Your Stance on Pistols and Rifles that can accept detatchable magazines [W:805]

[flogger]

I don't lose-when Banner's comments devolve into discussions about penises, I know I am dealing with someone who has no real argument

Yes I can see that from your earlier responses

"flogger probably has a crotch like a ballerina and his projecting his effete fairy boy lack of masculinity"

Given how many gross transgressions of forum rules you've made of late its a mystery to me why you are still being allowed to post here :roll:

 

[flogger]

Our discussion is about arms and nukes ARE arms. Get over it.

You don't seem to understand I don't have a problem with people owning nukes.

You don't huh !! :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[Port & Starboard]

Didn't say I liked the Movie, just see that one scene as very telling. (and don't forget MIB) Actually my part of the prairie and many SAY they would do this or that if it came to this or that, but my experience says the bad ol' 'gun grabbers' will still get a nice cache of ammo once you can no longer give the ammo back one round at a time.

FYI, brah, we ALL live in the land of the free, you and your kind have ZERO monopoly on that. But i'll wager a shiny nickel once a real two way range breaks out you will be a tad lonely, if not reconsidering your stance... eace

There are millions of active & ex military, militia, law enforcement, and others who will make a stand.

 

[flogger]

But the societies aren't the same, that's the problem. I know there are a myriad of things we have in common with Europe but, in the end, Americans are fundamentally different. For one, we don't respect the government except out of fear, which creates paranoia, and that's at the base of most gun control arguments.

I've lived in both societies and they are not nearly as different as you think. In fact the similarities far outweigh any differences in my experience

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

OK. Enough of the personal attacks from everyone. Infractions have already been levied. If you want more or want a thread ban, test me.

 

[DVSentinel]

serious competitive shooters generally have at least a dozen magazines for competition pistols. The ones I run through my CZ Custom CTS run 100 dollars a piece but they are the best. Many matches require 6 magazines minimum. My wife and son run the same style pistols (we use the Meg-Gar aftermarket mags in our stock CZs and the CZ custom shop 23 round magazines for our open or Custom division guns) but we still have dozens of each.

for rifles, I have no idea how many AR mags I have but I buy a few every month when I am ordering ammo. they do wear out after a while

Wish I had the money for that.

I don't do matches, just not good enough for that. Been mostly chasing off deer (not allowed to shoot them for crop protection), shooting crows. With the melons nearly ripe, it is now time to also take on the coons and coyotes.

 

[Cryptic]

The great thing about this threads is it draws a definite line between the Free Men and the Sheep.

No, these threads allow people to claim they would do this and that if "X" happens, while claiming others are this and that. Nothing is ever truly definitevly established one way or the other.

 

[Casper]

Mafia Don wannabe Cuomo proved that the real goal of magazine limits is to get rid of any firearm that can shoot more than once-and once that has been achieved, ban them all

Passing BS laws is one thing, Enforcing them is quit different.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Your extension of reality is beyond me. A keg of gunpowder is a keg of gun powder and nothing more. Let me see you prove it is a bomb without idiotic definitions. But I see no problem with a keg of gun powder. Do you know why it is a keg?

I know what a Kg is let me see you lug around 20 Kg where-ever you go. Know of any citizens that want to do that?

I'm tired of playing semantics. The 2A says arms not ordinance, not weapons, not restricted to and as far as I can see that means just about anything but others are more strict on the definition from 1728 I gave you and you still have not refuted. What can be considered as arms that can be carried by soldiers and kept seems to be what was intended.

All it takes is a piece of cloth to make a kep of gunpowder into a bomb. If you don't know that then you probably shouldn't be discussing it. Where do you think the meaning of the common phrase "powder keg" came from?

Probably to keep it dry and still avoid sparks. But that's just a guess. If you have more on that subject I would be glad to hear it. I'm always willing to learn something new.


I carried 40+ pounds of equipment around construction sites for over 20 years - I'm well aware of how much 20kg is (~44 pounds), what it weighs, and how easy it is for someone even somewhat fit to "lug around". IIRC, don't soldiers still carry 50 pound backpacks - and even "run" with them? That's more than 20kg.


20kg CAN be carried by one person for extended lengths of time. If you can't do it then you're in pretty bad shape - unless maybe you're over 50.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I've lived in both societies and they are not nearly as different as you think. In fact the similarities far outweigh any differences in my experience

I'm sure the similarities are an extremely long list, especially with England (as opposed to the rest of Europe) but I think you have to grew up in a society - or spend 30+ years living in it - to really understand it. Just living somewhere for a few years isn't enough. My good friend spent 10 years in Italy and he still had trouble understanding their humor.

 

[Crimefree]

All it takes is a piece of cloth to make a kep of gunpowder into a bomb. If you don't know that then you probably shouldn't be discussing it. Where do you think the meaning of the common phrase "powder keg" came from?

a place or situation that is likely to become dangerous or violent soon. ~~ Miriam Webster.

Well it's true then you cannot debate with anyone who is unable to comprehend the simplest of things. Hollywood is your educational level, far to much time in movie houses bunking school. It is a wooden leg so it is not a bomb. Do yourself a favour when you think you know something ask yourself how do I know this. If you have not researched it yourself assume it is WRONG. Now go and research it. You are going to be doing a lot of research.

Probably to keep it dry and still avoid sparks. But that's just a guess. If you have more on that subject I would be glad to hear it. I'm always willing to learn something new.

Wood is a poor container and bursts easily thus the gun power burns without sufficient pressure to cause detonation.

Since muzzle loaders are arms it is not possible to constitutionally deny citizens black powder. That would be an infringement. It's a pretty poor explosive anyway.

I carried 40+ pounds of equipment around construction sites for over 20 years - I'm well aware of how much 20kg is (~44 pounds), what it weighs, and how easy it is for someone even somewhat fit to "lug around". IIRC, don't soldiers still carry 50 pound backpacks - and even "run" with them? That's more than 20kg.

20kg CAN be carried by one person for extended lengths of time. If you can't do it then you're in pretty bad shape - unless maybe you're over 50.

Anecdotal and irrelevant.

And all this proves that citizens are willing to lug around 20Kgs of arms? Which movie are you watching? They don't even want to carry around a bag of golf clubs, a side arm of 2kg or their shopping.

 

[Crimefree]

Yes I can see that from your earlier responses

"flogger probably has a crotch like a ballerina and his projecting his effete fairy boy lack of masculinity"

Given how many gross transgressions of forum rules you've made of late its a mystery to me why you are still being allowed to post here :roll:

It's probably taken into consideration of all the crap you spew and your slanderous ad hominem remarks about firearm owners which you have yet to prove.

There do you see that until you prove you remarks valid now you have been refuted. Continuing to make these unevidenced remarks will for you be a lie.

So refuted it is.

 

[MoSurveyor]

a place or situation that is likely to become dangerous or violent soon. ~~ Miriam Webster.

Well it's true then you cannot debate with anyone who is unable to comprehend the simplest of things. Hollywood is your educational level, far to much time in movie houses bunking school. It is a wooden leg so it is not a bomb. Do yourself a favour when you think you know something ask yourself how do I know this. If you have not researched it yourself assume it is WRONG. Now go and research it. You are going to be doing a lot of research.

Wood is a poor container and bursts easily thus the gun power burns without sufficient pressure to cause detonation.

Since muzzle loaders are arms it is not possible to constitutionally deny citizens black powder. That would be an infringement. It's a pretty poor explosive anyway.

I have no doubt it's a poor explosive compared to other available materials (though I'm not sure what other materials were available c.1776). However, a keg of powder can and does explode.

Anecdotal and irrelevant.

And all this proves that citizens are willing to lug around 20Kgs of arms? Which movie are you watching? They don't even want to carry around a bag of golf clubs, a side arm of 2kg or their shopping.

