Surprised by a Gun Owner

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by LibShooter, Apr 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TEDDY

    TEDDY Member

    Jan 2, 2007

    how did you learn to handle a gun.were you taught by a compitent instuctor or did you jus get a gun and start shooting.when I grew up we all had 22 rifles and any number of pistols.I am watching newbys with reloading.most get the tools and start reloading.no manuals no training nothing.I had a marine father for my trainer but I also had an instructer in high school.and when I read of some of you keeping your shots in 8" at 20 ft I say huh.most of my friends do that at 50 yrds.
    every one need the basic training which is denied because of the elite socialists.its alright for me but not you.and those examples were probably
    urged to get an auto when a revolver would have saved them.point and pull trigger.I know if I shoot I will hit what I want.and I have no worries of sleeping after killing some one.and as far as some should not have a gun why should you.why do you think you are more capable than I.think of all the millions of soldiers that went to war,they werent screened as to whether they were capable or not.I saw many a one who did not know how to load a rifle.:rolleyes::uhoh::eek:
  2. Nicky Santoro

    Nicky Santoro Member

    Jun 4, 2005
    Apparently, Fudds come in both sexes.
  3. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Mar 30, 2006
    Rocky River, Ohio
    In usenet, I used to say, "Anti-gunners aren't against women's self-defense. They're against EFFECTIVE women's self-defense. They don't mind a woman defending herself from a rapist so long as the method she uses is unlikely to allow her to prevail and is likely to end up with her seriously injured or dead."

    I also used to say, "Xena, Warrior Princess is NOT a documentary. A hand to hand fight between a 110lb. woman and a 210lb. male weightlifter just out of prison usually ends just one way."
  4. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Mar 30, 2008
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    I was not saying anything about starkadder's post. His position is logical, based on the experience level of the person in question.

    No, I was expressing my disgust with the "hunter lady" in the original post. To say that a person is unworthy of the means of self defense... .

    This is a person that needs training and assistance, not condescension.
  5. thorazine

    thorazine Member

    Jun 25, 2003
    It seems this is a common school of thought with the hunter type.

    I recall conversations with some hunters during the old AWB...

    "I don't care."

    "It doesn't after my revolver, shotgun and bolt action rifle."

    Seemed to be the trend.
  6. Leanwolf

    Leanwolf Member

    Mar 25, 2006
    First, the First Amendment does not give us the Right of free speech. It acknowledges we all have an inalienable or "natural" Right to speak and write freely without Big Brother and Big Nanny telling us, at the point of their government guns, what we can and can not say and write.

    Secondly, as for "... you can't threaten to kill some one...", why, of course you can. But there are laws in place to punish you for your irresponsible act. Big Brother and Big Nanny have not yet come to the point of cutting out your tongue merely because you have the means to "threaten to kill someone," or the same with those who say "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," and might do so.

    As for the denying of a Right because some people are not as well trained in the use of firearms as others, that is the very slippery slope that has been greased for the restrictions (over 22,000 of them) placed on gunowners for years.

    I will say that I know many people who are completely irresponsible with automobiles, etc. I know many people who are incredibly abusive of their "privilege" to drink alcohol, irresponsibly, no matter their "training" or non-training. There is no real way to calculate the great damage they do to themselves, their family, friends, and just innocent bystanders. Using the argument you presented, no one should be allowed to drive, drink, etc., because of the irresponsible actions of some. (Just because someone once passed a Driver's License Test" does not mean he or she is responsible enough to take a 3,000 pound deadly weapon out on the freeways and streets and punch that gas pedal.)

    So, beware of the "Just a few more anti-gun laws, just a few more retrictions, just a little more confiscation, and all firerms problems will be solved."

    That's what the anti-gun people always claim. Not that you are advocating "confiscation," but it can eventually lead to it.

  7. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Sep 21, 2007
    Californicated Colorado

    None of the Amendments give us anything.
    They only acknowledge what exists, has always existed, and will always exist. Rights can't be taken away, but they can be criminalized. Some countries not only ignore that some of these rights exist, they'll make the exercising of them illegal. But they are still rights.

    How did we get off onto this?

    I think somebody missed this last post of Lib's.
  8. Millwright

    Millwright Member

    Sep 16, 2007
    New Jersey
    The haybag is just another "elitist" - ITC using guns to show "superiority"- just as her fellow elitists use cars, houses, etc..... >MW
  9. EmGeeGeorge

    EmGeeGeorge Member

    Aug 24, 2005
    maybe she knows the other lady better than you...
  10. Hungry Seagull

    Hungry Seagull member

    Feb 19, 2009
    Wife and picked up a few weapons. We learned them over several range trips and continue to improve.

    If anyone else has a problem, they need to look up the US Consitution 2nd Amendment and then refer to thier local state laws.

    They then have a choice. Learn to take on arms or leave them the hell alone.

    Everything else is irrevelant except to the specific person who either has arms or none.
  11. LibShooter

    LibShooter Member

    Jan 1, 2008
    East Tennessee
    Hey guys. A lot of very good points have been made here, and one ridiculous one:

    "i think she wants you dude"

    If only..

    Now back to the real world, I really didn't get any sense of cattiness from hunter girl. On reflection I agree with the elitist diagnosis. I think she believes anyone who would use a firearm costing less than $2,000, especially for anything as mundane as home protection is just a redneck.

    As for the lady who wants the HD gun, she (and her husband, see line 3 of this post :) ) are both smart people who can and will learn to use any tool properly. But should they really wait until they've completed training before getting a gun?

    Be honest, how many of us at THR really did that? I didn't. My dad put a .22 in my hands before I could ride a bike, but God Bless him, he was not exactly a safety instructor. It's a miracle I never shot him.

    Years later, I picked up a Ruger on a whim and took it to the woods to "reteach myself" to shoot. It was a year and another gun later before I taught myself enough to know how much I didn't know. That's when I started looking for formal instruction.

    Should that couple be at the mercy of criminals until they can make it to the top of the long waiting lists for self defense classes around here these days? Wouldn't a couple afternoons in my backyard with a couple boxes of shells and a couple of us mentors to guide them be enough?
  12. flrfh213

    flrfh213 Member

    Feb 23, 2009
    sw Florida
    mentor bonus, are they cute type or can they handle a bit if dirt?

    i went and took a Michigan state hunting course and helped thew teacher out a but and tough him a few tricks too, but long story short.... i think my instructor learned alto when i took my first hunter safety class
  13. noskilz

    noskilz Member

    Oct 15, 2007
    Houston, TX
    Sounds like a good start to me. Go for it, and report back. :D
  14. Zach S

    Zach S Member

    Jun 30, 2003
    Western NC
    I'm the gun guy at work. In over eight years with the company, I've met several of the "elitist hunter" group. Still get dirty looks and low-road comments from them from time to time.
  15. Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow

    Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow member

    Nov 14, 2007
    Yes, but this is different - it's a new sinister twist on already-twisted logic.

    Before the FUDD reasoning is "Meh, not my type of gun that's being banned, so what do I care?"

    Now this woman's "logic" is: "All these numnuts clamoring about their self-defense rights and keeping their evil black rifles are going to get the public and legislators so agitated, that the backlash of all such talk & activism** will be that guns bans will be forthcoming that will ban both THOSE evil guns AND (gasp) MY innocuous guns!"

    **aimed at increasing the level of gun freedoms.

    How do you even begin to deal with the mentality that is 180 degrees opposite of the truth of incrementalism in the "gun control" movement? It boggles the mind how mentally-challenged she and others like her are.
  16. lucky_fool

    lucky_fool Member

    Jul 14, 2005
    Richmond, VA
    I see a lot of people trying to put words in Ms. Elitist Hunter's mouth by saying things like "maybe she knows the other lady better than you do". If that was the case then the original quote probably would have been something more like "she has a history of irresponsibility and I don't feel comfortable recommending that she buy a gun". That isn't what she said. What she said was "But I don't think 'just anybody' should have firearms. Shooting's a privilege, you know."

    While I do believe that you have a duty to exercise your rights responsibly that's a far cry from shooting being a privilege.
  17. Cannonball888

    Cannonball888 Member

    Jun 7, 2007
    Rare? No, Dr. LibShooter. You have found the common species Fuddae ignoramus
  18. LogicGS

    LogicGS Member

    Mar 18, 2009
    Missouri. . . .Near the Middle

    I have encountered this inverse-logic with increasing regularity of late, even (or I should say especially) on gun centric forums.

    The basic premise is that we should restrict ourselves willingly so that we can do so on our own terms, versus having the restrictions imposed upon us by people who hate us.

    I believe this is a fatally flawed line of thinking, because it takes as a given that we are going to lose the fight.

    I will not willingly relinquish my rights. If they want them, they'll have to come and take them. At least then I have the chance to fight and win. If we surrender, we guarantee defeat.

    I for one do not intend to surrender. I don't even plan to go down fighting.

    I plan to win, and you should too.
  19. Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow

    Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow member

    Nov 14, 2007
    Amen, brother, + 1000000000! The Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach won't work - never has, never will. The bell tolls for thee, too, Mr. and Mrs. Fudd.
  20. KBintheSLC

    KBintheSLC Member

    Jul 30, 2007
    Stalingrad, USA
    There are many anti 2A gun owners in America. Many support an AWB... ""as long as they don't come after my hunting rifle, they can take 'em"". I even know a gun owner at work that still blames the 2nd Amendment for cartel murders in Mexico.
    Heck, if we were all on the same page in support of the 2A, we would be an unstoppable force. But with all of the antis in our midst, it is hard to hold ground.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice