• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Guns

snakewispera snr said:
And Rich... I would love to try a shot with that 50 calibre... but cans only.... LOL
Click to expand...

It's such a waste on merely a can. Years ago a guy who works for me brought over his dad and we hauled out one of the 50s to shoot. He brought over some old cast iron weights from his weight lifting set that he had abandoned using and we shot them up. Now THAT is impressive. Seeing a 25 pound metal weight reduced to slivers with a single shot.
 
alan said:
Umm, bad quote, wrong Ted, I am not unnatural, cheap, cowardly and pathetic because I do not choose to own a firearm.
Quite the opposite. Stop on by and try me....without your weapon. You might beat me, but you won't scare me.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Reflect on why the original Colt 45 made by Sam Colt was known as "The Equalizer".
 
Rich Z said:
It's such a waste on merely a can. Years ago a guy who works for me brought over his dad and we hauled out one of the 50s to shoot. He brought over some old cast iron weights from his weight lifting set that he had abandoned using and we shot them up. Now THAT is impressive. Seeing a 25 pound metal weight reduced to slivers with a single shot.
Click to expand...

Ever shot a bag of flour with an incendiary round from the .50BMG, Rich? THAT is the definition of impressive.
KJ
 
snakewispera snr said:
Rich, if you don't mind me asking, how much does a bullet cost for the 50?....
They can't be a cheap item.
Click to expand...

When I bought most of my stock, they were around $1 per round. Of course, I also have reloading tools and components as well.

Prices are much higher now, but I bought enough a long while back that I doubt I will ever need to buy any more.
 
KJUN said:
Ever shot a bag of flour with an incendiary round from the .50BMG, Rich? THAT is the definition of impressive.
KJ
Click to expand...

No, never have. I'll put it on my list of things to do some day... :D

But I've got to be careful with incendiary rounds around here. Almost lit my woods on fire one time with them.
 
Haha! The rainy season is starting early this year! Pretty soon you probably won't have to worry about starting ANYTHING on fire if this keeps up!
 
Rich Z said:
When I bought most of my stock, they were around $1 per round. Of course, I also have reloading tools and components as well.

Prices are much higher now, but I bought enough a long while back that I doubt I will ever need to buy any more.
Click to expand...


So it's Rich Z cornsnake breeder, small third world army..... LOL
heck, large third world army.....LOL
I still can't get to grips with the fact you have a 50..... let alone 3.......
So what's the limit..... What are you guys NOT allowed to have.
Anyone got anything that fires shells...
 
Military calibers greater than .50 caliber, full autos (that weren't previously registered prior to different dates depending on the particular gun), rifles (16 in min barrel) or shotguns (18 in min barrel) less that 26" in total length, and a few picked arbitrarily by name are pretty much out OR require a $200 special tax and a crap load of extra paperwork. Explosives are generally out and/or require special licensing. This includes homemade ones like ANFO.

Handgun roads considered "armor piercing" (with a few exclusions for rifle calibers chambered for a few handguns) are generally taboo, but what is already owned can be maintained. There are some loopholes to this, but consider them generally of major circulation.
 
snakewispera snr said:
So it's Rich Z cornsnake breeder, small third world army..... LOL
heck, large third world army.....LOL
I still can't get to grips with the fact you have a 50..... let alone 3.......
So what's the limit..... What are you guys NOT allowed to have.
Anyone got anything that fires shells...
Click to expand...

Actually that is a big bone of contention here lately. Technically, the Second Amendment was put into place to keep "the people" in parity with the military power of the federal government so they can't take away the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution by force. Somewhere along the line that detail got lost in legal hair splitting and novel twisted interpretations, claiming the facts of yesteryear are obsolete and null and voided by the weapons of today. Personally, I take the position that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution means exactly what it says, just as much as the First Amendment does in relation to the differences in technology between then and now. Any small arms that the government can have, so should we, "the people", as well. Otherwise the Second Amendment is completely pointless and has been neutered by the very entity it was designed to protect us from. Certainly the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were fully aware that technological developments in the past would continue into the future concerning weapons, and they most certainly considered that as being irrelevant to the purpose of keeping the beast they were creating under the control of the states and "the people". An honest and unbiased reading and interpretation of all the relevant documents to this issue leaves no doubt about this situation.

Is this a popular view in Europe or most of the rest of the world? Probably not. But then again, the founders of the United States of America weren't trying to make this country the same as others and wanted to make the USA the one country on Earth where FREEDOM was guaranteed by law and not at the whim and fancy of the government. I believe they succeeded for a while, but underestimated the power of evil and apathy to turn that around eventually. I'm sure they never dreamed that the majority of the "representatives" (which based on voter fraud is even debatable itself) put into place by their constituents would someday not really have the best interests of this country at heart.
 
Rich, I believe that change occurred with the National Firearms Act on 1934. For those that don't know, that law was created to help keep treasury agents working following the end of prohibition. The law basically required a $200 tax on "silencers," those short long guns I described above, and full auto firearms. Remember that taxes, by law, are supposed to be revenue-generating in purpose. Now, how many $200 tax stamps do you think were sold for a $5 gun at that time? The whole thing was stupid, but the first arrest resulted in the law being repealed in a lower court. It was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the only ones to show up were the government lawyers. The defendants didn't have money, so they just skipped out. The .gov's lawyer lied saying short barrel shotguns weren't used in the military, so they weren't protected by the 2A. Nobody contested that fact, so the Supreme Court found it was constitutional since the evidence presented to them showed that those weren't used in the military. (They were, but ignore that.)

Full auto rifles were DEFINITELY used in the military, but that part of the law was never contested in court. In essence, the supreme court found that the feds could practically outlaw short shotguns because they weren't military rifles AND could outlaw full auto ones because, well, they were. What? In essence, THAT is the root of our trouble. If the defendant's lawyer would have been there to counter the lies told to the judges, this law would have almost definitely been found unconstitutional. All they would have had to do is bring a general in who issued short shotguns to his troops, and the Supreme Court would have had to rule the other way at that time.

All later major laws taking guns from us are based on that one erroneous Supreme Court decision.....all stemming from a lying dang lawyer!
 
Rich Z said:
You are missing the point. Reflect on why the original Colt 45 made by Sam Colt was known as "The Equalizer".
Click to expand...
I didn't miss the point, I just addressed only the second part of the quote. The quote also says that he thinks it is irresponsible to be incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. To what point, where do I stop? I can kick most people's butt, but if someone stands 20' away and pulls a trigger I got nothin'. Does that mean I MUST ALSO have a gun or be called irresponsible?
Just looked it up, Mr. Colt's machine was known as "the Equalizer" because it made it EASIER for someone to defend themselves against a more powerful attacker. Are you trying to say that I, and anyone else, are irresponsible by not arming ourselves if guns are readily available? Is it my responsibility to own an arsenal? Again, where do I stop? There are people out there with .50 calibre weapons and assault rifles, I can't afford to keep up with that. Or should I say that I'm incapable?

KJUN said:
I knew what you meant, but I wanted to point out the irony of saying you didn't mind being attacked by someone without weapons....lol. However, I'm not sure Ted meant JUST guns.
Click to expand...
You're right of course KJ, Ted didn't mention guns. It was used to further the gun ownership issue here so I reacted in that way. I saw it as calling me and other non-owners cowards, which it was in the context of this thread. I should have said "wrong BobbyHill", not "wrong Ted"
I certainly don't feel defenseless without a gun. For a few years in my life my "hobby" was fighting. I got away from that many years ago, but it stays with you. Still, if someone else chooses to use a gun against me it doesn't leave a lot of options. In that case it comes down either to my skills (or my luck), or stupidity on the part of the aggressor (or his bad luck). Either way I'll bet it would be exciting at the time, if I knew it afterwards or not.
I understand owning guns, I like guns for reasons I stated before in this thread. I responded to this thread because I thought support of gun-owners from a non-owner/user was a good idea.
I hate that a machine so useful and enjoyable is used to hurt or intimidate people.
I really feel it is wrong to limit private ownership because of the irresponsibility of others. It makes me angry that some of my rights and priviledges are limited (or removed completely) to compensate for people who can't handle the freedoms they're given.
I also think it would be a hell of a lot harder to find a house to rob if I wasn't sure which one was protected by a gun. Mike said in this thread that the only people in England that have guns are public officials and criminals. Makes it easier to choose a house to rob that way, doesn't it?

Rich Z said:
Seeing a 25 pound metal weight reduced to slivers with a single shot.
Click to expand...
Sweeet! That sounds (pardon please) like a blast! I love metalwork.
 
KJUN, it's refreshing in a way to see that someone else knows the facts on what got the ball rolling on gun control in the first place, and how we ended up in the mess we're in now. I live in California, arguably one of the more restrictive states in the US when it comes to gun laws. It makes me very angry that other peoples' completely misplaced sense of safety is more important to them than my freedom.
 
You will often see people try to equate Second Amendment restrictions with First Amendment limitations. The infamous "you can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater" argument. But that argument falls flat when real logic and reason is applied. If the First Amendment were restricted in the above case in the same manner that the Second Amendment has been eviscerated, then everyone upon entering a movie theater would need to have their larynx surgically removed so that they COULDN'T yell "FIRE" while in there. There would be a presumption of guilt and a preemptive removal of that possibility from those who are capable of doing so. Which is just what the gun anti-gun forces want to do concerning the Second Amendment. Remove your RIGHT to keep and bear arms completely and permanently.
 
This has turned out to be quite an enlightening debate.
I started out thinking that the gun lobby was a gung ho American thing, it turns out to be a logical progression to your way of doing things.
Obviously we (the UK) will always think guns are a macho solution to people who want to infringe on our personal space,, but I can now see that it goes a bit deeper than that.
We have a Royalty thing to protect us, (I know that means nothing, but your Government has smart bombs and nukes, so unless Rich buys those as well your +++++ as well. LOL)
Thank you for showing me the mind set that set out your path.....
PS... because i can, was always a shallow argument... LOL
Next question.....
Why did you all get guns with a new President.
And, why did you all want to carry hidden weapons because a new President took power????
 
Mr. OB doesn't like guns. He is in fact known to be anti gun. Everyone bought guns before he could change the rules.
 
Most people (including me) are pretty sure that the new President and his party will try to restrict guns as much as they possibly can. So the idea is to "git while the gittin' is good" - who knows how long they will still be available? Ammunition of certain types already seems to be in short supply.

I think people will always try to "stock up" on something if they believe it will soon be unavailable.
 
snakewispera snr said:
Why did you all get guns with a new President.
And, why did you all want to carry hidden weapons because a new President took power????
Click to expand...

Because it's harder to take something away from us once we have it. It's also a huge show of force, a huge demonstration of where the peoples' interest lies.
 
Nanci said:
Because it's harder to take something away from us once we have it. It's also a huge show of force, a huge demonstration of where the peoples' interest lies.
Click to expand...
Makes sense... I never thought of that..... Once lots do it it becomes the norm...
Your new Prez is a bit anti gun isn't he????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top