gun addiction - more coming soon

[5030]

Denigrating other firearms owners whatever their choice does a disservice to us all. The whole possession/use of a firearm, any firearm as a substitute for sexual adequacy or male sex organ is absurd no matter who uses it though it is most often used by anti-gunners, I am surprised and saddened to see it used here.

Maybe I should have put a smiley next to it. It was, in jest, well, partially. I don't see any constructive use for the firearm in a sporting sense..... It's not a good long range Elk firearm nor is it a mule deer firearm and certainly not a Cape Buffalo shooter. So what good is it? It's a status symbol, much like owning a city lot and having a diesel lawnmower (CUT), because you want to 'one up' the guy next door with his push mower or owning a pickup truck that never has anything in the bed other than a bag of sand for traction.

The same applies to the pistols (paramilitary style) you are discussing here. You really can't use them as a hunting tool, it's a status symbol. I shoot inddor competition pistol. Consequently I have some very expensive handguns, however, the expense is in accuracy and ergonomics not in multiple picatinny rails, flash suppressors and clunky ergo's that lend themselves to the 'tactical' 'military' look.

While I have no problem with that other than scratching my head and wondering why anyone would want that stuff, It's still all about the right to bear arms as written in the Second Amendment. In that vein, buy what you want to (so long as you can afford it) and do what you want with the purchase. For myself, that type of firearm is basically worthless.

I'd like to know (for statistical purposes and my own delf indulgence) just how many people purchase large caliber rifles, in particular, 50's and atually use them on a regular basis and for what. You can't hunt with them, too heavy. You'd need a lackey to carry the rifle..... They are too expensive to shoot because the ammunition, even if handloaded is prohibitively expensive.

To rail an optic that would be capable of sighting that type of firearm requires a winning lotto ticket and the cartridges, while prohibitively expensive are also very heavy.

That's not to say I don't have very expensive optics becaue I do, but they are railed on firearms that I can hunt with, not a firearm that needs wheels under it to move it about.....

They impress me as a poser firearm. Like 'I have one, I shot it a couple times but it's a PITA both in cost, cost of ammo and weight, so it sits in the gun safe just in case I ever need it'..... Need it for what?

Again, a firearm is a tool. An unused tool for whatever reason is a tool not worth owning or owning just to say I have one..... That in itself is stupidity and why I referred to it as an extension of an inadequate sexual organ, much like the never utilized pickup truck or the diesel lawnmower cutting a subdivision sized lawn.

If it don't have a constructive use or it don't serve a need that I have, I'm not going to own it.

 

[RoyJackson]

Maybe I should have put a smiley next to it. It was, in jest, well, partially. I don't see any constructive use for the firearm in a sporting sense.....
...
If it don't have a constructive use or it don't serve a need that I have, I'm not going to own it.

How about target shooting? Or, just the "pride of ownership" of a finely made mechanism? Just "plinking" in general?
Or, even for the commando wannabees...I support 'em, even though I don't want to wannabee one.
Or, those of us who do think the AR-15's will become a necessity...when the societal breakdown begins (and yes, I do think that will happen).

It's fine you, personally, don't want one....but you need to support the rights of folks who do. That's the important thing. Or, the Diane Feinsteins, Carolyn McCarthys, Charles Schumers, Barack Obamas of the country will win. Those people may start with my guns, but they won't stop until they have your guns...never, ever forget that!

 

[dusty3030]

Denigrating other firearms owners whatever their choice does a disservice to us all. The whole possession/use of a firearm, any firearm as a substitute for sexual adequacy or male sex organ is absurd no matter who uses it though it is most often used by anti-gunners, I am surprised and saddened to see it used here.

If money were no object and the legal hurdles not so high I'd have a quad mount of browning .50s on a half track just because I think that is about the coolest thing I've ever seen.

I will not disclose the details of my collecting but I am sure I am like many is that a lot that I own or have owned nobody even knows that I own. It ain't for show and tell its about what I like. I like m1 garands so at one time I had 10 of them and have since narrowed it down. I've got more guns I have never shot than ones I do. Others I hunt with and for my personal recreational shooting I've evolved into a rimfire man, shooting a .22 is plenty satisfying for me. If the next guy prefers a .50 so what, that's we he likes and I don't care. Some like muzzle loaders, some air guns some archery again more power to them. We may not all be the same, but due to the rising tide and growing mass of people ignorant of the outdoors / shooting / our American heritage in general all of our interests are in jeopardy. We all have our particular likes and dislikes but the minute we turn on each other is the minute we loose. I'm with Triple R, it was an absurd and sad thing to read.

