Enthusiast/collector or gun nut?

[Declaration Day]

...groceries?
ZOUNDS!
Crazy talk!
You should start whining, it's how I get my way!
^.^

Haha, I don't have to whine. I went to Save-A-Lot yesterday and bought Ramen noodles, Spam, and peanut butter and jelly.

Shortly after I got home, the UPS guy showed up with my 3,920 rounds of South African .308

 

[iamkris]

If it was different certain states would not be able to deny permits, limit purchases, etc...which we all know they do.

First welcome.

Second, your arguements all seem to rely on the fact that 1) I've been in war and seen the results of gunshot wounds 2) because of that "I'm the only one in this room professional enough to have a Glock .40" 3) certain states or cases has ruled that CCW is not legal 4) therefore my arguement is correct because they have ruled that way.

OK, try this on...yes it's an extreme case but it is so to make a point.
Certain states (or countries) think it is OK to round up certain people because of their ethnicity and murder them. Hutus and Tutsi's. Nazis and Jews. Whatever.

Does that justify a persons belief that it is OK to hate certain ethnic groups?

Then again, maybe we're just misunderstanding who you think is "professional enough". Who iexactly is "joe smoe" in your mind? What disqualifies someone from owning/carrying?

 

[foghornl]

I consider myself as a firearms enthusiast/hobbyist.

Isn't a "gun nut" used to torque/lock in place a threaded barrel to the receiver in some rifles?

 

[ewb45acp]

Enthusiast

I enjoy enjoy days at the range, shooting .22s with the kids in the backyard, Reloading, I enjoy taking them apart, seeing how parts interact, reading about the histories of the companies & inventors. For me it's a very time consuming hobby. And time well spent.

 

[danurve]

... Do you consider yourself more of a gun enthusiast......someone who loves the craftsmanship, the joy of firing, the sense of person protection in your home, etc..Do you consider yourself just a hunter who uses guns for sport only, or do you more consider yourself someone who feels it is your right to be armed at all times, ...

Yes.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

First welcome.

Second, your arguements all seem to rely on the fact that 1) I've been in war and seen the results of gunshot wounds 2) because of that "I'm the only one in this room professional enough to have a Glock .40" 3) certain states or cases has ruled that CCW is not legal 4) therefore my arguement is correct because they have ruled that way.

OK, try this on...yes it's an extreme case but it is so to make a point.
Certain states (or countries) think it is OK to round up certain people because of their ethnicity and murder them. Hutus and Tutsi's. Nazis and Jews. Whatever.

Does that justify a persons belief that it is OK to hate certain ethnic groups?

Then again, maybe we're just misunderstanding who you think is "professional enough". Who iexactly is "joe smoe" in your mind? What disqualifies someone from owning/carrying?

Thanks for the welcome. Now, I do not think you will find me saying anything about gunshot wounds I have witnessed or about being the only one on here professional enough to own anything in any of my posts. I was MI and by no means an expert on weapons. I knew how to strip, clean, point, shoot, and then start over. Be careful of how you quote people. Misquotes will kill your whole argument. What I have said about gun ownership rights in America is factual. It has been ruled time and time again that people do not have the right to brandish a deadly weapon whenever and whereever they choose. Either accept that for find contrary evidence. Believe me...I think everyone should have weapons.(I have my case under my bed with a .380 semi, a .357 mag, a .44 mag and a .45 ACP semi...I would like to get some rifles though) I am not a big government fan and believe that if the citizens were completely unarmed we would be in alot of trouble but I do not feel it is all or nothing...I can see no reason why I should carry a rifle to my nephews little league game, to the grocery store, etc. As far as just being prepared...you guys are much more likely to die of a heart attack while out shopping than you are to be attacked. Do you carry a portable defibrillator? Finally, what democratic state or country feels it is ok to do the things you mentioned? Seems like that argument has nothing to do with gun ownership since most of the countries that do that are places that are religious faction controlled and where most everyone owns weapons as a way of life. Go to Iran, Kuwait, Panama, Honduras, etc were there is little gun control if any and see the violence (mostly between religious factions) and then go to Belgium, Canada, Great Britain, Amsterdam, etc where there is gun control and violent crimes is very light and very seldom deadly.

 

[Henry Bowman]

What I have said about gun ownership rights in America is factual. It has been ruled time and time again that people do not have the right to brandish a deadly weapon whenever and whereever they choose. Either accept that for find contrary evidence.

Now you're changing your tune.
You said:

I do not believe every person does have a right to be armed. I know every supreme court decisions agrees with me also.

I challenged you to identify one such case. You did not.

