Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Some stuff I've been mulling over in my head.

steffen19ksteffen19k MemberPosts: 255 Member
Now, if you would be patient, forbearing and willing to forgive me, I am going to climb on my soapbox. I further ask that if you are going to drop two cents on the matter, to not use an angry tone of voice. I simply felt compelled to put some words down, and I'm going to do so in what I hope is the least offensive manner possible.

Gun Control is a real sticky situation for many people, and I am one of them, a Veteran with two tours to Iraq under my belt.

In Iraq every household was allowed one (1) AK 47 style assault rifle, and 1 magazine. Anything else was considered evidence of possible insurgency, and the excess was confiscated at a minimum. It worked pretty good over there, and for the most part, the people didn't complain about it.

On the flip side, war trophies, even if I legally purchased them, was illegal. My only thought is how much bull that is. I didn't want a mortar. I didn't want an RPG. I just wanted a Lee Enfield Mk 3* date stamped as built in 1918. So I felt **** there. I got over it, and came home, put the army behind me.

It took me years of consideration before I finally caved in and bought a Semi auto rifle. I've also put at least that much thought into simply getting my CCW. My primary motivation, for better or worse, "Get it done while its still legal."

I walk into these gun shops, and I find it annoying, if not insulting, that there are people out there who mistreat CCW & SD.

I believe. (BELIEVE, mind you) that Self Defense is 90% Situation Awareness, and my definition of situation awareness is avoiding trouble long before it gets to you. That means if you or myself have to carry concealed, then there as already been a failure at the basic nature of Self Defense. I am not going to tsk tsk you and tell you Carrying is wrong... but what are you carrying in relation to the perceived threat?

Some state CCWs do permit other weapons than firearms to be carried concealed, which means your SD answer can be better tailored to the problem.

For example... I have a 7" knife that is way more concealable than most guns I could hope to carry, can be drawn just as fast, and is capable of being just as fatal to anyone threatening my life. (Not a perfect example, but an example none the less.)

Some states also permit Tazers to be concealed, or pepper spray. Hopefully you can see the food for thought I've tried to lay out here, and not take this as yet another attempt to deny you you CCW handgun.

With all that said, I'm moving on to the other problem: Semi Automatic Rifles.

Semi Autos are seen everywhere today, and in every variation. ARs, AKs, FN, Etc... Even Shotguns are semi auto long arms now.

The Semi Auto is a very useful device.

If you hunt for a livelihood (Fur trading for spending cash, or meat on the table just to live) it permits you a very important ability to make good on a missed first round.

I absolutely feel Semi Auto Weapons should be banned for "traditional" american sport hunting. I could honestly care less about that 30 point buck rack you missed because you had to cycle the bolt; the 35 lbs of deer meat you have a craving for... you could do better farm raising venison, in more ways than one (Chronic Wasting Disease comes to mind).

If you missed that duck the taxidermist has been wanting to stuff all year because you couldn't pump the shotgun for whatever reason... too bad so sad.

If you hunt dangerous game, or Invasive Species... The Semi Auto is a good life insurance policy.

The Semi Autos first purpose, however, is for NATIONAL DEFENSE. If you woke up one morning, and found CNN Reporting an evil horde not 20 miles from your house, then the first weapon you had better be reaching for is semi auto rifle. Preferably in .30 caliber of some kind, but 12 gauge Semi would be an acceptable 2nd choice. (If 7.62 doesn't work well on body armor, 5.56 isn't going to do much better.)

Who built the Semi Auto? As long as it works with every trigger pull, and its got the wallop to drop someone 200 yards way, that's good enough.

Accuracy of the rifle? If you can put 6 out of 10 (60% ) of your rounds into a man sized target 200 yards away consistently, that's good enough. This whole dime sized patterning Sub MOA stuff is hot dogging and showing off, and it tends to lead to complacency, which is bad in a combat situation.

And those are my thoughts. Clearly, they are not perfect, and subject to change (isn't everything?) but I hope you can find something in them that you can kind of almost agree with.

Thank you for your time and consideration...


Rob.
Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again.
«1

Replies

  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    You seem to have a lot of opinions on various subjects, and that's fine, we're glad to have you share them with us. But when you advocate banning semi-automatic weapons from "traditional" American hunting, you cross a line. Banning guns here is anathema to our general ideology. Granted, modern technology such as HD trail cameras and food lures, animal calls, aircraft and such have taken the "hunt" out of hunting - for many it's more wait and shoot than anything else. Lest a tactic result in heartless cruelty, like leghold traps, far be it from me to tell hunters what their options are.

