| Author | Message | ||
     Phillyblast |
Rocket, Did you get the squirrel?  Blake, "Don't mess with Texas" is an anti-littering slogan. Pick up those spent shells, ya'here? | ||
| Daves |
Aaron,Paul and Rocket? | ||
| M1combat |
I like the title on the pic Blake  . | ||
| Newfie_buell |
That was my guess!!! Thank Blake for owning up to the admin thing. As for those pics and video of Rocket, damm I wish I could have been there to try those ON A TARGET RANGE!!!! Back to the topic. I think we have all established there is not one of us here who would consider some kind of "Deadly Force" in order to protect friends, family or property!!! Something else to think about!!!! Do you think a Judge/Jury would see the acceptability of Deadly Force different from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction or State to State? I mean that lets say if a mugger approached me here in St. John's (very low violent crime rate), I pulled out a knife and stabbed them ONCE which was fatal compared to me walking through a Southern Texas Town and the same thing happened but I pull out my perfectly legal hand gun and shoot once. How would each court view that use? Thats the new question!!!! I am liking this thread!!! Let the debate begin. | ||
| Phillyblast |
Dingdingding. What's he get? | ||
| Rocketman |
See, what I read hear is, no one that is pro gun believes it is just their right to use a gun for sport or leisure interests. The pro gun types believe they also have a right to use guns to defend themselves, family, property or whatever. Aside from the fact that many pro gun types here like to boast about their prowess, the pro gun types also assume they are wholesome and responsible types who know when it is ok or not ok to take someones life. Gimme a break. The pictures alone posted in this thread tell me that some of you are mentally retarded and seriously unstable gung-ho types with itchy trigger fingers. Rocket | ||
| M1combat |
And the anti-gun types assume they are in a higher mental state and impose their will on others. All in all, they were all just bricks in THE WALL. Teacher... Leave them kids alone. All in all you're just another brick in THE WALL. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
This was not an anti-gun thread, go back and read a couple of the questions posed. After this discussion I have learned a lot about guns and the attitudes towards them. If I did live an a place where the threat of violence was higher I would consider carrying one. But up here in the middle of the cold north Atlantic I really don't need to carry any kind of form of deadly force. | ||
| P0p0k0pf |
Wow Rocket... your argument just degraded a bit... What is the point of saying pro-gunners like to boast about their prowess? So? Motorcycle enthusiasts like to boast about their prowess on two wheels... Someone's like/dislike of guns has zero to do with their character or morals. WHAT THEY DO with a gun may dictate something... but not their feelings toward firearms. I'd like to know what you think is wrong with believing one may defend themself with a firearm. Furthermore, someone who relies on a firearm in a dire circumstance isn't choosing whether it is ok to take a life. They are choosing to protect themself. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Back to the Question Please? | ||
| Mutt2jeff |
Good argument Rocket, people who exercise their 2nd amendment right and enjoy shooting guns at the range with friends are retarded and like to kill anyone that so much as looks at them funny. Wish i had figured it out sooner  (Message edited by mutt2jeff on November 17, 2004) (Message edited by mutt2jeff on November 17, 2004) | ||
| Tramp |
"Just (I think) that throughout its history the M.G. has sometimes had a magazine. The Lewis gun comes to mind" absolutely. also the BAR (the militarily designated original model, not the hunting line which came much later) had an optional clip, hence the AR part of the name. it was a crossover which could be categorized in either AR or MG. really nice weapon, too, i had one once. the 60 is still an underrated workhorse, as well. i loved the warsaw pact hdwe. we used ta lug around. the kalashnikov is sort of the Buell of the automatic rifle world. ancient design, bulletproof, drop it in mud, snow or sand and it comes up swingin'....still competitive today. nothing like it. there's a world of difference betwixt what a weapon is like on weekend forays to the range and what it's like when ya sleep with it through a muddy, miserable winter, hard-pressed to keep it clean and used ...sporadically and reactively... the AK will outperform anything made since it's over-50 year old inception. the buell of automatic rifles | ||
| Tramp |
as to all that 'shoot first argue afterward'(edward g. robinson as 'rico') jabber on this thread - hells yeah. i'd ratgher be alive and dealing with tedious court proceedings and some big house time than to be dead and gone like 'poor otis'... if your life or that of a loved one (or just that of a dcent person) is threatened, shoot to kill. period. if you get sent upstate you get sent as a man, and not as some blithering moron who couldn't make a decision at a critical moment. ya know, i have yet to visit texas, sounds like they have their sheee-it together there, much like montana. the latter is just a bit too racist for me. | ||
| M1combat |
"if your life or that of a loved one (or just that of a dcent person) is threatened, shoot to kill. period. if you get sent upstate you get sent as a man, and not as some blithering moron who couldn't make a decision at a critical moment. " Well said. | ||
| Outrider |
I have the feeling those that responded missed the meaning of Newfie's post that I considered to be noteworthy. In essence, it asked if you were prepared to accept the responsibilities. Apparently, you all are. I especially liked CJ's post about the couple in Arkansas. The husband did the correct thing in training his bride, getting her a weapon and insuring she got a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Now all she has to do is defend herself to the letter of the law in a State or Jurisdiction that recognizes her concealed carry permit to avoid prosecution for a wrongful shooting. Note, it is a lot easier for a woman to pass the litmus test for a lawful shooting than it is for a man. You can call that discrimination if you wish, but that's the way it is pretty much all over this country. Earlier today, I posted a question that no one has yet to address and that simply boils down to... What happens if a person gets caught carrying much less using a firearm illegally? When pondering the question, remember (or in some of your cases, be advised) there is a big difference between carrying a firearm legally and illegally in car or on a motorcycle. In essence, a legal carry makes the firearm so inaccessible that you will never be able to react to a life threatening situation in time so you may want to consider another line of defense. The only reason for the question is for fact finding so that those that are considering carrying a loaded firearm illegally can make a more clear judgment concerning when and where they want to "pack heat" in the event they cannot get a concealed weapons permit where they live. I live in Wisconsin and we have been trying to pass a Concealed Carry Bill for years now and the Democrats that control our State Senate and now our current Democrat Governor have successfully keeping it from a vote on the Senate Floor for years now. The last time was an illegal filibuster at the end of the year that was only a part of Senator Chavala's (SP?) downfall and got him kicked out of office before the next election. Now we only have two politicians to overcome. The relatively new Democrat Governor and the Democrat Senator that replaced Chavala as top dog in the State Senate. As part of the movement for a Concealed Carry Bill, we have sponsored legal meetings for citizens to discuss the issue with politicians, offered and conducted training seminars some of which were taught my Massad Ayoob (I know I probably misspelled that one) who is one of the foremost firearms authors and trainers in the World, and have provided special training for Wisconsin Residents who want to go to Minnesota and get an Out-of-state Concealed Weapons Permit that is recognized in the various States and Municipalities that allow concealed carry. Note that even with a permit, you cannot carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin and many other States. So don't tell me I am a dove or any other such dribble when I ask you if you are aware of what you are doing when you carry illegally and what the consequences are if you get caught doing so in a jurisdiction that does not allow it. Plenty of folks have gone to jail and even prison for illegal carry of a loaded firearm. By no means am I saying any of you shouldn't carry but just make sure you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions in the event you get caught with a loaded gun in your pocket or tank bag during a routine traffic stop or some other such insignificant event. Perhaps that is something a lot of you ought to think about the next time you Vote. | ||
| M2me |
The answer to Newfie's question is that in both instances the court should rule it as self defense. If someone threatens you with lethal force you should be able to defend yourself with a knife or a gun or whatever. The problem is some people bring up situations like somebody spits at your wife/girlfriend or somebody breaks into your house and is stealing your TV or somebody is in your garage stealing your lawnmower. In these cases you can't just shoot the person. Not even the police can do that. Some people ask, "Gee, can't I defend my property? Can't I defend my wife's honor?" The answer is no you can't, not with lethal force. What are the odds that any of us will ever be faced with a truly lethal force situation? The answer for most Americans and Newfoundlanders too is practically zero. I know it's far more likely that I'll be killed in a motorcycle accident. But I'm not going to stop riding and I'm not going to start carrying a weapon. | ||
| M1combat |
I hope you aren't placed in a situation that causes you to reconsider. If you are... Good luck with it. | ||
| Blublak |
Tramp.. Just a couple of quick notes.. Most of the time the term 'automatic' when referring to firearms is used to describe a SEMI-Automatic. That is, self-loading (it 'automatically' reloads the chamber after each shot is fired, hence a revolver is not a semi-automatic firearm) many handguns and rifles are called automatics, but are semi-automatic. Machine gun refers to the fact that the firearm in question will fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. Or, if you prefer, a true automatic firearm. Sub-Machinegun was coined by Thompson to describe his new invention, which, unlike all other automatic designs in use at the time, fired a pistol cartridge. Since then it has come to mean any automatic firearm that fires a 'sub' or pistol caliber round. These have nothing to do with feed type. Magazine, belt, tray. They all work with both semi and automatic types. Outrider, In all states, concealed carry without a permit is a crime. The severity of it is different in each state. For example, in Virginia your first offense is a Class 1 Misdemeanor. After that it becomes a felony. Now, if you are committing a crime (other than the carry) it's automatically a felony and added to your charges. Virginia has 'Exile', which adds a non-negotiable 5 years to your time; the judge has no choice in this. Now, before you get all carried away, remember that conspiracy is a crime, so if you are planning a crime, have an illegal gun when you get arrested, that's an extra 5 year term. Secondly, if you are carrying illegally and use that gun, you are already committing a crime so your use of the firearm (even though you were defending the 80 year old nun that was being raped by a gang of crazed maniacs who declared you were next after they finished killing her) you will be charged with two crimes, the carry and the shooting that resulted from that illegal carry. What a lawyer and jury make of it something altogether different. Does that help? Later, | ||
| Road_thing |
Tramp: Come on down, dude, I think you might like it here! rt  | ||
| Tramp |
um...blublack- i think most of us are aware that auto means BOTh full and selective AND ALSO simply semiautomatic weapons. you're a wee bit mistaken about that "machine gun" definition. it's feed and bipod/tripod thang. also, i seem to remember a german submachine gun (machine pistol-tomatah/tomahtah) that preceded the Thompson. danged if i can remember who made it, though. it'll come to me. if anyone in the miltary ever referred to their 16 as a machine gun (even though by your definition it would be, being it'll shoot burst and continual full auto as well as selective fire) their arms'd near fall-off from the pushups. a 60 is an mg, a 16 is an ar. by the way- COOOL looking bike ya got! road thing- i think if i ever visited texas i'd never leave... | ||
| Tramp |
blublak- before i allow my previous post to sound really lame or arrogant, i am sure that the original full autos were called machine guns. i know the term was applied to gatlings, and they preceded full auto rifles, so you'd be correct in terms of origin but incorrect by modern military jargon....and being full auto IS a military tool, by design...well... | ||
| Sportyeric |
I still don't find much merit in the self-defense potential. If Tramp had a pistol when teaching driving manners, how would that work? If the student intended to shoot you for approaching his car, you would have to have yours drawn and aimed, in a police-takedown stance, to be of much effect. If this is your opening approach, you show a lack of balls if he hasn't a gun. "Get out of the car or I'll shoot you so I can beat some manners into you." I can see why the fellow flipping the bird might need to be packing, though. The only time recently that I could have used a pistol was when I gave to the finger to a really big biker-type and I had to apologize for cutting him off. If Newfie's mugger has a gun pointed at him, when does he draw his? Do you just hold it in your hand while you're walking down the street. A few pukes have been doing home invasions on seniors and beating them severely. Even if grandpa had a gun in his hand, these guys come through the door so fast and hard that nobody's got much of a chance anyway. And if you have to grab your pistol whenever some knocks on the door, you should move. I've looked down the barrel of a loaded rifle three times: (1)Drunken ex-friend, aged fourteen or so. Didn't know it was loaded. Took out the right lens of my eyeglasses! I gave him a compound fracture of the forearm later, but that was for a different reason. He's still on the top of my list for when I go postal. (We have to use a bow and arrow for that.)(2) Friend's drunken dad, loaded up and about to go hunting for his ex-wife's boyfriend. Me and my buddies, aged about 20, all got to look up the barrel of the 30-06 when we tried to talk him out of it. (We were sitting on the couch, He was standing in the middle of the room.)He passed out at the wheel before he left the driveway. (3) I had the more persuasive argument in a discussion of driving manners outside a bar when my debating opponent's friend made me stop by getting out the hunting rifle. I probably could have gotten to him before he had it pointed at me but I figured stopping the beating was an adequate way to defuse the situation. Can't see how a pistol would have been any use in any those. I'd like to see fewer drunks waving guns at me and the best way for that to happen is for there to be fewer guns. Seattle and Vancouver are similar cities. Same size, climate, geography. Same rate of break-ins, assaults, and so on. Seattle has ten times the homicide rate, though. Because too many arguments that are settled with fists or frying pans in Canada are settled with pistols in the States. And the right to bear arms? That's in a militia. To counter oppression by the government. Like in Waco. Doesn't really work as well these days as it might have 200 years ago when it was written up. Given that Democrats can only muster about half the people in the country to vote for them, its unlikely that there'll be much political will to try to fix the situation for generations to come. | ||
| Redhatbuell |
I love this thread! Of course as a firearms instructor I'm kinda biased.  The standard for whether an application of force is justified, as defined by Supreme Court Rulings, is "objective reasonableness". Basically, what would a reasonable person, given the same situation, the same subject actions, etc be reasonably expected to do? You still are going to get "monday morning quarterbacked" but at least the standard is now, for lack of a better term, reasonable. Also, having grown up in the People's Republic of California, I found it interesting that carrying an unlicensed firearm was a misdemeanor, while carrying a switchblade was a felony. Most states have some sort of "Use a gun, go to prison" law for those that use a firearm illegally. Tramp, the sub machine gun you're probably thinking of would be the Schmeisser MP 38/40. A very popular movie prop. Interestingly it was the Germans that coined the term Assault Rifle with the "Sturmgehwer 44". You might also be gratified to know that the US Military agrees with your argument and recently changed the designation of the M249 SAW to the "Automatic Rifle". Of course the M16 series is still classified as a plain old rifle, select fire or not.  | ||
| Blake |
Definitely. John (M2me), "Some people ask, "Gee, can't I defend my property? Can't I defend my wife's honor?" The answer is no you can't, not with lethal force." John, the truth is that in the great state of Texas, <pause with hat removed and hand to heart> and in a lot of other states one indeed may legally use lethal force to defend property. Read the Texas statutes that Blublak posted in the immediately previous archive. His egregiously fallacious interpretation notwithstanding, anyone who is breaking into your home is fair game. Anyone threatening who is trying to steal your property is fair game, even if they are attempting to flee (recall the story I related above). Oh heck, I'll repost the law...
Pretty damn simple English to me. If someone is stealing my stuff, even if they are fleeing with it, and if it is reasonable to expect that I will not recover it and that confronting the thief with other than deadly force would pose a risk to me of serious injury, I am perfectly within the law to shoot the thief. And anyone breaking into my home that poses a threat is fair game. Case closed. Next? That there is the law of the land down here and in lots of other states. REALLY! It should be the law of the land everywhere! A man's home IS his castle and is his sovereign territory. Any and all home invaders and trespassers with malevolent intent and exhibiting malevolent action should be taking their lives into their hands, as is proper and reasonable. Denying a man the right to protect his own property relegates him to becoming a dependent of the state who is forced to rely only upon goverment for his very protection, security, and even his very livelyhood (theft of timber, cattle, tractors, etc...). Any state that would put me in such a postition is unlikely to ever have me as a resident. Sounds too much like socialism/communism to me. To hell with THAT! I'm still confused how Blublak could possibly interpret the above as he did, which is the exact opposite of what the law says. Blublak, You say that you interpret the above as... "Lethal force is a last resort and must only be applied when you are left with no choice and are faced with a lethal threat to your self Wrong. Read 3 (B) again. It states clearly that deadly force is warranted if in the employment of non-deadly force to foil theft/arson/burglary.. you would risk serious injury. There is no requirement that the home/property owner be faced with a lethal threat. "If the threat is only to property that can be replaced, you are not justified in using lethal force." Wrong, the law makes no such distinction about the property. The law only addresses the consideration that the property is not likely to be "recovered"; "recovered", as in likely to be returned to you or recovered by others and returned to you, not "replaced." Big difference. Tramp, You would like it down here plenty. Lots of pretty girls, homes are inexpensive, and land is too. Not sure you could wean yourself away from Broadway and all the shows though. I <ahem> happened to take note of the <ahem> gay old time you and Greg (Buell's Rule!) are having these days. (Message edited by blake on November 18, 2004) | ||
| Sportsman |
Texas Rocks Maryland politicians are stupid, supposidly you have to be cornered to use deadly force. Thankfully I live in a very secluded area and own a shovel. Reporting such an event is asking to be bankrupted from paying defence lawyers. On a side note I saw a T shirt that said "Honk, if you've never seen a pistol fired from a moving motorcycle" Thought that was funny. | ||
| Unibear12r |
Thompsons "Trench Broom" was invented at about the end of W.W.1. It appeared crude at first without even a butt stock. Redesigned for police use in the 20's but became the first successful sub-machine gun because of civilian sales. Its the reason the 20's roared and its now illegal for civilians to have fully automatic weapons except by special permit. I think Thompson did coin the sub (for sub-rifle round) machine gun term. In Europe the term machine-pistol was used. The MP38/40 was adopted by the German Army in 1938 long after the Thompson but there may have been earlier European machine pistols.The Sturmgehwer was the rifle that never should have been. Designed as a defense weapon and sidelined a few were mistakenly shipped to the Eastern Front. When the field commanders screamed for more the High Command didn't have a clue. When they figured it out they had to rename it an "Assault Rifle" because Hitler would never ok the production of anything with the term defense in its title. Study of captured Sturmgehwer44s is what led to the AK47. Calling the AK the Buell of assault rifles is just a little bit OUT THERE for me but thinking in just mechanical terms I kinda understand... I think. Redhat I too was thinking of the switchblade and dirk/dagger vs ccw laws when I made my previous comment about California. Tramp I'm pretty sure there was a W.W.2 Japanese MG that was belt fed and/or hopper fed and/or excepted the standard rifle magazine. It was not popular. (Message edited by unibear12r on November 18, 2004) | ||
| Court |
I don't know about other states but I would be willing to take a hypothetical guess... If you have a New York City Concealed Carry Permit and, just for instance, are riding a motorcycle up the New Jersey Turnpike and accidently expose your ankle holster while passing a New Jersey State Trooper it will cost you about $20,000 (conveniently spread over about 30 months) and all the political contacts (they had better be good enough to call the Commander of the State Barracks and tell them "do this or else"  that you have. The M16A1 the govt provided me hand a handy 3 position switch on the receiver. When set to Auto twas quite fun...particularly the night, at San Onefre, when the Armorer screwed up and an intimate group of 240 (4 Platoons) spent an evening with 250,000 phosphorous tracers in magazines that were SUPPOSED to have a tracer something like every 4th round. I do have the pictures and the sight was visible on I-5 miles away. Texas.....a whole nother Kingdom. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
That excerpt from Texas is brutally obvious!!!! But I would be willing to bet its not the same in all States, as for Provinces, if its outside of hunting season and a cop see any kind of gun, your arse is getting hauled in. | ||
| Rick_a |
They only sell uppers. Pretty inexpensive considering it's one of the most accurate of all stock .50's right out of the box. | ||
| Aesquire |
Kalashnikov's birthday was the other day. One of the Original's in the world. Colt, Browning, a few others. While on the gun crank subject, the SKS was never full auto to my knowledge. Otherwise, Tramp's about right. It seems silly to argue specific definitions, but words are supposed to mean something. Politicians are spin experts, ( define "is" for the sake of sanity... good grief ) and manipulate meaning to twist the hearts & minds. Eric in Vancouver ( Sportyeric )fails to see that gun control, as preached by the leftist's inevitably results in increased crime, and government oppression. He is from Canada, though, the most civilized nation, ( no sarcasm, really, I like Canada ) one some have been waiting to invade & uplift the poor Yanks living below them. ( ask Mexican's if they secretly don't wish for U.S. rule & riches ) Never happen though. Canadian comics need somewhere to go to make a living. |
