dang rochard. ok.


i simply provided a link to a well-done documentary, you can wave it off as slanted without even watching it but it's clear that is how you react to things that don't coincide with your incorrect view.

?

I won't be shooting anyone. Where on Earth do you get that? Anyone that knows me knows I am a peace loving hippie for all intensive purposes. Fear was not the issue because there was security in knowing that I was prepared to protect myself and those around me.

I just have seen events in my life that make me realize that ownership of a gun, besides the fun of target practice and hunting, does serve a practical purpose of protection and that should be an inalienable right, just like our Forefathers reasoned out.

Ask all the Swiss adults that are required to own them.

Have you ever driven a car that tops out at 85? I have, I have no desire to go back to those days.
Intents and purposes. :)

Were you in Santa Cruz? I was and I know how mellow it is. Unless you are cutting in on some surf rat's wave it is one of the most peace loving places on the planet. Which is why I was shocked when there were flashpoints - that could easily have been worse and luckily were diffused - but those opened my eye witness eyes to the fact of how quickly things can get dangerous in those types of earth shattering, literally in this case, events.

Until age 30. Then they are required to turn them in. And they are not given any ammo for their gun. So it is more of a stylized club at that point.

The swiss are nothing like us ,its very very different.
http://www.businessinsider.com/switz...erring-2012-12

I lived through the same earth quake. Odd, I never heard of groups of armed people rolling around looking for food.

I've learned two things from SOA....

1) Gemma is fucking hot. It's changed my thoughts about MILFs.
2) The CIA is bad ass. Don't fuck with them.

I don't want to ever have to pull a gun on anyone, nor would I even threaten to do so unless I felt a life threat.

We went out to get video of the looting. While we were shooting one strip mall getting sacked, a group started at us and asked what we were doing - but we just said "sorry" and jumped in our car.

At a stop light, we stopped for red, even though no other cars were obeying any form of traffic signal. A car of guys with guns pulled along side us. We rolled down our windows. It was like a grey poupon commercial. They said "you folks shouldn't be out right now". We said, "yes, as a matter of fact we are heading home right now." I had my hand on my gun but there could not have been a more polite exchange.

Peace of mind is not a bad thing. In that regard it is merely a tool. Do you need a hammer every day if you are not a carpenter? No. But it sure is nice to have one if you do need it one day.

btw...

I also lived in Venice on a street called "Brooks Ave" that someone altered to read "Rock Ave" which was more appropriate.

Cops stopped us all the time thinking we were there to buy crack. They would say things like "we pull a body out of here every night why do you live here?"

Yes, we could hear gunfire many nights of the week. However, I was never worried about the gangsters. Those guys were running a biz and as long as we didn't mess with them then they were completely friendly to us, less menacing than the cops to tell you the truth.

I don't live in paranoia. I don't even have guns right now to be honest. However I do believe that preparation, due to the events I have witnessed personally, is not a bad thing.

:thumbsup

You didn't hear me say that either, dingus.

I should add in... This is really the only reason why I own firearms - in case something "huge" happens and people riot... Be it an earthquake or some kind of disaster.

We had that propane train fire here where most of the town was evacuated, and it just reminded me we do need to be prepared for anything.

In the event riots break out without warning - highly unlikely - I'm prepared.

well apply that to the gun debate. having the gun shoot extra is too much they say. the car is built for it tho its illegal to use it. same difference the govt trust you to not drive way over the limit.

The government is Never Shady. Not even back in the wild west days making up excuses to take peoples land.

They will ALWAYS find a "REASON" to do what they want.

Exactly why I have my AR-15
Plus I do honestly love to still hunt Iron sight one shot at a time coyotes with it. I only use a 10 or 20 round mag as the 30 or 50 ones tend to jam all the time. I can shoot 30 rounds at targets faster with 3 ten round mags faster than one 30 round mag.
I could use my 30/30 30-06 or 7mm, but that is just to much power for such a small animal.

wow a lot of the post are coming down pretty hard on this sleazy dream guy. He in the biz? Or just cocky with jealous haters or both?

to make war ? :winkwink:

Why do you have more than one kitchen knife? Rocks in your back yard? All can kill people.

