Now That's a Gun Show

[CalGun]

We still have shows in California, but the only guns you can buy and take home are 50 years old or more. Destroying the gun show " loophole" ruins gatherings like this of law abiding good people. Screw the antis for their hatred of these people and their fun.
Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show - YouTube

 

[blaxshep]

We still have shows in California, but the only guns you can buy and take home are 50 years old or more. Destroying the gun show " loophole" ruins gatherings like this of law abiding good people. Screw the antis for their hatred of these people and their fun.
Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show - YouTube

That was awesome!

Too bad we couldn't pack all the antis up for a ride in that aerostar. :lamo

 

[Carjosse]

I don't think I saw one gun that would be legal here.

 

[Wiseone]

We still have shows in California, but the only guns you can buy and take home are 50 years old or more. Destroying the gun show " loophole" ruins gatherings like this of law abiding good people. Screw the antis for their hatred of these people and their fun.
Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show - YouTube

Looks badass, but I just have to say "a sniper competition with targets out to 400 meters" is pretty close to be calling yourself a sniper.

 

[jamesrage]

We still have shows in California, but the only guns you can buy and take home are 50 years old or more. Destroying the gun show " loophole" ruins gatherings like this of law abiding good people. Screw the antis for their hatred of these people and their fun.
Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show - YouTube

This one looks like it would be a lot more fun.


Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot — History.com Video

 

[ecofarm]

We still have shows in California, but the only guns you can buy and take home are 50 years old or more. Destroying the gun show " loophole" ruins gatherings like this of law abiding good people. Screw the antis for their hatred of these people and their fun.
Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show - YouTube

Nice video but I didn't see any guns. I'll watch again.

 

[APACHERAT]

Looks badass, but I just have to say "a sniper competition with targets out to 400 meters" is pretty close to be calling yourself a sniper.

On the Marine Corps known range rifle qualification range, the basic Marine is suppose to be able to hit a man size target from 500 meters and that's with open sights.

The last time I requalified on the range back in the "old Corps", I qualified with the M-14. Fired 10 rounds on the 500 meter line. 9 rounds in the 5 and 1 in the 4.

There's an old 1,000 yard rifle range on Camp Pendleton. It's just off the side of the Las Pulgas Rd. Hasn't been used in decades. Marines use to use that range back when they had the M-1 Garand.

 

[TurtleDude]

On the Marine Corps known range rifle qualification range, the basic Marine is suppose to be able to hit a man size target from 500 meters and that's with open sights.

The last time I requalified on the range back in the "old Corps", I qualified with the M-14. Fired 10 rounds on the 500 meter line. 9 rounds in the 5 and 1 in the 4.

There's an old 1,000 yard rifle range on Camp Pendleton. It's just off the side of the Las Pulgas Rd. Hasn't been used in decades. Marines use to use that range back when they had the M-1 Garand.

when I was in middle school the local rifle club ran a "military match" DCM supplied Garands and Lake City M2 Ball was provided for a nominal fee. Now while my dad had been a naval officer he had been a varsity rifle shooter in college and high school and loved shooting these military matches and while I had not shot much center fire (other than his Browning 30-06 hunting rifle) he figured since I shot 500 pellets a week with an olympic level air rifle and was pretty proficient with a 12 G pump gun He'd let me shoot the course

so after ten sighters we started. sure the rifle had more recoil than that Weihrauch 55 but it wasn't all that much heavier and I was used to shooting a sling in prone position. and I had no problem shooting expert level

 

[CalGun]

Take your eyes off the blond a minute!

Nice video but I didn't see any guns. I'll watch again.

 

[APACHERAT]

when I was in middle school the local rifle club ran a "military match" DCM supplied Garands and Lake City M2 Ball was provided for a nominal fee. Now while my dad had been a naval officer he had been a varsity rifle shooter in college and high school and loved shooting these military matches and while I had not shot much center fire (other than his Browning 30-06 hunting rifle) he figured since I shot 500 pellets a week with an olympic level air rifle and was pretty proficient with a 12 G pump gun He'd let me shoot the course

so after ten sighters we started. sure the rifle had more recoil than that Weihrauch 55 but it wasn't all that much heavier and I was used to shooting a sling in prone position. and I had no problem shooting expert level

When I enlisted in the Marine Corps, Dec. of 68, the Corps had three service rifles back then, the 7.62 M-14, 30-06 M-1 Garand and the 5.56 M-16 A1.

By 1959 all Marine FMF units were issued the M-14. All Marine ship detachments, Marine Barracks on naval installations and security forces were issued the M-1 Garand. All Marines in Vietnam were issued the M-16 A1.

This isn't my story but another another Marines story:
In 1967 while going through boot camp we were issued the M-14. I qualified with the M-14 at Edson range and qualified expert.

In 1968 I was assigned to the Marine barracks at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station and was issued the M-1 Garand. I requalified at the El Toro Marine Air Station rifle range and qualified expert.

In 1969 I got my WEST-PAC orders for Vietnam. In Vietnam they issued me the M-16 and I qualified shooting Charley.

 

[blaxshep]

I don't think I saw one gun that would be legal here.

That is called infingement.

 

[Carjosse]

That is called infingement.

Infringement on what?

 

[TurtleDude]

Infringement on what?

Our constitutional rights

 

[Wiseone]

Our constitutional rights

He's from Canada, he doesn't have that right to be infringed upon.

 

[Jerry]

Infringement on what?

Your basic human right to arms. It's the same as your right to breath.

 

[Wiseone]

Your basic human right to arms. It's the same as your right to breath.

