Personal gun needs.

[merrylander]

I would really rather not have any in the house, but of late there seems to be open season on seniors. How would they know we are seniors? Probably the same way all those retirement homes that keep sending us brochures know.

At the moment I have a Crossman .177 CO pistol that looks like a Colt Python with a 6" rifled barrel, and Flornce has a 6mm CO2 1911 look alike. It has a muzzle velocity in excess of 500fps so they suggest you only use it for target practice because with paintballs it has been known to draw blood. Neither one has the orange paint on the nose.

Once when I missed the racoon the Crossman buried a flat nosed wadbuster in one of the porch railing baluster and they are hardwood.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Need? None.

Period.

John

I agree, John.
I've lived in some of the worse areas of the east bay (Oakland, emeryville), have been shot at, held up by gun point, and held hostage in a bank robbery(by law enforcement, no less) and I have never felt a need to carry a gun.
That's not to say I don't take precautions for my safety, but I don't see a gun as a reasonable precaution for my safety.

I could justify a gun if I had a need to hunt, but there is a very nice market down the street where I can purchase groceries.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by barbara

I agree, John.
I've lived in some of the worse areas of the east bay (Oakland, emeryville), have been shot at, held up by gun point, and held hostage in a bank robbery(by law enforcement, no less) and I have never felt a need to carry a gun.
That's not to say I don't take precautions for my safety, but I don't see a gun as a reasonable precaution for my safety.

I could justify a gun if I had a need to hunt, but there is a very nice market down the street where I can purchase groceries.

But think of the money you'd save if you took a gun grocery shopping with you!

Who needs Food Stamps?

John

[icenine]

There is a big difference between having a rifle for hunting and unfettered access to an assault rifle that can be modified or connected to a multi-round drum or magazine that basically makes them as lethal as weapons used in warfare. I mean if you have a 30 or a 100 round magazine the only limit is your trigger finger. I know from qualifying with weapons in the military that 10 seconds is enough time to do major damage with even normal sized magazines. I forget off hand how many rounds the standard issue 9MM baretta takes but I believe it is 10.

You can rationalize it all day long. If you can purchase an AR-15 like a gallon of milk at cheap mass made assembly line prices the massacres are going to increase. The question is do we get used to having innocent children slaughtered every so often or do we try to do something about it. The scary part is American accepting this as the price for being able to own all manner of assault weapons. Maybe it is time to leave the country after all.

All this stuff about having a personal gun for protection good luck. Anyone entering your house is going to have the advantage on you and and most civilians are not used to firing weapons, much less sleeping with one in condition one status i.e. round chambered. Like most things I feel many people buy the handgun and let it gather dust in a closet,drawer or locked case.

[JJIII]

A little levity... (Strong language)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0Y4...e_gdata_player

[CarlV]

For me, I have a BB and pellet rifle for killing beer cans once in a great while. Certainly not useful for hunting or defense, but I have no need for anything with real firepower. But if I lived where you live Dave, i would have something like what you have as it probably takes the sheriff close to an hour to get out to your place in the sticks for any reason.


Carl

[Oerets]

My take on the gun rights argument is it is all a selfish attempt to justify their toys, period. The weakest being the second amendment giving them the right to have them. They forget the well regulated part now don't they?

Another being the full auto to semi auto argument.
Come on now really, a semi auto AR15 will still shoot out down rage a thirty round mag in around a minute right? The gun in full auto cycle rate is around 600RPM and empty a thirty round mag in three seconds but still even at a minute to empty one in semi I ask why?

Ask a gun right's guy just how much worst does it need to be before they would consider pulling assault weapons? Makes their heads hurt because there is no talking points from the NRA or the gun makers on that one!


I have a life time issued CC permit and really never carry. Own well over twenty weapons from black powder to semi autos with pistols and shot guns in between. No assault weapons unless the Ruger 1022 of the wife's would be classified as one. Seeing I do have thirty round mags for it. Gladly for go them, tough loading ba$tards!



Geez the argument about then need of someday protecting yourself from the government is also weak. All I need to mention is a 500lb'r for twenty thousand feet to defeat that one!




Barney

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Geez the argument about then need of someday protecting yourself from the government is also weak. All I need to mention is a 500lb'r for twenty thousand feet to defeat that one!
Barney

Add a GPS/video 'strap on' guidance package and it'll only take one to dig a grave for these dumb assed knuckleheads. How about a 'Apache Longbow' with HomeSec stenciled on the side?

These delusional notions that someone can effect change in their favor by assassinating government officials is just that, delusional and insane. Hell, if you watch the military channel for an afternoon you would easily understand that a military assault rifle ain't going to do shit if the 'man' comes for you and/or your guns.

I resent the fact that these idjits are the one's who are really creating the 'Police State' that they are so in fear of. Dumbf**ks all of 'em.

[Boreas]

The whole thing about the "well regulated militia" is the key. You can even get stupid about what "well regulated" means and it stays the same. The 2nd Amendment was included for the defense OF the government, not defense FROM the government.

It was how the founders though to defend the country in the absence of the standing professional army that they had come to fear. The militia was intended to defend the country from invasion by foreign entities and from insurrection, the very thing that the pro-gun nuts want their freakin' guns FOR! And THAT is the most compelling reason to get these damn combat weapons out of private hands.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The whole thing about the "well regulated militia" is the key. You can even get stupid about what "well regulated" means and it stays the same. The 2nd Amendment was included for the defense OF the government, not defense FROM the government.

It was how the founders though to defend the country in the absence of the standing professional army that they had come to fear. The militia was intended to defend the country from invasion by foreign entities and from insurrection, the very thing that the pro-gun nuts want their freakin' guns FOR! And THAT is the most compelling reason to get these damn combat weapons out of private hands.

John

Right. To defend Democracy and the Republic. How is this possible if we allow the rise of privately owned armies whose leaders are not elected by the general populace and answer to no one? If anything is a recipe for a fractured, violent and anarchic society this is it. If you think freedom is dead now, wait until any asshat with the financial might to hire goons and arm them takes control of your city/county.

When you take the pledge upon entry into the military, you pledge to "obey the orders of the Commander in Chief" and ".....defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I'm pretty sure any C-in-C is going to see an armed group of citizens threatening the general populace, or the government and it's officials as a "domestic" enemy and issue orders accordingly.

Regards,
Dave