The gun debate is about as useless as debating religion and politics. No matter what your position is, someone disagrees. It's an endless debate and gun owners are guilty until proven innocent just for "wanting" to own them.

The one thing I think needs to be addressed is training. you can buy a gun here with absolutely no training. I think that's about as careless as letting 16 year old kids drive cars without a license.

And I mentioned VT where?

And that article is not necessarily "the truth" either.

1. A gun is a gun is a gun and any gun in the hand of any citizen in any country is just as dangerous.

2. Swiss have an advantage because not only does the militia aspect teach them gun responsibility and safety but also respect.

3. Swiss have a much different social strata, median income, social services, etc. and none of these factors are even being considered as contributing positive or negative influences. In a dense population, regardless of being a city or a state or a country, those types of things should be weighed in as well. Ever notice that in the US at least, the gun rampaging types tend to be white upper middle class in very competitive social systems - why not look into those contributing environmental conditions that lead up to the situation? Because that is much tougher than saying "guns are bad, mmmkay".

Agree x 3.

Tougher standards, licenses/permits, etc. makes sense to me. Even a law abiding moron that owns a gun scares me just as much as a rampaging psycho.

Alcohol is designed to be consumed in moderation responsibly. Absolut does not bottle vodka for you to Amy Winehouse it. Why? Because they lose a customer if you do. An AR-15 with a 30rd or 100rd clip if used AS DESIGNED is meant to dispense 30 or 100 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Those bullets are not intended for deer or targets, they are intended for humans. It's that simple.

Self-inflicted? alcohol Homicide? guns The harm to society cannot be compared like that. If I drink myself to death, so what? If I shoot people at the mall that is an issue.

If you have $1000 cash and go to a gun show it is no harder then you having $20 and going to the grocery store. Comparing a consumable product to a discretionary one is impossible.

Then why not shoot with rubber bullets? Why does the projectile have to be deadly for you to prove you can aim? Why do you need 30rd or 100rds at the range? To answer you question I would say you going to the gun range and shooting and you drinking Vodka at home are both 99.99% safe. What is your point?

No, I think it pretty much has to do with not having your 5 year old shot at school dude. I want to stop your fun???, seriously, that was weak. This is an emotional argument, but it has nothing to do with me limiting your fun factor.

Ok, I don't think that all gun peeps are hicks. Not at all. On a note I worked for the NRA for a year, so I have some pretty deep insight into this.

BTW, I am ok with CCW and I don't have a problem with hand guns, I have a problem with large capacity clips and loopholes in gun registration. I understand that banning "assault weapons" is really just take scary looking guns out of the equation. However it also begins to change the Rambo culture of this country which is half the problem in my opinion.

Keep reasonable guns in reasonable people's hands.

I always wonder about all this "training".

Here's all you need to know:
1. Don't ever point it at anybody.

2. Keep it somewhere safe.

3. Make sure the safety is on when not in use.

4. Practice your aim (unless you own a shotgun like me, then all you have to do is point it in the general direction)

What else is there to be "trained" for? It ain't brain surgery. It's just a gun, very simple to use and common sense dictates most of what you need to know.

It ain't like anybody is being "trained" for black ops or the navy seals. My shotgun required no "training". My grandfather showed me everything I need to know when he and I would go shooting in the woods starting at around age 6.

No one addresses the root cause with gun violence because it's too difficult. Politicians would never blame the car if a drunk driver ran over a bunch kids in a school cross walk. That would be no less tragic than what happened in SH yet they jumped on the gun ban wagon like it was planned.

The Feds love guns, just not in our hands.

I find it odd that politicians focus so much attention on varmint rifles yet no one has an issue with .50 Cal. sniper rifles that are capable of shooting through aircraft engines. I'd love to have one but that's one weapon that serves absolutely no purpose in society.

Why are they not meant for targets?

The problem is that you are an intelligent person and all that is common sense which you as an individual grasps. But couldn't you easily write a 4 or 5 step bulleted pointed list on driving? Would you be happy with that? The point he is making is pretty logical. If you buy a gun you have to be safe with it and you should be tested and trained.

The 2nd amendment discusses a "well regulated militia". Can you have a well regulated militia with untrained shooters?

So instead of changing out a mag, you NEED to fire 100 rounds at a target IN succession?

Are you lining up your shot for each of those or are you just squeezing off rounds?

If your just squeezing off rounds, then fine, lets manufacture a gun range mag that accommodate rubber bullets for that purpose. The accuracy issue in then negated if you want to Rambo it.

If you are lining up your shots for accuracy then change out your magazines every ten shots. No problem, you don't need 30rds or 100rds.

If you NEED to hone your skills of firing off 100 real rounds with accuracy without changing out your mag, unless you are in law enforcement or the military I don't want you to have a gun. ;)

So tell me your target shooting 100rd necessity story.

the sleazydream wont buy this idea. but here goes.

life does not always exist in the 1st world. as far-L correctly points out, natural disasters like hurricane katrina can almost instantly convert a city from an orderly society to savagery. Here in NY, in august 2003 a power glitch caused power to be lost to the entire northeastern USA. Just hours of power outage made traveling home dangerous. i witnessed 3 car accidents as morons flew through dead stoplights in a 30 minute span. I went to my local bar & it was cash only. I could only imagine 3 weeks of power being out. anarchy as long as the feds cant bring in the cavalry.

imagine our country if there was no 2008 bailout, & the banks all crashed & nobody could withdraw money, nobody could do shit without cash in hand. anarchy. nothing less.

people who want guns banned forget humans are still in the animal kingdom, & all the fruits of our intelligent designs can die almost instantly & without prediction.

so owning a semi-auto is essential to beat back the roving savages that will inevitably accompany the loose nukes that take out manhattan & DC, & gives our economy a heart attack not seen since the 1907 panic. guaranteed that the anti-gun crowd will be wishing for a gun when jonny law is not there in a state of disorder.

:2 cents:

I give you kudos for attempting make a rationale argument, but it fails on many levels.

First, you say alcohol is designed to be used in moderation. Huh??? You do realize that alcohol and tobacco companies fought hard against any legislation that required disclosures regarding the negative impact of consuming tobacco and alcohol products, even in excess or when pregnant. And have you seen a bud light commercial recently? They promote "moderate" drinking? Are you really going to tell me that the 2 point font on the bottom of beer commercials that say, "drink responsibly" shows the true motivation of alcohol executives. Or what about malt liquor billboards plastered all over poor neighborhoods in this country. Come on now, alcohol executives are more deplorable then gun company executives IMHO, and it isn't even close.

As for "harm on society", alcohol destroys families and is one of the leading causes of automobile accidents, rapes, assaults, felony crimes and property damage. Alcoholism is also often passed down from generation to generation. If a 5 year old is ran over by a drunk driver, how is that any different than a death by gun? Dead is dead. And then the social cost on health care and police departments due to alcohol abuse is huge.

As for the "use rubber bullets" arguments that like non-alcoholic beer. People enjoy shooting a high powered gun because it is dangerous. That is the allure. Listen, I think sky diving is crazy, but I'm not going to pass judgement on people who enjoy it.

The fact of the matter is that banning large clips "feels good", but it isn't going to solve anything. Why? Because there are literally millions of large clips in the marketplace already. Have we not learned from alcohol prohibition. You CANNOT ban a cheap commodity that is in high demand by the public. It is impossible. If you do, all that happens is (a) a black market arises and (b) civil unrest by the populace that wants the commodity.

I agree with background checks, waiting periods and closing gun show loopholes. But outright bans are just so stupid and it is shocking to hear educated people argue that this will even remotely solve the "problem." Add on top of that the insane hypocracy in stating the "what about the children" defense when alcohol destroys and maims more than guns by a long shot, with less redeeming qualities (and regardless of your opinion of the second amendment, we can all agree that there isn't anything in the constitution about the right to drink alcohol).

It's a lot easier when you have some experience with a gun but quite a bit different when someone wants a gun that has absolutely no knowledge. It's kind of like telling a 16 year old kid that they don't need training to drive a car. After all, it's just a steering wheel, gas pedal and brake. How hard can it be? We grow up watching people drive so we should automatically know how to operate a car by the time we're of age.

I bought several guns at the local gun club in minutes but when I went to use their range, I had to watch a ridiculous 30 minute training video and complete a written test. Find the logic in that. It was basically "You can accidentally shoot yourself or someone else with the gun we just sold you, we just don't want you doing it here".

I don't believe you can compare alcohol to guns. You just can't, they are two different animals. The CEO of Absolut does not send out a bottle of Vodka with the intention that if that one single bottle is used correctly with complimentary products someone will die. The collective manufactures of an AR-15, hollow point round and 100rd clip send those products out knowing that if their products are combined and used correctly someone will die. And in the U.S. more then likely that person is not a criminal.

At the end of the day, I have two gun control issues that I believe need to be enforced better and you share one of those. I don't shoot guns and based on what you have said your certainly not the problem. So I think we need to agree to disagree.

The problem with this theory is that the more guns you pump into the system the higher the chance is that those roving groups of thugs are armed to the teeth. And the "if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" theory doesn't work here as you are talking about opportunistic people in that situation.

The other problem is that you want to set daily U.S. policy based on a nuclear attack on two U.S. metropolises. Serious question, what if all policy was set that way? That would be really odd don't you think?

your right. alcohol kills many more thousands of people every year then guns. but for some reason you obsess about the fact one is a tool of death, the other is a party lubricant. I dont recall guns making men rape/beat women, or making people drive into other people, or strip club barfights, or committing murder-suicides. somehow alcohol & its greater death rate get a pass because it doesnt make loud noise & carry 100 bullets.

:Oh crap

Fair enough, but that is a cop out IMHO. We can learn from prohibition and alcohol when discussing gun regulations. But don't even think that an alcohol company executive or tobacco executive is any more less culpable than a gun manufacturer. At the end of the day, alcohol and tobacco executives market and distribute products that are designed to hurt people, and they know they kill people in spades. But people don't want to talk about it because, "hey everyone is doing it." That is why you can kill someone while driving drunk and not see more than 5 years in prison (or no prison at all). Why? Because lawmakers, judges, jurors, politicians, soccer moms, etc. drink, and many of them drink irresponsibly. But the aforementioned folks may not shoot guns, so it is very easy for them to regulate and talk "bans" because it doesn't impact "their hobbies." Straight up hypocricy (sp) in its purest form.

no. it would not be odd. it would be prudent. disasters are unpredictable & unpredicted. all the major military attacks on the the US since 1898 have been surprises. unaccounted asteroids are passing the earth only weeks before discovery. the 03 NE power outage was not predicted, nor was the 1906 quake, or the 2004 tsunami. Warren buffet is a bright guy whose predictions are pretty good. He says a nuclear attack within 50 years is inevitable. If you think about it, a nuclear attack is as obvious as flying planes into buildings. With north korea, pakistan, iran not being all that stable, it is just a matter of time. Every WMD created has been used on a civilian population. Its only a question of when & how the next major destabilizer of society comes about. & there are a lot more people with a lot more to lose today then in the past.

WHAT???? LOL

The Collective Manufactures know someone will die? What the Fuck? They know it will be used for target practice. Ha, yep someone might die also, not very common, but yes.

I know WAY more people die from something related to Alcohol than ar-15s. The Collective Manufactures of Alcohol Know someone will die...

Of course, they know that. lol When people talk why they need to them its not target shooting. Its all the movie fantasies. Overthrowing the government , after a nuclear apocalypse and when the money becomes useless. They will hold the hordes back.You don't make hollow points to fuck up targets or watermelons. lol

somehow everyone is forgetting all the coming together and all the people who helped each other during these events and only remembering the negative.