Forget the 2nd- he shouldn't have a gun!
- Thread starter 2dogs
- Start date
- Status
PATH
Member
Yup! Would not trust said person with a pea shooter. Safest place with them at the range would be in front of him!
cratz2
Member
Two guys come to mind. Both because of poor shooting and gun/handling. One guy I've probably known for 8 years - not a good friend, just a former co-worker. The guy probably has 15 guns and has been shooting since he was like 6 or something. We've gone shooting a couple times and I swear the guy literally can't hit the black of a 25 yard rapid fire target at 7 yards. I mean, I don't want to seem like an elitist but at 7 yards, any one of us should be able to hit the bad guy square between the eyes.
The other guy has also been around guns his whole like... goes hunting every year, has never hit a single animal, I kid you not! Said he completely unloaded on/towards a deer at about 40 yards with an 11-87 that I know for a fact is dead on at 75 yards.
So while I don't really think they should be prevented from owning guns, they do make me question if a very basic competency test... at least for carry.
The other guy has also been around guns his whole like... goes hunting every year, has never hit a single animal, I kid you not! Said he completely unloaded on/towards a deer at about 40 yards with an 11-87 that I know for a fact is dead on at 75 yards.
So while I don't really think they should be prevented from owning guns, they do make me question if a very basic competency test... at least for carry.
Mastrogiacomo
Member
Someone I read about on "Dear Abby" that was Bi-polar and refused to leave his gun home, in spite of the Bride and Groom requesting he not come to their wedding armed.....
winstonsmith
Member
Yes. There is a kid at my school named Max. He comes to school with fatigues on, although thats not the problem.
He has some serious rage problems. A girl said that she didn't think the fatigues were attractive (after being asked), and he had to be PHYSICALLY held back so he wouldn't punch her out.
I've actually had confrontations with him and I've been able to stare him down. He doesn't want to go head to head.
He's a coward. Thus, if he had a gun, he would use that to settle stupid high school disputes instead of his fists.
-Jack
He has some serious rage problems. A girl said that she didn't think the fatigues were attractive (after being asked), and he had to be PHYSICALLY held back so he wouldn't punch her out.
I've actually had confrontations with him and I've been able to stare him down. He doesn't want to go head to head.
He's a coward. Thus, if he had a gun, he would use that to settle stupid high school disputes instead of his fists.
-Jack
QuarterBoreGunner
Member
Yup. Bother-in-law.
He's in his 50's and fried a few too many brain cells with various funny chemicals when he was younger, now he just smokes a lot of weed, you know, to keep the 'shakes' away.
Whenever I go visit my in-laws, he always want me to take him shooting. Thankfully his memory isn't so great or he realize I've been recycling the same excuse for not doing so.
He's in his 50's and fried a few too many brain cells with various funny chemicals when he was younger, now he just smokes a lot of weed, you know, to keep the 'shakes' away.
Whenever I go visit my in-laws, he always want me to take him shooting. Thankfully his memory isn't so great or he realize I've been recycling the same excuse for not doing so.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Yup. The individual I'm thinking of is a convicted felon, a wife beater, a child beater, and a welfare case of many years' standing.
As soon as you put qualifications on gun ownership then someone will come up with a reason why you shouldn't have one.
I think society at large can handle people who would bully others with guns.
Come to think of it any BG can get a gun anytime he or she wants
so what is the point of coming up with some phony rule which would disallow gun ownership?
Murder and mayhem are already against the law.
Gun control is wrong in any way shape or form.
Lesser and lesser crimes will become felonies.
Accusations will be good enough to take away gun rights.
ATF regulations will replace law.
Beware of the slippery slope.
I'm not real happy with a lot of gun owners but it is not worth risking everyones 2nd amendment rights so we can have a false sense of security.
I think society at large can handle people who would bully others with guns.
Come to think of it any BG can get a gun anytime he or she wants
so what is the point of coming up with some phony rule which would disallow gun ownership?
Murder and mayhem are already against the law.
Gun control is wrong in any way shape or form.
Lesser and lesser crimes will become felonies.
Accusations will be good enough to take away gun rights.
ATF regulations will replace law.
Beware of the slippery slope.
I'm not real happy with a lot of gun owners but it is not worth risking everyones 2nd amendment rights so we can have a false sense of security.
Chris Rhines
Member
I can think of many people whom I would prefer not to have a gun.
That's a far cry, however, from thinking that they should not be allowed to own a gun.
- Chris
That's a far cry, however, from thinking that they should not be allowed to own a gun.
- Chris
Subby
Member
A right is a right, period. It seems rather ludicrous that convicted felons still have Bill of Rights 1 and 3-10 to fall back on, but #2 is still outta bounds. Just the same as a guy that murders a fellow citizen has a chance at parole, but a "copkiller" is life in prison. That doesn't seem very "equal protection under law" to me.
Sub
Sub
kalibear45
Member
Sean Penn 
Sure there are, there are some that should not be allowed to drive a car either and most on the board know a automobile is much more dangerous than a gun. The B.O.R. states that owning a gun is a RIGHT, not a privlige, and until someone proves that they can't be trusted with a firearm, by commision of a crime using a firearm, they have that right to keep and bear arms. And this right should be reinstated upon completion of the sentence.
Jack
Jack
Dionysusigma
Member
(true story) I was at a gun shop (Outdoor America) looking at a Remington 700 and some dope next to me asked the salesperson how "they got the tree-bark camo stuff" pattern onto the stock.
