I actually need a powerful gun TO LIVE, everyday folks

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

Again, NONE of you are losing the right to bear arms

actually they will be infringing on the right with a stroke of the pen and a little media help. and that goes against our Constitutional right. if you want to argue degrees of infringment that would be another topic I think unless the op wants to go there.

I'm sure our Founding Fathers would love the idea of high capacity clips. If the admin would simple enforce the rules currently on the subject we might not have to even go further although you will never stop ultra-violence in our current society without some major perterbation that affects everyone to the same degree and forces changes to occur hopefully for the better although what do we mean by "better" or "safer"?

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


Holy Fatties Breaking In (F.B.I.) Batman. I went to high school in cooper city. The crime rate is very low there, especially compared to the surrounding cities. This is the first I've heard of a home invasion in that area. It just goes to show that you're not safe anywhere, even when asleep at your home.

I can tell you first hand that the cops there are a joke and if that person called them instead of exercising his/her rights of self defense things could have ended very badly. Now what would happen if those criminals had guns? I believe it is his/her right to use a firearm to protect that property or family from such selfish individuals.

If Americans allow the PTB to make small changes to any of the amendments it will not stop until there are no rights left to protect. It's basically a snowball effect or like the saying goes, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Americans will be protecting themselves with BB guns and asking how do we protect ourselves now. When they ask to have their protection rights given back to them they will be charged with treason for conspiring against the government.

Ahh, the old switcheroo. See how this will all be used against the American citizens in the future. It is the PTB that should be tried for treason. They don't care about your rights and rights in general because no laws apply to them. They don't have to worry about a tyrannical gov. because they are the tyrants.

I have a question for all of the Americans that read this post.

If you were being mugged (robbed of your personal belongings) and just for the sake of argument, this mugger would have advantage over you if it wasn't for the fact that you just pulled a gun out and it's you that have the advantage. So now, this mugger tries to convince you that a gun is not necessary for your protection. He goes on to say that you should give him the gun because you might accidentally shoot someone or even worse become a criminal like him and he assures you that your gun will never harm anyone ever. Would you give him your gun?

No! Any logical person would never give up their ability to protect themselves. Everyone that says otherwise has either given up those rights and wishes they didn't or is one of the hypocritical tyrants that doesn't need to worry about protection.

I truly don't understand why people can't see that the true problem lies within the social infrastructure lacking the ability to accommodate mental instabilities. Instead, the easy route is taken and accomplishes nothing more than smokescreen to make everyone feel better about the now and not have to worry about the later.

One last thing I would like to add. Why would anyone believe that the gov cares about their children and that's why they are pushing for a ban on weapons when the national budget for education is only 4%.

Sorry, forgot to add vid I replied to so you guys don't have to search through the thread. Here it is.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by SecludedGamer
trying to take guns from americans is like trying to take a bone from a dog. wont happen.

Good thing no one is doing that . Whatever you own today, you will have tomorrow.

Maybe but with heavy restrictions, don't forget to add that.

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by winofiend

 

OH and to Yellow Rose.. A big thumbs up from one of those crazy democrats..

FREE!!!!

edit on 1/19/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

Democrats are just phony Republicans.

Originally posted by 1YellowRose
I am a little old 5'3 women and know more about guns then most guys now day's. I would like to know what I am suppose to do when that grizzly comes back a knockin' a little ol' 22 is not going to protect me from that big momma. A little ol' 22 is not going to take care of that cougar that likes to stalk me when I am out mending fences.

And what about that pack of wolves that come in when I am hanging the cow for the freezer. You city slickers just have no flippen clue. I need a very powerful firearm to take down that grizzly at my front door. grant it someone.. like me... can take down that cougar with one shot if need be BUT I will need more then one round to take care of the flippen pack of wolves trying to eat my food.

Get the F away from my guns and the right to protect myself or you will be on my dinner plate.

edit on 19-1-2013 by 1YellowRose because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2013 by 1YellowRose because: (no reason given)

I agree with all the key points in that video, but to say 22LR is totally harmless to humans is such a BS reckless statement. If you are shot in the torso/head you are going to have a bad day if you haven't dropped dead from a mortal wound. My father pass on to me a 22LR when I was a youngster at the age of 10. He said he has taken down deer before with it. Mostly it was used to kill rabbits, squirrel etc and sold tails/skins for more bullets. If you can kill a deer you can kill a person. Hell you can probably kill a person with a .177 air rifle at close range.