The proof is all around you if you look for it. Visit any construction site and you'll see people moving around much more than 50#. Hell, a bag of concrete mix weighs 60# or 80#, depending on what you buy, and all you need to see someone moving them is to stand around Home Depot or Lowes for awhile.

Doesn't take a movie to know what it's like to carry 20kg - I did it for years. But you don't have to take my word for it, ask some of your military friends what their backpacks weigh. My brother's weighed a little over 50# when he was in the Marines but that was decades ago. Maybe the "new marine" aren't quite as tough but I don't suggest you say that to their face. (And my bet is their backpacks haven't gotten much lighter, if any.)

Did my brother "want" to carry that much? Probably not but it was required; "carry this for 10 miles or you're outta' here". Same goes for me. If I could have done my job carrying a half pound of equipment instead of 40+ pounds I would have done it as long as it got the same job done. But it wouldn't have done the job, so I carried what I had to carry.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

ban them all, then criminals won't be able to get them, just like criminals can't get illegal drugs.

 

[Cisero]

ban them all, then criminals won't be able to get them, just like criminals can't get illegal drugs.

I agree, we need to legalize drugs.

 

[Crimefree]

I have no doubt it's a poor explosive compared to other available materials (though I'm not sure what other materials were available c.1776). However, a keg of powder can and does explode.

I do not know how intelligent you are but myth busters doing a test to see if a trail of leaking gunpowder could ignite the barrel is not proof the barrel "exploded". The damage is minimal as exactly what the purpose of the wooden barrel is. Are you claiming that because this was called an explosion is is in fact an explosion? You have been told this. You are still completely wrong. Next time listen and look to see what is being proven.

Black powder is a low grade explosive. Deflagration requires containment to reach destructive temperatures and pressures. That would be correctly termed a mechanical explosion. When one fires a gun is that an explosion? Think before you answer. Explosives detonate and require no containment.

The proof is all around you if you look for it. Visit any construction site and you'll see people moving around much more than 50#. Hell, a bag of concrete mix weighs 60# or 80#, depending on what you buy, and all you need to see someone moving them is to stand around Home Depot or Lowes for awhile.

Your willingness to be asinine is noted. Irrelevant anecdotal evidence.

Doesn't take a movie to know what it's like to carry 20kg - I did it for years. But you don't have to take my word for it, ask some of your military friends what their backpacks weigh. My brother's weighed a little over 50# when he was in the Marines but that was decades ago. Maybe the "new marine" aren't quite as tough but I don't suggest you say that to their face. (And my bet is their backpacks haven't gotten much lighter, if any.)

Your willingness to be asinine is noted. Irrelevant anecdotal evidence.

Did my brother "want" to carry that much? Probably not but it was required; "carry this for 10 miles or you're outta' here". Same goes for me. If I could have done my job carrying a half pound of equipment instead of 40+ pounds I would have done it as long as it got the same job done. But it wouldn't have done the job, so I carried what I had to carry.

Your willingness to be asinine is noted. Irrelevant anecdotal evidence.

Nowhere have you demonstrated the general public is willing to carry around an extra 20kg load every day. You have no hope of doing that.

 

[American]

Mafia Don wannabe Cuomo proved that the real goal of magazine limits is to get rid of any firearm that can shoot more than once-and once that has been achieved, ban them all

You ever listen to Cuomo? He's unhinged, off the chain, and off the rails loony.

 

[TurtleDude]

You ever listen to Cuomo? He's unhinged, off the chain, and off the rails loony.

well his father must have been talking about Andrew when he said a fish rots at the head first

 

[Crimefree]

They claim anything over 10 rounds but in the end even a muzzle loader will be too scary for them and will have to go for them to feel nice and safe.

The objective is incremental restrictive legislation. Gun control knows the majority of firearm owners are to idle and uncaring to object to minor changes. This is continuously tested by going further than resistance will allow and then drawing back so it shows the limit, while drawing back shows "compromise"and being "reasonable".

This strategy has been working for many years and sooner or later will give gun control that final win. Simply because firearm organisations accept from inception to end what they could not be bothered fight, we lose. They are a disgrace to the constitution and a failure to firearm owners in protecting members rights. This right is the only reason for existence of these organisation and they are not bothered to fight incursions. You tell me what they are.

 

[Casper]

The objective is incremental restrictive legislation. Gun control knows the majority of firearm owners are to idle and uncaring to object to minor changes. This is continuously tested by going further than resistance will allow and then drawing back so it shows the limit, while drawing back shows "compromise"and being "reasonable".

This strategy has been working for many years and sooner or later will give gun control that final win. Simply because firearm organisations accept from inception to end what they could not be bothered fight, we lose. They are a disgrace to the constitution and a failure to firearm owners in protecting members rights. This right is the only reason for existence of these organisation and they are not bothered to fight incursions. You tell me what they are.

It has a lot to do with the demographics of an area, an example is what is taking place in California, the restrictive gun laws they have and continue to push are only acceptable to the sheeple that have been raised on a steady diet of anti-gun propaganda, they believe the lies and when violence continues they are feed more lies to add more restrictions. Other states such as mine would not even consider such restrictions and in fact are leaning the opposite direction. What is more scary is what is to come, with the WH looking like it is going to go to the Dems and that person being able to stack the deck with Liberal judges on the SC, going to be interesting to watch and see how the People react to their rulings on Rights. The one saving grace is that even if the Feds pass more idiotic laws if a State is unwilling to enforce those laws the Feds really have little recourse to do so themselves. Just another nail in the coffin, sooner or later this Nation is going to tear itself apart and when it does we should be grateful to the Founders that saw fit to ensure that the People can defend themselves.

 

[blackjack50]

I am going to make a fortune if liberals decide to do this and design some new handguns based off of old ones:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crimefree]

It has a lot to do with the demographics of an area, an example is what is taking place in California, the restrictive gun laws they have and continue to push are only acceptable to the sheeple that have been raised on a steady diet of anti-gun propaganda, they believe the lies and when violence continues they are feed more lies to add more restrictions.

That is very much true and a good example was the 1990's when some 60% of the public supported more strict gun control laws. Gun control took advantage of that with the Brady campaign. England with Snowdrop after Dunblane and Hungerford and Australia with Rebecca Peters After Port Arthur. In all instances the propaganda push was never addressed or even considered by firearm organisations a worthy of their time or effort. Even today in UK if one tried to drum up opposition for the idiotic handgun ban the firearm organisations will be the first to denounce you as some kid of radicle nut.

What is of most concern is that not one of them will oppose any intended legislation. The last push after Sandy Hook for a ban on assault rifles failed only because legislation was not ready and took more than a year to draft. Gun control will not make that mistake again. I'll bet firearm organisations will make the same mistake.

Other states such as mine would not even consider such restrictions and in fact are leaning the opposite direction. What is more scary is what is to come, with the WH looking like it is going to go to the Dems and that person being able to stack the deck with Liberal judges on the SC, going to be interesting to watch and see how the People react to their rulings on Rights. The one saving grace is that even if the Feds pass more idiotic laws if a State is unwilling to enforce those laws the Feds really have little recourse to do so themselves. Just another nail in the coffin, sooner or later this Nation is going to tear itself apart and when it does we should be grateful to the Founders that saw fit to ensure that the People can defend themselves.

Since firearm organisations seem incapable of accepting they have a leadership role I fear you are right. It will be totally unnecessary blood shed though because all it takes is to counter gun control propaganda. I wish I knew how to get both firearm organisations and owners to fight gun control's propaganda and put an end to this crap.

 

[blackjack50]

That is very much true and a good example was the 1990's when some 60% of the public supported more strict gun control laws. Gun control took advantage of that with the Brady campaign. England with Snowdrop after Dunblane and Hungerford and Australia with Rebecca Peters After Port Arthur. In all instances the propaganda push was never addressed or even considered by firearm organisations a worthy of their time or effort. Even today in UK if one tried to drum up opposition for the idiotic handgun ban the firearm organisations will be the first to denounce you as some kid of radicle nut.

