I just wanted to say hi I'm a small town guy and I have a love for guns if you have any favorits please let me know so I can check them out.
I realy love this gun it easy to handle fun to shoot and very acuret
But primarily the 9mm models
Thats funny man! And its true.
about our preferences, and that kind of info is very interesting. But the point has been made by many very experienced members of our community, that if you are thinking about aquiring a firearm, YOU need to do the research to determine what "fits" you best. You can do this, first, by going to an instructor [if you are a novice shooter] and being taught proper safety and shooting technique. If you are already an experienced shooter, there is no substitute for getting the "feel" of a variety of makes/models in your hand[s], and then, as many have suggested, going to a range and renting/shooting those which you deemed to "feel good". You might be surprised that you may have to go through that kind of process several times, before you decide on a purchase. Good hunting, and remember--Safety First.
PS--I agree with runawaygun762, if you are talking about defenive handguns:
Any and all Glocks, but primarily the 40S&W models, even though I
love my 9mm, too.
Welcome to Gunslot.com
keep your ears and eyes open!
welcome to the site, recently got an XD .45 cmpct and an AK47 WASR10 and luv'em
I never had formal firearms safety training until I joined the army, and by that time I had fired in the tens of thousands of rounds in various guns. I have never had a negligent discharge and never accidentally hurt someone with a weapon. Common sense should dictate firearm safety, and paying someone else to show me where not to point the gun and where not to put my finger seems a bit odd. Not saying you're wrong and I'm right, just wondering why the emphasis on professional safety instruction?
to cling to your own reality, and to judge the rest of the world by your own myopic vistas. I will not waste time and space recounting my experiences as a range officer. I am certain that most of our experienced shooters here know the subject matter well.
there are SOME people out there who were'nt born to shoot, and need instruction so the don't hurt themselves as well as others.
young man..........From your lips to G-D's ears............
Vaya con Dios, Amigo
Nobody was born to shoot but all humans have some reasoning capacity. As I said, I do not believe LLE is wrong, I simply have a hard time comprehending how someone could not figure it out on their own. Especially with the availability of information thanks to Al Gore's internet.
were brought up in a non-gun environment. they always wanted one but did'nt know jack-shit about them.I shot when i was young on my fathers ranch in mexico.I came back to the city and none of my friends were into it. So i left guns for along time. When I decided to get back into it. I found a friend who was into it and he basically taught me like a 3rd grader.If thats the case and you have a friend who has knowledge and patiance then cool, but if not 1 or 2 lessons can only help.
Still can't bring myself to reply directly. People who don't post at the bottom in an orderly, chronological sequence confuse me. I did say I had a 1.8 GPA from a Missouri public high school, right? I have no doubt that your time as an RO has allowed you to see some ridiculous gun handling faux pas (is that right? I don't speak Japanese, so I'm not sure. Just want to seem cultured and stuff). However, in my 13 years in the army, I have seen some very bad examples of gunhandling to include negligent discharges resulting in injury. Some of these examples were committed by senior NCOs, who are supposed to be professionals. Based on what I have seen and heard of civilian police officers, I doubt there are many police departments that don't have at least one bullet hole in them from a cop's ND. These are people who have had professional instruction. The instruction manual that comes with the gun should suffice, as long as a person has the good sense to read it. Again, I am not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying that professional instruction is bad, but I don't think it's really necessary.
mistakes and so do novices, and shooters with intermediate levels of experience. Res Ipsa Loquitor. If I had my way, no applicant for a Concealed Carry License would be exempted [even a military training exemption] from a rigorous, comprehensive safety course, including supervised range time and demonstrating necessary competence. That would also be required for each person renewing the license. Extremism in the pursuit of safety is no vice.
