Gun ownership in this day and age

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sftyvlv1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We played Cowboys and Indians. Different times. Bonanza, Rawhide, Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp.
 
We usually played Cowboys and Other, Bad, Cowboys.

My years, too. But also back to the early Lone Ranger/Gene Autry/Roy Rogers and your basic Sagebrush Theater on the b/w TV.
 
I’d a probly been the other, bad cowboy.
Blue vs. grey, I’d always pick grey.
 
Last edited:
Bushwhackers v. Redlegs. Fun times!
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
After posting that, had to watch the scene again for the zillionth time. Great acting in this film. Chief Dan George should have won an Oscar.

 
Last edited:
The only reason anyone would need gun to defend themselves from an attacker is if that attacker had a gun. If there’re guns laws in place to prevent attackers from having guns then owing a gun isn’t necessary.
 
Because it pays to be careful. Jacob McCandles played by John Wayne in Big Jake.
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
The only reason anyone would need gun to defend themselves from an attacker is if that attacker had a gun.
Click to expand...
Any situation where the attacker is a threat to the defender justifies the latter in using whatever means necessary for protection, including a gun.
If there are gun laws in place to prevent attackers from having guns then owing a gun isn’t necessary.
Click to expand...
Laws prevent the law abiding from doing things; they really have no effect on the lawless.
 
So, a small woman has no chance of defending herself against a large man?

Or even a large man has no chance of defending himself against a team of criminals?

Sorry, but that sounds truly silly.

There is an old saying, God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
The only reason anyone would need gun to defend themselves from an attacker is if that attacker had a gun. If there’re guns laws in place to prevent attackers from having guns then owing a gun isn’t necessary.
Click to expand...
Good point. I’m moving to Mexico where guns are illegal, and they have lots of “gun laws in place”, so it must be extremely safe. Probably very little violent crime.
 
upant said:
as the old saying goes, “that ship has sailed”
Click to expand...
No kidding. Have made two firearms from scratch. Granted, mine were reproductions of specific hard to find historical muzzleloaders, but if I was not law abiding, it would have been no more difficult to create a revolver or a sub-machine gun. Heck, an open bolt submachine gun like the Sten or Uzi is probably the easiest firearm to make, outside of a single shot.

Here is a guy who made a 22 rifle with just basic hand tools, no welding or milling.

And here is basic rifling using basic shop tools

 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
Here is a rough list of what I would propose:
  1. Gun owners require a license, which would require training and yearly background checks,
  2. All gun sales, even private sales, would require the purchaser to provide his license
    note: alternative to 1 & 2 might be mandatory background check for all purchases, even private purchases
  3. Handguns would require special license
  4. Prohibit semi-automatic weapons besides handguns and perhaps shotguns such as a Remington 1100 which as a 3 round capcity limit, allow for special collectors license for antique weapons
  5. Limits on magazine sizes
  6. Not for sure about this, but I think I would prefer no concealed carry license, and they be replaced with an open-carry license.
None of these would keep anyone who feels the need to be armed for self-defense from doing so. None of them would keep me from owning any gun I currently own.
Click to expand...
All bad ideas.
  1. Requiring a license means that the government knows you have a gun. That makes it much easier for them seize and confiscate your firearms.
  2. See response #1. There is already a law requiring mandatory background checks when purchasing a gun. This includes private sales when done legally. But criminals tend not to follow the law.
  3. Also see response #1.
  4. Why do you think prohibiting semi-automatic rifles is a good idea?
  5. Why do you think prohibiting magazine sizes is a good idea?
  6. There should be NO licenses required; either for purchasing, owning, or carrying; open or concealed.
And let add that every single one of your suggestions only puts a greater burden on law-abiding gun owners. Non-law-abiding people can not be expected to follow the law; gun laws or any other law.
 
First to the question of morality, implicit, I think, in the thread’s title is that at some previous day and age gun ownership was moral.

As I do not think that human nature has changed since the Fall, it follows that if gun ownership was ever moral (I believe it was and is) then it remains so morally.

To the question of legality, the notion of social contract I think applies. If an act is not inherently immoral then civil laws which prescribe such acts are moral laws. In the U.S.A. our social contract is our duly amended Constitution. As it reads today, gun ownership is legal. The means to alter our social contract exist, and if followed, abolished the right to own guns then good citizens ought abide or depart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top