be banned for simply presenting an argument you do not agree with, then I welcome it. I prefer forums where people are banned for calling people idiots without warrant.
-
I never said that I think we should ban assault weapons; I said I don't have a problem if, as a society, we decide to. Most of the guns on that list are a blast to shoot; hence, my SVD comment. There is simply no evidence to support that statement. If, after banning assault weapons, the U.S. government tried to ban hunting shotguns, a) that would be a separate argument with reasoning and appeal separate from the issue of an assault rifle ban, and I would not support such legislation, or any legislator proposing it. It is lazy logic to simply suggest that one piece of legislation will invariably lead to another as a defense against the initial legislation. I don't understand this all or nothing approach. Should any citizen be allowed to own a weapon that deploys sarin gas? If you think the answer is no, then you support some forms of restrictions on the second amendment. Why? I see a clear use for assault weapons. Actually a variety of uses, many of which do not involve mowing down crowds of people. However, I also recognize that the negatives of some uses, in my opinion, outweigh the positives of others.
-
A fair point. However, it is notable to point out that this line of reasoning recognizes the legitimacy of terrorism as a political tool, and recognizes that terrorists come armed not only with weapons, but a list of political grievances.
-
Banned (two n's) for an opinion (I do, however, love your avatar)? I was kind of hoping that TGO is an inclusive and welcoming place when I signed up. I am honestly not trying to troll, or stir the pot, but as a gun owner (who owns some of the things on that list), I happen to agree with some forms of gun control and was simply stating such. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. I, for one, don't have a problem if, as a society, we draw that line at assault weapons. The one great thing about our constitution is that nothing is ever set in stone either. It has always been necessary in a democratic state to balance individual rights with collective rights. To use a hyperbolic example, certainly you would concede that the second amendment should not provide any U.S. citizen with the right to own nuclear weapons? "That will satisfy them for a few months or years,then they will come for the rest of the guns." This is a classic case of the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.
-
I see the list; I see a list of links at the bottom of the page; However, I see no source for this "list," but nor would I have much of a problem with seeing any of the guns on that list unavailable (Edit: I would miss the SVD). In this day and age, you are not going to outgun the U.S. government no matter what the gun laws are, so the revolution argument is out the window. Would you be able to more than adequately defend yourself without the guns on that list? I think so.
-
Bit of a waste of time, and certainly of $10. Not much, and certainly no deals today.