What is a necessary competence to carry a weapon in public? Are you competent enough to use your weapon without endangering innocent lives? What are the standards? Local police qual standards, perhaps? Placing in the top few spots in a local IDPA match maybe? How do you determine who is good enough to be able to protect themselves? What about a 75 year old man with arthritis on oxygen in a wheelchair? Should he not be allowed to carry a gun to protect himself? Don't worry, LLE, apparently you will have your way if Obama's crew has theirs as you all seem to share a common view that only certain people are valuable enough to be able to protect themselves. Perhaps I have misunderstood your stance, but the right to keep and bear arms is the right to keep and BEAR arms.
you have completely misunderstood. Criticize me for anything, but do not align me with Obama's crew. My sentiments about Concealed Carry have nothing to do with preventing ANY people from enjoying their Second Amendment rights. Are you not able to remember that the subject was safety?
I have no problem with your point of view--at all, but I have a problem with the way you treat people here. On the one hand you will chastize someone for posting words you don't like and call them inappropriate, whether it's a joke you don't like or something more serious, but on the other hand you have no problem calling names yourself, such as calling runaway 'myopic.' (See post above) And as anyone here well knows, it isn't the first time. You attack what people say here on a regular basis. It sounds mean-spirited to me.
I call that inappropriate behavior. Nobody appointed you God. You're not a Mod or an Admin. You are not in a position of authority here. I appreciate that you are an instructor, something you never fail to point out. That's nice. You should be commended for your achievement and knowledge. But you need to get down off that high horse of yours (Oh, sorry. It's just a pony.) and be an equal member of this community rather than someone who tries to ride herd on it. I don't think there is any room for elitism here. You need to stop the lectures. You are no smarter than anyone else. You don't rule the world. I wish you'd stop acting like it. Just my opinion.
with my arrogant opinions, my G_D-like behavior, my usurping of site authority, my high...er short-horsed elitism, and my projected desire to rule the world, that may be useful, because among other things, it tends to get people thinking. There are many people in this community who are as smart or smarter than I, and you can tell who they are, because they have easily seen through what I have been doing.
Now, so as not to disappoint you, I must call your attention to an inaccuracy, or perhaps a terminological inexactitude, in your last post. Characterizing someone's views as "myopic" is not name calling. It is an example of having an adjective modifying the plural noun "vistas". Perhaps I should have said "narrow views". I am sure you understand, since your post is chock full of similar language, none the least of which is "mean-spirited". This is not a problem for me, since you are describing how you see my behavior, and I do not see that as calling me names. If you truly believe I have engaged in name calling, I would hope you would give me specific examples so that I can apologize for them.
Last for this post, I will tell you fair and square: unless and until the owners of this site exercise their prerogative to call my attention to, and order me, to cease and desist from what THEY conclude is inappropriate behavior, I intend to keep on keeping on. [See First Amendment] This is not a challenge to you or anyone else: this is a simple statement of fact. Because of this, I doubt that your wish is going to be granted.
"Joke 'em if they can't take a Fuck" All's fair in love, war and blogs.
I missed this post of yours. I must confess that your recommended practice statement seems really good, but I am too dumb to completely understand it-that is, the first part of it, anyway.
Could you give me a further teach on that? Once I understand the complete meaning, I will undoubtedly claim that I thought of it. LMAO
Was trying to lighten the convo a tad. Meaning Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. Nothing personal intended to you or anyone else. This convo just went on too long. But a well fought battle, by all and entertaining.
I did not take any offense. I really was not sure what you meant. Some of the conversation was poking fun, but some of it was deadly serious also--especially when you think about what probably coming down the track at us.
I know you were standing up to that mean-spirited, crotchety old LLE, but you mentioned me, so that feels like you stood up for me. Gee, thanks, man. YEAH, LLE!! YOU'RE LUCKY I'M HOLDING SCHUYLER BACK! YEAH, HIS AVATAR WOULD KICK YOUR AVATAR'S ASS!! Sorry, that's how us ghetto boys roll. You know how we do. Wait a minute, I'm a white guy from rural Missouri. I have no idea what I just said. Where am I?
to a subject of infringing on people's right to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake, regardless of what "commonsense" gun laws the mushmouthed, pussy NRA agrees with, any restrictions at all on the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms is an infringement. You said if you had your way, people would have to demonstrate a level of proficiency in order to exercise their right. I do not, as you know, have to demonstrate a level of proficiency with the English language in order to exercise my first amendment right and I don't have to demonstrate proficiency with my curtains or door locks to exercise my fourth amendment rights. So why is the second any different? By saying if you had your way, you clearly believe the government should be able to limit or restrict people's second amendment right. Again, it says "shall not be infringed", not "shall not be unreasonably infringed"
the post you are referring to, before accusing me of changing the subject.
