Challenge to those in favor of more gun control.

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
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: 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: 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.

That's a fair response, but I'm inclined to believe the specifics of limitations placed on our armed forces operating in foreign theaters is more likely the reason for their poor efficacy rather than the ability of citizens to defend themselves against said forces even without adequate counter-firepower. If our warfare mandate was 'kill all foreigners' in a combat zone - civilians/innocents be damned (which it isn't) I suspect the efficacy of 'rebel' forces would be less than you're suggesting.

Granted I don't think it likely that US citizens will ever need to wage a violent insurrection against their government, so we're in the realm of conjecture about a lot of this...

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: 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?

Does anyone think it would have been wrong to remove the guns from this person after making death threats and getting expelled from school?

Let's say he didn't shoot the school up and the threats are still out there. Should the guns be taken away, at least until he can prove he is no danger?

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: 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?

a reply to: Wayfarer

would the measures you suggest be purely symbolic, or is there a valid reason for them?

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?

Limiting the rate of fire or increasing reload cycles to reduce the amount of shots that can be sent downrange before a retaliation can be presented (as both bolt action and lever action rifles do compared to an AR-15). In my above case, a 30 round clip and 2 second reload cycle has an almost zero time window for someone to assault the shooter.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

For some reason I think you could wrestle most of those beasts.
I would need Bazookas.

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: 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.

For the reason I mentioned above.

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?

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?

A physical challenge is what I'm implying. Just as with the Police 20ft rule against knife attackers, merely being able to reach the assailant and wrestle them is often enough of a window to end the attack (doubly so if its more than one person challenging the assailant).

Edit: (Missed your magazine query). I would imagine 6 round clips as the defacto max in most cases as sufficient, but thats really just off the top of my head since most revolvers fit that criteria.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I agree something needs to change, but I really want it to be something that mattes, and not just something to pacify the knee jerk reactions. If something to do with guns will make a difference, this will be the time to get it done. I just think some serious discussion on both sides needs to happen, with both sides LISTENING to the other.

a reply to: Wayfarer

My H&K .45acp has two 12 shot clips. would you propose changes to them as well, or just black rifles? (not being a dick, sincere questions)

a reply to: intrptr

I don't get the "gun free" crap..if a place is surrounded by guns it's not gun free, gun free would have to be country wide or it's meaningless.
Anyway as I have said before it's far to late to change, just quit using this "gun free " crap because it is disingenuous and makes you guys look kinda dumb.

Perhaps only use american sourced metals and wood for firearms.

Imo There is a certain mindset that comes along with many guns.

Maybe let's not emulate the military with our 2nd.

It is not the cause or source of the evil but more of a propellant of hate.