I had that same argument with my uncle years ago that didn't believe me that the velocity of a pump .177 could kill. So after a few beers he said put that phone book up, so I said OK he shot it while in his kitchen LOL. Yes it penetrated a 3 inch phone book went across the kitchen penetrated a 1/4 inch hard oak cupboard and blew away 2 coffee cups. So to say a .177 can't go through and penetrate a human skull is just nonsense. To say a 22LR is harmless is nonsense.

Originally posted by silo13
doggies
reply to post by LightOrange

 

Yes it will. Get a hold of yourself. Most of these animals would run away from a 9 yr old setting off firecrackers for God's sake.

Oh really? In a non television encounter - confronting a wild animal - on their turf - when they are hungry and their blood is up? A firecracker?

AHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Get a hold of yourself?

Let’s interject a little reality here. I’ve been there done that as they say and without my H&K? I’d of been nothing but a pile a coyote poop the next morning.

Well for those too pea-brained to pull of this complex manouvre...



.... We have shotguns and pistols.

This thread is ridiculous. I don't just say things for the sake of raising peoples' nationalistic blood pressure levels. We've been raising livestock for 27 years now. My son has been outside a few times, scaring away coyotes and foxes on the other side of our fence with firecrackers.

In terms of firearms, a pistol is more than enough. You do not need a 40-round clip to take on a few coyotes; get real. You guys have been listening to way too much Alex Jones.

I'm sorry that you have no argument. Perhaps some more laughing emoticons will help you with that?

Originally posted by 1YellowRose
I am a little old 5'3 women and know more about guns then most guys now day's. I would like to know what I am suppose to do when that grizzly comes back a knockin' a little ol' 22 is not going to protect me from that big momma. A little ol' 22 is not going to take care of that cougar that likes to stalk me when I am out mending fences.

And what about that pack of wolves that come in when I am hanging the cow for the freezer. You city slickers just have no flippen clue. I need a very powerful firearm to take down that grizzly at my front door. grant it someone.. like me... can take down that cougar with one shot if need be BUT I will need more then one round to take care of the flippen pack of wolves trying to eat my food.

Get the F away from my guns and the right to protect myself or you will be on my dinner plate.

edit on 19-1-2013 by 1YellowRose because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2013 by 1YellowRose because: (no reason given)

You certainly sound like a little old woman.....

Oh I'm not suspicious

reply to post by 1YellowRose


Many people need high powered guns in order to survive... I live in a ranch in south Texas.. and if it weren't for our several firearms the only thing between our property and desperate drug smugglers would be a shallow Rio grande, sometimes as shallow as knee high.

You live "off the land" do you ?

Well I assume that we have similar lifestyles, then. Except I don't own any high-powered guns, nor do I feel like I need any.

I try to live "with the land", meaning that I don't feel the urge to put holes through every predator that shares the land with my livestock. I understand that the predators that share my environnement have as much right to live there as I do. You don't *need* a vast array of guns to protect yourself or your livestock. I find that a brain and basic understanding of how the natural world works is perfectly adequate.

If you can't "live off the land" without highpowered firearms, then maybe you got your vocation wrong. The indians who roamed north america before the westerners arrived managed to make do with bows and flint arrowheads. Why ? Because they didn't kill everything that was difficult to live with. They compromised with nature instead of fighting it.

You just sound frightened and weak. Not the best traits for survival if you're living "off the land".

reply to post by 1YellowRose


The 2nd amendment was not put into place to protect you from wolves or bears. It is not for hunting nor is it for home or self protection. It is to protect the American people from their Government.

I admire your cause here, but you were not given the right to bear arms to protect yourself from a bear.

I'm all for people being able to own AR-15's, but I don't know if I would trust that cartridge against a charging bear.

Wolves, coyotes or mountain lions, yes, but bear? That's a little iffy.

Originally posted by bknapple32
You Guys do know that if you own an ar15 and the likes, you get to keep it. You'd be grandfathered in. So no worries

If that's true, I'll buy mine before it takes effect.

When did gun nuts take over the conspiracy theory community?

It's really been turning me off from conspiracies in general. The government is not taking your guns. It's impossible, there's too many of them and the belief in the right to carry them is so strong among the publicit would be suicide for the current government to ban them.

reply to post by LightOrange

I'd bet my right arm (no pun intended) that thing isn't a coyote. But anyway - if it is? It's the shortest legged coyote in history of creation. And why you’re bragging about letting your kids throw firecrackers at wild animals is beyond me.