What is of most concern is that not one of them will oppose any intended legislation. The last push after Sandy Hook for a ban on assault rifles failed only because legislation was not ready and took more than a year to draft. Gun control will not make that mistake again. I'll bet firearm organisations will make the same mistake.



Since firearm organisations seem incapable of accepting they have a leadership role I fear you are right. It will be totally unnecessary blood shed though because all it takes is to counter gun control propaganda. I wish I knew how to get both firearm organisations and owners to fight gun control's propaganda and put an end to this crap.

I actually have been writing a proposal that I want to get some publicity. I've been doing it quietly and hoping I can speak with an NRA rep and a local congressmen who had actually offered my father a job many moons ago. The problem with organizations like the NRA is that it is out of touch with the people who they NEED to "propagandize." Tell me how many rednecks are gonna side against the Nra if they stop damning Obama and focus on actually stopping gun control propaganda?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Casper]

That is very much true and a good example was the 1990's when some 60% of the public supported more strict gun control laws. Gun control took advantage of that with the Brady campaign. England with Snowdrop after Dunblane and Hungerford and Australia with Rebecca Peters After Port Arthur. In all instances the propaganda push was never addressed or even considered by firearm organisations a worthy of their time or effort. Even today in UK if one tried to drum up opposition for the idiotic handgun ban the firearm organisations will be the first to denounce you as some kid of radicle nut.

What is of most concern is that not one of them will oppose any intended legislation. The last push after Sandy Hook for a ban on assault rifles failed only because legislation was not ready and took more than a year to draft. Gun control will not make that mistake again. I'll bet firearm organisations will make the same mistake.



Since firearm organisations seem incapable of accepting they have a leadership role I fear you are right. It will be totally unnecessary blood shed though because all it takes is to counter gun control propaganda. I wish I knew how to get both firearm organisations and owners to fight gun control's propaganda and put an end to this crap.

If you ever find a way to put a stop to the effort let me know, facts do not seem to matter, no matter how many times they are repeated, all one has to do is look at the banners on this site to see no matter what they are presented with they simply go back to the beginning and repeat the same nonsense. I do agree that 2nd A advocates need to counter the message more often with the truth but unfortunately all too often it is those in power that control who's message gets put out and how. All I can do is warn those that want to own a gun and have been putting it off, do it now, if they wait much longer that possibility may be very limited and/or restricted or lost altogether. Being proactive is always the best course to take.

 

[Crimefree]

I actually have been writing a proposal that I want to get some publicity. I've been doing it quietly and hoping I can speak with an NRA rep and a local congressmen who had actually offered my father a job many moons ago. The problem with organizations like the NRA is that it is out of touch with the people who they NEED to "propagandize." Tell me how many rednecks are gonna side against the Nra if they stop damning Obama and focus on actually stopping gun control propaganda?

Good idea because the NRA are not going to figure it out for themselves. They are totally out of touch because members do not hold them accountable for their lack of interest in defending our rights. It is far to easy for the NRA to function as a business selling services. Sandy Hook was a good example. While the media and gun control are going bananas the NRA is thinking of a response for a week. When it does make a comment it is to sell the idea of armed guards at schools which can be conveniently trained by the NRA. For every member this was a slap in the face as it is support for the schools gun free act and the infringement of the 2A. Not one word is said about how schools have been turned into the place of choice of nuts and criminals.

It is easy to do both since Obanner heads the list of people to discredit. What the NRA needs to do is motivate members and train them to stand up for their rights allowing no piece of gun control crap to go undenounced in the media.

This has a twofold benefit.
People are motivated to value their rights and react to those that come along and try to smear the good name firearm owners have. It is so much easier to motivate interested people because there will always be a time when government wants to count heads.

People who will put feet on pavement in objection are serious about it and any politician who bucks that is a fool begging to lose.