    As for self defense being 90% situational awareness, maybe so, but I carry a firearm for that 10% that is surprising and unpredictable. If you're feeling safe and comfy playing "Crocodile Dundee" with your gigantic knife, good for you.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    :popcorn: This is going to be interesting.....

    I'll come out and say it plain: "Who the hell are you to tell me what I can use to hunt with?" Just for your information, I have killed 9 deer with my 6.8 AR and used 9 rounds in the process... If you don't want to use a semi-auto for hunting...do whatever floats your boat, but don't be thinking that those of us that do are anything less than ethical hunters...

    As far as you carrying a knife instead of a handgun.... :worthy: The whole "awareness" thing is supposed to allow you to respond to threats long before they get close enough to worry about using a knife...

    Ummm...have you ever heard about Jim Zumbo?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I'm betting its going to be at least a five pager.

    more....and will have the inevitable end....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,109 Senior Member
    Actually I do agree with some things you have said.



    I will highlight them in bold and put my comments underlined in bold immediately after them.

    steffen19k wrote: »
    Now, if you would be patient, forbearing and willing to forgive me, I am going to climb on my soapbox. I further ask that if you are going to drop two cents on the matter, to not use an angry tone of voice. I simply felt compelled to put some words down, and I'm going to do so in what I hope is the least offensive manner possible.

    Gun Control is a real sticky situation for many people, and I am one of them, a Veteran with two tours to Iraq under my belt.

    In Iraq every household was allowed one (1) AK 47 style assault rifle, and 1 magazine. Anything else was considered evidence of possible insurgency, and the excess was confiscated at a minimum. It worked pretty good over there, and for the most part, the people didn't complain about it.

    On the flip side, war trophies, even if I legally purchased them, was illegal. My only thought is how much bull that is. I didn't want a mortar. I didn't want an RPG. I just wanted a Lee Enfield Mk 3* date stamped as built in 1918. Yep, Everyone should have one of them in his gun safe..... So I felt **** there. I got over it, and came home, put the army behind me.

    It took me years of consideration before I finally caved in and bought a Semi auto rifle. I've also put at least that much thought into simply getting my CCW. My primary motivation, for better or worse, "Get it done while its still legal."

    I walk into these gun shops, and I find it annoying, if not insulting, that there are people out there who mistreat CCW & SD. Any person who mistreats the ability to own or use a firearm annoys me too.
    I believe. (BELIEVE, mind you) that Self Defense is 90% Situation Awareness, and my definition of situation awareness is avoiding trouble long before it gets to you. That means if you or myself have to carry concealed, then there as already been a failure at the basic nature of Self Defense. I am not going to tsk tsk you and tell you Carrying is wrong... but what are you carrying in relation to the perceived threat?

    Some state CCWs do permit other weapons than firearms to be carried concealed, which means your SD answer can be better tailored to the problem.

    For example... I have a 7" knife that is way more concealable than most guns I could hope to carry, can be drawn just as fast, and is capable of being just as fatal to anyone threatening my life. (Not a perfect example, but an example none the less.)

    Some states also permit Tazers to be concealed, or pepper spray. Hopefully you can see the food for thought I've tried to lay out here, and not take this as yet another attempt to deny you you CCW handgun.

    With all that said, I'm moving on to the other problem: Semi Automatic Rifles.

    Semi Autos are seen everywhere today, and in every variation. ARs, AKs, FN, Etc... Even Shotguns are semi auto long arms now. Yep, I agree with this.

    The Semi Auto is a very useful device.And I most definitely agree with this.

    If you hunt for a livelihood (Fur trading for spending cash, or meat on the table just to live) it permits you a very important ability to make good on a missed first round.

    I absolutely feel Semi Auto Weapons should be banned for "traditional" american sport hunting. I could honestly care less about that 30 point buck rack you missed because you had to cycle the bolt; the 35 lbs of deer meat you have a craving for... you could do better farm raising venison, in more ways than one (Chronic Wasting Disease comes to mind).

    If you missed that duck the taxidermist has been wanting to stuff all year because you couldn't pump the shotgun for whatever reason... too bad so sad.

    If you hunt dangerous game, or Invasive Species... The Semi Auto is a good life insurance policy.

