chopinbloc
Member
i think i have a new signature line.
let's sum it up for those slow of mind and quick of "feeling."
training = good
government interference in basic human rights = bad
any questions?
CPL w/o training? i think its crazy
- Thread starter UWstudent
- Start date
- Status
i think i have a new signature line.
let's sum it up for those slow of mind and quick of "feeling."
training = good
government interference in basic human rights = bad
any questions?
smince
Member.
benEzra said:
Sorry, but his comment bothered me more than anything else in this thread.
I must be the only one
Last edited:
Herself said:
I guess you could call me a gun-grabber. I'm trying to grab as many for myself as I can. Here's a list of what I've bought in the past three years. Some I liked well enough to buy multiple copies.
Make Model (Caliber)
Springfield Armory Model 1911-A1
Colt Peacemaker .22
Ruger KMK-512
Smith & Wesson Model 18-2
Colt New Frontier
Colt Frontier Scout
Ceska Zbrojovka CZ 75 B (9mm)
Ruger KMK-512 (.22LR)
Springfield Armory PX9608 (1911A1 .45ACP)
Ceska Zbrojovka CZ 75 B (9mm)
Smith & Wesson Model 686 (.38/.357)
Ruger MK-512 (.22LR)
Smith & Wesson Model 5906 (9mm)
Smith & Wesson Model 18-3 (.22LR)
Colt Cowboy (.45 Colt)
Ruger MK-4 (.22LR)
Winchester Model 37 (12 gauge)
Smith & Wesson 17-8 (.22LR)
Smith & Wesson 18-3 (.22LR)
Colt Frontier Scout (.22LR)
Smith & Wesson 22A (.22LR)
Smith & Wesson 15-6 (.38spl)
Smith & Wesson 39-2 (9mm)
Smith & Wesson 622 (.22LR)
Ruger 22/45 (.22LR)
Smith & Wesson 745 (.45acp)
Smith & Wesson 5906 (9mm)
Colt New Frontier (.22LR)
Smith & Wesson 617 (.22LR)
Smith & Wesson Model 63 (.22LR)
Henry Model H001 (.22LR)
Colt New Frontier (.22LR)
Colt Cowboy (.45 Colt)
Now I'm going to really make some enemies here.
I'd like to see every potential firearm purchaser required to submit not only to a criminal background check, but also to a written exam and a proficiency test, or show proof that they have completed an NRA gun safety program or received firearms training in the military. Once they'd met these requirements they'd be issued a Firearms Owners Identification Card. The card would be issued by any FFL holder or NRA certified instructor with no copies or list kept by any governmental organization. The card would be renewed every five years simply with a new background check. While the card is valid the holder can purchase as many firearms as they like without having to submit to a background check or waiting period each time.
Herself said:
Sorry, but these are meaningless as they include persons not licensed to carry. The only comparison that would be valid for this argument would be to compare CWP holders who received training with those who did not. You would also have to limit the comparisons to state by state since the training requirements vary widely. It certainly wouldn't be valid to compare CWP holders in Florida where training is minimal to CWP holders in Tennessee where they're required to qualify on a range.
NineseveN
member
jtward01 said:
I don't believe you, show us a pic of all of them in one photo, spread out on your kitchen floor.
Most gunnies don't use the full names or long form product numbers (CZ is fine, Smith, S&W, product and/or long-form model numbers?). The only time I have seen this done is when some silly anti tries to fit in somehere and starts talking about their Heckler and Kosh they have at home on the nightstand. I could be wrong, and if I am, I will apologize, but your statements here severely detract from the notion that you are truly a firearms owner, and everything you have said in this last post completely obliterates any notion that you understand the Second Amendment, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or anything that this site stands for. I don't think you have the right forum and you are certainly no friend to the Second Amendment or gun owners.
NineseveN said:
I keep a list of all my firearms purchases and sales, complete with the dealer's name, address and such, and the serial number of the firearm. I deleted the dealer info and serial numbers from the list before I posted it, but that's why it's in the format it is in.
Never said I still have all those guns, just that I bought them. Some were traded for others on the list, many were sold to pay medical bills.
