Gun-related sayings that need to go away
- Thread starter ATLDave
- Start date
- Status
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
If it was good enough for Ashley J. Williams good enough for me.
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
Texas Outlaw should really go to me...
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
I adore this picture, My brother has a german shep. beautiful beasts they are, I hope to get one soon, uhhh to keep it gun related he also is looking into getting the shepherd a 98k
tark
Member
Wasp and hornet killer sprays can be pretty effective!
tark
Member
If that's how you feel, then feel free to avoid me like the plague. I can't think of a truer statement.
While I cringe when I hear people quote movies (even good ones like Blackhawk down) I do think having a safety mindset is generally more important than mechanical safeties.
That said with well designed combat type platforms like the AR, why not use both? Redundant layers are a good thing
I tend NOT to use safeties on bolt guns. Especially with Remington triggers. Or stupid designs that put the safety in the trigger guard like the m1a.
That said with well designed combat type platforms like the AR, why not use both? Redundant layers are a good thing
I tend NOT to use safeties on bolt guns. Especially with Remington triggers. Or stupid designs that put the safety in the trigger guard like the m1a.
milemaker13
Member
Off topic, sorry... what is "press check"?
EIB0879
Member
"Brush buster"
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Slightly retracting the slide on an autoloader to see if a cartridge has been chambered.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Very much on target, never mind the topic. Press check is when you push back the slide only far enough to verify that there is brass in the action of an automatic pistol. Operators do it if they are low drag.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Best location for the safety in that awful moment when you need a shot to happen, only you realize you are pressing and the rifle is on safe. John G, whatever his other points, was a rifleman, not just an engineer.
Another good point: The charging handle is connected to the bolt; we don't need no steeeenking forward assist.
MedWheeler
Member
Kendal Black writes:
Exactly.
Exactly.
Jeb Stuart
member
Armored farmer
Member
Great idea. I can wear that with the hood up covering my face like the grim reaper.
When i see a covey i can be slowissmoothm smoothisfast, and hold back the bangswitch and hipshoot my shottie until my clip is dry. Theyll all be drt.
Unless you have cows to milk, you should be in bed at 3:38 am.....
With your shottie.
"I support the 2nd Amendment, BUT"
This is especially irritating when coming from gun owners that should know better.
"Only gun/guns you need is/are _____"
Nobody knows what someone needs except for the individual that needs said item.
"Why does anyone need a ______ gun"
It's a free country, but people are always second-guessing other people's decisions on what they own, when it doesn't affect them at all.
Had a friend in college that would repeatedly tell me "AKs are inaccurate junk".
I don't really have a problem with the "Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6", as I have always interpreted it as "Better to go to jail for having and using a gun in a "gun-free" zone, state, etc then to be killed because you were unarmed due to some stupid law that prohibits possession or carrying of a weapon" as opposed to "Better to kill someone for a questionable or illegal reason and hope that there's not enough evidence to convict you for unlawful use of lethal force"..
This is especially irritating when coming from gun owners that should know better.
"Only gun/guns you need is/are _____"
Nobody knows what someone needs except for the individual that needs said item.
"Why does anyone need a ______ gun"
It's a free country, but people are always second-guessing other people's decisions on what they own, when it doesn't affect them at all.
Had a friend in college that would repeatedly tell me "AKs are inaccurate junk".
I don't really have a problem with the "Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6", as I have always interpreted it as "Better to go to jail for having and using a gun in a "gun-free" zone, state, etc then to be killed because you were unarmed due to some stupid law that prohibits possession or carrying of a weapon" as opposed to "Better to kill someone for a questionable or illegal reason and hope that there's not enough evidence to convict you for unlawful use of lethal force"..
Friends don’t let friends shoot AKs
John Joseph
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,441
No need to go all anti 1A.
All these sayings should be replied with "depends."
BUT the saying that really riles me is "Shoot until they stop, they'll stop when they're dead."
That may have been what was on the minds of the LAPD who killed the homeless woman being held hostage.
All these sayings should be replied with "depends."
BUT the saying that really riles me is "Shoot until they stop, they'll stop when they're dead."
That may have been what was on the minds of the LAPD who killed the homeless woman being held hostage.
Are you saying that you agree with him, or that the saying shouldn't be used?
John Joseph
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,441
Exactly!
BUT what firearms you have in your possession is no body's business but your own. Not the government, not the village meth head, not the anti-2A crowd, not criminals, not the UN.
BUT maybe your insurance carrier, or your heirs,
A corny way of saying none of yer business! in response to prying questions like how many guns do you own?
Not that this thread really needs another post, but I read them all to just as a thought exercise. I ask for pardon in advance for this abbreviated, incomplete, bastardized, version of Aristotle.
Couple of points:
A lot of people don't like rhetoric. The term itself is viewed with suspicion. Rhetoric employs broad generalities such as "treat all guns as loaded". Good rhetoric has a point and illuminates a deeper truth. A demonstration of dialectic is "In order to maximize safety, when dealing with a firearm, it is best to treat that weapon as loaded until checked." The latter statement is awkward and probably easily forgettable. The underlying assumption is due to uncertainty of any gun being loaded or not, the consequence for an accidental discharge can be so horrible that it is best to maximize safety.
For better or worse, most people generalize and speak in rhetoric --e.g. bad area of town, shady character, and so on. Those who prefer dialectic are often infuriated and argue not all ___-__ are like that as if the exception is norm or against harsh rhetoric as off-putting e.g. liberal, gun-grabber, or the old timer panty-waist.
Ideally, people who employ rhetoric should often go back to view the unspoken assumptions behind them and determine whether or not they make sense. Good rhetoric illustrates an underlying reality or condition with some degree of imprecision and exaggeration but serves as a good stereotype, e.g. practice makes perfect, always be aware of one's surroundings, etc. Bad rhetoric does not provide much if any sort of truth and teaches bad lessons--e.g drag someone into the house if you shoot them, treat everyone as a potential killer, etc.
Folks that prefer dialectic or only use dialectic should not act like they are the correctors of reality nor the moral arbiters of society: e.g. clip versus magazine, rifle versus long gun, not all convicted violent felons/shady people/etc. will hurt you (and the like)etc. Few people enjoy a scold, killjoy, or know-it-all whether in person or online. Exceptions are just that. By themselves they do not alter the general experiences of others--see the Colt 2000 where I am sure that at least one person "liked it" but as a general argument that not all Colt 2000's were unreliable, ugly, and a bad adaptation of Glocks, is not going to do much. Some folks may enjoy being iconoclasts but understand that most people won't really be persuaded much by it. Similarly, someone may beat down someone else in argument but that does not make that argument a "true" statement of reality.
In many cases, some using pseudo dialectic will for example argue that the AR/M1/M14/AK47/______ is the finest of all firearms or that the shotgun rules them all at short ranges, caliber wars are another, etc. They will then disguise their naked opinion with assorted facts to buttress their argument as to why. Pseudo dialectic starts with a premise and then seeks to prove it rather than entertain the thought that knowledge from others might actually change one's opinion.
The logical paradox of "who shaves the Spanish Barber?" when presented to folks lead all sorts of interesting theories backed primarily by how that person uses their life experiences to answer it. The answer to the paradox is to follow the Spanish Barber around and see--e.g. experience it yourself or next best would be talk to someone who is very experienced in such matters (e.g. RCModel). Often folks are angered when someone questions their basic assumptions and treats it as a personal attack which it generally is not.
Arguments ain't people folks and losing an argument to a better one is not a disgrace which is an example of a rhetorical argument. Using similes, metaphors, etc. should not be attacked for being rhetoric e.g. passed away rather than died, etc. The question is whether it is "good rhetoric" or "bad". A gun being "sexy" is rhetoric. As someone said above, arousal by a firearm would be considered a deviant fetish-dialectic.
We see this style of argumentation all the time in criminal trials--the prosecution marshals evidence to prove their argument that so and so is guilty while the defense often uses the same facts to argue innocence or reasonable uncertainty of the prosecution case. Both rhetoric, pseudo dialectic, and dialectic are used by skilled trial attorneys. Should we reject "good rhetoric" employed skillfully by a prosecutor to convict a truly guilty person or a defense attorney who protects the innocent?
A classic example is to argue that a person is depraved if they shoot someone over mere money---note that that "good rhetoric" has the assumption that all people view lives as more important than money which may not be true of all individuals. Should we argue it is unfair to the convicted felon to use societal moral standards to judge that individual's actions? Shouldn't we at least see the situation from the felon's point of view that they needed money, the victim refused to provide it, and so the felon shot them to obtain the needed money? Most folks would probably argue that is a "bad" use of rhetoric.
An example of a dialectic argument for the above is "that murdering someone for mere money is an element of first degree murder as society has viewed murder for money as an example of a felon's "depraved indifference" to human life." The statute is a fact, that the person robbed the other individual for money and killed them is a fact established in this trial, the statute was adopted by the people's representatives in a fair and open way as a representation of crimes that society wants enhanced punishment, fact, and so on.
As we are all locked in our heads to some degree (pardons to those who are telepaths in advance for my faulty rhetoric), to exchange ideas and knowledge, requires communication. Communication with others will be a mix of rhetoric and dialectic, fact and opinion. Different life experiences will lead to differing conclusions about what is good or bad and what is just or unjust. Different cognitive functions will lead to differences in communication patterns. Thus, the trick is to recognize rhetoric and judge it on its own terms and the same for dialectic. Then, through questioning and dialogue, we can arrive at a better understanding of "truth" or an accurate depiction of reality if that is what floats your boat.
Couple of points:
A lot of people don't like rhetoric. The term itself is viewed with suspicion. Rhetoric employs broad generalities such as "treat all guns as loaded". Good rhetoric has a point and illuminates a deeper truth. A demonstration of dialectic is "In order to maximize safety, when dealing with a firearm, it is best to treat that weapon as loaded until checked." The latter statement is awkward and probably easily forgettable. The underlying assumption is due to uncertainty of any gun being loaded or not, the consequence for an accidental discharge can be so horrible that it is best to maximize safety.
For better or worse, most people generalize and speak in rhetoric --e.g. bad area of town, shady character, and so on. Those who prefer dialectic are often infuriated and argue not all ___-__ are like that as if the exception is norm or against harsh rhetoric as off-putting e.g. liberal, gun-grabber, or the old timer panty-waist.
Ideally, people who employ rhetoric should often go back to view the unspoken assumptions behind them and determine whether or not they make sense. Good rhetoric illustrates an underlying reality or condition with some degree of imprecision and exaggeration but serves as a good stereotype, e.g. practice makes perfect, always be aware of one's surroundings, etc. Bad rhetoric does not provide much if any sort of truth and teaches bad lessons--e.g drag someone into the house if you shoot them, treat everyone as a potential killer, etc.
Folks that prefer dialectic or only use dialectic should not act like they are the correctors of reality nor the moral arbiters of society: e.g. clip versus magazine, rifle versus long gun, not all convicted violent felons/shady people/etc. will hurt you (and the like)etc. Few people enjoy a scold, killjoy, or know-it-all whether in person or online. Exceptions are just that. By themselves they do not alter the general experiences of others--see the Colt 2000 where I am sure that at least one person "liked it" but as a general argument that not all Colt 2000's were unreliable, ugly, and a bad adaptation of Glocks, is not going to do much. Some folks may enjoy being iconoclasts but understand that most people won't really be persuaded much by it. Similarly, someone may beat down someone else in argument but that does not make that argument a "true" statement of reality.
In many cases, some using pseudo dialectic will for example argue that the AR/M1/M14/AK47/______ is the finest of all firearms or that the shotgun rules them all at short ranges, caliber wars are another, etc. They will then disguise their naked opinion with assorted facts to buttress their argument as to why. Pseudo dialectic starts with a premise and then seeks to prove it rather than entertain the thought that knowledge from others might actually change one's opinion.