    The Semi Autos first purpose, however, is for NATIONAL DEFENSE. If you woke up one morning, and found CNN Reporting an evil horde not 20 miles from your house, then the first weapon you had better be reaching for is semi auto rifle. Preferably in .30 caliber of some kind, but 12 gauge Semi would be an acceptable 2nd choice. (If 7.62 doesn't work well on body armor, 5.56 isn't going to do much better.)

    Who built the Semi Auto? As long as it works with every trigger pull, and its got the wallop to drop someone 200 yards way, that's good enough.

    Accuracy of the rifle? If you can put 6 out of 10 (60% ) of your rounds into a man sized target 200 yards away consistently, that's good enough. This whole dime sized patterning Sub MOA stuff is hot dogging and showing off, and it tends to lead to complacency, which is bad in a combat situation.

    And those are my thoughts. Clearly, they are not perfect, Yep, I agree with this as well. and subject to change (isn't everything?) but I hope you can find something in them that you can kind of almost agree with.

    Thank you for your time and consideration...


    Rob.

    There you go.............I agreed with 5 points you raised...........make that 6............I agree that semi auto weapons should be banned for 'Traditional American hunting'..........Traditional American hunting should be done with a black powder muzzle loader. All other hunting should be done with whatever type of action you own/like/enjoy.
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    I think that the point to be made here is that, instead of concentrating on the 'tools of destruction,' you should focus your questions toward the meaning of freedom, i.e., what is freedom, who should have it, and who should decide how much of it to allow.

    A law abiding citizen will not use a semi-auto to its potential as a 'tool of destruction,' any more than he would use a knife to it's fullest potential for destruction, unless he has to, to protect himself or his loved ones. He should be entrusted with anything that a criminal can easily obtain, in order to defend against that criminal. If he doesn't need the full destructive potential of his weapon, he won't use it, but he should be free to train with it, hunt with it, or simply keep it because he likes it...because he is not a threat to his fellow citizens. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but we should not be deciding on which laws we need, based on the exceptions to the rule. Stuff happens all the time to make us question the things we believe, but we should not over-react and throw the baby out with the bath water. Freedom is a big idea, and preserving it does not come without bumps in the road.

    Always remember that the laws made by any government are for the benefit of the people who are willing to abide by them. Those who are bent on destruction are free to use any tools they can come up with, until somebody or something stops them. Punishing or restricting law-abiding citizens for what a few lunatics do is illogical, and immoral.

    And, don't forget that some wise men came to the conclusion that free men needed to be armed, in order to remain free from government tyrrany. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the proof of the need for the 2nd amendment would come when the government tried to disarm the populace. Authoritarian governments always disarm the people before they start dictating to them.
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 7,026 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »

    I absolutely feel Semi Auto Weapons should be banned for "traditional" american sport hunting.
    Rob.

    Sorry to go all cliche' on you, Rob, but the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. Honest.

    Mike
    "Walking away seems to be a lost art form."
    N454casull
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Rob,

    Lets ban bolt action rifles for traditional American hunting. Then lever actions. Hell, lets ban firearms altogether for traditional hunting.

    The Indians did it with a stick and string, and so can we. No need for any of this multi shot capability.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,708 Senior Member
    Rob:
    The fol quote is interesting, could you elaborate a bit on this one
    how walking to a shop and shopping you got this idea.
    I walk into these gun shops, and I find it annoying, if not insulting, that there are people out there who mistreat CCW & SD.

    For example do you mean mall ninja comments or what. I see mall
    ninja comments on this forum from time to time, for example, the
    " When do you pull the trigger" thread vice "When would you pull the
    trigger". The point here is using the word "do" in the title alone is fuel
    for antis even though the intent was to have a meaningful discussion
    on what if situations.
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,708 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Rob,

    Lets ban bolt action rifles for traditional American hunting. Then lever actions. Hell, lets ban firearms altogether for traditional hunting.

    The Indians did it with a stick and string, and so can we. No need for any of this multi shot capability.
    Only untill they got a gun.
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    The Semi Autos first purpose, however, is for NATIONAL DEFENSE. If you woke up one morning, and found CNN Reporting an evil horde not 20 miles from your house, then the first weapon you had better be reaching for is semi auto rifle. Preferably in .30 caliber of some kind, but 12 gauge Semi would be an acceptable 2nd choice. (If 7.62 doesn't work well on body armor, 5.56 isn't going to do much better.)

