gun addiction - more coming soon

[TripleR]

5030, you just seem to be more into capitulation and appeasement than many of us; kind of like the old myth of throwing children out of the sleigh to keep the wolves away from you, or maybe I just imagined that.

You are right about one thing in that some gun owners are their own worst enemy though I doubt we agree on the definition of who it is.

I hate that this thread has taken such a negative turn and if I have contributed to that I apologize.

 

[5030]

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)

Sounds counter productive to me....:laughing:.....................................

One of my hunting partners has a S&W 500 magnum revolver and we call him 'little man' because he's about 5 feet tall. Never looked in his pants though, not my thing.....:laughing:

He has to customize every hunting rifle he owns, the length of pull is always too long. Chops the buttstock every time.

Large caliber handguns are normally accepted (and legal under DNR regulations) for deer here, as are muzzle load solid projectile rifles. My preference is the S&W Model 29 double action long barrel 44 magnum with reduced recoil FMJSWC handloads. Great for less than 50 yard (legal) shots.










(read the signature line below)[/QUOTE]

 

[RoyJackson]

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.

Ownership and possession of firearms (or any other weapon) has never been about "sole purpose of civillian ownership is of a sporting nature and frankly, always has been". Hunting was a necessity at one time, now it's a sport...and you know you don't need to feed your familiy by hunting.
It's about freedom and rights...and protection against not only criminals, but a government that is becoming tyrannical.
I'm not going to go into the whole history of the pro-rights and anti-rights groups...too political for this thread.

That "sole purpose of civillian ownership is of a sporting nature and frankly, always has been" has been the mantra of the anti-rights movement for years, if not decades. It was the mantra used by those who forced that 1994 "Assault" Rifle Ban through the Congress.

However, let's put it another way...if the current adminstration stays in Washington, and PETA forces their agenda through...how would you feel then? I can tell you one thing, your hunting days would likely be over.

 

[RoyJackson]

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

Well, I reckon you're one of those MANLY Men...all you need now is a gear transmission tractor with a vertical exhaust...

 

[5030]

5030, you just seem to be more into capitulation and appeasement than many of us; kind of like the old myth of throwing children out of the sleigh to keep the wolves away from you, or maybe I just imagined that.

You are right about one thing in that some gun owners are their own worst enemy though I doubt we agree on the definition of who it is.

I hate that this thread has taken such a negative turn and if I have contributed to that I apologize.

I see nothing negative. It's merely a discussion of perceived notions and if, in fact, revelant to the general opinion of the public.

I want to keep my firearms, absolutely. I certainly don't want the central government confiscating them (like happened in Europe). However, the fixation on military type firearms does nothing to chamioin that perspective, in fact, it champoins the cause for those who want to take the firearms away....

 

[JB4310]

I see nothing negative. It's merely a discussion of perceived notions and if, in fact, revelant to the general opinion of the public.

I want to keep my firearms, absolutely. I certainly don't want the central government confiscating them (like happened in Europe). However, the fixation on military type firearms does nothing to chamioin that perspective, in fact, it champoins the cause for those who want to take the firearms away....

Like I mentioned earlier that was the plan a few years back, we as responsible gun owners were advised to be careful with the terminology for fear of inciting the other side. But in recent years there has been a switch to the reality that you are really on your own when it comes to your own survival in some situations, the government is not coming to your aid.

It's not paranoia anymore to be prepared for the worst, it's good sense.
With our troops spread around the globe, imagine the civilian army we could muster if ever needed.

Some have mentioned the current administration as being a threat to gun ownership, From my observation it is the exact opposite, more guns are being sold now than ever before. You can't even find a parking space in the local gun shop here. Families with kids in strollers, as many women as men, never seen that a few years back!

JB

 

[TripleR]

Well, I reckon you're one of those MANLY Men...all you need now is a gear transmission tractor with a vertical exhaust...

Way ahead of you Roy.

 

[TripleR]

"sole purpose of civilian ownership is of a sporting nature and frankly, always has been".

Seems somewhat at odds with my history books.

Just a few thoughts I find interesting:

False is the idea of utility that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction of liberty. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States writing in his 'Commonplace Book', 1775

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

é„* free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. George Washington

 

[TripleR]

I see nothing negative. It's merely a discussion of perceived notions and if, in fact, relevant to the general opinion of the public.

I want to keep my firearms, absolutely. I certainly don't want the central government confiscating them (like happened in Europe). However, the fixation on military type firearms does nothing to champion that perspective, in fact, it champions the cause for those who want to take the firearms away....

Denigration of others and their choices as well as reference to sexual inadequacy and compensation just seemed negative to me.

 

[RoyJackson]

Way ahead of you Roy.

I knew it..I knew it!!!!