question for gunowners

[PubliusInfinitum]

Your right, I don't know a damn thing about assassination but I do know about guns and know the greatest threat to gun ownership isn't Obama but the idiots who are flippant in their ownership. Guns demand respect therefore their ownership isn't something that we should take lightly. Put guns with unlimited power in the hands of an idiot and it is not Obama but society that you need to worry about. If you want to protect your right to bear arms worry less about me, and those like me, and more about the numskull who started this thread...

The Gunny has more than adequately responded to this, but I wanted to make a distinct point with regard to this erroneous rationalization.

This member is projecting that gun owners do not recognize their responsibilities... THIS IS THE CORE OF THIS SPURIOUS ARGUMENT. It is a LIE, it is purposefully advanced to deceive... it is subterfuge and a function of evil...

I own and train in the use of numerous firearms... I carry a firearm to ensure that where an unjustified threat on my life or that of another in my presence is executed, that the means to exercise my rights and that of my neighbor are not successfully usurped. The burden of the inherent responsibility hangs on me like a wet suit every second that I am carrying my firearm. But that burden is indiscernible in comparison to the burden of failure to defend my or my neighbor’s life and property.

Any of you that have suffered a burglary, or worse, an assault well know that feeling. It tears at one's soul.

This notion that those who own and carry firearms are not something well BEYOND being 'aware of their responsibilities' is ludicrous; as is 'Part TWO' of this fallacy... "THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY TRAINED."

I was trained in the use of firearms by the US Marine Corps; I trained as a Reconnaissance Marine; I've further trained with US Army Special Forces and US Navy Seals in the use of fire arms... Now I am sure as HELL not alone, as there are tens of MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO HAD THE SAME or similar training. We were taught and we practiced the principles which justified the use of deadly force... and we did not get purged of that knowledge or those skills when we left the service; and what’s more the notion that someone is running around without the proper training or without a understanding of their responsibility IN NO WAY correlates to my means to exercise my rights needing to be usurped… to the CONTRARY… it underscores the very justification on which my ownership and use of a firearm in self defense RESTS; it demonstrates the validity of THE RIGHT ITSELF.

Which leads me to point out that in fact THERE ARE those in the culture who are not well trained and who are not aware of the principles on which their human rights rest… There are surely those in the culture that believe that 'everything is relative’ and that there are no moral absolutes and those who erroneously believe that they are entitled to the product of another man's labor, because after all, they have a need. OF COURSE THERE ARE... and they are the people who are presently bouncing off the rhetorical walls preaching mindless platitudes that begin and end with "CHANGE."

So what are we really facing here? Who are these people that don't recognize that human rights come with the heavy burden of personal responsibility? Who are those that possess fire arms with no respect for the duty inherent in that ownership? Who are these people running around demanding that they are ENTITLED TO: "SHARE THE WEALTH?" And more importantly… HOW DID THESE PEOPLE COME TO BE SO PATHETICALLY ILL-INFORMED? What vessel sailed throughout the culture teaching these insipid lies?

Peter... perhaps you'd like to answer this one, as the specious assertion is yours...

Here's a clue Peter, it's the same vessel that wants to lead us to believe that THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROTECT EACH INDIVIDUAL... it's the same vessel that is preaching the lie that it is an economic imperative to "SHARE THE WEALTH..." It's the same vessel Peter that is teaching people that THEIR NEED PRODUCES A RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER MAN'S LABOR...

Come on now, I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS ONE!

 

[PeterS]

Right. A new variation on "don't watch what I'm doing while I'm screwing you, it won't hurt a bit." You're trying to deflect to only one portion of the argument in order to justify your original statement and it ain't selling.

Sure, gun owners need to be responsible. The type of firearm they own is irrelevant. The responsible part negates it.

However, sitting and pretending people like Biden and Obama don't want to further restrict firearms ownership is just you trying to blow smoke up people's asses.

I was on left leaning board a few years back where a poster from Conservative Underground started a gun thread where he included several photos of the variants of AR 15’s he had just built. Seems innocent enough right? Wrong. The individual posted the photos and provided the specific knowledge that he could build them anytime he likes purely for the purpose of inciting. In fact he was down right giddy with the reaction he got. My response wasn’t against the guns but the numskull who inciting a violent reaction to them. It isn’t responsible to threaten and intimidate and this is what the right doesn’t seem to get. We are at war right now in Iraq for no other reason than the perception of threat. The only one screwing gun owners are gun owners themselves. If you want to retain your right to bear arms then don’t threaten society. But present yourself as a threat to society then don’t come sniveling to me about what rights you’ve caused all of us to loose.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I was on left leaning board a few years back where a poster from Conservative Underground started a gun thread where he included several photos of the variants of AR 15’s he had just built. Seems innocent enough right? Wrong. The individual posted the photos and provided the specific knowledge that he could build them anytime he likes purely for the purpose of inciting. In fact he was down right giddy with the reaction he got. My response wasn’t against the guns but the numskull who inciting a violent reaction to them. It isn’t responsible to threaten and intimidate and this is what the right doesn’t seem to get. We are at war right now in Iraq for no other reason than the perception of threat. The only one screwing gun owners are gun owners themselves. If you want to retain your right to bear arms then don’t threaten society. But present yourself as a threat to society then don’t come sniveling to me about what rights you’ve caused all of us to loose.