Also I wasn‘t speaking of a lone animal. I made sure to include multiple animals hungry and bent on killing.

Now beyond all that silliness. If you don't understand my point then you're not willing to listen. Simply put I stated firing into the air is dangerous, irresponsible, is akin to disarming yourself and call me silly but in my opinion risking my life on a firecracker is asinine.

That being said? Outside of the range - when I shoot I shoot to kill or I don't pull my weapon.

The last thing I'd want to do in the heat of the moment (being attacked) is to accidentally WOUND an animal using an inefficient/inappropriate weapon. I have too much respect for wildlife to wound them or allow the same to myself. Does that mean I want to carry around a bazooka? Nope, but in my opinion and practical application a .22 isn't going to cut it in most situations calling for personal protection against man or beast. Hell I was shot with a .22 and it didn't slow me down.

Anyway, I'm not here to fight - only to point out some of us live (or lived) in areas wilder than your wildest dreams and were most happy to have an effective tool at hand designed specifically to help us through the tough spots.

peace

reply to post by 1YellowRose


Thanks for replying and hope you are feeling better. Understand your concerns. I would always have a few deer slugs with me whenever I was out rabbit or squirrel hunting. I remember a few times being out with my .22, seeing a bear track and wishing I had something larger, just in case. Though it was brown bears in my area and not grizzlies. I know the Browns would normally stay away unless you got close to their cubs.

Never dealt with wolves or coyotes. Be safe and, again, hope you're feeling better.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by 1YellowRose

 

Can someone once respond to the question of full arms, missiles nukes etc. Instead of responding with something else? Maybe because it didn't suit your point

I'll bite.

Yes, the Military has things like Missiles, Gunships, Fighters, Bombers, Tanks, and Aircraft Carriers. Here's the flaw in your question.

Most military members are gun owners, all of them took and oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sure, you think the Military would use such things on American soil against Americans. And maybe the upper chain would. The problem is, all of the equipment you ask about require lots of mantenance, and specialists in the enlisted ranks to keep them working, or to use them at all for that matter. If they were to try and use them against large groups of Americans, too many would refuse that order. Lots of people don't understand that you can refuse and unlawful order. take for instance the Tomahawk missiles on board naval ships (DDG's and CG's mainly) that are used on land targets. There are Gunners Mates that keep them working and Fire Controlmen who operate the related equipment to fire them, also they are the ones that fire them. If these guys refuse to do it, it won't get done, the officers in charge of them usually have no idea how to do any of that.

The question isn't whether or not people should be allowed to own them, and they are actually, as decommissioned warships and tanks go up for public auction all the time. A couple of years ago, a Russian Foxtrot Diesel Submarine was on ebay (I think, it was an online auction) for the price of $75,000. People can legally own such things, it's just that they are so expensive that they are out of the reach of 99% of the population. However, that's neither here nor there. Any armed action on US soil would be a ground effort, it's hard to justify using missiles and bombs against your own populace.

In short, people are allowed to have such things, only those who can afford them don't want them. Even if it was illegal, how would you justify buying a Minuteman missile. So called "assault rifles" can be used for a vareity of purposes, you can hunt with them, in fact, AR-15's are pretty decent hunting rifles for their range and accuracy. Using the argument you are using only works with those that know nothing of guns. In fact, you can legally buy Machine guns that have no use other than to kill people, oh yeah, and to have fun, because shooting machine guns is fun.

Here's a video showing people shooting legally acquired machine guns:

Originally posted by gavron
So, a Shotgun wouldn't work for you, eh? You need an assault rifle? Armor piercing rounds too?

Wonder how those pioneers with shotguns and rifles ever made it...

A lot of the time they didn't. Have you ever shot a bear with a shotgun? Unless he's very close, or you're using a slug, you'll just piss him off more.

Pioneers with rifles and shotguns used to get eaten all the time. It was common, they also didn't have typhoid vaccines, what's your point?

Originally posted by markosity1973
reply to post by 1YellowRose

 

*snip*

Why oh why can't you Americans get your sh*t sorted on this issue? Yes, every farmer should be allowed a gun, as they do need them down on the farm. There is less population density in the country, so the propensity for a mass murder to happen is lower anyways.

But why does every American on the streets of the big cities need them? Where I come from not even the police carry guns. We have a special armed offenders squad in every city to deal with armed situations and believe me, you had better hope they don't get called on you, because they WILL shoot offenders if they don't stand down.

America, have you not had enough of random mall shootings? What will it take for your children to be safe? When is common sense going to prevail? - leave the guns to the professionals that are trained in their use like the army and your police force and of course the farmers who need to shoot those pesky varmits.

edit on 20-1-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)

I would ask if you are joking here, but I know you aren't. So many issues with your statement here.

1. The 2'nd Amendment wasn't written to protect farmers, or even (though it is quite handy there) to protect your home. It was written to make sure the people could protect themselves against a government that might become tyrannical, in the very way the founders brought us freedom from England in the first place.

2. Self defense, which guns are very useful for, isn't just for people in the country. In fact, all wild animals aside, those in a big city are just as likely to need guns, and good guns with high capacity, as are those out in the country. I pointed out some examples of this already, but understand that we don't always have time to read every post, so I will offer them again. In a city, especially lately, you face a very real possibility of having a "flash mob" (nice PC label there) show up where you are shopping, and start trashing the place, attacking people, rioting, or whatever. It's happened time and time again, and NO ONE seems willing to address the issue. One state fair saw well over a hundred "youths" attacking people on foot, in cars, etc. People were beaten, for simply being there, and not looking like their attackers. In other cases, stores have been ransacked. Yet more cases, people were beaten in their own neighborhoods, with references to pending cases in other parts of the country. In a situation like that, a high capacity weapon would be most handy, and could save your life. During the L.A. riots, there were shop owners that used "military-style" rifles to defend their businesses from the rioters. Those businesses stayed safe! Clearly, there can be a need for a normal citizen to have such a weapon. A home could as easily be defended, with such useful tools.

3. Police with no guns are basically useless. In a perfect world, where no one willingly committed a crime, that would work. In the real world, all they are is a target in a uniform. The crooks will carry guns if they really want to, and unarmed police would be helpless in those cases. Even crooks with knives, or clubs, or whatever, would be better armed than the cops.

4, Having to depend on the police can get you killed. NO offense intended to the police. It's simply that they cannot possibly get everywhere they are needed on time. In a big city, even a decently-sized police force can't be everywhere, and can be delayed. Minutes can matter in a life-or-death situation, which is far more common in such cities, and an unarmed citizen is at the mercy of an attacker until the cops can make it to the scene. I just rad a story about a woman that had to shoot an intruder, to protect herself and her children. 911 was called, but they would not have made it in time. This man entered the house, and was looking for people - opening doors and hunting them, and actually found where they were hidden. That's when the mom had to shoot.

5. "Random" shootings are not the issue. Those happen, EVERY SINGLE TIME, in places that people are not allowed to carry a gun. A theater that has "no guns allowed" signs. Malls that don't allow guns. Schools, where you can't even have a gun close by. Churches, where, again, you can't have a gun. How are the children made safe? Simple; by allowing the adults to be armed so that they can protect them. I have children. I want to see children protected. When the bad guys carry guns (and they will no matter what the laws state, as they already do), then the ONLY way to be safe is to be armed also.

I have been reading through the thread and on a number of occasions I have wanted to make a comment, be it good or bad. Then I read further and I get some idiot that has not read the thread or most of my comments And I get so angry I dare not say a word. I will be banned for sure, If speak my mind.

Apparently these idiots have not seen that I will not kill anything for any flippen reason unless I am not given that choice. So far I have NOT had to kill a predator and I am thank for that. They also have not seen how we take care of problems bears or the fact that I have seen them on a number of occasions so close I could smell them if the wind was right. With a video to prove it.

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle. I have handled such a weapon in my younger days and I absolutely do not want one. The damn things are already banned for the most part. So what is the malfunction here. What they want to take from us are not assault rifles. )%&$^

And by the way igot (you know who you are). I AM all women, I am 49, 5'3 and maybe 110 soaking wet and I don't care if you believe me.


I'm done. Thank you for support Folks. I'm outta here.

This was a mistake. I do not have patience for idiots.

Originally posted by 1YellowRose
I'm done. Thank you for support Folks. I'm outta here.

This was a mistake. I do not have patience for idiots.

No you did the right thing Rose

These idiots will take away your rights if honest people like you keep silent

I say to all the people like Rose, speak up, hang together, because if you don't, you'll hang separately