It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.
We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.
originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
But yet, we have throw backs to the middle ages running around in sandals defending themselves against our soldiers every day overseas. Technology can only take you so far.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.
We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.
Completely reasonable (thought I would imagine the subset of the US population that lives in areas where attacks by 'boars,mountain lions, and rattlesnakes is pretty low), and something I believe is covered in my previous posts statement regarding what I feel are legitimate uses for firearms (hunting).
Not to derail, but would you mind sharing some experiences of having to defend yourself from those animals? That sounds both utterly terrifying and wild and my imagination is going crazy over the thought of you in the wilderness a-la Jurassic Park.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.
We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.
Completely reasonable (thought I would imagine the subset of the US population that lives in areas where attacks by 'boars,mountain lions, and rattlesnakes is pretty low), and something I believe is covered in my previous posts statement regarding what I feel are legitimate uses for firearms (hunting).
Not to derail, but would you mind sharing some experiences of having to defend yourself from those animals? That sounds both utterly terrifying and wild and my imagination is going crazy over the thought of you in the wilderness a-la Jurassic Park.
Its not.
Half our population is rural. Mountain Lions, bears, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are found on the majority of our landmass.
I've shot 2 coyotes, maybe half dozen bobcats, dozens of feral hogs, and dozens of rattlers. On my property (i.e., not hunting) i've shot half dozen hogs and a dozen or so rattlers.
Found a rattler once underneath the sink. It was small, and we killed it with a meat mallet. The problem with rattlers is if you don't kill them quick, the dogs will try. Then you have a sick dog to deal with.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.
We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.
Completely reasonable (thought I would imagine the subset of the US population that lives in areas where attacks by 'boars,mountain lions, and rattlesnakes is pretty low), and something I believe is covered in my previous posts statement regarding what I feel are legitimate uses for firearms (hunting).
Not to derail, but would you mind sharing some experiences of having to defend yourself from those animals? That sounds both utterly terrifying and wild and my imagination is going crazy over the thought of you in the wilderness a-la Jurassic Park.
Its not.
Half our population is rural. Mountain Lions, bears, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are found on the majority of our landmass.
I've shot 2 coyotes, maybe half dozen bobcats, dozens of feral hogs, and dozens of rattlers. On my property (i.e., not hunting) i've shot half dozen hogs and a dozen or so rattlers.
Found a rattler once underneath the sink. It was small, and we killed it with a meat mallet. The problem with rattlers is if you don't kill them quick, the dogs will try. Then you have a sick dog to deal with.
Do you think you'd require anything heartier than a bolt-action rifle to accomplish those kills though? Where any of the situations out of surprise that you had to make use of a hand-gun or something beefier?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.
We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.
Completely reasonable (thought I would imagine the subset of the US population that lives in areas where attacks by 'boars,mountain lions, and rattlesnakes is pretty low), and something I believe is covered in my previous posts statement regarding what I feel are legitimate uses for firearms (hunting).
Not to derail, but would you mind sharing some experiences of having to defend yourself from those animals? That sounds both utterly terrifying and wild and my imagination is going crazy over the thought of you in the wilderness a-la Jurassic Park.
Its not.
Half our population is rural. Mountain Lions, bears, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are found on the majority of our landmass.
I've shot 2 coyotes, maybe half dozen bobcats, dozens of feral hogs, and dozens of rattlers. On my property (i.e., not hunting) i've shot half dozen hogs and a dozen or so rattlers.
Found a rattler once underneath the sink. It was small, and we killed it with a meat mallet. The problem with rattlers is if you don't kill them quick, the dogs will try. Then you have a sick dog to deal with.
Do you think you'd require anything heartier than a bolt-action rifle to accomplish those kills though? Where any of the situations out of surprise that you had to make use of a hand-gun or something beefier?
Its better to have and not want than to need and not have.
I only own bolt action and lever action rifles. But the recent rumblings have had me pricing some AR's. I've used an AR while hog hunting, and its super effective (i can usually drop 3 before the pack scatters).
For rattlers, the best thing there is is The Judge. A revolver that accepts .45 and .410 shotgun shells. Essentially, its a legal sawed off .410 shotgun.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Wayfarer
would the measures you suggest be purely symbolic, or is there a valid reason for them?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.
We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.
Completely reasonable (thought I would imagine the subset of the US population that lives in areas where attacks by 'boars,mountain lions, and rattlesnakes is pretty low), and something I believe is covered in my previous posts statement regarding what I feel are legitimate uses for firearms (hunting).
Not to derail, but would you mind sharing some experiences of having to defend yourself from those animals? That sounds both utterly terrifying and wild and my imagination is going crazy over the thought of you in the wilderness a-la Jurassic Park.
Its not.
Half our population is rural. Mountain Lions, bears, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are found on the majority of our landmass.
I've shot 2 coyotes, maybe half dozen bobcats, dozens of feral hogs, and dozens of rattlers. On my property (i.e., not hunting) i've shot half dozen hogs and a dozen or so rattlers.
Found a rattler once underneath the sink. It was small, and we killed it with a meat mallet. The problem with rattlers is if you don't kill them quick, the dogs will try. Then you have a sick dog to deal with.
Do you think you'd require anything heartier than a bolt-action rifle to accomplish those kills though? Where any of the situations out of surprise that you had to make use of a hand-gun or something beefier?
Its better to have and not want than to need and not have.
I only own bolt action and lever action rifles. But the recent rumblings have had me pricing some AR's. I've used an AR while hog hunting, and its super effective (i can usually drop 3 before the pack scatters).
For rattlers, the best thing there is is The Judge. A revolver that accepts .45 and .410 shotgun shells. Essentially, its a legal sawed off .410 shotgun.
Desire for one notwithstanding, would you have an issue with severely restricting/limiting the sale of high capacity semi-automatic rifles as a midway point in the gun control debate (even though it may be the superior hog hunting tool) since you've mentioned you've made do with bolt/lever action rifles up to now without ill effect?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.
Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.
Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".
Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).
I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.
No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.
We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.
Completely reasonable (thought I would imagine the subset of the US population that lives in areas where attacks by 'boars,mountain lions, and rattlesnakes is pretty low), and something I believe is covered in my previous posts statement regarding what I feel are legitimate uses for firearms (hunting).
Not to derail, but would you mind sharing some experiences of having to defend yourself from those animals? That sounds both utterly terrifying and wild and my imagination is going crazy over the thought of you in the wilderness a-la Jurassic Park.
Its not.
Half our population is rural. Mountain Lions, bears, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are found on the majority of our landmass.
I've shot 2 coyotes, maybe half dozen bobcats, dozens of feral hogs, and dozens of rattlers. On my property (i.e., not hunting) i've shot half dozen hogs and a dozen or so rattlers.
Found a rattler once underneath the sink. It was small, and we killed it with a meat mallet. The problem with rattlers is if you don't kill them quick, the dogs will try. Then you have a sick dog to deal with.
Do you think you'd require anything heartier than a bolt-action rifle to accomplish those kills though? Where any of the situations out of surprise that you had to make use of a hand-gun or something beefier?
Its better to have and not want than to need and not have.
I only own bolt action and lever action rifles. But the recent rumblings have had me pricing some AR's. I've used an AR while hog hunting, and its super effective (i can usually drop 3 before the pack scatters).
For rattlers, the best thing there is is The Judge. A revolver that accepts .45 and .410 shotgun shells. Essentially, its a legal sawed off .410 shotgun.
Desire for one notwithstanding, would you have an issue with severely restricting/limiting the sale of high capacity semi-automatic rifles as a midway point in the gun control debate (even though it may be the superior hog hunting tool) since you've mentioned you've made do with bolt/lever action rifles up to now without ill effect?
For what? What is the benefit? If its to make people feel better...no.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Wayfarer
I get the mechanics, but what size magazines are you proposing, and why?
I ask due to the gun free zone issue. If a shooter is in a gun free zone, who is going to challenge him while he reloads?