Here's a photo of my current SA 1911, customized by Robar.
This is my unfired Colt Peacemaker .22, one of only six to leave the factory with a nickle finish.
NineseveN
member
jtward01 said:
Fair enough, I still have a hard time grasping it, but you know, as I said I would, I apologize.
However, if you are truly a firearms owner, you're worse than a true anti... everything you said in that post completely obliterates any notion that you understand the Second Amendment, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or anything that this site stands for. A firearms owner you may be, but you are certainly no friend to the Second Amendment or gun owners.
How one can own firearms yet wish to circumvent the Constitution and deny others the very same rights they feel free to exercise is beyond me, and I find such things contemptible above most anything else. These types are the most despicable form of gunowners. If you want others to be removed of their rights, perhaps you should give up yours.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
????
The consensus of everyone who knows her, including my wife. Nor does it take a great deal of intelligence to formulate an opinion based on the criteria I'd apply to someone I'm not related to, and come to a conclusion that I'm reasonably sure would approximate the results of a Zogby poll on the topic. Good grief, is the concept of an objective opinion that difficult to grasp? And, FWIW, does my wife's opinion that my sister is attractive mean that my wife is sexually attracted to my sister??? Good grief, back up and take what I said at face value.
smince, if you would please re-read my post. I paraphrased the guy I was replying to, to say that based on his criteria, he'd vastly underestimate my sister as a shooter, i.e. "don't assume a woman doesn't know how to shoot just because she is petite, athletic looking, and wears expensive clothing." I dare say most competent female shooters do NOT wear Mossy Oak/baseball caps/ bib overalls out in public...
NineseveN
member
benEzra said:????
The consensus of everyone who knows her, including my wife. Nor does it take a great deal of intelligence to formulate an opinion based on the criteria I'd apply to someone I'm not related to, and come to a conclusion that I'm reasonably sure would approximate the results of a Zogby poll on the topic. Good grief, is the concept of an objective opinion that difficult to grasp?
I paraphrased the guy I was replying to, to say that based on his criteria, he'd vastly underestimate my sister as a shooter. Sheesh.
I just thought you were from West Virginia and left it at that.
jtward01 said:
For the same reason, I feel that these numbers are even more valid for this discussion. Not to mention they're probably the only numbers we're able to acquire.
The numbers display an average between those who have permits, those who do not have permits, those who have training, and those who do not have training.
Since the numbers represent "gun deaths per 100,000" it's also safe to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the numbers also reflect those persons who actually tried to use their firearm in a malicious way (i.e., criminals who murder). The numbers are very acceptable, especially when considering this.
So with in those low numbers, we have Rob Leatham types, casual shooter types, clueless pink-wearing bimbo types controlled robotically by their possessive boyfriends, and criminals actually trying to kill.
10.29 firearms deaths with all intents, per 100,000, all across the nation, across all ethnicities and social scales... that's not freakin' bad.
Remove criminals and CCW holders with training... and you really think the numbers will prove a point for you? I think they'll go down.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,715
yeah...
I don't believe you either.
Post a picture of your sister!
and her phone number...
I don't believe you either.
Post a picture of your sister!
and her phone number...
NineseveN said:
I am an NRA member, had my first real gun at age seven (a Steven's Favorite .22 rifle), took my first deer at age 12, first elk at 16. Decided I really don't like to hunt much (too much walking and waiting, and try hauling 700 pounds of elk six miles to the nearest road sometimes) and preferred target shooting with handguns. Have owned everything from an RG .22 "Saturday Night Special" that was given to me when I was 16 by the father of a friend to a S&W Model 745 IPSC competition model.
That said, I do believe it is too easy to purchase a gun in this country. No, I'm not worried about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We have plenty of laws on the books now that if they were enforced and meaningful sentences handed down would solve most of that problem. I'm more concerned with the legal but irresponsible firearms owner who goes out and runs through a couple boxes of shells while knocking back a six-pack of Budweiser, or the jewelry shop owner who buys a gun for protection from robbers but doesn't get any training and the first time he's called upon to use that gun sprays and prays, endangering customers, employees and people walking down the sidewalk in front of his shop.
Every law abiding American should be allowed to own as many guns as he or she wants, including fully automatic weapons (if they can afford the ammo
) but with that ownership comes a great responsibility. Passing a written exam on firearms laws and safety procedures, and a proficiency test on the range shouldn't be too much to ask of someone wanting to take on that responsibility.Yeah, I know it's not in keeping with the Second Amendment. But as I said earlier, the founding fathers never envisioned the kind of urban society that we have now, where most people grow up having never handled a firearm of any sort. They expected firearms safety and proficiency to be taught from father to son. Restricting where and how guns can be carried is nothing new. Wyatt Earp convinced the Tombstone town council to pass an ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in most of the town (particularly the area of town where the saloons, gambling houses and brothels were located).
thumbody
Member
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is SO hard to understand?
smince
Member.
Both my sisters are very pretty, but even with all the Alabama jokes aside, I'd still have trouble referring to my own sister as "hot".
thumbody said:
Nothing. I understand it perfectly well. It's just too bad they phrased it that way. Too bad they didn't write it "the right to bear arms safely and skillfully shall not be infringed."
If you interpret the amendment strictly then even gang bangers and the insane should be able to walk into any gun shop and buy a full auto MP-5, no questions asked. Is that what you would like to see happen? Oh, and just what constitutes "arms." Are pipe bombs arms? Surely a few of them set with trip wires around the perimeter of your property would be good for personal defense. Why stop there? What about claymores? A few of those would be great on the Fourth of July, wouldn't they? Where do you draw the line?
To the original question - the criminologists have studied this. IIRC - Lott or Kleck (too lazy to look it up) did not find differences between training and nontraining states on various measures of trouble with their ccw types.
I also am of the opinion that people who don't use "I" but use 'i' in written missives should not be able to carry as if they cannot use the standard style rules, they will make bad firearms usage decisions.
Finally, no good looking women should be near guns as it drives the gun geeks insane. Read some of the books by female shooters for hilarious descriptions about how gun boys try to 'instruct' them at the range.
I also am of the opinion that people who don't use "I" but use 'i' in written missives should not be able to carry as if they cannot use the standard style rules, they will make bad firearms usage decisions.
Finally, no good looking women should be near guns as it drives the gun geeks insane. Read some of the books by female shooters for hilarious descriptions about how gun boys try to 'instruct' them at the range.
thumbody
Member
The gang bangers already get them, they don't care about laws.The ones you have to worrry about aren't going to get a permit.They don't get them from stores, they don't go through instant checks and they don't give a rats rearend about waiting periods! The only people affected by gun control laws are the ones least likely to commit a crime!
But for some reason people who feel that they are so much more intelligent than most of us commoners feel that they have to do SOMETHING to make the world a better place. Even if it is coming up with a solution for a problem that does't exist.
But for some reason people who feel that they are so much more intelligent than most of us commoners feel that they have to do SOMETHING to make the world a better place. Even if it is coming up with a solution for a problem that does't exist.
smince
Member.
The term "People" in the Constitution means just that: Everyone. Just as it does in the other Ammendments. Or do you have a re-writing of those, too?
If you interpret the Ammendment strictly, we probably should all have an M16/M4, as it is the current weapon of our Armed forces.
Next you will tell us "well-regulated militia" means the National Guard.
If gangbangers or mentally challenged individuals get weapons, that is a State concern, not Federal (10th Ammendment).
And if interested, Alabama has no training requirement for CCW either.
thumbody said:
Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with keeping guns away from criminals. On that I agree with every point you make. I'm concerned with making certain that the people who legally carry guns have the knowledge and proficiency to use that gun safely and effectively while minimizing the danger to themselves, their family and innocent bystanders.
USMCRotrHed
Member
smince said:
That is a good idea. It is my opinion that the 2nd Amendment was included so that if and when our government became a tyranny, that the PEOPLE could take it back.