    The semi auto's first purpose is SELF (and family) DEFENSE. The evil horde 20 miles from my house will not be some foreign invader. It will be men clad in black with three capitalized yellow letters emblazoned on their backs. They will be carrying 5.56 or 7.62, likely automatic versions of what us lowly citizens are allowed to carry.

    BTW: Body armor isn't that hard to defeat.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,035 Senior Member
    A semi-auto's first purpose is National Defense?? Really? Semi-autos should be banned for "sport" hunting? Why don't you move to somewhere on another continent where you'll feel safe.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,249 Senior Member
    Well, let's get started, shall we?
    steffen19k wrote: »

    In Iraq every household was allowed one (1) AK 47 style assault rifle, and 1 magazine. Anything else was considered evidence of possible insurgency, and the excess was confiscated at a minimum. It worked pretty good over there, and for the most part, the people didn't complain about it.

    The U.S. was founded on the notion that the best way to keep the government honest was to make "insurgency" a constant possibility. Look at human history, and you'll find that governments are far more efficient at killing their citizens than any whack-job with the wrong anti-depressant prescription can ever be. Adolph Hitler wouldn't gain much ground here, because the populace has the ability to do more than just SAY "no".
    steffen19k wrote: »
    On the flip side, war trophies, even if I legally purchased them, was illegal. My only thought is how much bull that is. I didn't want a mortar. I didn't want an RPG. I just wanted a Lee Enfield Mk 3* date stamped as built in 1918. So I felt **** there. I got over it, and came home, put the army behind me.

    Yeah. . .those dishonest governments that don't trust their own people (or even their soldiers) I was just talking about? There's one sign of it for you right there.
    steffen19k wrote: »
    I believe. (BELIEVE, mind you) that Self Defense is 90% Situation Awareness, and my definition of situation awareness is avoiding trouble long before it gets to you. That means if you or myself have to carry concealed, then there as already been a failure at the basic nature of Self Defense. I am not going to tsk tsk you and tell you Carrying is wrong... but what are you carrying in relation to the perceived threat?

    Some state CCWs do permit other weapons than firearms to be carried concealed, which means your SD answer can be better tailored to the problem.

    For example... I have a 7" knife that is way more concealable than most guns I could hope to carry, can be drawn just as fast, and is capable of being just as fatal to anyone threatening my life. (Not a perfect example, but an example none the less.)

    Some states also permit Tazers to be concealed, or pepper spray. Hopefully you can see the food for thought I've tried to lay out here, and not take this as yet another attempt to deny you you CCW handgun.

    Situational awareness is a fine and dandy tool to keep in your kit of tools for staying alive, HOWEVER, predators - both animal and human - perform their trade through DEFEATING situational awareness. The deer I shot last October had no idea I was in the neighborhood, and I worked very hard for three days to ensure that was the case.

    With that concept on the table, I'll move on to your alternative means of self defense. Keeping in mind that predators are working to defeat your situational awareness, you can never be completely sure of what might be stalking you, or how many of them there are. Knives and blunt instruments generally work against something not to far outside your own physical capabilities. Tasers and pepper spray are generally functional against single attackers. Here's the problem, however - predators pick targets against which they have a perceived advantage, which can be physical or numerical. Thus far, it is really only the repeating handgun that fully addresses those issues. As the saying goes, God made man, but it was Sam Colt that made them equal.

    As to semi auto rifles, you are right that they are very useful, but you're missing a lot of the reasons as to why they are useful

    As to your thoughts on their place in "modern sport hunting", consider that we as a species got where we are today not by sending out a lone individual who carefully de-scented himself and stalked single deer. Nope. We got to the top of the food chain by surrounding herds of bison, elk, mammoths, etc. . .and chasing them over cliffs with fire. Obviously, we can't sustainably do that today, and we have fish & game regulations to ensure we are acting sustainably. As long as those regulations are adhered to, the method of take is irrelevant, and the ethics of that method of take are merely your opinion. You may consider anything more than a manually-operated firearm "cheating". Some people feel that way about hunting with any firearm. Some die-hard archers even feel that way about compound bows. Hell, I know of one anthropologist who feels that we quit living in tune with the earth and got greedy as soon as we set aside the atlatl.