I will give you my opinion on why the Second Amedment is "different". The preamble of the Consitution also says "promote the general welfare". That must be kept in mind. So far as I know, the Second Amendment has not been declared by the SCOTUS as incorporated to apply to the States. Therefore, at present, the individual states may presently be [lawfully] as restrictive or unrestrictive as their venues desire. That explains why we find that most State regulations on Concealed Carry, are somewhat different from one another. Some hardly require any showing of training and competence and others are very demanding. Even the Heller SCOTUS decision-Washington,DC does not as far as I can tell allow unrestricted rights for the citizens of DC. However the court said all restrictions must be "reasonable". Some of the new DC restrictions will be tested, and probably be struck down because of unreasonableness, as will some City ordinances and State statutes.
I believe gun ownership is an inalienable right as well as a legal right, but at the same time I believe that right comes with very serious responsibilities. Those responsibilities are to your fellow citizens, who also have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; The framers of the Constitution were ingenious at checks and balances: The Ninth Amendment says that other rights as enumerated [like the Second Amendment] may not be construed to "deny or disparage" such others that are retained by the people.[life liberty and the pursuit of happiness]
IMO, the Ninth Amendment requires a balance that does not support an absolutely unrestricted Second Amendment. Thus, if the "people" desire to insure, as far as is prudently possible, that their general welfare, lives and happiness are reasonably protected by requiring evidence of proper training in the safe handling of arms, they are supported by the Ninth Amendment, or a similar State Constitutional provision, if one exists in their state.
And there you have it: personally, I do not begrudge the people of my state for imposing what they consider to be a small but important, self-preservative requirement on fellow citizens.
You go, boy. Exercise that first amendment right. You deserve to, as you have demonstrated proficiency with your words, huh?
to exercise my First Amendment rights, any more than you need my permission to exercise your Second Amendment rights.
Others of your fellow citizens do not need our permission to exercise their Ninth Amendment rights, if they feel it is well-advised to do so.
Constitutional Rights, as far as I can tell, do not require proficiency with words, but good communications might.
I see no reason to have a war of words over what "infringement" means or does not mean with regard to the Second Amendment. That question will probably be answered soon enough by the SCOTUS, hopefully, before Obama gets to appoint any new SCOTUS members. It may come down to a modification, by Congress, of the Second Amendment language to clarify solid intent: ie-"The right of the people to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense purposes shall not be infringed. This right shall not interfere with other rights secured by the people."
The last sentence does not take away from the fact that you went from a discussion of safety to a statement of belief in government-mandated safety. That would be infringement.
Your assertion of infringement is not valid, in the absence of considering the provisions of the remainder of the Bill of Rights, specifically the Ninth Amendment, as I described elsewhere in this thread. But perhaps you have established case law that you can cite to support your theory. I would be genuinely interested in that.
My belief is in the rule of law, as it now exists. If there are defects, in specific laws they must be tested in court, and struck down, if proven defective.
I do not believe in "government-mandated" safety. I believe in safety measures mandated as a result of the rights of the people to mandate them.
The individual States have the legal ability to choose how they intend to dispense "gun ownership" rights at the moment. They may implement any legal requirements they wish, in accordance with the desires of the "People" [State Constitution]. The legality of the requirements may be tested in the courts.
If you wish to test whether "infringement" is occurring in your State, I suggest you bring a lawsuit.
I am completely 100% behind free specch, even in a private forum. I also fully understand that mods and admins have the duty to lead the discussion if it goes astray and even, in extreme cases, terminate accounts for offensive behavior. I have no problem with those two issues (which are actually opposites) at all. I also believe that if posts here reflect some factual error, it ought to be corrected. If I say you can stick a .38 shell in a 9mm barrel, I would hope someone would say, "just a sec here!" That's a factual issue, not one of expression. LLE has the right to his opinion and the right to express it.
As do we all.
And that's really the point. No one here is in a superior position to anyone else. No one here has the right to tell someone else how they ought to express themselves or what they ought to post. No one here has the right to 'lecture' someone else on the proper mode of self-expression. Of course, ou DO have the right to say anything you want regardless.
But you are also responsible for your own posts and the manner in which you express yourself. So if you come across as a pedantic twit, it's your own reputation that suffers. That's the bottom line.
"Pedantic twit" is name calling, even though descriptive. If you wanted to be more helpful to the readers, you might have decided to be less imitative of what you have accused ME of, and spelled out pedantic twitism. Also, you lectured me not to lecture. Whose reputation do you suppose might suffer from that piece of irony? And Mike, who legislated the site law that posters do not have "the right" to critique modes or types of expression? THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE ON TWO SUCCESSIVE POSTS DIRECTED AT ME,[but I have no problem with that]. By the way, I have never been placed under arrest or even received written discipline for such a misdemeanor. And there you go again, sounding as you have accused me of sounding, playing legislator/site cop, telling me I have the right to say anything I want. Who gave you that authority? Actually, I do not believe I have the right to say "anything I want"; that would not be congruent with the forum Guidelines.
Beg to differ re "the bottom line"-- I am not campaigning for "the most respected member of 2009" or a good reputation. I would like to earn a reputation for honesty, however. That is very difficult to do, when straightforwardness is not welcomed.
this in a nut shell would be "the old dude"!LLE brings alot of wisdom to this site whether people want to acknowledge it or not.i always figure that you dont make it to your sixties and beyond(LLE!)by being a complete dipshit!now mind you,some of these forums have gotten too large for me but i still read them(and understand them!)to even begin to jump in with my redneck,hillbilly insight.i do enjoy reading these posts betwixt rather intelligent individuals.
I just ordered this book by Ted Nugent and while I was ordering it, I also got one of his previous books (God, Guns and Rock & Roll) and I started with the first one (God, Guns and Rock & Roll). So far, what he stresses his proper training...Like Ted or not, he does know his guns...just sayin.
i have a copy of "God,Guns and Rock and Roll!if,when you are done with "TED,White and Blue"you wouldnt mind lending it out, i would like toread it.send it and it will be read and sent back to you!let me know via private message if this will work for you!
Let's impeach LLE...oh wait, he doesn't hold any office...haha, he is a general, maybe we should sanction him or have him resign his commission...haha! Maybe you are all taking things a bit serious!
The proper action is Courtmartial. Then, when a guilty verdict is given, epillettes are ripped off and sword is broken over the knee. The disgraced is then led to the front gate, the gate is opened, and the disgraced is thrown out, followed by his broken sword. Good riddance.
Wait--that's me I'm talking about!! Forget this process. I want a Lawyer!!
for awhile... this was a simple forum on a good carry i believe (1 of 3438902793840129842398 million) to a firearm safety debate, to LLE bashing, runawaygun bashing, to a Constitution interpretation... I feel bad for Kain watching his forum go haywire.
Anywho to just stir the fires a little more. Sorry Runaway I know it always seems like i'm always against you... but i gotta mostly agree with LLE on this one, some people really do need some professional instruction/help (firearm or pshycologically related). A new debate going across college campuses is whether students or anyone would be allowed to carry other than police and I support a provisional carry program... but my ideas are even more to the extreme. My program would involve weekly drug and alcohol testing along of a whole bunch of academic related requirements. In this situation i don't want to see a drunk frat guy blast away some guy for hitting on his girlfriend. if they want to carry make a sacrifice and don't drink. and Runaway in my opinion "professional" gun safety is mostly common sense to anyway who understands how a gun works. but you let a 2 year old pick one up it would be like giving them a cell phone to play with then the cops are at the door cause Jr. dialed 911... I know extreme example but it gets to the point.
and to comment on the constitutional debate thing... i'm gonna build on LLE's words... to interprt the constitution you need to understand the context of the words, 2nd Ammendment--> to keep and bear arms... we all agree to "keep" arms is to "own" arms right? however "bear" arms i think is alittle misconstrued, and please no one give me crap about Obama stuff on this one cause last time i checked i'm still a registered republican, but to bear is to not have the gun in your freaking hand all hours of the day it doesn't even imply it has to be in reach... more or less to be able to defend yourself from the government when it becomes overpowering... why was our country founded? oppression from England, and thats all the founding fathers had on their minds lets not make a government that is able to pull that shit again. by the way thats the way the anti-bitches get the gun laws passed, and they're still not declared unconstitutional...
The 2nd amendment is a right but we live in a country where rights are looked upon as privliges, so instead of having a debate on the way things should be lets have a debate on the way things are... let the NRA deal with the ideology bickering among ourselves won't get us a gatling gun mounted on the back of our trucks (and that isn't a sarcastic remark I'd do it if I knew the ATF wouldn't taze my ass)
I know i've opened a can of worms... I'm ready for the anti-gun, Obama name calling now.......
I know what a court martial is, however your standing here is not really military, although you hold rank, it is ceremonial only...therefore I don't think court martial is appropriate either...so I suggest we just shoot you and get it over with!
and I get to see the weapons and ask questions, before the shooting.
[I hope no one has read "One Thousand and One Nights"]LMAO
There are certainly people who need professional instruction, just as there are people who should flat out never own guns. My entire point was that I don't understand why someone can't get adequate professional instruction from the owner's manual of the gun. Professional firearms trainers are no better source of gun safety training than the manual. Where I take exception is in the comment that government-mandeated safety training should be the case. Yes, it does exist, yes, it is legal, no, it should not be. I have no intentions of getting into a debate with case law as current laws really don't matter to me if they prevent or restrict me from being able to defend myself, family, or nation. There is a big difference between what the laws of the land say and what is right. It is wrong to place restrictions or conditions on citizens who wish to carry firearms for protection. Although compromise is a fact of life, it is wrong. People who compromise and negotiate their rights are wrong.
then why not try to do something about it. Put "your money where your mouth is", so to speak. In pressing for your own case, please try to remember that YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS also have rights under the Constitution, and unless you are advocating anarchy, the Constitution exists for us all. It was framed of the people, by the people and for the people, through COMPROMISE. It is NON-NEGOTIABLE, but interpretable and changeable.
What are you trying to say with the comment about fellow citizens having rights? Those are exactly the people I'm referring to. As for filing suit, that is exactly what I am preparing to do depending on Obama's actions. I am, in fact, compiling facts from the DOJ statistics site to prepare a presentation for my state representative. I am doing things according to our laws. As for interpretable, how does one interpret "...shall not be infringed)? I am just a dumb soldier with high school diploma and I understand that.
You have not read the Ninth Amendment--OR if you have read it, am I to believe you do not understand the provisions of the Ninth Amendment?
And I have difficulty seeing how it applies to the current conversation. The ninth amendment, at least as far as I can tell, simply says people have other rights not specifically mentioned (enumerated) previously. How does this pertain to the current discussion? To recap what I believe the discussion is: I agree that formal training is a good thing, but not necessary, you made a statement indicating you believe there should be government-mandated safety courses before someone can carry a defensive weapon, I stated that is a restriction or condition placed upon exercising a right and therefore an infringement, you referred me to the ninth amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people). I fail to see how this applies. Lacking government-mandated safety courses prior to exercising the right to keep and bear arms does not violate other people's rights.
I am hereby throwing sand, cat litter and a blanket over this pissing contest. Good points made by both of you, but alas nothing is solved. So a statistical tie. Over and out.
But I agree. LLE, you've won. I forfeit. You are right and I am a little less right. Not really, but I'm geting tired of it anyway. Good job. You are smart.
FIRST: you are apparently leaving out VERY important words, and therefore very important meaning-
I will try to parse the language to demonstrate the ENTIRE meaning.
"The enumeration in the Constitution"[The listing in the Constitution]
"of certain rights" [of rights expressed in writing(like those in the Bill of Rights, INCLUDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT)]
"shall not be construed to deny or disparage" [are NOT to be interpreted as permitting any negative effect on, or cancellation of]
"others retained by the people"[ any other legal or natural rights that have already, also been established and granted to the people.]