This entire screed is nothing more than a rationalization wherein this member projects that any discussion of Guns and gun rights is perceived by her as a THREAT.

Here's the thing about that Peter... Your perception that the talk of, ownership of or presence of Guns threatens you is a delusion created in your severely limited mind and your feelings are not relevant to the human rights of others... Which is to say you do NOT have a right to strip people of their rights because of your irrational fears.

Now be a good boy and ANSWER THE QUESTION SET ABOVE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION !

 

[Navy1960]

You know, if you placed an M-40 on a desk and set it up and walked away, the weapon is only as good as the man that is responsible for it. The weapon will sit there on that table until it's operator chooses to use it. That is where the thinking of the anti-gun lobby separates from logic. It does not matter what kind of gun, a person owns, what caliber it is, nor does it matter if it is semi-auto, or full auto. The gun becomes a weapon in the hands of it's operator, if that person is responsible and obeys the laws of the land , then the weapon is like it's operator just as responsible. If you put it in the hands if an irresponsible operator then, it would not matter if it was a .22. So the base question as to what caliber is too large, or what kind of weapon should be allowed or not allowed is a flawed question to begin with. When you start to address the real issue of those that own weapons that have no business owning them, guess what? Then you will have a safer environment for all. One note, of interest here, is that we already have laws that address this issue, but as usual you have politics involved here and people that get elected on issues that they have no clue about.

 

[GigiBowman]

There might have been a time when I'd have thought you a nutter for suggesting such a thing.

Those days are past.

Lol, want to talk about how much of that freeze-dried survivalist food we buy and store?

Just bought the greatest water purifier too

 

[GigiBowman]

Your right, I don't know a damn thing about assassination but I do know about guns and know the greatest threat to gun ownership isn't Obama but the idiots who are flippant in their ownership. Guns demand respect therefore their ownership isn't something that we should take lightly. Put guns with unlimited power in the hands of an idiot and it is not Obama but society that you need to worry about. If you want to protect your right to bear arms worry less about me, and those like me, and more about the numskull who started this thread...

Most of the idiots who own guns....didn't get them legally. They'll always own guns too....even when the American Citizens are all banned from buying them.

Has anyone noticed lately the amount of Cash-For-Guns programs spreading around or is that just in NYC? Great way to start disarming the poor.....

 

[GigiBowman]

A general breakdown of civil authority.

You know, pretty much like what we have in most of the slums of America already?

Or perhaps when people go to the ATM machine...and no money comes out like what happened in Argentina...

 

[GigiBowman]

God I love Republican Men

 

[greenpartyaz]

Everyone serious about defense and potential future problems should own at a minimum, in my opinion, the following....

A long rifle. Something that can shoot over 400 meters accurately. Preferable semi auto magazine feed, Though the 8 round clip of an M1 Garand is ok too. Bolt action if you can not get semi auto hopefully that holds at least 5 rounds.

A carbine. A shorter range rifle that generally fires a smaller caliber, designed for about 200 meters max range, shorter barrel easy to use in tighter spaces. This should be semi auto for sure. Magazine feed, try to get at least 15 round magazines for it. A few 10's are ok but you want a couple higher capacity mags if possible.

A shotgun. Pump or semi automatic. A hunting shotgun is ok but they tend to be limited in magazine capacity, though most have a removable plug. Check local laws on allowed magazine capacity as some States won't let you move about with a shotgun that holds more than 3 rounds. 12 gauge is my recommendation.

A hand gun. Semi auto is preferred but any well made weapon will work. 9mm is a good round.


If you are worried about a coming lawless period stock up a bit of ammo.

I would have around 1000 rounds for the carbine, 500 to 1000 rounds for the long Gun, 500 to a thousand rounds for the hand gun and at least several hundred rounds of double ought buck and slugs for the Shotgun.

Reloading equipment is a good idea as well.

I personally have 16 rounds of armor piercing rounds for my M1 Garand.

Plan on going out Koresh style gunny?

 

[xaxeptance449]

What is the most powerful gun I can get? or better, what is the one you think is the most likely gun to be banned if Obama wins? i want to know so I can purchase one before January.