 

[bearhawk]

...
It's fine you, personally, don't want one....but you need to support the rights of folks who do. That's the important thing. Or, the Diane Feinsteins, Carolyn McCarthys, Charles Schumers, Barack Obamas of the country will win. Those people may start with my guns, but they won't stop until they have your guns...never, ever forget that!

Good point Roy..

I don't particularly care for the ak style rifles, but that does not make me think others shouldn't have one.

Now the Marlin 45/70 lever action... I want one.. Do I hunt.. No.. Do I need one... No..

I support the second amendment, and I vote...

 

[nwbearcat]

@5030---you've contradicted yourself enough...may as well pitch in the towel. Degrade folks for having a gun that you don't see a sporting (Defined as hunting) purpose but admitting you own handguns for dedicated target shooting if I read your post right. Roy's right...can't let our group get segmented...they win when they get the over-under sporting clays shooters to agree that ARs are bad. Then they win when the revolver guys agree that magazine fed handguns are bad, then they win when...

and last, wanted to poke at this statement, "I have a CCW and I carry. Unlike like you, not 24/7 but when necessary.... I don't feel the want or need to carry all the time."

If I knew that I was going to need my CCW, I wouldn't go there, and if I did, I wouldn't rely on my CCW...there'd be something far more effective and readily available than a CCW. You carry because you don't know. Maybe could relate to seatbelts or insurance. If I knew I was going to wreck my car tomorrow, I'd call the insurance man and lower the deductable, and make sure to wear my seatbelt, a crash helment and flak vest...or work from home...I don't so I have insurance and wear the seatbelt.

I appreciate the discussion, and think most here are on the same page...just hope you don't vote against the rest of us, I'd like the opportunity to choose for myself what's sporting and what's not.

 

[JB4310]

The term I don't like is referring to a firearm as a "tool" I know it's widely accepted among gun owners but I am not comfortable with it, unless your a rancher and actualy use it to get your job done. JMO

Back to the AR15's, Several years back CT passed an Assault weapons ban and registration. I had several at that time, I had to cull the herd and only registered 3. I sold an Uzi and cannibalized a couple more Colts, losing the lower receivers and building back up on post ban lowers.

Anyway one of the old lowers I converted to a Car15, with the others parts I built a post ban AR on a BM lower. To do that legally I had to cut the threads off for the muzzle brake/ flash suppressor and cut the bayonet lug off.
Now I see those very early slab side sp1's are quite sought after with the triangular foregrip, no forward assist or case deflector, to collectors.

What a dope, I had 3 of them, now I have none

JB

 

[TripleR]

Maybe I should have put a smiley next to it. It was, in jest, well, partially. I don't see any constructive use for the firearm in a sporting sense..... It's not a good long range Elk firearm nor is it a mule deer firearm and certainly not a Cape Buffalo shooter. So what good is it? It's a status symbol, much like owning a city lot and having a diesel lawnmower (CUT), because you want to 'one up' the guy next door with his push mower or owning a pickup truck that never has anything in the bed other than a bag of sand for traction.

The same applies to the pistols (paramilitary style) you are discussing here. You really can't use them as a hunting tool, it's a status symbol. I shoot indoor competition pistol. Consequently I have some very expensive handguns, however, the expense is in accuracy and ergonomics not in multiple picatinny rails, flash suppressors and clunky ergo's that lend themselves to the 'tactical' 'military' look.

While I have no problem with that other than scratching my head and wondering why anyone would want that stuff, It's still all about the right to bear arms as written in the Second Amendment. In that vein, buy what you want to (so long as you can afford it) and do what you want with the purchase. For myself, that type of firearm is basically worthless.

To rail an optic that would be capable of sighting that type of firearm requires a winning lotto ticket and the cartridges, while prohibitively expensive are also very heavy.

That's not to say I don't have very expensive optics because I do, but they are railed on firearms that I can hunt with, not a firearm that needs wheels under it to move it about.....

They impress me as a poser firearm.

Again, a firearm is a tool. An unused tool for whatever reason is a tool not worth owning or owning just to say I have one..... That in itself is stupidity and why I referred to it as an extension of an inadequate sexual organ, much like the never utilized pickup truck or the diesel lawnmower cutting a subdivision sized lawn.

If it don't have a constructive use or it don't serve a need that I have, I'm not going to own it.

Oh where to begin and remain within several pages; not a complete rebuttal, but a beginning.

Why suggest you should have put a smiley face when in the same breath you state you meant it? At least have the b***s to stick with your snide remark. I generally respect your opinion, but in this case, you are way off the mark.

As mentioned by some, not everyone who owns a firearm hunts or even sees the value in hunting, so while a connection to hunting may be of value to you it clearly is not to others.