You have stated that you fail to see how this applies. I will attempt to explain.
1) The Second Amendment is an enumerated [listed] legal right. It however, has NO PRIMACY OR RANKING ABOVE ANY OTHER RIGHT.
2) The Ninth Amendment is also an enumerated [listed]legal right. It also has NO PRIMACY OR RANKING ABOVE ANY OTHER RIGHT.
3) These two Amendments therefore have equal Consitutional potency. And therefore, if you argue that "infringement" means absolutely NO restrictions are permitted on Second Amendment rights, you are, prima facie, violating the rights given by the Ninth Amendment, which among other things recognizes [retained by the people] the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Because: If the "people" believe that they want to be protected from others who could be a clear and present danger because of incompetence in the use of arms, then such people who wish to be protected ARE protected by their equal-potency rights under the Ninth Amendment. In effect, their desire for protection comes from reasoned fear that death or catastrophic injury might likely occur as a result of incompetent and unsafe arms bearers [Life right]; the reasoned thought that they will be trapped and unable to enjoy freedom of movement because of the dangers inherent in the presence of incompetent bearers of arms around them [Liberty right]; and a reasoned conclusion that they will be forced to bear an environmentally oppressive burden, instead of having a tranquil, safe environment,[Pursuit of Happiness right, and Preamble: Promote the general welfare].
Therefore, under the provisions of the Ninth Amendment, the "people" have right[s] that enable them to require and assure safety and competence at arms [legislation], so as to enhance the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such rights cannot be denied, NOR CAN THE APPLICATION OF SUCH RIGHTS MEET THE TEST OF AN "INFRINGEMENT" under the Second Amendment.
It is the "people" that have ordered legislation requiring the necessity of training in safety and competency at arms. Government cannot "mandate" such training without the consent of the people, even though governmental agencies may subsequently be the administrators of the law. The people avail themselves of their rights, the proper legislative body translates the peoples' will into law, and the law must be followed.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
However, I just read it. Sorry, but the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and general welfare does not hold water. Police officers and soldiers are trained in weapons safety and still have negligent discharges. Having a requirement to demonstrate proficiency to exercise a right is the same as the Jim Crow laws requiring people to prove they could read in order to vote. If having professional instruction guaranteed promotion of the general welfare or guaranteed preservation of life from incompetent firearms handling, then I could see it. It does not, so the ninth amendment does not apply.
you already forfeited
Besides, I can't give up the last word unless I think I'm wrong. Even then, I get the last word. "Yes, dear" works well as you walk out the door. Nobody else is posting anything new.
get to work! I've seen you hold in depth conversations with yourself.
Don't let the MOD thing get to your head! You can't tell me what to do. Yes he can, He's the General of the Army. No he's not, that's not even what the real rank looks like. Shut up guys, I'm trying to poop. No you're not, you're jacking off while looking at the Cabela's Fall 2008 catalog. It's the MASTER catalog, thank you. Master does not mean masturbate, dummy. Well what if he's a good fisherman? Get it, Master-baiter? Hah. I'm funny. No, I am. Reaper, do you see the shit you started? He didn't start it, this has been a long time coming. Stop with the sexual innuendos. You can't even spell that!
but I don't understand how they can argue whether your dropping a load or thorwing beats. do you self mutilate?
I don't know what I do. I try to stay out of it. By the way, how does the Moderator thing work? Are you actually an employee, or is it a volunteer thing, or what?
not an employee...unless they're sending the checks to the wrong address. hum, maybe I should look into that. my postman is a methhead. back when I joined, sytasyn and quin asked if I would moderate, and I said sure. I really don't do much. In the beginning, I would try to stop fights, and keep topics on track... but kind of gave up on that. Now I mainly look for bots, and advertisements, and edit snake's posts so it looks like he can't spell very well.
..oh, and they make me drink a lot too.
Edit snake's posts. That's funny shit.
was on snake's brother sylvan's posts.funny shit.has that fruit loop been on here lately?fuck,i am actually excited about going back to work!