To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
And another good thing of that 1911 is that it survived all these years without any idiot scratch
I’m not going to slap Jim with insults or sarcasm (this time) but i’ll address his statements below as best possible.
Point by point:
“As I said earlier, RF’s opinion on the specific meaning of 2A is no more and no less valid than Michael Bloomberg’s opinion. What matters is the SCOTUS’s opinion.”
Yea I disagree. No one’s opinion matters. A right is a right. Question. Does anyone walk around the street with gag’s in their mouths? Is government, state, or local governments or anyone for that matter forcing anyone to practice a religion that they want nothing of? Are there electronic circuits in our computers that automatically delete words we type before they are published? These are rights – and are currently not up for debate – by anyone. They are not up for debate. Period. Everyone has them to call them their own in this country. There are consequences for saying certain things… but you can say them. There are consequences for publishing certain things… but you can publish them. Now we have this right… to keep and bear arms – we should be able to keep and bear arms as we please… but there are consequences if you discharge your arms in certain areas… or point your arms at certain people or things. You are saying that RF, Bloomberg, and the SCOTUS opinion matters, but they should not.
“We agree to give up certain rights in exchange for the benefits living in Society affords us. Society has the authority to take your liberty or even your life if you act against the common good. Since the right to keep and bear arms stems from the fundamental right to life (the right to protect one’s life), it seems hard to dispute the fact that if the society has the right to abridge life and liberty, then it certainly can abridge the right to keep and bear arms.”
Regarding your “Social Contract Theory” if you link over to your wikipedia link you provided the following is stated:
“Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority; and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence.”
This appears to contradict your statement above especially given the text, context, and topics discussed in the “bill of rights” and the “Declaration of Independence.” Maybe not as a philosophical contradiction (given our present reality) – but as a historical one and the basis for which this country was founded.
You stated:
“Most importantly, I’m with RF in that “pre-crime” laws have no place.”
This is a fallacy within itself. Gun control by definition… is pre-crime. That is the purpose of gun control. We control guns, people, people with guns, and people who can and cannot have guns. The entire purpose of gun control is “pre-crime” – the prevention of crime before it happens. The reason moms demanding action everywhere are afraid is because they are afraid of guns, afraid a gun would be discharged and someone would get hurt. Gun control is an attempt to address these “fears.”
“Training is the best way to improve firearm proficiency and safety across the board for all users. In a perfect world, citizens would have easy access to quality, affordable training. If such a thing were possible, then that could be set as a prerequisite firearms ownership. Want a gun? Fine, let’s show you how to use it safely first.”
I disagree. I do agree everyone should be trained and I wish that the US would have a “voluntary” military training of its citizens. I disagree however that a training class should be mandatory. It is a right to keep and bear arms. You are placing “safety” above “rights.” You’ll notice – there is no fundamental right to be safe and there certainly isn’t one in the bill of rights. If everyone had the right to be safe… then there would be no other rights – only the one.
“I’d also like to see the mental health question get addressed. There are people walking around who simply should not be allowed to own a gun. They are not so “dangerous” that they need to be incarcerated full-time, but instead may have short-term impulse control problems. Having access to a firearm would permit a great deal of mischief during one of these impulse control incidents. Without a gun, they could still do harm, but it would be attenuated.”
Cliff H eloquently answered this one above better than I can address:
“The solution to felons with guns is for them to be outnumbered by non-criminals with guns. The solution to mental cases with short fuses and guns is for an armed citizen to put out their lights the moment they pose a threat. No abrogation of our rights will stop a criminal from getting a gun, a person who legally owns a gun from becoming a criminal, or from going insane.”
“Please don’t try to tell me that there is no difference between a rifle with a 30-round magazine and a knife. If you really think there is no difference, then I invite you to join me for a force on-force simulation. You take the knife and I’ll take the AR-15 with 30 round mag. We’ll see who can do more damage.”
No one can debate they are the same. That said, if an insane person or a criminal wishes to obtain a rifle with 30 rounds, or a bomb, or whatever – there are so many means of obtaining a weapon of great destruction – they will obtain it and use it. I will refer to Cliff H’s response above to address this solution. Any attempt to attenuate insane or criminal behavior by outlawing possession of materials is “pre-crime” which you have stated your are against.
“The problem is that for a regime such as this to work, society needs to see personal gun ownership in a favorable light and to construct the licensing and training protocols to encourage and support gun owners. In the real world, of course, it doesn’t work that way. Much of our government fears gun owners and opposes gun ownership and many of our citizens are either too stupid, brainwashed or both to understand that guns can be owned and used safely. The simple fact is that there are irrational elements in our society who see guns in a negative light and will use any tool we give them to prevent everyone from exercising their rights, hence conceding to any kind of restrictions on gun ownership is difficult if not impossible.”
I totally agree with this (except for the licensing and training aspects).
I support the Second Amendment. Period. No buts. What I don’t support is some people’s interpretation of it (on either side).
I guess Jim. I thought the text as listed in the bill of rights was pretty straight forward.
Thus spoketh Carrot Top
The only way to stop an armed assailant is with an armed response. Why do you think people call the cops when the shooting starts? Duh, because they have guns. It’s not because they are exceptional problem solvers. They have the tools to meet force with force. That’s it. Liberals never want to accept the facts they just want all that power in the hands of the state, not the people. They call conservatives terrorists when in fact by definition, the libs are insurrectionists.
[EDITED: quit it with the homophobia.]
[EDITED: quit it with the homophobia.]
There is no way that this video is true. We all know for a fact that only two types of people carry firearms: old fat white guys — and men with tiny body parts exclusive to the male anatomy.
/end_sarcasm
I’m afraid that her ideas won’t work because there are enough guns and ammunition out there to last for generations.
What we really need to do is stop this within ONE generation. My suggestion is to educate our children as to how dangerous guns really are, obviously this huge undertaking is too important to be left to the parents, who may or may not agree with the program.
Therefore all children need to be placed in full time governmental care from birth so that they can be properly trained as to the duties of a good citizen. Now there are some who would say that my plan goes too far but they are the reason that we need such a program, to make sure the proper obedience to the state is instilled from the earliest years and no non state centrist thought be allowed to pollute our future subjects, er, citizens.
This is why I bought a Ruger SR9 from my cousin when he lost interest in it. I don’t love shooting it, but it’s a competent firearm and it sits in my SHTF safe. I’m confident I could defend myself with it, and I wouldn’t miss it if it was taken away.
Finally as others have said; these are machines and they can all be replaced.
Thanks for the well-written “confession”
It’s important to note the 2A does state a “well-regulated” militia. Well guess what boys and girls – that’s “regulation” of your “right”
Not to mention that while I hear a great deal from one side about the “rights” of gun owners (of which I am one) what I seldom hear about is the concomitant “responsibility” that goes with owning a weapon. Rights and responsibilities MUST be in balance in a functioning society. You want to own an RPG – fine. Show that as part of that militia you are responsible for that weapon – and if/when it is stolen and used in an assassination attempt that you can be held responsible (all the way up to the ultimate penalty) for its misuse should you “mis-place” it or it is stolen or your 2-year-old gets it in his hand.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to legislate individual “responsibility” – pols don’t get many votes that way and for some insane reason or another we find it hard as a society to hold individuals responsible for their decisions and actions. So we end up with a kind of “group” responsibility. We (as gun owners) need to act responsibly ALWAYS, because the less total responsibility shown by gun owners the more regulation of the right to own one you will see – quite correctly, I might add.
Don’t you have a DIFI fundraiser to get to?
I caught a fishey and it was THIS big!
One might be tempted to argue that it should be up to the legislature (that ostensibly represents the people) but we know that Congress hasn’t truly represented anything but themselves and the lobbyists for some time now.
If this is absolutely the situation then we are living under actual tyranny and it is the duty of a free people to correct our government or dissolve it and institute a new one. The prescription set forth by the founders of this nation is quite clear on that.
How much regulation and what form that takes is open to interpretation, but some degree of regulation is allowable. It’s left to pro-gun and anti-gun people to debate where on the regulation continuum things will fall.
Shall not be infringed. There’s the line.
We agree to give up certain rights in exchange for the benefits living in Society affords us. Society has the authority to take your liberty or even your life if you act against the common good.
Rights are unalienable and cannot be ‘given up’. They can be loaned. Certain ones are loaned to government under our Constitution. However, that is limited to ONLY those enumerated in the Constitution. Anything beyond that is usurpation of power by government. The ‘common good’ is NOT the determiner, the Constitution is! In order to add power to government, that document MUST be amended through the proper procedure. Your argument ultimately renders the Constitution meaningless… the same thing that rabid liberals assert today. 😉
it seems hard to dispute the fact that if the society has the right to abridge life and liberty, then it certainly can abridge the right to keep and bear arms.
I certainly dispute that. The Constitution determines what the government can do. That same document reads, “shall not be infringed.” Using your reasoning, the Constitution is meaningless and without power. You, sir, are wrong.
Gun rights can and will be regulated. What remains is for us to set the terms of what that regulation should be.
That is false. You are doing Liberty and your nation no favors by peddling that bologna.
I got into hand loading initially to shoot more and more accurately, with the bare shelves locally, Im reloading out of necessity. When I go to the range now, I spend the same as before I started loading, I just shoot 2-3 times as much. I can find “used” bullets at the LGS for pennies each.
Reloading is a great hobby. I share my press with a couple different friends that I trust, know what they are doing. We make an evening of it. BSing the time away.
Once your set with a good press and have the basics down, it’s fairly easy. Before you know it, you have a pile of fresh ammo to go plinking with.
I’m under a buck a round for my .50 plinkers. About 4 bucks per round for really bitchen match grade.
Shooting odd calibers like .375 H&H, .416 Rigby, 7mm mag saves a ton of money by reloading.
Shooting cheaper, means shooting more. Shooting more means more fun and being a better shooter.
What’s not to like?
Tell that the “lawmakers” in Colorado…
There is a certain zen to handloading. It requires concentration and care. It’s also a chance to accumulate new tools, learn some skills, research about firearms.
I also imagine that if it made their radar, it would really annoy the gun-control crowd. “What?! They can just make ammunition!? In their HOMES?!?!”
Sorry this looks like a G & A review where no gun is bad because you don’t want to piss off your monetary supply base (adverts) I have a quasi-Uzi meaning it was made by IMI then converted (yes legally) into a class 3 by a smith in Tucson. It fires from a closed bolt and is actually too fast in cycle but it shoots 100% with minimal lube. The only issue I’ve ever had was with some reloads where I had swapped out my normal powder for some faster burning stuff trying to save a few bucks. But that is a reloading issue not a firearm issue. I have also shot both semi-auto (not a very pratical weapon) and “real IMI” UZI’s and all function nearly flawless with factory hardball. If this thing functions this badly out of the box it is a fail and should be returned.
Don’t let them take your guns. Remember the Jews in WWII. Shoot to kill. If a cop comes to your door, shoot him in the face. After so many of them have rearranged faces they will stop confiscation. Ask yourself how 20,000 SS officers can round up and kill 30 million Jews. Because they went peacefully. Do not do the same. Shoot them in the face and tell the courts it is in defense of your rights and your home. If one person gets arrested or detained for this, thousands of Americans will descend upon New York and Destroy it. Try Us.
Thankyou for this article. I have been weighing the advantages of reloading my own bullets for some time. While I still like the idea of handloading, I think I will (for the moment) stick to finding good deals and buying in bulk.
Thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough job with these tests. Very impressive and informative. I have a ruger LCP that I stick in my pocket during the warm months and now I know I have to ditch my hornady critical defense for something more effective. It is awesome to know what I should consider. Sure, I would carry my glock 26 everywhere if that was feasible, but sometimes it just isn’t.
I agree with most of you that the era of such a finely finished weapon is past. I’m willing to settle for some of the more functiional and better/more protective finishes of new weapons. What I do miss it the perfect fit and function of a pistol like this. Not only is the finish perfect and beautiful but the parts were also fitted and polished for best feel and function. Colt sold out for the bottom line and paid the price. Even years later the Colt Python was one of the best fitted and finished firearms around. I know overpriced, overrated and a bit fragile. I have one and still remember how much I howled at the price. I did however bite the bullett and buy the thing. There is a place for quality but the masses will never be able to afford those guns. I would like to see the US gunmakers make a purpose of special or custom shop guns as a option.
Update..after 3 years the white dot sights have peeled off and faded. As the finish did a year ago. A very bulky gun. Get a GLOCK.
Nice peace of land you got there, bet you can fire off all sorts of fun without anyone bothering you.
Happy Thanksgiving and I really, really, REALLY hope you were pocket carrying a little .380.
Edited to add I am Sooooo thankful that I’ve “to my knowledge” had a friend or family member that was anti-gun, and that even includes my “hippy” aunt. I am truly blessed.
I know the feeling. Being the only one under the roof who thinks rationaly. I understand not liking guns but denying it to everyone I can’t understand. I think of being pro-choice (of guns) being akin to offering someone the red pill* or the blue pill** – its your choice. While the “anti-gunners” want you to take the blue pill and chastise and report anyone who even considers the red pill.
* and ** : the blue pill and the red pill as in the film “the Matrix”.
I agree. the DA/SA trigger mechanism is a safer system. Regardless of how well you are trained there can ALWAYS be human error. When it comes to liability, there is ABSOLUTELY no room for human error. If you value your freedom and your family life its just not worth it. The consequence will break most men. I strictly carry DA/SA as it is a safer system for me an others around me.
9mm single stack or FTL.
Love my Glock 19. Also love the Glock 30 the local distributor says I’ll have to wait a year for. I’d be happier if Glock would just catch up with it’s customers orders than announce a Glock Carbine that converts to a 1911. Wonder what the wait on that would be……………?
Dan… could you Photoshop a bag over her head?
Thanks, me
“It was like watching the launch of Obamacare all over again”
Not really, cause once the glitch is worked out and up and going, you will have something worthwhile to sign up for, Obamacare, not so much…………. . .
I observed about 50 and arrived home – and that Iam not kidding.
Colonics could clear as many toxins as you might
remove applying six enemas in just one treatment.
Claim, why-don’t you-go try looking in the mirror?