The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

The public schools had broad, tall glass windows
for exposure to sunlight. A nuclear blast at an un-certain distance
cud have caused 1OOOs of fragments of flying glass,
shredding students' faces. Not all of them wud like that.
Getting down below metal or wooden desks
wud avoid their trajectory.

spendius wrote:

Bollocks!! There wasn't the slightest chance of a nuclear war.
A tornado going through is a million times more likely.

I never thawt that there was much chance of it,
but it is wise to be prepared; better than being un-prepared.
What is a "Bollock" ? a lock for a Boll ?

spendius wrote:

In a nuclear war the top brass gets it.

Is that how it turned out in Hiroshima ?

spendius wrote:

And their families and dearest friends.
It is no comfort that us lot are getting it as well.
I wasn't so old at the time of the Cuban crisis but I told all the
jelly-wobbling scientists I knew the very same thing. I laughed a lot about them.

I did not take it very seriously, either.
It was Kennedy's October surprise, to help the Democrats
in their Congressional elections. The missles had been seen in Cuba from above
during the summer, and Sen. Capeheart of Indiana had sounded the alarm.
He was denounced by Kennedy
(who wanted his surprise) as an alarmist.
Kennedy never apologized for his deception.
I always held the Kennedys in abhorrence.

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

If I ever feel sad, I remember that: it cheers me up.

spendius wrote:

Well--there you are. You're far closer to being a commie than I am.

U fail to explain your rationale.

spendius wrote:

You would have done well in the Kremlin orbit.

I used to spy against American commies; it loathsome associating with them.
I was propelled by my malice for them.

spendius wrote:

You have all the qualities the top brass look for in their personal security.

WHICH qualities r those ?

spendius wrote:

You!! A conservative in any proper sense of the word!! Ye Gods!!

Yes; defined as such by my non-deviation
from the principles of the US Constitution.

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

I love its constriction of the jurisdiction of government

spendius wrote:

Are we supposed to laugh sardonically or like a drain.

For what reason??

spendius wrote:

There is no chance of your losing you present gun rights.

I tend to agree.
I doubt that thay will be violated either; thay r being judicially vindicated.
I never implied otherwise.
There r a few exceptions (e.g., fellows with restraining orders against them).

spendius wrote:

You're like my ex-colleagues.
You talk up the risk of you doing so
in order that you can sound off in the manner you do.

What "risk" did I "talk up" ????

spendius wrote:

Nearly everybody who is anybody has guns.

Yes; guns r health insurance.
I began my gun collection at age 8.
"Nearly everybody" wishes to be able to fight back
against the predatory violence of man or beast.

The English did so also until around 1920.

spendius wrote:

I would have guns if I lived there.

Do you have ID cards in the US?

Drivers' licenses r de facto id. cards.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

A nice 12 gauge pump with solid rounds seems to me would be a good choice for an anti bear firearm.
I had always been very impress at what such very heavier even if slow moving slugs will do to anything they hit.

It's a good alternative to the heavier rifles if there is a danger of larger bears/cats.

But if black bear and puma are the only threat, the .35 Remington has a lot less recoil than a 12 gauge.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Maybe a hollowpointed .44 special or .44 magnum 'd save the day.

.44 special is way too weak for bear defense, and hollowpoints lack the needed penetration.
If a handgun is to be used for bear defense, it should be a .44 magnum loaded with heavy solids. It should also be single action, because the shape of the grip makes the substantial recoil much more manageable.

Do u like the .44 magnum Ruger SuperBlackhawk ?

If I got a .44 mag for animal defense, it would definitely be a Ruger Blackhawk of some sort, but I'm not familiar with the different variants of Blackhawk.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Better to have a rifle though. A lever action .35 Remington is good if you only have to worry about black bear and puma.

9.3x62 Mauser is good if you have to worry about more dangerous bears and cats.

U don't know who is going to show up first,
until he arrives there. Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

Maybe in places where there are more than one kind of bear, or where there are jaguars as well as pumas. But in a lot of places the worst that can be expected is a black bear or puma.

For instance, you won't run into any brown bears in Michigan.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Do u know anything about "Extreme Shock" ammunition ?
Any opinions ?
https://www.extremeshockusa.com/

Frangible ammo might be good if you want to be sure not to penetrate the wall and hit the innocent old lady living in the next apartment. Against a bear it would be a disaster. No penetration.

Thay allege getting good penetration; I dunno how true that is.