Brandishing is an active use, an overt act, not passive like owning and carrying. Threatening with a deadly weapon (brandishing) is appropriate and, therefore not prohibited, in certain circumstances. In other situations, it is inappropriate and prohibited.

 

[Telperion]

Be careful of how you quote people. Misquotes will kill your whole argument. What I have said about gun ownership rights in America is factual. It has been ruled time and time again that people do not have the right to brandish a deadly weapon whenever and whereever they choose. Either accept that for find contrary evidence. Believe me...I think everyone should have weapons.

Speaking of misquotes, what you said earlier was, "I do not believe every person does have a right to be armed. I know every supreme court decisions agrees with me also." Now you are talking about brandishing, and say, "Believe me...I think everyone should have weapons." So which is it then?

 

[mnrivrat]

I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate for any joe smoe to be able to walk around with a loaded and deadly weapon. I would not trust most people to pump gas into my car much less with the ability to kill with very little effort.

Hi Guy ! The issue here is (at least in part) that you come off in this statement as someone who thinks they are somhow more qualified than the average person by some measurement. That is to say, in the area of pumping gas and perhaps carrying/owning a firearm. What I was asking is how you define who Joe Smoe is and why he is not trustworthy in matters of carrying a firearm ?

I certainly don't agree with what seems to be your opinion in the matter, because I am not at all concerned about my fellow law abiding citizens being armed while out and about. Many violent crimes happen while persons are away from home. I can't think of anyone right off hand that packs a rifle to a ball game, but I don't think that is the issue here.

You seem to be clearing saying that we should have very restricted rights to self defense and gun ownership . Your not going to find us good company for that line of thinking. (just my guess).

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Now you're changing your tune.
You said: I challenged you to identify one such case. You did not.

Brandishing is an active use, an overt act, not passive like owning and carrying. Threatening with a deadly weapon (brandishing) is appropriate and, therefore not prohibited, in certain circumstances. In other situations, it is inappropriate and prohibited.

I hate to correct you but the legal definition of brandish includes "to show" which is often used to justify not allowing open carry laws. As far as citing examples all you need to do is look up "ANY" of the supreme court challenges of anti-carry gun laws. Are you not capable of looking up info unless it agrees with your stance?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Speaking of misquotes, what you said earlier was, "I do not believe every person does have a right to be armed. I know every supreme court decisions agrees with me also." Now you are talking about brandishing, and say, "Believe me...I think everyone should have weapons." So which is it then?

I am correct in both statements...everyone does not have the right to be armed...some states do not allow it, many cities do not allow it, etc. Also fellons, the mentally unstable, etc cannot legally own. And these restrictions have stood up to legal scrutiny time and time again. So that one is correct. And since the last statement is my own opinion...that "everyone should own a weapon" (taking into account I mean everyone capable...I would not advocate the mentally ill having weapons or any such nonsense) it is also correct.

PS- I think I should have hypenated mis-quotes...it looks like we are saying "mosquitoes" can kill your agrgument.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Hi Guy ! The issue here is (at least in part) that you come off in this statement as someone who thinks they are somhow more qualified than the average person by some measurement. That is to say, in the area of pumping gas and perhaps carrying/owning a firearm. What I was asking is how you define who Joe Smoe is and why he is not trustworthy in matters of carrying a firearm ?

I certainly don't agree with what seems to be your opinion in the matter, because I am not at all concerned about my fellow law abiding citizens being armed while out and about. Many violent crimes happen while persons are away from home. I can't think of anyone right off hand that packs a rifle to a ball game, but I don't think that is the issue here.

You seem to be taking what you want to take from my statement instead of what it actually says. I have never said I am more qualified than the average gun owner. Find me where I said that. In fact I have said a couple times that I am by no means a gun expert. I just like them and appreciate the craftsmanship. Also I like to shoot things and I defy any honest gun owner to deny that ,like myself, they enjoy that rush and adrenaline and feeling of power they get when shooting. Plus it is a nice hobby to share with friends. However...most people are not gun owners and I feel that alot of them would not be competent to own weapons. I know way to many unstable people...are you going to claim you do not know someone with a drinking problem? a violent temper? a mental disability that would affect there decision making? And I am sorry...just saying lock up the ones that do bad things does not make up for the loss of even one innocent loved one for a family that loses someone unnecessarily. I feel that most people that go to the small trouble of obtaining a permit and can pass a background check are competent gun owners. Unfortunately alot of gun rights defenders have an "all or none" mindset. They either allow everyone to carry without limitations or they have not won their battle and somehow their personal rights are being infringed upon. It is this mindset that is hurting gun owners. The same people I deal with that say "why should you be worried if the president is tapping your phone if you have nothing to hide?" are the same people that get upset when I say "why should you be offended by a background check if you have nothing to hide?".

 

[Brother in Arms]

Playboy Penguin Wrote:

"Ohhh...motorcycles...a love I am no longer allowed to enjoy. A couple shattered knees, a pin in my collarbone, and several concussions and broken bones later and I am told they are too dangerous and unless I want to be single again I will stay off them. MOTORCYCLES DO NOT MAIM PEOPLE !!!!PEOPLE MAIM MOTORCYCLES..err...wait....people maim people...whatever...am I making sense???

I do like to travel though...Alaska here I come in May."

Its a shame that you are no longer ALLOWED to enjoy motorcycles? Seems to me that is a choice you made. Unless you want to be single of course, in otherwords your wife or girlfreind said you can drive them anymore or she will divorce/dump you. You still have the choice to ride your motor cyle. You just don't want to accept the possible consequence of that action. All that being said I don't see where that has anything to do with Firearms.

However Alaska is probably a place you don't want to go. You don't have to possess a concealed weapons permit to legally carry there. That must sound risky.

Brother in Arms

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Its a shame that you are no longer ALLOWED to enjoy motorcycles? Seems to me that is a choice you made. Unless you want to be single of course, in otherwords your wife or girlfreind said you can drive them anymore or she will divorce/dump you. You still have the choice to ride your motor cyle. You just don't want to accept the possible consequence of that action. All that being said I don't see where that has anything to do with Firearms.

However Alaska is probably a place you don't want to go. You don't have to possess a concealed weapons permit to legally carry there. That must sound risky.

Brother in Arms

My, oh my...what a bitter person you must be to take a simple light hearted statement and try to turn it into something bigger. You must be a real joy at parties.

 

[Brother in Arms]

You may call me bitter, but I take responsability for my action. By the way that was an excellent counter point to my Post


I found the response you wrote to a post about open carry
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=181542

Playboy Penguin wrote:
"I do not open carry because I feel it causes to much of a disturbance. I do not usually concealed carry for the same reason you mentioned. Just no real place to conceal it. I am a bit heavier these days (at only 6'1 and weighing in at 225 lbs instead of my service weight of 180 lbs) and there is barely enough room for me in my clothes much less a weapon. Plus I am always a little afraid of losing some very personal bits if an inside-the-belt carry went off accidently. It was bad enough the time I shot myself in the foot...and I have two feet.

PS - I have thought of getting a derringer with an ankle holster for when i am in a bad area "


I find your way thinking rather interesting, even though you shot yourself in the foot, your more qaulified than certain people to carry a gun.

Brother in Arms

 

[Pafrmu]

Just some points.

As far as just being prepared...you guys are much more likely to die of a heart attack while out shopping than you are to be attacked. Do you carry a portable defibrillator?

Last time I checked, in CA public places are required to have so many AEDs so a portable defibrillator is not exactly necessary. But as a counter example, children are more likely to drown in a pool than be shot by a gun, yet guns are banned and pools are not.

Finally, what democratic state or country feels it is ok to do the things you mentioned?

Well in the man's example Germany was a "democratic" state and Hitler was appointed by an elected official. The USSR was also a "democratic" state that killed more of its own people than Hitler did.

Seems like that argument has nothing to do with gun ownership since most of the countries that do that are places that are religious faction controlled and where most everyone owns weapons as a way of life.

Both examples above had though involving religion, weren't based upon it. The Nazi's murdered all those deemed undesirable, Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, Evangelicals, the handicapped and others. The USSR murdered all those it disagreed with.

Go to Iran, Kuwait, Panama, Honduras, etc were there is little gun control if any and see the violence (mostly between religious factions) and then go to Belgium, Canada, Great Britain, Amsterdam, etc where there is gun control and violent crimes is very light and very seldom deadly.

What about Switzerland where every able bodied adult male of age is required to keep an assault rifle in the home? It's the most safe place compared to the examples given.

Places that are violent and places that are peaceful are that way because of factors more diverse than gun control. Do not forget Africa where they used machetes because they could not afford guns? (But if all the factions if Africa were equally armed, I believe Africa would be a much nicer place to live and visit.)

 

[Declaration Day]

And I am sorry...just saying lock up the ones that do bad things does not make up for the loss of even one innocent loved one for a family that loses someone unnecessarily.

This sir, is what I believe to be the most fundamental disagreement between you and many of the other members here.

Tragedies happen. People die. Sometimes it is murder, sometimes it is an accident, but that is life. To say that a right should be heavily restricted on account of the acts of a few maniacs (and yes, statistically it is a miniscule percentage of society) is ludicrous.