That's an opinion, and one most people don't agree with.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's an opinion, and one most people don't agree with.

true

Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains

JJR

 

[Wiseone]

true

Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains

JJR

Even the countries like Canada that are perfect democratic but have decided to shape their society differently than ours?

Personally I'm not a fan of the concept of 'natural rights' I know the founder's were but they kind of had to be since the rights they were claiming weren't always found in their English Law at the time. But I prefer "legal rights" to "natural rights" since there's no question that they come from your fellow man in a democratic society and not from some intangible thing like God or nature, which helps get rid of the stigma of discussing them as if they are something sacred by an objective perspective. Legal rights are more of a government by the people for the people than natural rights, it invests the power to define one's society as a member of that society in the individual member and not in an intangible image.

 

[Jerry]

That's an opinion.

Truth is not an opinion, the right to arms is the right to self-defense. 1,000 years ago we would be talking about the sword and bow, 1,000 years from now we'll be talking about energy weapons, different objects, same right. The right to life means you have the right to access food and water, even if you have to steel to survive, that's ethical and moral. The right to pursue happiness is the right to possess a contract or licence, land, income, and set your own rules as long as you aren't harming others. Likewise the right to self defense is the right to access any modern weapon so long as you aren't a danger to anyone.

It's impossible to disagree with this statement because it's not an opinion, it's the truth. If you "disagree" you're simply wrong. Feel free to go in the corner and be wrong all you want, just don't harm others with your stupidity or we're going to have a problem.

 

[Wiseone]

Truth is not an opinion, the right to arms is the right to self-defense. 1,000 years ago we would be talking about the sword and bow, 1,000 years from now we'll be talking about energy weapons, different objects, same right. The right to life means you have the right to access food and water, even if you have to steel to survive, that's ethical and moral. The right to pursue happiness is the right to possess a contract or licence, land, income, and set your own rules as long as you aren't harming others. Likewise the right to self defense is the right to access any modern weapon so long as you aren't a danger to anyone.

It's impossible to disagree with this statement because it's not an opinion, it's the truth. If you "disagree" you're simply wrong. Feel free to go in the corner and be wrong all you want, just don't harm others with your stupidity or we're going to have a problem.

Who says its the truth?

 

[Jerry]

Who says its the truth?

So you've never read the Heller decision....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

....
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

There's more....

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.

 

[Wiseone]

So you've never read the Heller decision....



There's more....

Ugh you obviously missed my point. What I was getting at was that there is no "natural right" to own a firearm, or at least I don't like to talk natural rights because they have no tangible backing and isn't derive their authority from some intangible impossible to define source that can't be challenged because its "nature" or "God" saying that it should be so. Legal rights however are wholly created by man and can be debated and changed by man hopefully without someone screaming that God above has decreed that this is the truth or that I have this right, because its impossible to argue against unless God himself is going to come down and tell us what's what.

So what you're quoting is a legal source, although it doesn't have anything to do with your last post but I've gotten used to you not knowing your own sources, and I entirely agree that the basis of our rights should be found within our laws.

In other words, if the SCOTUS says something is a right thats good backing to me, if someone else "God says its a right" that's the worst kind of backing.

Let me ask you this, do you believe you have any rights given to you from God or nature and thus are outside the realm of men to seize or take away?

 

[notquiteright]

We still have shows in California, but the only guns you can buy and take home are 50 years old or more. Destroying the gun show " loophole" ruins gatherings like this of law abiding good people. Screw the antis for their hatred of these people and their fun.
Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show - YouTube

Meh, just another weekend in Oklahoma. We just roll that way.

The 'sniper comp' is rather traditional in the 'Tacti-cool' world. They are generally open to all who wish to compete. Some of we call them snyper or snypery matches.

The course of fire can be fun and a challenge, the high score tends to get 50% of the total points possible.

Anyone interested in precision comps should google them, they are held around the country to include California.

 

[Jerry]

What I was getting at was that there is no "natural right" to own a firearm...

Yes there is. The firearm is the modern object needed to exercise the basic human right to self defense.

or at least I don't like to talk natural rights because they have no tangible backing and isn't derive their authority from some intangible impossible to define source that can't be challenged because its "nature" or "God" saying that it should be so.

That's the declaration of independence, whereas the right to self-defense is inherent in the species for millions of years. The gun is merely the modern object to carry that right out. The right itself has been with human beings since there have been human beings.

Legal rights

We're not talking about a legal right. The right to own a firearm is a Basic Human Right exactly like the right to breath. Every single human being on the planet has this right regardless of whether or not their government is infringing upon it.

however are wholly created by man

You're just being wrong again. To the corner.

So what you're quoting is a legal source...

Because I had it handy and am about to log out for the night and so don't have the time to look up deep historical references. Yes, I have the Heller decision in my Bookmarks on my browser. I have a lot of Bookmarks.

although it doesn't have anything to do with your last post...

There you go being wrong again. My source was a sample proving the claim that I made. That, also, is just a fact.

In other words, if the SCOTUS says something is a right thats good backing to me, if someone else "God says its a right" that's the worst kind of backing.

Dude I gave you one example. Did you honestly expect me to provide a deep thesis on the matter.... especially on the internet, especially in a single post? Good luck with that arrogance.

Let me ask you this, do you believe you have any rights given to you from God or nature and thus are outside the realm of men to seize or take away?

You are quoting the post which gives that answer. Maybe you should read more, troll less.

 

[Jerry]

Ugh you obviously missed my point.

You asked a question, I answered it. You had no point other than to ask a question. You asked the question because you didn't know. THat's why people ask questions.

That you ask basic questions says that you aren't educated on this topic. Your questions place you in a negative light.