You are just some dumb kid. My opinion has nothing to do with being honest. Now go pester someone else who cares what you think :loser:
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
You are just some dumb kid. My opinion has nothing to do with being honest. Now go pester someone else who cares what you think :loser:
It's dishonest, it's the feeling they have, like it's OK to be wrong in this select case, because it will only advance their gun-grabbing agenda, which makes it dishonest and deceitful and duplicitous. Assault rifles are the standard issue weapons distributed to warriors in all the world's armies. They are all selective-fire weapons, and selective-fire weapons are virtually impossible for Americans to bear, because they are virtually impossible to keep, because you need a special federal permit, you need thousands of dollars of discretionary money, and you need to find one for sale; and you're limited to assault rifles that were manufactured before 1987, so the newest assault rifles that civilians can keep and bear, are 30 years old today, and they're only getting older. A semiautomatic weapon is not an assault rifle. It is not an "assault weapon" either, that term being compounded dishonesty, lie-upon-lie.
This isn't true. It doesn't make them look dishonest to the people who listen to them. To you and I, yep, dishonest. But we're not who we need to worry about, we need to think about how it seems to people who don't know guns, and whose ears are being tickled, especially when mired in the terror evoked by the terrorists who keep committing acts of terror against us, promoting emotional kneejerk reactions, like banning bumpstocks, like how the terrorist wanted us to do all along. They only look dishonest to us, who gun-grabbers don't listen to anyway. When we say it's dishonest, we get glazed looks.
It's not self-defeating, for leftist Democrats, who are saying that "assault rifles" should be outlawed. That they already are, is beside the point, these wicked people are only interested in bringing the European and British misanthropic anti-RKBA policies to America, and being deceitful is completely on the table. For them, stripping us naked of our innate civil and human right to keep and bear arms, is such a morally superior end, that they'll happily use dishonest and lying and duplicitous tactics with zero bothering done to their conscience.
It's not like that at all. Nobody ever talks about those things. Ever.
"Assault rifles" and "assault weapons" and "semiautomatic" and "military style weapons?" Yes, those make the round in the news cycles.
:wave2:
Have you ever shot a .375 H&H? Do you even know what it is? Ha ha, have you ever hunted in Africa? I have done it all.
You are a crazy old woman. Have you ever fired a howitzer, or an M-2? Calling a one-trigger-pull-one-round-fired weapon an assault rifle is calling WWII's venerable M-1 an assault rifle, and closer to calling a Ford a Toyota, than it is calling a three-and-three-quarter-triple-H-less-one an elephant gun."
YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS, RATHER ARGUING SEMANTICS.
Now, have you ever shot a .416 Remington? How does one make a .300 Jarrett round, would you use a 8mm Rem magnum case, then what?
My interest in rifles is real hunting big game, not silly fantasies and war guns and shooting people. Most of you young punks have not shot anything bigger than a deer and for most of you a 270 Win is the big gun.
How many big bears have you shot? i do not mean little yogi black bears taken with 35 Remington, I mean the big bears where 35 Whelen is workable, some say maybe slightly light, as most like the .338 win mag, and some use a .375 H&H.
Have you ever shot a nuclear bomb? Have you ever shot a cap gun? Have you ever shot a compound bow? Have you ever shot a picture, with a Konica Minolta SLR?
The RKBA is the innate human and civil right to own and to carry standard issue military weapons, that is, ASSAULT RIFLES.
I am not saying the RKBA is not a good group :dunce:
I am saying you are not a big game hunter, you just simply are not! You have no idea what a ,375 Whelen improved is, or who first made it and where to get the custom dies. powder. You do not know its parent case ( hint spring 30-06) while the .375 H&H is a full length magnum case, much more You do not know much about guns and what you do know is from reading military mags.
You know what a Browning BAR is? i had several and my favorite was in 35 Whelen, second would be the good old 30-06. BLR would be a .308 Win
How many deer have you shot? Two, maybe five? I have taken over 100 deer!
I'm truly gladdened to know you've killed that many creatures. The Second Amendment, the RKBA, has nothing to do with hunting, even for food and not sport.
I know that. But for real self defense, all you need is a Glock, or whatever brand you like and a shotgun. If ten or more people are attacking you, then it must be far away and wartime. In that case give me a true sniper rifle and I could get then all before they got close. Yet this is fantasy thinking, in reality a Glock in the hands of a top shooter would do just fine.
I have a Glock 30 and older model Glock 17, along with an S&W 629.
I'm not asking you to reveal your personal defense protocols. Glocks are a standard issue military side arm, and assault rifles and selective fire carbines are also, even for close quarters like inside buildings and houses, because if you have to start firing, that's what you want to be firing, not a Glock. Standard issue military small arms are the arms that human beings have a right to possess and carry around.
Let me know when you have to go house to house killing the bad guys. In most real cases, a Glock will take on any real trouble.
You still do not know the difference between a Swift A frame and Nosler partisan bullet.
Here , read this "I have a bit of a different opinion. I love Nosler partition bullets. They are very accurate in my rifle and have killed a lot of game for me over the years. However, because of how they are designed to function they are not a dangerous game bullet. The swift a frame will perform much much much better for bear defense than a Nosler partition. If you don't like the a frames another great option is the trophy bonded bear claw bullet. I have shot Cape buffalo, bear, bison and other big critters with these bullets and had absolutely no problems and no bullet fragmentation or failure to fully expand. "
Now, if you wanted to know more you would have to ASK ME NICELY
Typical leftist position. Just so YOU know.
I'm sincerely happy for you. The hobbyist in me loves the idea of a rifle round powerful enough that the rifle itself needs to weigh a lot more in order that you don't injure your shoulder. Have you ever tried a 50 BMG bolt gun? Without a muzzle break, so you feel the full brunt of the recoil? Would you say that's comparable to what an "elephant gun" feels like?
No on BMG, the biggest I have shot full load are .416 and some lighter loads .458, as my size has limits on the real big rounds like 378 weatherby magnum and larger. These are more like super bragging numbers and will do there best on elephant, which I have never shot.
I'm going to tell you this one time then leave it alone. If you were around those hunting camps up in Alaska and in Africa, those men might beat you up for being too liberal, that is how hard core conservative they were. This was also in the 1970s when hunting was open in Africa.
It's a delicate balance between this misanthropic culture we live in, and our lives in Christ's love. We have to love even if the culture hates love. Love is not forfeiting your right to defend yourself, that is self hatred, and that is what the terrorists want us to do to ourselves, because self hatred is the worst fate you can inflict on your enemy, if you can't kill him. Terrorists have us hating ourselves fiercely right now, and we should love more, by abolishing some of the already existing infringements upon our RKBA.
I am probably with you more than you realise. What you are missing out is what is conservative today is far different than what was conservative in those days. Even mentioning Apartheid, as a wrong, would have got you beat up, not to mention killing elephants or lions.
I could have some reversion to killing some big game being female (woman brain), but a male age 40 in 1970, you would be a liberal, and there is no way not to be.
You see, what you consider as liberal about me is only my lack of knowing the current issues and how they are political.
look up some of those rounds I mentioned; at one time we had a major rifle collection, and yes, it was mainly my husbands. He was super conservative but would have wrapped an AK 47, used for hunting, around a kids' neck, believe me, he hated it and was no liberal. He did not see gun defense as much of an issue.
We think from the standpoint of different times. That is all of it.
I would love to be a libertarian, but libertarianism leads to leftism, and conservatism does not. So the seeds of leftism are sown in libertarianism.
Federalism is opposed to libertarianism but not to leftism. Leftism wants federalism if it can rise to federalist power.
The terrorism that prompts us to infringe upon our civil RKBA began no later than during Prohibition, it was the gangsters who operated like mercenary armies and who used fully automatic weapons, which were available to anybody who wanted one back then.
The Black Panthers terrorized California into denying themselves the freedom to carry guns publicly. No more long guns, and handguns had to be concealed. Concealing a weapon used to be considered a crime, and now it was required, if you wanted to carry or bear an arm, because of terrorism.
I will.
In times of peace, we really shouldn't. The only reason we're looking at it is because of terrorism, so we're not really in a time of peace right now.
The whole rest of world got to strict gun laws because of terrorism, just like here. It's the wisdom of our founders to carve the Second Amendment into the Constitution that's been part of the reason why we're the last holdout to the leftist reactionary global collapse to terrorism wrt unjust laws that infringe the human and civil RKBA.
So that's essentially what the status quo side has to work with. Demonize the effort/messenger, touch upon the right to bear just about any weapon as being tied to a civil, human right to do it.
Meanwhile, do we want to reduce the likelihood that we'll die because someone exercising Nihilo's notion has a very different agenda? If the answer to that is yes, then something has to change.
But what? A few ideas have been suggested.
Idea one: put more guns in the hands of good guys.
And on some level that feels right to a lot of us with good intentions and familiarity with how to handle a weapon effectively. But it's a horrible idea. Why? Because without the mandatory safety training most of the people who believe in idea also oppose for weapons, you're actually making the world and your street a more dangerous place.
Many studies, like ones by Kellerman and others, including those supported by fairly prominent and widely respected groups like the CDC, have told us that increased numbers of guns actually made the people who owned them more likely to die violently. The reasons for this are less well defined, but include an increase in suicides, accidental shootings and, more speculatively, the answer that people who feel more secure may then take more risks than those who are a bit more nervous.
The NRA response was to attack the CDC and anyone promoting that sort of information as "junk science" while seeing to it that elements of Congress they've bought (I noted the remarkable amount of money they funnel into Congress previously) inserted a rider into future CDC funding prohibiting their advocating gun control of any sort.
Idea two: ban guns altogether in terms of private ownership. Okay, that would work, but it runs afoul of our rights and presupposes that the cost/benefit analysis rationally leads to this point of severity. And it would work a hardship on legitimate hunters, whose typical weapons aren't and largely haven't been a part of the problem.
Idea three: look at models that support the right to own firearms while making the safe ownership of them possible within a larger structure of law that significantly reduces the likelihood of an abuse of the right to harm others, especially the sort of harm found in mass shootings, both in terms of injury and fatality as well as in the psychological damage that radiates out from it, the impediment of the quiet enjoyment of our property and person.
To accomplish that we should look at real world, active experiments in how to strike that balance that preserves the right, but with sufficient restrictions to minimize the abuse. And fortunately those experiments and results are within easy reach. They're found in every Western democracy doing a remarkably better job at preserving lives through universal and intelligently motivated gun laws.