It may or may not be a status symbol or as Roy mentioned, purely pride of ownership. I am probably one of the least social people you will ever meet and thus no one outside of my family has any idea of what I shoot or own. Having said that, I see no problem with those who use it as a status symbol or whatever.

I can think of few things more boring than standing on an indoor firing range punching holes in paper, but I am certainly not going to belittle those who do.

I totally disagree with the whole premise of a "firearm is a tool". You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but please don't assign your value judgments, prejudices and opinions to me or others. How the h**l can you with a straight face describe a firearm as a "tool" for punching holes in paper, I can do that a lot cheaper with a sharp stick. For many if not most of us, firearms are pieces of machinery to use in a recreational manner or self defense or both.

You keep circling back to the "need for hunting". Unless you are a true subsistence hunter, there is no "need" to hunt and yes I hunt. If I figured out how much I spend per pound on meat, it is going to be really, really expensive meat. I can also bet that with the amount of money you have in high quality rifles, handguns and optics, there are hundreds of good old country boys with half worn out Marlins, Glenfields, Harrington and Richardsons who do as well as you.

Like I said, I generally respect your opinion and accept you are a knowledgeable guy, but how about just taking a step back and stop judging everyone. Now I am not even going to get into your seeming fascination with male sex organs and sexual inadequacy.

 

[RoyJackson]

Now I am not even going to get into your seeming fascination with male sex organs and sexual inadequacy.

Well, the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine did do a joint study (cost was just over 2 million, IIRC) comparing male genitilia size to caliber selection...back in 1992 or 1993, IIRC. It only applied to handgun calibers.
There was a statistical correlation between the size of the caliber and the length of the appendage...smaller the callber, larger the appendage according to their results.
Guess that's why I prefer snubby revolvers and 9mm semi-autos. You guys with .45's...now we know.










(read the signature line below)

 

[5030]

I'm about free choice when it comes to firearms. No contradiction there, however, I have problems seeing the need to own military type firearms when the sole purpose of civillian ownership is of a sporting nature and frankly, always has been.

If the public (gun owners), in general, stuck to the sporting aspect and didn't dwell on the military aspect, 'sniper' rifles and such.... and left the select fire weapons to where they belong...the military, we'd all be much better off. Gun owners (as typical **** sapiens) can be their own worst enemy.

Always remember the general public's conception when it comes to firearms of all types and what the media perpetrates.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows what an AK is. Why? Because the media sensationalized them. It's nothing more than a tool, again, like a hammer or screwdriver. What it's pointed at and who has their finger on the trigger determines the end use.

Everytime I go to a gun shop, the rifles prominently displayed are of a military nature because that's what sells I guess (not to me). I don't own any, other than a couple AK's that I bought for the express puropse of carrying in the tractor for varmit purposes. The AK is compact and easly operated and the ammo is cheap though not reloadable (steel case). They are fairly accurate so long as the range is less that 50 yards.

If you really lust for a select fire weapon take the time (and money) to obtain a Class 3 Curio collectors license and go for it. Pray and spray isn't my thing or lugging a cumbersome (heay) firearm around.

Sure, the U-tube vid's of select fire weapons is impressive, however, they are of no use to civillians (unless the civillian had a Class 3 and then only operable under controlled conditions). To operate any weapon in select fire mode in a public place is to invoke any citizen within hearing distance to contact local law enforcement and the operator bearing the results of that call.

Here in Michigan, we have open carry. I'd never consider open carry in public because I don't want the hassle. Walking down the street with an open, in plain sight, holstered pistol is inviting problems. Thats the way it is, again perpetrated by the media and the general public's conception of guns, in general.

I'm all about controlled terminal ballistics and what a projectile does down range. I'm not about willy-nilly expending ammunition and impressing my friends with a firearm that has no value (other than purchase price) except as a testosterone elevating object.

I get a sense of accomplishment when I load for a particular use and the load and ballistics achieve the result I intend. That applies to handguns and long guns.

Again, just me. Firearms for me are a hobby, not a necessity.

I'd sure like to change the public's conception of firearms, in general as well as the current government stance on gun ownership but I can't. I can only vote accordingly and have membership in organizations that champion my views.

However, the fixation on military like weapons does absolutely nothing other than negatively impact all firearms owners. Thats how it works, like it or not.

 

[TripleR]

Well, the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine did do a joint study (cost was just over 2 million, IIRC) comparing male genitilia size to caliber selection...back in 1992 or 1993, IIRC. It only applied to handgun calibers.
There was a statistical correlation between the size of the caliber and the length of the appendage...smaller the callber, larger the appendage according to their results.
Guess that's why I prefer snubby revolvers and 9mm semi-autos. You guys with .45's...now we know.

(read the signature line below)

Oh, did I mention I just a bought a .17 :laughing::laughing: