Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hornet33 on December 02, 2007, 05:41:18 PM
-
With he current militia thread going on and all the other gun threads that I have read and been a part of on this board I decided to conduct a little experiment this weekend.
I just had to find out if my guns were going to kill me or anyone else so I did the following. I took the following firearms that I have in my apartment and loaded everyone of them with a live round in the chamber, safety OFF, and layed them around my apartment. Couple in the living room, several in my bedroom, one in the kitchen, and one in the bathroom.
At no time during the last 48 hours have any of my guns jumped up and tried to kill me or anyone else. In fact they never moved from the spot I placed them in, therefor I can only assume that the total lack of hostile action on my guns part means that my guns are perfectly safe and mean me no harm at all.
Here is the list of LOADED guns I had around this weekend.
Remington 870 12 gage pump action shotgun
Remington Model 700 BDL 30-06 bolt action rifle
Taurus PT-99 9mm automatic pistol
Kimber tactical elite .45 automatic pistol
Ruger 10-22 semi automatic rifle
Ruger Model 77 all weather .308 bolt action rifle
Bushmaster M-4 .223 semi automatic assult rifle
Simth and Wesson Chiefs Special .38 revolver
Russian SVT-40 7.62X54 rimmed semi automatic battle rifle
Of course I know there will be a few that will think that it was dangerous or stupid or irresponsible of me to load all these weapons and leave them laying around with the safeties off because an accident could have happened but for those folks I can only say this.......I NEVER felt threatened or uncomfortable with all this loaded firepower surrounding me.
It was a scientific experiment and it proved to me once and for all that guns don't kill people. Not by themselves they don't.
Kinda like how a car can't kill anyone when it's sitting in the driveway with the engine turned off. It's only dangerous when some idiot gets behind the wheel and starts driving it.
-
Do guns kill people?
If your guns can't kill you get your money back. ;)
Will they?
Only time will tell. :aok
-
Just remember.
Anything that can go wrong.
Eventually does
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Do guns kill people?
If your guns can't kill you get your money back. ;)
Will they?
Only time will tell. :aok
To answer your question....NO my guns don't kill people. I could kill people using my guns but my guns all by themselves can't. Alsi I don't need to get my money back for any of them. They do just what they were designed to do. Fire a small solid projectile at whatever I aim at. They ALL work just fine. I can also kill with my truck if I wanted too but that doesn't mean I'm going to run out and try it.
-
<< john looks nervously at the loaded 38 sitting on his desk, "good boy, goood boy".>>>
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
To answer your question....NO my guns don't kill people. I could kill people using my guns but my guns all by themselves can't. Alsi I don't need to get my money back for any of them. They do just what they were designed to do. Fire a small solid projectile at whatever I aim at. They ALL work just fine. I can also kill with my truck if I wanted too but that doesn't mean I'm going to run out and try it.
Oops, I'm sorry. You're obviously taking this more seriously than I did. I found it kinda sorta amusing. :aok :D
-
there's actually a website about this. They have a loaded AR15 sitting in a corner with a webcam on it. There's a timer on the site of how long the rifle has been loaded and not killed anybody.
-
That's hilarious. :lol
Wonder if there's one with Cheney replacing the AR15? ;)
-
I've found that firearms tend to lack the ability to release the firing pin by themselves.
-
saying guns kill people is like saying pencils misspell words.
-
I've found that firearms tend to lack the ability to release the firing pin by themselves.
[/i][/b]
I've found that someone without a gun lacks that very same ability. ;)
If it takes a loaded gun to equalize (remembering legends of the wild west fondly) and that's a right guaranteed then liberty and AR15s for all, I say. :aok
I like an honest and sensible argument. But I love the ones where people get downright silly*. :D
*Feel free to accuse me of joining in the silliness.
;)
p.s. Enjoyed watching Wyatt Earp and The Quick and the Dead again last night. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Do guns kill people?
No.
By the same logic, anti tank missiles don't kill tanks and torpedoes don't sink subs.
It is all about semantics. Stop wasting time on silly experiments.
-
Originally posted by Curval
anti tank missiles don't kill tanks
all by themselves?
-
Originally posted by john9001
all by themselves?
Confusing, isn't it?
Drugs don't kill, either. :D
-
arlo, no drug has ever forced me to take it.
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, no drug has ever forced me to take it.
There you go, you're onboard with the argument - it's merit and it's logic. Because hey, complexity is just so .... complex. :D
-
is it me or does arlo just keep getting more boring and making less sense?
-
Originally posted by john9001
is it me or does arlo just keep getting more boring and making less sense?
