Page 10 of 18

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:19 pm
by Buzz
your view is nothing short of paranoid lunacy, which I understand to a great extent is fueled by the NRA/gun loon movement. Too bad you fell for it.


There you go with your assumptions again. I have nothing to do with the NRA. I haven't been to their web site once, and I have no idea what they're saying.

I'm not a joiner. I make up my own mind about things.


This conversation is going nowhere. Lets just see how things play out.

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:44 pm
by callmeslick
fair enough, Buzz, let's do that......let me bring up one other 'real world' matter that you haven't touched on. Availability, which is at the heart of this thing.
I am neither so naive, nor blind, as to not be aware that a black market exists in which people can, conceivably, buy any damn thing they want. Hell, I was messed up in that scene back in my misspent youth. The most powerful weapon I've ever held in my hands(and used for shits and grins) was a full-auto, military stock Uzi. The fucking thing would spin you into the ground like a corkscrew if you weren't prepared for it. The owner, a legitimate threat to society, ran a small, but lucrative network of drug dealers, prostitutes and loan sharks. Why did he have the piece? For sheer macho display. To my knowledge, it was never used to so much as threaten anyone, he much preferred stolen handguns and sawed off shotties. But, it gets to much of the clamor from the pro gun folks I encounter here, and elsewhere. The idea of gun ownership as some sort of macho display. And, sorry, that isn't what the 2nd Amendment is for, under ANYBODIES definition or interpretation. The idea that AR15 type pieces are readily available, with feeble background checks to any disturbed person who wants to buy them is at the heart of the problem folks wish to try and address. Those folks are not going to get them on the black market, mainly because those who manage the black market don't sell to loose cannons who could get somehow traced back to them. They generally only trade in a tight, controlled circle within the criminal community...sort of a band of brothers of a bad sort. The goal of most serious gun control advocates is NOT to eliminate all gun ownership. It is NOT to guarantee that NO military style weapons will ever be loose in society(wishful thinking), nor that no mass murders will ever occur. No, the simple goal is merely to take common sense steps to make society a LITTLE BIT safer. As time goes on, many of us who seek that goal grow ever more disgusted by the attempts of a few macho wannabes, anti government paranoids and other extremists getting in the way. And that disgust, FAR MORE than any commonsensical agendas, is what could, far down the road, push folks into the far more severe restrictions you all fear.

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:07 pm
by Buzz
I just don't like bans of any sort. I have no personal fears. A muzzleloader would be pretty far down the list. They aren't even considered guns at this point, and are shipped directly to your home.

I don't need a gun for protection. I have a pit bull to distract a bad guy while I reach for a baseball bat. I have no interest in going to jail for shooting someone.


Read this.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/14/3 ... apons.html

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:22 pm
by Pudfark
callmeslick wrote:fair enough, Buzz, let's do that......let me bring up one other 'real world' matter that you haven't touched on. Availability, which is at the heart of this thing.
I am neither so naive, nor blind, as to not be aware that a black market exists in which people can, conceivably, buy any damn thing they want. Hell, I was messed up in that scene back in my misspent youth. The most powerful weapon I've ever held in my hands(and used for shits and grins) was a full-auto, military stock Uzi. The fucking thing would spin you into the ground like a corkscrew if you weren't prepared for it. The owner, a legitimate threat to society, ran a small, but lucrative network of drug dealers, prostitutes and loan sharks. Why did he have the piece? For sheer macho display. To my knowledge, it was never used to so much as threaten anyone, he much preferred stolen handguns and sawed off shotties. But, it gets to much of the clamor from the pro gun folks I encounter here, and elsewhere. The idea of gun ownership as some sort of macho display. And, sorry, that isn't what the 2nd Amendment is for, under ANYBODIES definition or interpretation. The idea that AR15 type pieces are readily available, with feeble background checks to any disturbed person who wants to buy them is at the heart of the problem folks wish to try and address. Those folks are not going to get them on the black market, mainly because those who manage the black market don't sell to loose cannons who could get somehow traced back to them. They generally only trade in a tight, controlled circle within the criminal community...sort of a band of brothers of a bad sort. The goal of most serious gun control advocates is NOT to eliminate all gun ownership. It is NOT to guarantee that NO military style weapons will ever be loose in society(wishful thinking), nor that no mass murders will ever occur. No, the simple goal is merely to take common sense steps to make society a LITTLE BIT safer. As time goes on, many of us who seek that goal grow ever more disgusted by the attempts of a few macho wannabes, anti government paranoids and other extremists getting in the way. And that disgust, FAR MORE than any commonsensical agendas, is what could, far down the road, push folks into the far more severe restrictions you all fear.
You lie. You just got caught. You're saying an 8 pound weapon firing 9mm ammo spun a "big man" like you around like a "cork screw". My wife shoots a 2 1/2 pound Glock 9mm pistol rapid fire 18 shots and she don't spin around like a six year old on a merry-go-round. Though, you admit, you shot the same cartridge in a 5+ pound heavier weapon...and you got dizzy. You lie.

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:23 pm
by Pudfark
By the way Slick...yer goosie gun is a hell of a lot more powerful than yer terrifying experience with the Uzi in silly millimeter caliber. 8-)

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:31 pm
by Buzz
I had a .458 mag I took to Alaska to work a gold claim. It had a pretty good poke to it. I got it to stop grizzily's in their tracks. It was the gun the guides used there after their clients failed and the grizz was charging.

It about knocked my hat off when I first shot it with 500gr bullets. Nice gun though. Win 70.

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:49 pm
by Pudfark
Geez Buzz....there goes the dream.
I always had ya pictured with a Marlin 1895 in 45-70 standing
over the carcass of Kodiak...with the barrel still smoking... :(

or maybe an old Winchester in caliber 50-110... ;)

Slick's head is so far up his hind end....folks can't hear him now. :lol:
Owned he was and owned he is. 8-)

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:03 pm
by Buzz
I still have the Win 94 30-30 I got for Christmas in 1952 from my dad. Lots of deer and elk kills on that gun.

Always with iron sights, and always in dark timber up close. I love still hunting the timber. Sneaky like an Indian.

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:05 pm
by Buzz
My hunting grounds Pud.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Re: SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:25 pm
by Pudfark
I've never owned a 30-30. I have fired them some.
I do know this...I like the 150gr bullets better than the 170's.... ;)

Here's a dab of personal info...on the Uzi.
The military grade Uzi fires from an open bolt....I've not fired one of those.
The Civilian/Export Uzi fires from a closed bolt. Fired one of these a couple hundred x.
Original magazine capacity for both were 20-22 rounds.

An Uzi, either version weighs significantly more than an AR15.
The AR as you know fires a small rifle cartridge...originally based on the .222 Remington. The Uzi fires a small 9mm pistol cartridge.

Slick's recollection of firing an Uzi...back in the day...which would be the early to middle 1970's is further bullshit. Because, back then the commercially available 9mm ammo was "under loaded" meaning it was less powerful and done on purpose.
Silly millimeter (9mm) was not a popular cartridge in this country back then. The ammo was under loaded because most of the pistols here were believed to be from WWI, the German Luger P-08. This ammo wouldn't even work in those guns reliably.
So, if Slick by some odd chance or foible of memory did shoot a full auto Uzi, it was a jam-a-matic.

Slick makes it patently obvious, that what you assert, is true.
I know it as well.
So does everyone else here.
Even, he knows it.
He knows...he got caught again.

Old Pudfark sez: " This thread is not about winning anything. It's about not losing something. "