    I choose not to hunt with autoloading firearms because, for my needs, I can run the manuals plenty fast enough and the autoloaders are generally a PITA to care for within a hunting setting. But what you are failing to consider is the physical capabilities of all the folks who might be hunting. People with bad wrists may not be able to run a pump or bolt. People with bad shoulders might need something that reduces recoil. We've got a lot of veterans who's issues of "bad joints" consists of the appendage not being there at all anymore. You wanna make a guy with a claw for a left hand hunt with a pump action?

    You ever try to shoot formal skeet with a pump? Even for those who are very fast with one, it usually isn't pretty.

    On the same topic of physical limitation, have you ever seen a five-foot-nothin', 98 pound female try to run an eight-pound pump shotgun that most of us would consider ideal for home defense? While some of them are real troopers who do quite well, a lot of them are a real mess - even with low-recoil ammo. There's usually too much weight in the nose and too far to reach to the forend for them to be a serious tactical player. Enter the AR-15 carbine with a skinny barrel. It wasn't designed for women and kids, but it might as well have been.

    As I indicated before, "National Defense", as this country was founded, is a matter of each honest citizen not only being able to fend off the local crackhead and keep the invading Mongol Hordes at bay, but also as a bulkhead to keep the policies of our officials within tolerable limits. This requires that the capabilities of those officials and the public stay on relatively even terms. As I said with my Hitler analogy, you need to be able to do more than just SAY "no".

    And I'm not really certain where you're going with your statements on the accuracy capabilities of rifles. On the one hand it seems like you're saying we don't need high-volume autoloaders, and on the other that we don't need precision bolt actions. Please elaborate.
    steffen19k wrote: »
    And those are my thoughts. Clearly, they are not perfect, and subject to change (isn't everything?) but I hope you can find something in them that you can kind of almost agree with.

    Thank you for your time and consideration...

    As you see, we don't agree on much, but the good news is that you have discovered the TRUE purpose of this online forum - which is for ME to fix YOUR faulty thought processes. We'll bring you around.:jester:
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Des52Des52 New Member Posts: 23 New Member
    As far as raising deer for meat that is how we got CWD in our herds around here, the pinhead raising red deer 15 miles down the road. Can you think how popular he is now. Now it is shoot every thing that looks like a deer and they will give you more tags as you go. I am a black powder shooter primarily but if I want to take one of my semi-autos out I will and you and the rest of the fudds can go pound sand.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Not being able to buy and bring home that Enfield stinks. But the military is what it is. Back when I was in the Navy in the 70s it was no problem to go into a foreign gun shop and buy a firearm and bring aboard ship. It did require a 'mother, may I' request in writing to the Captain, but that was just a clerical thing; none of the four stripers I served with ever refused. The firearms were brought to the quarterdeck, declared, and a gunners mate would be called to the quarterdeck to take possession and put it in the small arms locker until the ship returned stateside. I bought a bunch of Browning A-5 shotguns in France on two different deployments to the Mediterranean and took them home on arrival stateside.

    You gave no example(s) of mistreatment of CCW and SD you encountered in gun shops, so I have nothing to comment.

    Other means of SD are available in some places. The knife you describe may be handy and not need reloading and easily concealable, but it's range is rather limited. I ain't a big feller, but I can easily conceal my Colt Commander IWB or OWB and it has enough range to protect me from threats at greater range than a knife. And is just as easily deployed as the knife.

    In case you missed it, John Moses Browning designed the Browning A-5 in 1898 and patented it in 1900. So semiauto shotguns as a long gun are hardly a new device.

    The first semiauto rifle was the Model 85 invented by Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher in, wait for it, 1885. So semiauto rifles are also nothing new.

    The first semiauto pistol was the Schonberger-laumann Model 1892, so the semiauto pistol is not a new device, either.

    Your belief that semiauto firearms have no place in hunting is misplaced, and may be from lack of a wider experience in hunting. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Your opinions on acceptable hunting tools are yours, and welcome to them. I will not try to persuade you otherwise. On that note, respect the choices of others to use the tools for hunting that are available, legal, and suit the purpose for which they are used, and do not disparage them for doing so. That is their choice, just as you have made your choice.

    The first purpose of the semiauto rifle and shotgun in America has been for hunting; nothing more nor less. The first successful semiauto rifle for the U.S. military was the M1 Garand and it was used for hunting as soon as the rifles became available to the general public. Semiauto rifles, shotguns, and pistols do have a place in national defense, just as the Brown Bess and Kentucky and Pennsylvania flintlock rifles did at the birth of this country. I refer you to the battle of King's Mountain during the American Revolutionary War in South Carolina on the 7th October 1780.