I know it confused ya, john. That's ok. If ever the conversation just involves you and me I'll dummy it down for ya. :D
-
good point. Cars don't kill people, nor do aircraft. So why do we need licenses for them?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
good point. Cars don't kill people, nor do aircraft. So why do we need licenses for them?
To jump to the grand punchline of the whole cars, airplanes, guns theme of this thread is that people need licenses because people kill.
It would be funny to come up with some kind of homicide statistic for the prehistoric rock. How many people do you think were killed with rocks before the advent of the stone ax, Flint spear, and bow and arrow??? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
good point. Cars don't kill people, nor do aircraft. So why do we need licenses for them?
I'm not opposed to everyone being issued a license to carry a gun who demonstrates, as with a car or plane, the necessary skill to operate it.
I in fact have such a license.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
good point. Cars don't kill people, nor do aircraft. So why do we need licenses for them?
Actually, provided we are not using the car for commerce, we don't need licenses.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
To jump to the grand punchline of the whole cars, airplanes, guns theme of this thread is that people need licenses because people kill.
It would be funny to come up with some kind of homicide statistic for the prehistoric rock. How many people do you think were killed with rocks before the advent of the stone ax, Flint spear, and bow and arrow??? :rofl
I've got a loaded stone axe, flint spear and unloaded bow (they can't lay around loaded for some reason) strategically placed around my apartment as we speak. No cameras on them but I assure you they haven't taken any drugs the entire time. I'm sure they would have left tell-tale signs. ;)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, provided we are not using the car for commerce, we don't need licenses.
Until you get stopped, that is. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm not opposed to everyone being issued a license to carry a gun who demonstrates, as with a car or plane, the necessary skill to operate it.
I in fact have such a license.
Gun control. I knew some didn't really fear it. ;)
-
Drunk drivers don't kill people, collisions do.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Until you get stopped, that is. ;)
Actually, no. The constitution says that the government can regulate commerce. This means that they have no right to regulate those traveling not involved in commerce.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, no. The constitution says that the government can regulate commerce. This means that they have no right to regulate those traveling not involved in commerce.
I understand you're trying to make a "point." I encourage you (specifically) to drive without a license. ;):aok
-
Do guns kill people?
No i think its the bullets that do the killing.
-
Originally posted by jam83
Do guns kill people?
No i think its the bullets that do the killing.
Stop that. Go pistol whip a homeless wino. ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
good point. Cars don't kill people, nor do aircraft. So why do we need licenses for them?
There is no constitutional right to drive or fly. That which is licenced is a privilege, not a right. The privilege is granted you by the "state". Rights are not granted by any state, they are only infringed by the state.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I've got a loaded stone axe, flint spear and unloaded bow (they can't lay around loaded for some reason) strategically placed around my apartment as we speak. No cameras on them but I assure you they haven't taken any drugs the entire time. I'm sure they would have left tell-tale signs. ;)
I'm guessing the Spear uses a tube mag, But does the Stone Ax have a removable Mag or does it use some kind of loading gate or cylinder? :huh
And is the Bow-and-arrow a Muzzleloader???
:t
(I got a giggle out of that response, Arlo.)
-
Gotta have a hunting license with the correct stamp to shoot a lawyer in this state. Unless you're the VP. Other than that, I believe I can still walk into a Walmart and buy a sporting rifle without a license to own said weapon. ;)
-
Rights must still be enjoyed responsibly are they are taken away. I would have no problem if a license were required to carry a concealed weapon provided the license were guaranteed to anyone demonstrating basic knowledge required to operate one safely. Like a vehicle license, operate it improperly too many times and lose the right for a season.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I'm guessing the Spear uses a tube mag, But does the Stone Ax have a removable Mag or does it use some kind of loading gate or cylinder? :huh
And is the Bow-and-arrow a Muzzleloader???
:t
(I got a giggle out of that response, Arlo.)
Don't say "giggle." It makes the machismo crowd nervous. ;)
My bow and arrow is semi-non-automatic while I'm sober. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Rights must still be enjoyed responsibly or they are taken away. I would have no problem if a license were required to carry a concealed weapon provided the license were guaranteed to anyone demonstrating basic knowledge required to operate one safely. Like a vehicle license, operate it improperly too many times and lose the right for a season.
Sit down and hold on tight because ..... you and I appear to be on the same page regarding said topic, at this point. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Gun control. I knew some didn't really fear it. ;)
Not gun control in the sense that many mean it. A license SHALL be granted to anyone of age and not having demonstrated gross irresponsibility or incompetence. This license would grant the bearer the right to possess and carry any gun anywhere they choose.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not gun control in the sense that many mean it. A license SHALL be granted to anyone of age and not having demonstrated gross irresponsibility or incompetence. This license would grant the bearer the right to possess and carry any gun anywhere they choose.
" .... to anyone demonstrating basic knowledge required to operate one safely." Right? And who has the fees to afford said license. Same for renewing. Cause I'm fair certain there isn't a licensing program that doesn't require fees and renewal.
Just seeing how close we still are. (And this is precisely the sense I and a lot of people I know mean it.) Cause I don't really have a problem with it. But I sure don't see a way around collection to pay for the licensing, registration and database maint. process. :)
-
I pretty much described Texas' concealed carry laws. The license is much like a vehicle operators license, in fees, proficiency, and interval. While a person is licensed, weapons are not. Texas is not allowed to maintain records on what guns are owned by individuals.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I pretty much described Texas' concealed carry laws. The license is much like a vehicle operators license, in fees, proficiency, and interval. While a person is licensed, weapons are not. Texas is not allowed to maintain records on what guns are owned by individuals.
I've never had a problem with it. And no argument over militia, constitutional rights or oppressive government was required. Honestly, I like guns. A lot. And my western collection reinforces my desire. :)
-
Gun's don't kill people, bullets do.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
my western collection reinforces my desire. :)
I can't have a western collection because I live in PA.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I can't have a western collection because I live in PA.
Only fitting. You oughta need a visa to visit Texas. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Kinda like how a car can't kill anyone when it's sitting in the driveway with the engine turned off. It's only dangerous when some idiot gets behind the wheel and starts driving it.
"Some fires occurred hours after the vehicles were parked and turned off. One particularly tragic event occurred when an F150 truck parked in the garage of a family in Georgia caught fire. The blaze quickly spread to the house where it killed a four year old girl." http://www.kerrysteigerwalt.com/public/f150-recall/
-
Speaking of which .... I don't recommend loading all your guns and laying them around the apartment with their safeties off to prove a point on an internet bulletin board. I bet most NRA members would probably concur.
Just not safety smart. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Only fitting. You oughta need a visa to visit Texas. ;)
Are you saying that I'm not welcome in texas, that entering texas should be a privilege, or that owning a western collection isn't something to be entered into lightly?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Are you saying that I'm not welcome in texas, that entering texas should be a privilege, or that owning a western collection isn't something to be entered into lightly?
Yes. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Gun control. I knew some didn't really fear it. ;)
That is not gun control. That is human control.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That is not gun control. That is human control.
I'm an anti-semantic. ;)
Humans do stupid things. Til that stops, society will probably make laws to protect us from ourselves. That is, until enough stupidity floats to the top of the food chain and the honorable gentlemen and ladies from wherever forget what the point of legislation was or who it was designed to protect. At that point just arm congress and reinstate a dueling code. Laz' wet dream. :D
-
WOW!!!! Posted this thread, went to watch the Steelers game and came home to 2 pages of stuff.
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH and to Jam83, I've always had bullets laying around the place and NEVER have I had one one that just up and went off all on it's own, so NO bullets don't kill people either.
The point I wanted to make with this thread is that a gun, just like a car, is no more dangerous than the person who has control of it.
A properly maintained gun is no more of a threat to anyone than a properly maintained car. It ALWAYS comes down to the person behind the wheel or the trigger that causes the harm.
You can't blame the machine for improper use, only the operator of said machine.
That isn't to say that the machine doesn't sometime break or malfunction and cause harm to someone. Those cases are rare however. Most situations be it a gun or a car boil down to human error, willfull intent, or incompetence.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
WOW!!!!
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many loaded/round chambered guns with safety off in the bathroom, again? I'm thinking of taking bets. :D
-
Typically guns dont kill people but they make it very easy for people to kill people.
But of course, I like guns because they make killing bad people with guns trying to hurt me much easier to kill (did that make sense?) :D
-
I want my guns back:cry
King Johnny made me give hand them over (for a laughable amount of "compensation" I might add).
-
Is there anyone here who thinks that the few simple safety rules needed to own and operate a firearm are anything like the safety training and skill level required to drive a car or fly an airplane?
Yet.. there are no laws at all preventing anyone from buying and owning a car or airplane. None. Any kind pretty much. They all have more potential for harm to others than any firearm that I am aware of.
Power tools require more training and skill yet.. there are no rules. no restrictions.
All these items have something in common.. they do not posses a will of their own... some cars I have owned seemed to I will admit but....
So why the fear of firearms? "potential"???
We gladly get on the road with 2 tons of car hurtling at us at 79 mph or more every few seconds... any nut could just... twitch the wheel.. and it is all over.
These same fellow citizens that we demonize as nut jobs incapable of owning firearms are hurtling at us in two tons of weapon hundreds... thousands of times a day... yet we fear not... they fly above us in bombs.. yet we fear them not.
Why? because we have become used to it and see that the freedom outwieghs the risk. We see that our fellow citizens (despite the few who do run people down on purpose) are not whack jobs.
Yet somehow... when they own a gun.. it all changes?
lazs
-
It's a lot of psychology, Lazs.
Guns are made to kill, or at least inflict damage on a target of some kind. Cars and power tools only do so when mishandled.
Guns are objects of recreation for a majority of owners--the biggest exceptions being cops and soldiers, and it has been thoroughly pumped into our heads that even for those two professions, the use of a gun should be considered last resort. They are not directly necessary to the continuation of our economy the way that cars and power tools are.
Finally, after years and decades of public service announcements, billboards, movies and after-school specials, the image of a loaded gun in the hands of a curious 7 year old has been burned into our collective mind. A gun in the home, in the minds of many, is a tragedy waiting to happen. Couple that with the fact that we do not depend on them as much as we do on saws and drills and SUVs, and you get demonization.
Not saying I agree with all this, I can just see how these factors lead to general attitudes about firearms--especially in the minds of mothers.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
There is no constitutional right to drive or fly. That which is licenced is a privilege, not a right. The privilege is granted you by the "state". Rights are not granted by any state, they are only infringed by the state.
Wrong. The constitution says that the government can only regulate those who travel and are involved in commerce. Meaning, someone who does business out of their car, like an 18 Wheeler, a Contractor, or traveling salesmen.
It does not expressly say that everyone has the right to free travel, however, as per the 10th amendment, the line of the constitution means that the government has NO right to limit or license the non-commercial travel of the citizens.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wrong. The constitution says that the government can only regulate those who travel and are involved in commerce. Meaning, someone who does business out of their car, like an 18 Wheeler, a Contractor, or traveling salesmen.
It does not expressly say that everyone has the right to free travel, however, as per the 10th amendment, the line of the constitution means that the government has NO right to limit or license the non-commercial travel of the citizens.
Traveling and operating the means of travel are two different things. The government doesn't, and can't, as far as I know, control the movement of passengers within the borders of this country (unless they are under investigation or about to be prosecuted). They can have a say in who gets to be behind the wheel.
If the 10th amendment doesn't make these distinctions clear enough, it's because vagueness was an intended part of the recipe of the constitution. It's also because the drafters of that amendment never saw our modern interstates, and airspace.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Traveling and operating the means of travel are two different things. The government doesn't, and can't, as far as I know, control the movement of passengers within the borders of this country (unless they are under investigation or about to be prosecuted). They can have a say in who gets to be behind the wheel.
If the 10th amendment doesn't make these distinctions clear enough, it's because vagueness was an intended part of the recipe of the constitution. It's also because the drafters of that amendment never saw our modern interstates, and airspace.
So you're saying that never, while the constitution was being written, did the founders travel between one state to another in some sort of vehicle?
Also, by your logic, there is nothing wrong with licensing gun owners.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So you're saying that never, while the constitution was being written, did the founders travel between one state to another in some sort of vehicle?
Also, by your logic, there is nothing wrong with licensing gun owners.
All I'm saying is that the 10th amendment in no way precludes the government from taking it upon themselves to restrict who DRIVES a car, truck, train, plane, boat or carriage. I'm sure the founders travelled. I do not know if they drove. Maybe in their time licenses were not required. the fact that they are now, however, does not interfere with the 10th amendment.
They can't tell you where to go, but they can tell you whether you can operate the machine that gets you there--as long as it's on government transitways... On the flip side of the coin, making driving a privilege does not take away your right to travel.
As for guns and licensing, that has nothing to do with freedom of movement. It's a much harder question in my mind, especially after my own experiences with buying a firearm (in Blacksburg VA, of all places) just 2 summers ago.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
All I'm saying is that the 10th amendment in no way precludes the government from taking it upon themselves to restrict who DRIVES a car, truck, train, plane, boat or carriage. I'm sure the founders travelled. I do not know if they drove. Maybe in their time licenses were not required. the fact that they are now, however, does not interfere with the 10th amendment.
They can't tell you where to go, but they can tell you whether you can operate the machine that gets you there--as long as it's on government transitways... On the flip side of the coin, making driving a privilege does not take away your right to travel.
As for guns and licensing, that has nothing to do with freedom of movement. It's a much harder question in my mind, especially after my own experiences with buying a firearm (in Blacksburg VA, of all places) just 2 summers ago.