By the way, my mother was murdered about five years ago, and I have never blamed the incident on her killer's access to a weapon.

Intent to cause harm makes one a criminal, not access to weapons.

 

[middy]

I don't want to get banned, so I'll just keep my fingers polite and say, welcome to the board.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

This sir, is what I believe to be the most fundamental disagreement between you and many of the other members here.

Tragedies happen. People die. Sometimes it is murder, sometimes it is an accident, but that is life. To say that a right should be heavily restricted on account of the acts of a few maniacs (and yes, statistically it is a miniscule percentage of society) is ludicrous.

By this logic I guess you would suggest it is ok to give a small child a loaded handgun to play with...accidents happen right? Why try and fight it? The same thing applies to giving handguns to people who are not mentally fit to make good decisions. My 39 yr old cousin has the mentality of a 5 yr old due to brain damage at birth. Should he be allowed to carry a loaded weapon? I would love to hear everyone's answer to this question. If you say "no" then you must admit that not everyone has the right to carry a handgun.

 

[Declaration Day]

By this logic I guess you would suggest it is ok to give a small child a loaded handgun to play with...accidents happen right?

You guessed wrong, don't be silly. I have two children, and my guns are locked in a safe, except for the one I am currently carrying.

Handing a loaded gun to a child, who then hurts himself or someone else with it, is no accident. It is negligence.

My 39 yr old cousin has the mentality of a 5 yr old due to brain damage at birth.

If your 39 year old cousin is mentally 5, see my above comment.

You have no grounds for stating that I support handing a loaded gun to a child. You also have no business putting words in my mouth.

Sir, you have overstepped the bounds of what I consider to be a rational conversation.

At this point, I am bowing out, because to continue with what I feel like saying would not be THR.

Have a nice day.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You guessed wrong, don't be silly. I have two children, and my guns are locked in a safe, except for the one I am currently carrying.

Handing a loaded gun to a child, who then hurts himself or someone else with it, is no accident. It is negligence.



If your 39 year old cousin is mentally 5, see my above comment.

You have no grounds for stating that I support handing a loaded gun to a child. You also have no business putting words in my mouth.

Sir, you have overstepped the bounds of what I consider to be a rational conversation.

At this point, I am bowing out, because to continue with what I feel like saying would not be THR.

Have a nice day.

Then you concede that it is not "every man's" right to possess a loaded weapon. That was all I was saying also. There has to be standards of competence if you do not want chaos.

 

[Henry Bowman]

There has to be standards of competence if you do not want chaos.

Like the "chaos" we see in Vermont, Alaska, Indiana, Washington (state), Pennsylvania,...?

I hate to correct you but the legal definition of brandish includes "to show" which is often used to justify not allowing open carry laws. As far as citing examples all you need to do is look up "ANY" of the supreme court challenges of anti-carry gun laws. Are you not capable of looking up info unless it agrees with your stance?

Obviously you are much smarter than all of us and those 3 years I spent in law school were a waste. You are, of course 100% correct in all your opinions and "facts." I, too, am bowing out in defeat to go do something more useful, namely, -->:banghead:

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Obviously you are much smarter than all of us and those 3 years I spent in law school were a waste. You are, of course 100% correct in all your opinions and "facts." I, too, am bowing out in defeat to go do something more useful, namely, -->:banghead:

Don't need to be that smart. I just looked up the state law on oregonstatelaws website and it clearly stated that the definition of brandish includes "to show".

 

[middy]

PP, your original post said nothing about children, you just mentioned Joe Schmoe. Most of us here are old enough to realize that Joe Schmoe is smarter than he looks, and those who ridicule him are not as smart as they think. If you want to point and giggle at the "common man" this is probably not the right forum for you, and I daresay not the right country.

 

[mnrivrat]

You seem to be taking what you want to take from my statement instead of what it actually says. I have never said I am more qualified than the average gun owner.

With all due respect - you have plainly seperated yourself from the Joe Smoe's of the world . I'm just trying to figure out what makes them Joe Smoe's and how they are somehow unqualified for certain rights under your thinking.

However...most people are not gun owners and I feel that alot of them would not be competent to own weapons.

Here again is where our thinking parts company - who gets to determine who is competent and what is the criteria ? We already have laws in place that restrict felons , etc. But you seem to indicate a much broader base of people should be restricted. (Either that or your hanging around the wrong people if you know alot of incompetent ones) . You also have indicated that other gun owners should be restricted from concealed carry.

Therein goes the concept of freedom , take away rights because someone "might" abuse them. Thats not the world I want to live in, and from the reaction of others I think your at least knowing by now that your in the minority here with that thought process.