guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
That Venezuelan guy REALLY didn't want his car stolen. You can tell because he shot the guy twice while he was running away, just incase he was gonna come back and try it again.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
without a gun he was just another victim.....
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Poor idea. A waste of resources for the average civilian in my opinion. Level IIIa body armor of the type typically worn by police will only defeat standard handgun rounds and shotgun pellets. Your average deer rifle...even Grandpa Joe's old lever action 30-30 that was made back in the late 1800's... will punch right through it. Body armor is heavy, uncomfortable, very expensive, and does nothing to protect the head or other areas of the body. If I have time during an emergency to locate and put on body armor, I have time to access a better weapon, call 911, and take cover in a more defensible position instead.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I don't have a problem shopping with or being around people who open carry holstered handguns.
I do have a problem shopping with or being around people who open carry slung rifles in restaurants or in front of schools simply to make a political statement. In addition to scaring the hell out of people and forcing me to either leave or keep a constant eye on them, they create a safety hazard every time they want to sit down and lean the rifle up against a table or in a corner. It is very difficult to handle a rifle in a crowd without inadvertently sweeping someone with the muzzle end, and leaning the rifle up against something creates issues with weapon retention, theft, and the possibility of the rifle hitting the ground and discharging a chambered round. A holstered handgun is a defensive weapon, whereas a slung rifle is an offensive weapon and there are very few situations where the public carry of a slung rifle is either appropriate or necessary.
I have on a few occasions open-carried hunting rifles into cafes and stores in small rural towns during hunting season and no one even gave me a second look. I was quite obviously a hunter, in a hunting community, who was simply walking down from the woods to get a sandwich and some coffee. In that situation, I had a legitimate reason to be carrying a rifle and I was in a place where the sight of hunting rifles was commonplace and routine. Malls and schools will never be places where the sight of an openly carried rifle will be considered "routine".
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
What will your insurance do for your wife and daughter after the bad guy has had his way with them for a few hours at gunpoint?
Not everything in life can be made right simply by cutting somebody a check.
ooo, that's evil
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Look at what is happening in New York and California with their magazine capacity and microstamping laws. In NY, several million otherwise law-abiding gun owners woke up one morning to find that their state legislators had, in a secret late night vote, made the 10 round magazines that they had owned for years illegal. The "new" limit is now 7 rounds....but once the gun manufacturers retool and set up production and distribution in order to meet the new limit, who is to say that it wont be reduced again? This isnt silly and it isnt just a "nuisance"...the practical effect of this law will ultimately be to make the sale of any semi automatic gun in New York cost prohibitive. Same deal in California with its microstamping law; rather than waste millions of dollars trying to implement the useless and gimmicky technology, the manufacturers will simply stop selling there altogether (as some have already done) and once the anti-gunners have succeeded in that goal then what will stop them from using the same tactic to go after "assault" revolvers that hold 6 rounds and demanding that their capacity be reduced down to 4 or 3?
Its called creeping incrementalism, the frog that slowly boils to death in a pot of water while the temperature gets increased by one "reasonable. common sense" degree at a time. Our so-called "rights" might still be intact...on paper at least...but once our nanny-state government has made it impossible for us to actually exercise those rights then they are no longer worth the paper they are written on.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Holstered or slung over their shoulder makes no difference to me.
I was in the military. I am used to everyone having a weapon slung over their shoulder. And believe me, those weren't hunting rifles I was seeing.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Those who won't bother to protect themselves are at the mercy of those that will bother. Good luck waiting for the police. My 2 experiences with 911 were both failures on their part.
My 2 year old woke up at 3am one morning gasping for air. I called 911 while my wife dealt with my son. For 4 minutes the phone just rang, knowing the ER was about 8 minutes away, I hung up, and we drove to the ER. About 2 minutes after we arrive at the ER, my son starts breathing normally. We have him checked out anyways while we where there. We get home around 4:30am.
At 5:10am there is a pounding at our front door. I run downstairs, look through the peep hole and see 2 police officers semi hiding around a pilor on my front porch.
Is this what you expect to happen when you call 911?
A 2 hour 10 minute response time.
So vote them out. The people of California and New York have that power. It's a state's rights issue. For now, they have determined that the people who passed the law in the dead of night are to be their leaders. That can change.
We don't live in "One America" with respect to guns. Her in Illinois we don't even live in one state. What would be perfectly benign in Champaign Illinois or Effingham Illinois would be an absolute nightmare in the inner city of Chicago.
It isn't suffering though any more than when the state determined talking on cell phones was illegal while driving. Did they infringe upon free speech? Probably not. They restricted "time, place, and manner" but they did make my $400 Windows phone fairly useless for 75% of the day. Suffering? No, not really.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Thanks.
That's not what I said. Reread my post. I said that the constitution doesn't restrict gun ownership.
Let's look at the reason that we have a second amendment.-26577
Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.
728ups
All Trash No Trailer
if it makes you happy,carry on
again i dont feel the need for insults or threats against other posters as one here certainly does.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
What threat are you talking about there?
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Perfect use of a gun for SELF DEFENSE.
BRAVO.
And the Constitution also does not say that there can be no restriction on gun ownership. It only says that gun ownership is a right and the government therefore cannot outlaw that ownership. That leaves a wide and powerful area for the government to regulate constitutionally even if all it does is make some constituents feel better.
what makes you think we're trying to change your mind? Just don't go spreading false claims about rights that the Supreme Court says you don't really have. People citing the Constitution need to understand who has final say in who has what rights.
Saw a video of bank robbers in a shootout wearing body armor. Looked pretty effective to me. But defensive measures aren't as cool, are they? Defending the homeland doesn't have the same flare as invading countries.
Similar threads