When told that Keebler elves on thier off-hours and weekends painted them by hand, said dope believed him.
When told that Keebler elves on thier off-hours and weekends painted them by hand, said dope believed him.
XLMiguel
Member
Following on what jsalcedo said, we don't need anymore laws. We do need law enforcement do do it's job as necessary. From a recens SAS press release:
Fast Facts-
-90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any
type.
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998)
-Less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)
-20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population-New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, DC-and each has avirtual prohibition on private handguns. (Dr. Gary Kleck, University of Florida using FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1997)
Source-"Gun Facts" by Guy Smith http://www.2asisters.org/gunfacts/
Just like I'm not happy with some drivers, gun owners, bicycle riders, and generally stupid people walking around unsupervised, they will do what they will do. At some point you've just gotta let natural selection take care of the genuinely unfit, and leave teh rest tothe cops. Pre-emption and prior restraint are just too dangerous.
Fast Facts-
-90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any
type.
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998)
-Less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)
-20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population-New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, DC-and each has avirtual prohibition on private handguns. (Dr. Gary Kleck, University of Florida using FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1997)
Source-"Gun Facts" by Guy Smith http://www.2asisters.org/gunfacts/
Just like I'm not happy with some drivers, gun owners, bicycle riders, and generally stupid people walking around unsupervised, they will do what they will do. At some point you've just gotta let natural selection take care of the genuinely unfit, and leave teh rest tothe cops. Pre-emption and prior restraint are just too dangerous.
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
I know plenty of folks that shouldn't have a gun, in my opinion.
That said, it's a huge step from that position to assume I have a right to prevent them from having a gun.
That said, it's a huge step from that position to assume I have a right to prevent them from having a gun.
Scott Evans
Moderator Emeritus
The reason that I have a gun is that we cannot control who else may be armed. Making rules for the other guy will not make you safe.
igor
Member
Last weekend at the range I probably met this person... we had instruction in groups of five and since the first stage I wound up lining up the rest of the group between me and said shooter when he was up with the instructor. And sure, we were behind them...
The guy lost all concentration once he got a pistol in his hand. Thumb-over-thumb grip, no finger control, no sense of safe sector, hit nothing, couldn't get any program done, just spray and pray. When finished, he let his gun hand drop freely to his side. When corrected, most of the instruction went past him just because of language problems.
The instructors were very polite and patient but if he doesn't get his act together by next week I doubt they'll let him continue.
The guy lost all concentration once he got a pistol in his hand. Thumb-over-thumb grip, no finger control, no sense of safe sector, hit nothing, couldn't get any program done, just spray and pray. When finished, he let his gun hand drop freely to his side. When corrected, most of the instruction went past him just because of language problems.
The instructors were very polite and patient but if he doesn't get his act together by next week I doubt they'll let him continue.
Joe Demko
Member
The question seems like a reasonable one to me. Most people aren't born pre-programmed with knowledge of industrial processes. The only way they can find out about things is by asking questions. I happen to have read a magazine article that explains the process, or I wouldn't know either. For those who don't know, a (too) concise explanation is that the pattern is on a soluble film which is floated on a layer of solvent. The parts are then dipped into the solvent and the cammo paint from the dissolved film coats them with the intact pattern.
The salesclerk, I'll bet, didn't know how the pattern was applied. Rather than admitting that, he chose instead to be a wiseacre. I wouldn't buy anything from such a person. The "dope" who originally asked the question might, indeed, be a simpleton if he believed the elf story. I wouldn't be too sure that he did. Even simpletons sometimes catch on when somebody tries to play them for fools.
Monte Harrison
Member
Brother-in-law. I like the guy, and my sister is crazy about him, but he is accident-prone through his own carelessness. I suspect he has a problem with alcohol as well.
My cousin. The ironic thing is he moved to Kennesaw GA, where they passed a local law that everyone must have a gun in their house. When he was a kid, he shot his sister with a bb gun in the face from about 50 yeards, no accident, just stupidity. The bb gun was quickly taken away and I don't think he's touched a gun ever since.
One thing I must say is I like the gun laws in Kennesaw, everyone must own a gun, but it's not really enforced, the Feds should use this as a model for the whole country.
One thing I must say is I like the gun laws in Kennesaw, everyone must own a gun, but it's not really enforced, the Feds should use this as a model for the whole country.
HankB
Member
How about disarming (while on duty) members of those Federal agencies like OSHA, EPA, IRS, FHA, etc. that are regulatory, not law enforcement, agencies?
I mean, without getting too deep into the purpose of Federal law enforcement agencies like DEA & FBI, I can see an argument can be made about why they should be armed. (FBI agent Lon Horiuchi excepted.) But pencil-pushing bureaucrats whose main duty is paperwork? No way!
I mean, without getting too deep into the purpose of Federal law enforcement agencies like DEA & FBI, I can see an argument can be made about why they should be armed. (FBI agent Lon Horiuchi excepted.) But pencil-pushing bureaucrats whose main duty is paperwork? No way!
JJohnston015
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2003
- Messages
- 466
STW - No, 'cause then he'll want to go again. You've got to tell him he hated it, shot himself in the foot, got kicked off the range, had his car broken into in the parking lot, etc., and vowed never to go again.
Horny Toad
Member
Yeah, a few scumbags come to mind. There are many more.
Bill Clinton
Chuck Schumer
Dianne Feinstein
Howard Metzenbaum
Horny Toad
Bill Clinton
Chuck Schumer
Dianne Feinstein
Howard Metzenbaum
Horny Toad
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