The logical paradox of "who shaves the Spanish Barber?" when presented to folks lead all sorts of interesting theories backed primarily by how that person uses their life experiences to answer it. The answer to the paradox is to follow the Spanish Barber around and see--e.g. experience it yourself or next best would be talk to someone who is very experienced in such matters (e.g. RCModel). Often folks are angered when someone questions their basic assumptions and treats it as a personal attack which it generally is not.
Arguments ain't people folks and losing an argument to a better one is not a disgrace which is an example of a rhetorical argument. Using similes, metaphors, etc. should not be attacked for being rhetoric e.g. passed away rather than died, etc. The question is whether it is "good rhetoric" or "bad". A gun being "sexy" is rhetoric. As someone said above, arousal by a firearm would be considered a deviant fetish-dialectic.
We see this style of argumentation all the time in criminal trials--the prosecution marshals evidence to prove their argument that so and so is guilty while the defense often uses the same facts to argue innocence or reasonable uncertainty of the prosecution case. Both rhetoric, pseudo dialectic, and dialectic are used by skilled trial attorneys. Should we reject "good rhetoric" employed skillfully by a prosecutor to convict a truly guilty person or a defense attorney who protects the innocent?
A classic example is to argue that a person is depraved if they shoot someone over mere money---note that that "good rhetoric" has the assumption that all people view lives as more important than money which may not be true of all individuals. Should we argue it is unfair to the convicted felon to use societal moral standards to judge that individual's actions? Shouldn't we at least see the situation from the felon's point of view that they needed money, the victim refused to provide it, and so the felon shot them to obtain the needed money? Most folks would probably argue that is a "bad" use of rhetoric.
An example of a dialectic argument for the above is "that murdering someone for mere money is an element of first degree murder as society has viewed murder for money as an example of a felon's "depraved indifference" to human life." The statute is a fact, that the person robbed the other individual for money and killed them is a fact established in this trial, the statute was adopted by the people's representatives in a fair and open way as a representation of crimes that society wants enhanced punishment, fact, and so on.
As we are all locked in our heads to some degree (pardons to those who are telepaths in advance for my faulty rhetoric), to exchange ideas and knowledge, requires communication. Communication with others will be a mix of rhetoric and dialectic, fact and opinion. Different life experiences will lead to differing conclusions about what is good or bad and what is just or unjust. Different cognitive functions will lead to differences in communication patterns. Thus, the trick is to recognize rhetoric and judge it on its own terms and the same for dialectic. Then, through questioning and dialogue, we can arrive at a better understanding of "truth" or an accurate depiction of reality if that is what floats your boat.
An armed society is a polite society
If you actually know where the quote comes from. It is from a Robert Heinlein book, Beyond This Horizon.
The society was a genetic caste determined tyranny, People were classified and tattooed by genetic code. Easy to be in the underclass. Young toughs dominated social interaction with ray guns and perceived minor slights led to gun fights.
The hero of the book, a genetic star, in fact thought the whole armed enterprise was stupid and was going to give up the gun and wear an arm band indicating that he was unarmed and thus could not be challenged. Of course, in that society if you did you were treated like trash. He was convinced not to as he had a responsibility to the genetic tyranny class. Interestingly, he decided to carry a replica 1911` just for grins and shock in a gun fight.
Thus, that culture was not a pleasant one and a model for freedom loving citizens.
If you actually know where the quote comes from. It is from a Robert Heinlein book, Beyond This Horizon.
The society was a genetic caste determined tyranny, People were classified and tattooed by genetic code. Easy to be in the underclass. Young toughs dominated social interaction with ray guns and perceived minor slights led to gun fights.
The hero of the book, a genetic star, in fact thought the whole armed enterprise was stupid and was going to give up the gun and wear an arm band indicating that he was unarmed and thus could not be challenged. Of course, in that society if you did you were treated like trash. He was convinced not to as he had a responsibility to the genetic tyranny class. Interestingly, he decided to carry a replica 1911` just for grins and shock in a gun fight.
Thus, that culture was not a pleasant one and a model for freedom loving citizens.
I was mostly being a smartass and adding another phrase to the thread.
But yeah I agree with your friend. (Junk is probably a bit too far but there sure are a lot of better models available today for the same or less money)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