That said, it would be a good idea for the people involved in this militia have weapons able to fire 5.56, 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 ammo. One of these weapons should look fairly nondescript in order to not draw too much attention to your self, such as a hunting rifle, M-14, M-1, or some SKS models.
If you think about the ammo that may be readily available if this "doomsday scenario" does come about, these will be the types of rifles that will be the most useful. Handguns in common calibers would be handy also.
So, yes it would be a good idea for everyone to own an M-16/AR-15/M-4 among others.
This would also help in the case of a foreign invader.
NineseveN
member
jtward01 said:
There has been tons of discussion on this, being a member of the NRA does not a true 2A supporter make. Pulling the NRA (or any other gun lobby) card in an RKBA disucssion is like pulling the race card when discussing welfare, it just doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Your actions and your intentions define you, not who you give $20.00 a year to.
Hunting as nothing to do with the 2A, period, so your interest or disinterest in it is irrelevant. As a side note, I felt the same way about hunting, but I can see how it appeals to others.
Typical daily language of Feinstein, the VPC and the Brady bunch.
Find me at least 5 credilbe news sources where this has happened in the last 5 years, otherwsie you are simply guilty of the same stupid scare tactics used by the gungrabbers.
Every law abiding American should be allowed to own as many guns as he or she wants, including fully automatic weapons (if they can afford the ammo
But it is, because no other right requires such things. If you want more responsible firearms owners, campaign on your own dime and time, start a group, push the NRA to do more about education and safety.
jtward01 said:
Remember you said that, as it has defined you and exactly who we are dealing with. Did they envision the internet? Does free speech not apply to the internet because it was not envisioned? What about mechanical or elecitric printing presses? Televison, radio? Under you decree, giving equal weight to equal rights as it should be, no communication on any of these mediums would be protected under free speech. Where is the difference?
Could the Federal government establish Wicca as the national religion simply because the fouding fathers did not forsee the possibility of so many alternative religions or faiths from other cultures being so prevalent in the United States?
Is our right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure null and void simply becasue the world is more dangerous today than it was then? Or does the whole terrorist scare negate it from the foundation on up?
:banghead:
Being old or recorded in certain traditions does not make it right. Half-way supporting the Second Amendment is like being "sorta' pregnant", there is no such thing.
You know what, here's what I propose, you want a test? Fine, here it is:
I submit that every single person that wishes to own a firearm must first pass a comprehensive course and test on the Second Amendment, the Federalist/AntiFederalist papers, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution before they are allowed to ever talk about, write about or otherwise discuss or communicate about firearms, firearms rights or any legal or political issue surrounding firearms.
You speak about some blissninny fear that you have no substantial proof of whatsoever about untrained firearms owners negligently killing innoncent folks when my concern is far greater and far more real; gunowners willing to give up the rights of other gun owners and all free American citizens for the sake of some feel-good plight of safety against phenomena that doesn't materialize outside of those fears and the VPC offices (if it did, the VPC would be all over the statistics).
If you cannot speak intelligently about it and support it, don't talk about it. There, now I have just removed your right to free speech, sounds good huh? How do you think the awerful things you've proposed sound to those of us that cherish freedom and liberty above all else, including your unrealistic notion that you have a right to concern yourself and meddle into what other law-abiding citizens do privately. Here's a clue, you don't.
You go ahead and willingly give up your own rights, leave mine the $%&^l alone.
my poor sons...
All three of my boys have been put off a whole slew of movies, because their sister (just married in October guys, sorry,) looks like Angelina Jolie's twin sister if she had one. Don't ask me where she got the genes.... not from her mama, that's for sure
But I think she would probably qualify for the description. God knows all the boys' friends went into mourning when she got married.
Springmom
smince said:Both my sisters are very pretty, but even with all the Alabama jokes aside, I'd still have trouble referring to my own sister as "hot".
All three of my boys have been put off a whole slew of movies, because their sister (just married in October guys, sorry,) looks like Angelina Jolie's twin sister if she had one. Don't ask me where she got the genes.... not from her mama, that's for sure
But I think she would probably qualify for the description. God knows all the boys' friends went into mourning when she got married.
Springmom
- Status