I say this with as little malice as I can but if those are the type of questions you feel you need to ask might I suggest a water pistol?

 

[Missourian]

What is the most powerful gun I can get? or better, what is the one you think is the most likely gun to be banned if Obama wins? i want to know so I can purchase one before January.

My list agree's almost 100% with RGS in general but with a few deviations in specifics.


A 7mm magnum hunting rifle, like the Savage Arms 11 / 111. $385.21

From Wiki: The US Secret Service counter-sniper team has also deployed [the 7mm] cartridge in urban areas, in specially modified rifles, and its use out to 1,000 yards has been commonly demonstrated in competition.

Or a Remington Model 770 .30-06. Will chamber some 7.62 eastern block rounds. $352.80

A Bushmaster 223. It will chamber a Remington .223 or NATO 5.56 round. $973.99

Any reputable 9mm sidearm. I prefer the Ruger P Series. $200 - $500 depending on model.

One large caliber sidearm like a .357 revolver Taurus MODEL 66. $389.62

And a 12 gauge Mossburg 500 series. There are a slew of them to choose from.

From the pedestrian:

To the esoteric:

​

Start with the Bushmaster. It is most likely the first casualty of any Obama/Biden anti-second amendment legislation. All prices above are new retail prices. Deals are out there.

 

[sparky]

ok, i'm a gun owner

i understand the responsibilities

can anyone here inform me as to how this makes me a free man in America...?

 

[Paulie]

ok, i'm a gun owner

i understand the responsibilities

can anyone here inform me as to how this makes me a free man in America...?

It doesn't. The constitution does.

Although "free in America" doesn't mean what it used to.

 

[elvis]

I say this with as little malice as I can but if those are the type of questions you feel you need to ask might I suggest a water pistol?

no you may not. It's called the second amendment. look into it.

 

[elvis]

ok, i'm a gun owner

i understand the responsibilities

can anyone here inform me as to how this makes me a free man in America...?

the fact you are required a permit and are not allowed to have certain firearms makes you not as free as you should be.

 

[sparky]

2nd amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

what's the group's take on militia...?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

2nd amendment



what's the group's take on militia...?

Been over this numerous times, The Amendment provides 2 rights. One to "the People" and one to the "State". IN EVERY SINGLE OTHER PLACE the term "The people" is used in the Constitution it is understood it means an Individual right. Yet in the Second Amendment we are to believe it does not.

Individuals have a right protected by the Constitution to keep and bear arms. That means to own them and to carry them.

The States have a right protected by the Constitution to raise and maintain militias separate from any Federalized Militia ( the National Guard) or any Federal standing military ( the US military).

The right of the State is dependent on the right of the people to "keep and bear arms"

Once again, when the Bill of Rights was proposed and forced on the Government by the people over 180 Amendments were submitted. These were combined and cut down into 12. 10 of which were ratified.

 

[sparky]

Individuals have a right protected by the Constitution to keep and bear arms. That means to own them and to carry them.

The States have a right protected by the Constitution to raise and maintain militias separate from any Federalized Militia ( the National Guard) or any Federal standing military ( the US military).

well it's rather obvious that much ado orbits this first, and not second 'right' there Sarge....

can you give us any examples i may have missed....?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

well it's rather obvious that much ado orbits this first, and not second 'right' there Sarge....

can you give us any examples i may have missed....?

Because the States decided NOT to continue fielding Militias does not negate nor abridge the 2nd Amendment. You don't like it? Get it changed via the proper process. Have the people vote on it and get enough States to agree to change it.

My individual right is NOT dependent on a State Militia. A State Militia though is dependent on my individual right. Thus they are both protected.

My personal opinion is we should return to local militias run by City and County and overseen by the State. Militias CAN be used in law enforcement, civil unrest, natural disasters, and all the other things a body of able bodied people can be used for when needed.

 

[sparky]

Because the States decided NOT to continue fielding Militias does not negate nor abridge the 2nd Amendment. You don't like it? Get it changed via the proper process. Have the people vote on it and get enough States to agree to change it.

My individual right is NOT dependent on a State Militia. A State Militia though is dependent on my individual right. Thus they are both protected.

My personal opinion is we should return to local militias run by City and County and overseen by the State. Militias CAN be used in law enforcement, civil unrest, natural disasters, and all the other things a body of able bodied people can be used for when needed.

so your telling me that each individual state has made a consious, if not legislative decision, to forgo any state militia sarge?


each individual state feels it isn't in any way threatened by the examples you forward of civil unrest or natural disasters NO threat exists that they would require a 'well regulated Militia' for their security....?

yet 'abled body people' are what?, supposed to jump outta the woodwork 'well regulated' as needed...?

gee, i didn't see that happen with Katrina, did you?