    Now to make a simple statement. We Americans like new things. We like innovations and inventions that are new and reliable. Being a relatively new country, we are not encumbered with the baggage of the stodgy traditions and customs of older countries. If something new comes along, and it works well, we adopt it as our own, even if it got invented in some other country. And then we go about improving it to make it better, stronger, more efficient. I guess you could say we're never satisfied, and think that things can always be improved on with a little effort and thought.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 1965Jeff1965Jeff Senior Member Posts: 1,644 Senior Member
    Yikes, hunt with what you want, carry what you want- but DON'T tell me what I can shoot or carry. This is America after all, land of the free home of the brave.Thank you for your service. Someone once said 'Only accurate rifles are interesting", try one you will like it.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 21,074 Senior Member
    You're as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
    Feel free to hunt with, or not hunt with whatever you wish (as long as it's legal wherever you're hunting)
    However, IMO, it's MIGHT FREAKIN' ARROGANT to think you have the right to dictate what I, (or anyone else for that matter) "must" use.

    Let's see, last 6 or 7 deer I've killed were with AR's of different caliber, ONE required more than one shot due to it being a sickly (from being previously wounded by someone else {broken femur w/ MASSIVE infected wound}) spike that I forced a "bad" shot on through some underbrush as a "mercy killing"
    May not have needed the additional shot, but since it still had it's head up after hitting the ground, I figured one through the neck/head would end his suffering sooner
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • Virginia BoyVirginia Boy Member Posts: 213 Member
    I am 70 yrs.old, arthritic knees, wrist & elbows, and I am going to engage
    in hand to hand combat, with a much younger, stronger, quicker & more
    agile person ?
    I think not, give me a gun.
    Rights and freedoms, won with patriot's blood,
    shall not be taken away, by ink from a tyrant's pen.
  • bhl2506bhl2506 Senior Member Posts: 1,941 Senior Member
    There's not one thing that I agree with you on, well maybe the few orchidman pointed out. Other than that this thread just wasted 3

    minutes of time. Yeah I know I can just skip it and go on, but the responses to the OP made it worth while. Just remember that additudes

    like yours got us in this situtation to begin with. It makes no sense whatsoever to try and bunch together all firearms and determine

    what should or shouldn't be useful for hunting, when in acuality the 2A to the constitution does not say what the guns can and cannot

    be used for. Read it and the federalist papers then make a decision or opinion on that knowledge and not what you see or hear in the

    papers, radio and TV. Everyone is entitled to an opinion so aleast make it an educated one and not one based on emotion, beliefs or

    agendas. Do the right thing and get educated on the subject before spewing on about feelings and beliefs and agendas.
    Refusing to conform to the left wing mantra of political correctness by insisting on telling the truth does not make you a loud mouth.
  • mythaeusmythaeus Senior Member Posts: 831 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    I think that the point to be made here is that, instead of concentrating on the 'tools of destruction,' you should focus your questions toward the meaning of freedom, i.e., what is freedom, who should have it, and who should decide how much of it to allow.

    A law abiding citizen will not use a semi-auto to its potential as a 'tool of destruction,' any more than he would use a knife to it's fullest potential for destruction, unless he has to, to protect himself or his loved ones. He should be entrusted with anything that a criminal can easily obtain, in order to defend against that criminal. If he doesn't need the full destructive potential of his weapon, he won't use it, but he should be free to train with it, hunt with it, or simply keep it because he likes it...because he is not a threat to his fellow citizens. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but we should not be deciding on which laws we need, based on the exceptions to the rule. Stuff happens all the time to make us question the things we believe, but we should not over-react and throw the baby out with the bath water. Freedom is a big idea, and preserving it does not come without bumps in the road.

    Always remember that the laws made by any government are for the benefit of the people who are willing to abide by them. Those who are bent on destruction are free to use any tools they can come up with, until somebody or something stops them. Punishing or restricting law-abiding citizens for what a few lunatics do is illogical, and immoral.

    And, don't forget that some wise men came to the conclusion that free men needed to be armed, in order to remain free from government tyrrany. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the proof of the need for the 2nd amendment would come when the government tried to disarm the populace. Authoritarian governments always disarm the people before they start dictating to them.

    While I enjoyed the responses of others, this response by Bisley to me is the fundamental idea that you must be basing any of your thinking on when it comes to gun right. That means never ever let yourself fall into the belief that any restriction of a particular use/type of gun is at all fundamentally sound. You need to shift away and disregard any focus on the gun and must focus on the people/users/perpetrator, depending on the context of the discussion, and their actions.

    Al
    "In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth and have begun striving for ourselves." - Siddhartha Gautama
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    At first I seriously thought that this guy was legit and had a few good points in his first post.
    Well, I was wrong, but not the first time.
    I gave him enough rope and he hung himself.
    Bye, bye Rob
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,396 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    Accuracy of the rifle? If you can put 6 out of 10 (60% ) of your rounds into a man sized target 200 yards away consistently, that's good enough.
    Well, I believe you were in the Army, at least I know you wern't in the Corps.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,726 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    I absolutely feel Semi Auto Weapons should be banned for "traditional" american sport hunting.

    And those are my thoughts. Clearly, they are not perfect, and subject to change (isn't everything?) but I hope you can find something in them that you can kind of almost agree with.

    Not even close, as in opposite ends of the solar system, to agreeing with that statement. I don't think you will find anyone on this forum that is.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 23,967 Senior Member
    Hi, I'm Earth. Have we met?
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • mythaeusmythaeus Senior Member Posts: 831 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    At first I seriously thought that this guy was legit and had a few good points in his first post.
    Well, I was wrong, but not the first time.
    I gave him enough rope and he hung himself.
    Bye, bye Rob

    We need to realize that there are many gun owners who think like Rob for one reason or another. I'd rather that he says what he said and have people explain to him why his thoughts were off, way off in some parts, than have him keep quiet in disagreement. What I/we should hope for is to change his mind with reasons and logic then go on to educate and change the minds of others like him. Let's not be too harsh and give Rob some time to digest. He has a lot to read/understand/learn if he chooses to. What happens next is entirely up to him, but I'd give him a chance rather than shun him away altogether.

    Al
    "In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth and have begun striving for ourselves." - Siddhartha Gautama
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,708 Senior Member
    On the flip side, war trophies, even if I legally purchased them, was illegal.

    I think you were briefed on that issue before you left for the war zone or just after you got there.
    It was SOP not to be able to ship captured guns home, even when I was in Vietnam.
    Some did get home, though I don't know how it was done.
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Bye, bye Rob

    Nope...however much we may disagree with Robs thought process, it's his right to express it...it's OUR JOB to show him the flaws in his thought process....until someone does something stupid there won't be any "bye-byes" ...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    He is fully entitled to his opinion, just as I am fully entitled to not agree with them. Thank you for your service, please do not give away the rights that you and many like you fought for.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    mythaeus wrote: »
    We need to realize that there are many gun owners who think like Rob for one reason or another. I'd rather that he says what he said and have people explain to him why his thoughts were off, way off in some parts, than have him keep quiet in disagreement. What I/we should hope for is to change his mind with reasons and logic then go on to educate and change the minds of others like him. Let's not be too harsh and give Rob some time to digest. He has a lot to read/understand/learn if he chooses to. What happens next is entirely up to him, but I'd give him a chance rather than shun him away altogether.

    Al

    I agree with Al on this.

    The quote below prefaced his opinion, and if he served honorably in the military, especially in a war zone, he has the right to express it and be heard. I disagree, profoundly, with most of it, but if he put it out there honestly, knowing that it would be controversial, and if he wants to discuss it further, this is a good place to have the discussion.
    steffen19k wrote: »
    Now, if you would be patient, forbearing and willing to forgive me, I am going to climb on my soapbox. I further ask that if you are going to drop two cents on the matter, to not use an angry tone of voice. I simply felt compelled to put some words down, and I'm going to do so in what I hope is the least offensive manner possible.
  • steffen19ksteffen19k Member Posts: 255 Member
    I can accept that I have to learn, and I have made up a list of people I am going to continue this discussion with.

    For those of you who glossed over and dropped heated one-line replies, however... with an attitude like that, is it any surprise that there is such a large anti-gun movement?
    Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,621 Senior Member
    Discussion is good, I have seen a lot of folks get run off over the years that probably would have been fine forum members if they had not been torched before they reached 50 posts, I am not talking about trolls.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement