Guns

[airfrogusmc]

Shamus not the issue, he's not a conservative and didn't sell himself as one and he didn't win. The question is would senior have racked up the dept like this? I don't think so. His father wasn't afraid to use the pen.

 

[jamespowers]

JP I'm not a big gun control advocate. Though I don't think all types of weapons should be available. The right to bare arms doesn't give one the right to atomic weapons. I know the only good thing an M-16 is good for. We spent dozens of hours on that subject in boot camp and believe me the guy next door to me shouldn't be able to buy one period.
The VP should have his hunting privileges revoked for gosh sakes...

Yep, those automatic hands and feet are really killers and the guy next door to me shouldn't be able to buy them period.
I have what you speak of and it has never hurt a flea---a few paper targets yes but nothing living. Why don't you trust your neighbor? Have you been checking Megan's List?
The VP just might lose his hunting license. Wait and see.:jeep:

Regards to all,

J

 

[jamespowers]

and he didn't win.

Define "win" then.

 

[airfrogusmc]

JP my question is after firing everythig from 38s to 50 cals in the Corps who in their right mind would want an M-16? There only one thing it does well. It certainly ain't the greatest target rifle. I liked the M-14 way better for that.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Well, i was always taught that you don't turn around and shoot behind you when you're hunting. Just in case there's someone behind you. Duh.

You only shoot things that are in front of you. As i understand it, the responsible shooter in bird hunting has a 150 degree range in front - with 15 degrees on each side as safety for his fellow hunters. He never shoots at anything above his head (the shot would eventually come back and land on his head) or behind him.

Sh*t happens, is the term, i believe ...

bk

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah but when stuff happens with weapons someone gets hurt or worse. Never squeeze it off 'till you have a hard target and your bros are not in your sights oh thats right he wasn't in the military...

 

[Andykev]

Wait until....

I must disagree. Did anyone read my post about carelessness, or inexperiecne? Or how about the Patrol Division Commander with over 33 years in our agency, that had an AD on the range demonstrating a shotgun? Never broke stride, just kept on with his tatical exercise. He knows weapons. But he still had an accidental discharge. AD. No one was injured, but a few guys had to brush dirt off their clothes after hitting the deck.

I think that you weren't there, and Dick Chaney made a big mistake, hurt, no SHOT a friend, and has now to live with that, plus being flamed in the media.

Airfrog. MK's post was that your inital post had no link or reference to what you were saying. Now, we have gone off on a huge tangent of gun safety. Guns are only as safe as the person holding it. Someone posted that he has seen a child AD and shoot another kid. Well what is up with that? Hope they filed Felony charges against the A** H**** parent who left a FIREARM within reach of children. If I recall, it is a FELONY to do so in California.

My original point, is that ANYONE can have an accident with a gun. Or a car, or a plane, or the skill saw. S*** Happens. You weren't there, so don't sit behind your keyboard and paint that Dick Chaney is a lame that shouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near a firearm, let alone command the US Forces.

You are a former USMC, so show some respect for the Second In Command, Commander In Chief. I don't understand how this commentary of an accidental discharge was stretched somehow into this guys political status and your disagreement with his abilities with being Vice President. And if you really were in the service, which I do not doubt, then you KNOW that the uppers don't really affect the good work the working grunts do on the line.


Not personal. Just that things can happen. Judge not.

 

[Steve]

This topic reeks of schizophrenia. Airfrogusmc, just what point are/were you trying to make with the first post? Are upset that Cheney shot someone? That he's not being charged with recklessness in regard to a firearm? Or are you just reminding us that the M-14 is better than the M-16?

 

[jamespowers]

JP my question is after firing everythig from 38s to 50 cals in the Corps who in their right mind would want an M-16? There only one thing it does well. It certainly ain't the greatest target rifle. I liked the M-14 way better for that.

The answer to that is quite easy. As a civilian, I have fired the same weapons you have and I can see why someone would want an M-16. It does several things well when it is correctly smithed to do so. Just ask an Armalite collector. The 223 cartridge is a flexible round that can do many things. It has quite a bit of punch and the sporterized versions are quite accurate without the recoil of the 308 M-14 or that of the 30-06 M-1 Garand. Its all about versatility not as in its current state but what you can do with it when correctly tuned.
The same can be said of why a person prefers to drive a Ferrari over a Dodge. The Ferrari is built for speed. A speed that you invariably cannot drive on the freeway. Why do they sell so many then? Its obvious. Because you can buy one. People have different tastes. I cannot understand driving a Ferrari everyday because of my tall waisted stature and the lack of comfort that the cabin has inside of it for me but some love it. It is just another choice and I accept it as it is. The Ferrari can go over 200 mph but the speed limit is 65 in most areas. Should it be banned because it has the capability to break the law just as any firearm does from a flintlock up to the M-16?

Regards to all,

J

 

[MK]

.

I knew this thread was going to be a rukus. We really didn't need this.

I would like to see those with a political axe to grind to stand down for a while. The Observation Bar has enough hornet's nests to last us for a time. How about giving us all a break for a bit? Exercise some gun control and store the hand gernades. Thank you.

 

[jamespowers]

Yeah but when stuff happens with weapons someone gets hurt or worse. Never squeeze it off 'till you have a hard target and your bros are not in your sights oh thats right he wasn't in the military...

Let's see, would I rather be beat to death with hands and feet or shot with one bullet done and over with. Hmmmm..... Guns are not the problem it is usually operator error. Just as AK mentioned with planes, trains and automobiles. :cheers1:

Regards,

J

 

[Bebop]

I think sane people, without a history of criminal activity and who have passed well concieved tests should be able to own whatever gun they want to own. Derringers are intended for only one purpose also. The theory that an M-16 is only good for one thing can be said about any gun. That is what my guns are for. To shoot the bad guy. I shoot targets and make a hobby out of it so I will be able to use the weapon for it's intended purpose without harm to me or innocent people. I say let the good guys have the guns and get serious about not letting criminals get away with crimes. There are enough laws to keep the idiots disarmed. They just need to be strictly and powerfuly enforced. We don't need more laws that don't do anything but make the good guys into law breaking good guys. If you have an "accident" while hunting, you should pay a high price for having had that accident. It does not matter if you are rich and famous or just a run of the mill guy. Not making someone pay dearly for being careless about guns is what makes society have the attitude that says "take all guns away from everyone". It can all be said with my signature, "Legalize adulthood".

 

[shamus]

What does the current vice president "shooting" his "hunting" friend have to do with gun laws/control?

I mean if every vice president "accidently" shot his friend hunting, then maybe we should have some sort or anti-vice-president gun law. But as far as I know, and I haven't researched this yet, but I think he's the first to actually shoot someone while in office. So he has that going for him at least.

And unless he shot him with an M-16 or other automatic rifle, then lets talk about what shotgun he used and which shell? Perhaps a 7 or a 9? Over Under or double? or perhaps he's a sporting man and goes for the single shot? I doubt the sporting man thing, so I go for an over under.

 

[Harry Lime]

I think sane people, without a history of criminal activity and who have passed well concieved tests should be able to own whatever gun they want to own. Derringers are intended for only one purpose also. The theory that an M-16 is only good for one thing can be said about any gun. That is what my guns are for. To shoot the bad guy. I shoot targets and make a hobby out of it so I will be able to use the weapon for it's intended purpose without harm to me or innocent people. I say let the good guys have the guns and get serious about not letting criminals get away with crimes. There are enough laws to keep the idiots disarmed. They just need to be strictly and powerfuly enforced. We don't need more laws that don't do anything but make the good guys into law breaking good guys. If you have an "accident" while hunting, you should pay a high price for having had that accident. It does not matter if you are rich and famous or just a run of the mill guy. Not making someone pay dearly for being careless about guns is what makes society have the attitude that says "take all guns away from everyone". It can all be said with my signature, "Legalize adulthood".

If your guns are intended to "shoot the bad guy" why do you shoot targets?

What "bad guys" threaten you so much you need fully automatic weapons to shoot them? Why are the bad guys after you?

How do you determine the "sane" from the "insane?"

If the VP was "sane" and got a gun, now that he's abused the privilege by your reasoning and should have his gun taken away is he "insane?"

If "there are enough laws to keep the idiots disarmed" why do you need a gun "to shoot bad guys?"

If we don't need "more laws that make the good guys into law breaking good guys" how do you propose we "strictly enforce" your plan?

How do we "legalize adulthood" when your definition of "adulthood" is so confusing and self-serving?

Harry Lime

 

[Nathan Flowers]

.

That's enough for now, all.