Yes, it does say it. As per the 10th (and 9th) amendment, because the constitution doesn't specifically say that it is a right of the government to license drivers, that specifically means that it the people have the right to NOT be licensed.
The mere act of licensing means that they have the ability to deny a license application, thus removing someone's ability to access a Constitutional Right. If there was no chance of government using a license negatively, nor denying a person's ability to drive, then there is nothing wrong with it. But you and I know that it is not possible for the government to act morally.
-
neubob.. I absolutely do understand that about the myth and fear and exaggerations revolving (no pun intended) around firearms.
The truth is that vehicles and guns both are used for recreation and they both have about the same potential for killing but one.. the vehicle.. is far more difficult to operate safely and is far more dangerous. The accident rate of both of these items bears this out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
WOW!!!! Posted this thread, went to watch the Steelers game and came home to 2 pages of stuff.
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH and to Jam83, I've always had bullets laying around the place and NEVER have I had one one that just up and went off all on it's own, so NO bullets don't kill people either.
The point I wanted to make with this thread is that a gun, just like a car, is no more dangerous than the person who has control of it.
A properly maintained gun is no more of a threat to anyone than a properly maintained car. It ALWAYS comes down to the person behind the wheel or the trigger that causes the harm.
You can't blame the machine for improper use, only the operator of said machine.
That isn't to say that the machine doesn't sometime break or malfunction and cause harm to someone. Those cases are rare however. Most situations be it a gun or a car boil down to human error, willfull intent, or incompetence.
multiple loaded weapons laying around the house proves nothing but your idiocy.
7/10 for some good responses to a st00pid troll
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, it does say it. As per the 10th (and 9th) amendment, because the constitution doesn't specifically say that it is a right of the government to license drivers, that specifically means that it the people have the right to NOT be licensed.
The mere act of licensing means that they have the ability to deny a license application, thus removing someone's ability to access a Constitutional Right. If there was no chance of government using a license negatively, nor denying a person's ability to drive, then there is nothing wrong with it. But you and I know that it is not possible for the government to act morally.
well, i'm all for our right to freely travel the nation, but in your picture of how it should run I would imagine it being very ironic when the half blind 89 year old lady ran you over because she didn't need to show she could see far or clearly enough to operate a vehicle and no license means no eye check...thats just dumb
-
well... just like firearms... The second is for "able bodied".. this would mean sane and... well... not blind.
You could put restrictions on driving based on being able bodied too...
The restrictions on driving are.... were... in proportion to the danger.. far more skill is required and far more learning than that of a firearm say.
But, like anything else.. we can see the slippery slope.. the lefties are never happy with a few "sensible" restrictions... driving restrictions have morphed into a mish mash of feel good busybody crap like seatbelt laws and eating laws and talking on the phone laws and all sorts of things... give em an inch...
That is the problem.. most would not be upset with taking a test for firearms ownership.. one that cost nothing and was convienient. It could be stricter say for machine guns.. one would not care about a license that cost nothing for concealed carry if it was convienient and... shall issue and.. none of these would require anyone to tell anyone else what guns they owned or what the serial numbers were.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, it does say it. As per the 10th (and 9th) amendment, because the constitution doesn't specifically say that it is a right of the government to license drivers, that specifically means that it the people have the right to NOT be licensed.
No, it does not. Just because something is not true, or not specifically mentioned, does not automatically guarantee that its opposite is true, or intended. Even when the opposing view is refuted, there has to be active support for the presumption. This is the one of the most basic principals you'll see on logical reasoning section of the LSAT, which if you're lucky, you'll never take or even look at...
As for the constitution, there are many things that it does not specifically say. It is vague by design. If the constitution tried to address every aspect of every situation conceivable, it would be millions of pages long and still be hopelessly inadequate... When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it comes under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, where things like legislative intent, history and practicality are taken into account. It's what makes the study of such a brief document so daunting, and is a basic principal of Conlaw, which, if you're lucky, you'll never take or even look at.
And on a practical note, I think that licensing the use of such things as a car is reasonable. The requirements are basic, and it allows for a degree of order. No, I do not like bigger government. Bigger government is dangerous, inefficient, and it smelly... I just don't want 8 year old kids, or blind 90 year olds driving cars with me on the freeway.
Now, to combine all this, the fact that the constitution does not mention licensing of motor vehicles may give you the leverage you need to argue the matter in the supreme court. I doubt they'd bother listening to you, but you can certainly try.
-
laser,
The framers didn't have licenses to operate animal drawn conveyances.
Transportation, by it's very nature involves interstate commerce, if not as a vendor then as a buyer. If you drive your vehicle you are already engaging in a means of interstate commerce. The vehicle was not made in your state most likely and the same for the fuel and oil. As soon as you fill it up you have just purchased items from across the state line (or national border for that matter) and will need to continue to do so to keep using it.
It's only through the agreement of reciprocity that your state issued drivers license is recognized in any other state. The same goes for the registration of the vehicle. Each individual state could conceivably charge you a registration and operator tax just to cross the state line in that vehicle.
As already stated you have freedom of movement, as a passenger in a means of conveyance. You do not have a constitutional right to be the operator of the conveyance. You can and will be sanctioned by the state, any state, for not having a permit (another word for license) to operate a motor vehicle in that state.
You shouldn't have a problem in riding a bicycle around all you want as long as you are not on the states prohibited roadways. Oh and BTW you will still have to follow state law in operating the bicycle or again face state sanctions. Yes you CAN get a ticket on a bicycle you just don't need a license to operate it.
Think Amish buggies and required safety equipment and rules for operation. While no license would be required, you will still face state sanctions for failure to comply with state regulations (law) regarding the operation of that equipment on the states roads.
My advise to you would be to go get a bicycle or a horse and buggy and drive all you want without a license. See the country all you want without an operators permit.
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
multiple loaded weapons laying around the house proves nothing but your idiocy.
LOL
Indeed.
I'm guessing he has no small kids at his place. Would the guns be put away if little kids came over with relatives or something? I'll bet they would. As to WHY...well no particular reason...given that the inanimate objects wouldn't be a danger to anyone. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
LOL
Indeed.
I'm guessing he has no small kids at his place. Would the guns be put away if little kids came over with relatives or something? I'll bet they would. As to WHY...well no particular reason...given that the inanimate objects wouldn't be a danger to anyone. :rolleyes:
You are corerect that I have no children living in my apartment with me. My kids live with my ex, but they do come over all the time. Also under normal circumstances, actually all the time, I keep my firearms locked up in my gun safe with the exception of my shotgun. I always keep that loaded with 6 in the tube (yes I have a magazine extension on it) and an empty chamber, safety ON. My weapons in the safe always have at least one loaded magazine or speed loader ready to go but no rounds in the weapons themselves.
I DO NOT however lock my shotgun up when my kids do come over. They know not to touch any of my guns without asking first. If they ask, and they do from time to time, I gladly take them out and let my kids handle them under my constant supervision. Both my kids (son age 11, daughter age 9) understand firearms safety and they also know that they can get hurt or killed by not following the rules.
As a responsible gun owner, with children I have taken the responsibility upon myself to properly train them. My son recieved his first gun last year for Christmas at age 10. I bought him a Ruger Model 77/22 bolt action rifle. It hangs on the wall in his bedroom in a custom gun rack I made for it. I however keep the ammo locked up in my safe. When he is old enough to go buy ammo legally for his gun then he can take the responsibility for storing his own ammo.
Next year my daughter gets her first gun. She'll be 10 years old and properly trained as well. Like I do with my son though, I'll keep the ammo secured with all the rest.
BUT......the whole point of my initial post was to prove that a gun will not jump up and kill someone all by itself, thus debunking the popular misconception that guns are somehow inherantly dangerous. The ONLY way a gun can hurt or kill anyone or anything is due to willfull intent or negligence on the part of the person holding the gun.
Also to those that say a gun is designed to kill people, they are wrong with that assumption. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. That is all. It just so happens that a projectile traveling at high velocity tends to cause severe trauma if it hits a person, hence guns make effective killing tools.
-
Did you make up a fib to prove a "vital" point on the AHBB? Or did you tempt fate thereby ignoring the wisdom of gun safety you taught the kids you apparently don't mind orphaning should your "important experiment" go awry?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
You are corerect that I have no children living in my apartment with me. My kids live with my ex, but they do come over all the time. Also under normal circumstances, actually all the time, I keep my firearms locked up in my gun safe with the exception of my shotgun. I always keep that loaded with 6 in the tube (yes I have a magazine extension on it) and an empty chamber, safety ON. My weapons in the safe always have at least one loaded magazine or speed loader ready to go but no rounds in the weapons themselves.
I DO NOT however lock my shotgun up when my kids do come over. They know not to touch any of my guns without asking first. If they ask, and they do from time to time, I gladly take them out and let my kids handle them under my constant supervision. Both my kids (son age 11, daughter age 9) understand firearms safety and they also know that they can get hurt or killed by not following the rules.
As a responsible gun owner, with children I have taken the responsibility upon myself to properly train them. My son recieved his first gun last year for Christmas at age 10. I bought him a Ruger Model 77/22 bolt action rifle. It hangs on the wall in his bedroom in a custom gun rack I made for it. I however keep the ammo locked up in my safe. When he is old enough to go buy ammo legally for his gun then he can take the responsibility for storing his own ammo.
Next year my daughter gets her first gun. She'll be 10 years old and properly trained as well. Like I do with my son though, I'll keep the ammo secured with all the rest.
BUT......the whole point of my initial post was to prove that a gun will not jump up and kill someone all by itself, thus debunking the popular misconception that guns are somehow inherantly dangerous. The ONLY way a gun can hurt or kill anyone or anything is due to willfull intent or negligence on the part of the person holding the gun.
Also to those that say a gun is designed to kill people, they are wrong with that assumption. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. That is all. It just so happens that a projectile traveling at high velocity tends to cause severe trauma if it hits a person, hence guns make effective killing tools.
It's like getting a lecture from a drill sergent...or better yet an ATF officer.
lol
-
wait a minnit, a point was made that a loaded gun laying on a table will not shoot anybody on it's own, then somebody say,"well what about kids?"
That puts a human into the picture, so now you have a person/kid touching the gun which is something different.
less spin , more facts.
-
Originally posted by john9001
wait a minnit, a point was made ....
Argument pretty well falls apart there. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Did you make up a fib to prove a "vital" point on the AHBB? Or did you tempt fate thereby ignoring the wisdom of gun safety you taught the kids you apparently don't mind orphaning should your "important experiment" go awry?
No, I did it only because I know nothing would have happened. I've been around guns my entire life and I have NEVER seen one just go off all by itself. I have seen plenty of close calls but again they were all due to improper handling or poor maintnance on the part of the person shooting or owning the weapon.
I have never had a close call. My weapons are all properly maintained, and when I have a weapon in my hand, loaded or not, I ALWAYS follow the rules for proper safety.
I also handload much of my own ammunition. Several reasons for this. 1 it's cheaper than buying factory ammo. 2 I KNOW that the ammo I shoot is quality and isn't going to cause me any problems. The only ammo I buy in bulk is .22LR and I only buy Winchester XX 37 grain copper jacketed hollow points. It's the most reliable 22 ammo I have found to date that shoots well out of most guns I've fired it from.
-
Originally posted by john9001
wait a minnit, a point was made that a loaded gun laying on a table will not shoot anybody on it's own, then somebody say,"well what about kids?"
That puts a human into the picture, so now you have a person/kid touching the gun which is something different.
less spin , more facts.
lol
Read it again. I already agreed that his highly scientific experiment proved his glaringly obvious point.
The issue where kids came up revolved around the wisdom of the method of conducting said highly scientific experiment.
You are trying to spin now. Do you think that this particular mode of experimentation (no matter how highly scientific) is one a responsible gun owner should be undertaking? Loading up guns and leaving them around to see if they would jump up and fire on thier own? Seriously?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
No, I did it only because I know nothing would have happened. I've been around guns my entire life and I have NEVER seen one just go off all by itself.
So you did do this bit of foolishness to make a point to your AH buddies online who weren't physically present to witness science at work.
Divorced due to irreconcileable differences over common sense? Use better discretion, I implore ya.
Been around guns and other gun owners my entire life, as well. Can't think of one reason not to call you stupid, at this point. :D
-
Originally posted by Curval
Do you think that this particular mode of experimentation (no matter how highly scientific) is one a responsible gun owner should be undertaking? Loading up guns and leaving them around to see if they would jump up and fire on thier own? Seriously?
Well I'm not a Democrat so I didn't think I needed a 100 person panel, spend millions of dollars on outside lab testing, only to have the results printed up in a thousand page book, to find that all the data was inconclusive and have to start all over again.
But that's just me.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Well I'm not a Democrat so I didn't think I needed a 100 person panel, spend millions of dollars on outside lab testing, only to have the results printed up in a thousand page book, to find that all the data was inconclusive and have to start all over again.
But that's just me.
Hornet33: Hold mah beer ah got sumpin' to prove to some guys on the internet. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hornet33: Hold mah beer ah got sumpin' to prove to some guys on the internet. ;)
Naw.....I just like stirring the pot every now and again.
-
You be careful now, y'hear? :D
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Well I'm not a Democrat so I didn't think I needed a 100 person panel, spend millions of dollars on outside lab testing, only to have the results printed up in a thousand page book, to find that all the data was inconclusive and have to start all over again.
But that's just me.
Solid argument. Bring the democrats into it now.
:aok
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You be careful now, y'hear? :D
I've had it about up to here (pointing to my elbow) with this sort of light-hearted tone. You're on notice, arlo. One more outburst and I'm gonna get hammered and start a whole thread about you.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I've had it about up to here (pointing to my elbow) with this sort of light-hearted tone. You're on notice, arlo. One more outburst and I'm gonna get hammered and start a whole thread about you.
I still owe you for teaching me how to enjoy Vodka again. :huh
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I still owe you for teaching me how to enjoy Vodka again. :huh
Did it work for you?--the vodka advice?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Did it work for you?--the vodka advice?
Like a charm. Court's still out over whether this is a good thing. Heh.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Like a charm. Court's still out over whether this is a good thing. Heh.
I hope you know that you're pretty much an honorary Russian now... Proficient at something self-destructive, yet still curious as to its merits.
We like to get together in August, in case you're wondering.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I hope you know that you're pretty much an honorary Russian now... Proficient at something self-destructive, yet still curious as to its merits.
We like to get together in August, in case you're wondering.
August. Let me see bout that. As long as I don't hafta try that squat-dance. Don't think my knees (or anything else) could survive that. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
August. Let me see bout that. As long as I don't hafta try that squat-dance. Don't think my knees (or anything else) could survive that. ;)
The squat dance is for clowns... A real Russian goes to a family function, gets sent home in a cab, piss drunk, with a broken rib, and loses his cell phone somewhere along the way. Then the following morning he has to talk to 4 different people to find out how he got the broken rib, who called for the cab, and how he lost his cell phone.
I became a real Russian a month ago... It was all training up till that point.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
The squat dance is for clowns... A real Russian goes to a family function, gets sent home in a cab, piss drunk, with a broken rib, and loses his cell phone somewhere along the way. Then the following morning he has to talk to 4 different people to find out how he got the broken rib, who called for the cab, and how lost his cell phone.
I became a real Russian a month ago.
And you're inviting me to one of these functions? (scratches chin)
Granted, cept for the rib it's not much different from an AH con.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And you're inviting me to one of these functions? (scratches chin)
Granted, cept for the rib it's not much different from an AH con.
Arlo were you at the 2006 con??? If so we probably met sometime along the way. I was over in the far left corner with Doobs and MartyB. We had our JG44 thing going on. Was alot of fun though. Can't remember who it was that had the "reviival" song on their computer but that was funny6 as hell. The remote control gliders flying around the con room was kinda cool as well.
-
Yup. Onion fajitas for all. All in all a rousing success. Seeing Dale three sheets to the wind was well worth the admission. That and the evil con mission and all.
You came all the way from V Beach for that? Good on yas.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Yup. Onion fajitas for all. All in all a rousing success. Seeing Dale three sheets to the wind was well worth the admission. That and the evil con mission and all.
You came all the way from V Beach for that? Good on yas.
Hehehe I must have been at the lucky table, beef and chicken for my fajitas.
Yeah MartyB and I loaded up in his purple minivan with our computers and drove out for the con together. 4 days on the road, 3 days at the con, and wouldn't trade a minute of it. Had a TOTAL blast and can't wait for the next one.
You might remember me. Other than a brief showing by Waffle, I was the ONLY other guy there wearing a cowboy hat. Of course it was summer and I had my straw Stetson, which Doobs kept calling my paper hat, but I grew up in Oklahoma so I know the score when it come to my cowboy hats.
I'll dig up some pics and post them later.
-
Awesome you did the whole roadshow thang. Gonna do it again should we inspire Dale and co. to throw another shindig? I may even wear my own cowboy hat. :D
-
Oh hell yeah. I'll be at the next con, no doubt about it, even if I have to rob a bank to get the money I'll make it.
Here is a pic from the 2006 con. Lef to right...Doobs, MartyB, Myself, and I honestly don't remember who is standing behind us. Most everyone I met I forgot their names once I finished drinking anouther beer. Killed many brain cells over those 3 days, but I do remember it was fun.
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9071/pict0006rl7.jpg)
-
answer?..........Nope
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Oh hell yeah. I'll be at the next con, no doubt about it, even if I have to rob a bank to get the money I'll make it.
Here is a pic from the 2006 con. Lef to right...Doobs, MartyB, Myself, and I honestly don't remember who is standing behind us. Most everyone I met I forgot their names once I finished drinking anouther beer. Killed many brain cells over those 3 days, but I do remember it was fun.
Next time I'll make it a point to say hi and show there's more to me than fightin' in online poli-threads. (I remember Doobs, fer sure.) :D