It looks to me like they are admitting poor penetration, but are trying to spin that as a good thing:

"The E-Shocks pistol caliber rounds entire energy is transferred in the first 5-9 inches of entry, effectively logarithmically delivering the full energy at twice the rate of the best hollow points. Compare it to having a karate expert pushing you with both hands or give you a bone-shattering punch to the face. While both may exert the same amount of total energy measured in foot-pounds, the rapid transfer of the punch is far more devastating."

0 Replies

http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/944368_301938143272901_732806005_n.jpg

2 Replies

@Region Philbis,

That's the reason the GOP congress has a 9% approval rating - and dropping!~

They're a no action, create controversy, yell fire, members who are more interested in destroying our country because a black man is our president.

They want to attract minorities to their party.

TNCFS

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If the UN is a joke, why is the US still a charter member?

Its harmless.
Sometimes, its useful.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why does the US still have an Ambassador in the UN?

Its harmless.
Sometimes, its useful.

cicerone imposter wrote:

That GW Bush ignored the UN charter only means GW Bush broke international law.

America is sovereign.
It is free to ignore the UN charter when we feel like it.
It need not be taken seriously.

cicerone imposter wrote:

GW Bush not only broke international law, but also broke US law by authorizing torture of prisoners.

1. There is no such thing as "international law",
tho some treaties exist. Have u seen any international police
running around in America ??

2. Please designate WHICH law it is
that u allege W "broke" ??

cicerone imposter wrote:

That nobody brought charges against him
doesn't mean he didn't break any US and international laws.

O, really???????
HOW do u imagine that charges cud be brought against him????
How wud u go about doing that ?
Please explain that.

David

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I surmise that u believe ANYTHING,
so long as it is anti-American drivel.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

You mean, "harmless" like your guns.

You don't understand US or UN history, or that children of gun owners kill more of themselves and their siblings.

Your ignorance is beyond hope - just like the republican party.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Dylan wrote a song about it. Let Me Die In My Footsteps.

IF he were sincere,
qua his alleged desire to die in his footsteps,
he coud have arranged for that to happen long ago.

I question his candor.

However, in deference to his wishes:
if I see him ending his life in his footsteps,
I 'll not interfere.

David

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

"legislative action" cud only be achieved
by a naked USURPATION of power,
raping the Bill of Rights. It wud set a precedent
for government grabbing power, in defiance of its Constitution,
for ANY reason, or for no reason. Government wud simply
be running amok.

A limited Republic wud be lost to memory;
i.e., it 'd be the same as Saddam's Iraq
or the communists' Russia.

David

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You mean, "harmless" like your guns.

I think he claims
that my guns don't work. Odd.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You don't understand US or UN history, or that children of gun owners kill more of themselves and their siblings.

Your ignorance is beyond hope - just like the republican party.

Strange as I been around gun owners for all my life span of 64 years and know of only one suicide of a classmate father in the 1950s by way of a shotgun.

Not one accidental shooting for example less alone a death.

Then given over 300 millions firearms with around 100 millions or so owners you would think that there would be no gun owners alive or their children by now if gun ownership is all that dangerous........by your logic.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

It's not necessary for "you" to hear about gun violence. You've already made up your mind about guns. Have you ever heard the term, a little knowledge is dangerous?" That's most gun owners in the US.

From Wiki.

Quote:

In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported

FYI, 6009 murders is equivalent to 16 every day of the year.

From Huff Post.

Quote:

Guns Kill Young Children Daily In The U.S.
By SUZANNE GAMBOA and MONIKA MATHUR 12/24/12 07:16 PM ET EST

Doesn't matter one iota you're not aware of death by guns.

0 Replies

Feeding CI the troll, even just a little scrap is dangerous.

0 Replies

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/936212_641592259201676_417902511_n.jpg

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Quote:

"Well regulated militia" was a term for a militia that had trained to the degree that they could fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of individuals. The NRA are not trying to twist that to mean something else.

Without a military organization for the Second Amendment to apply to, any attempt to restrict the Second Amendment to a military organization is automatically invalid.

America's gunowners are no threat to domestic tranquility.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Thats what they said in Lebanon untill all hell broke lose with all the armed citizens shooting at each other. Guns among gun nuts are a real danger too my freedom when they decide that my ideas are not compatible with theirs.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Thats what they said in Lebanon untill all hell broke lose with all the armed citizens shooting at each other. Guns among gun nuts are a real danger too my freedom when they decide that my ideas are not compatible with theirs.

You Freedom Haters don't get to go around violating people's rights in America. Deal with it.

1 Reply

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know