Gun ownership in this day and age

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sftyvlv1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So would you agree with restrictions on high capacity guns? Or high capacity reloaders? Please give me your thoughts on whether it’s practical, possible or if it would be acceptable to gun rights enthusiasts or the NRA.
 
California has a 10 round limit for all magazines. One of the few CA regs that seems reasonable.
 
California has more new laws every year or three. SF is one of the most restrictive cities. You can’t have a firearm at the ready in your home even if you live alone. It has to be locked up. Yet SF lets an illegal alien walk after gunning down an innocent tourist.
 
What can be done without a high capacity mag and a semi:


And he’s lightning fast on reloading, too.
 
Last edited:
Jerry Miculek is amazing!

Give him enough ammunition and he’d be nearly unstoppable. Not only can he lay down suppressive fire, he’s 99% Accurate :frowning_face_with_open_mouth:
 
He’s to double action what Bob Munden was to single action, eh?
 
Last edited:
Then I’m a lot slower than you!
Like, get out your calendar slow, compared to Miculek. 😂
 
So am I but I can shoot almost that fast while dreaming. That counts, right?

I’m actually a darn good shooter but not particularly fast, just accurate…which matters more to me than speed. He is fun to watch, no?
 
Accurate is everything. And I bet you’re being modest! 😉
I just found this clip. It gives both sides, later in the video. But I want to have lunch there! Love the mayor, and check out the adorable gal carrying a low slung Ruger Blackhawk! “Nothing that I can’t handle,” she says!
Christian owner, too.

 
Last edited:
Yeah what nonsense. This owner will defend her staff and customers. Good on her! God bless her and God bless America!
 
Mine either. It struck me when I first read it, in high school. Has stayed with me ever since. Cautionary, it is.

So must make sure no authoritarian, totalitarian, mad for power for power’s sake ideologues, manage to get the boot in.

Will start by safeguarding the Constitutional safeguards. Assiduously.
 
I guess we all have our own opinions on what we find to be ridiculous then.
 
And seeing as how I interact frequently with law enforcement officers, I have faith that very few of them would obey a government so despotic as to order the total disarming of the American people.
God bless America!
 
Last edited:
Your idiosyncratic take on the subject is noted.

O’Briens are smiling.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
I believe the U.S. founders held that: The only defense against a tyrannical government is a citizen with a gun.
Click to expand...
And not only against a tyrannical government. Contrary to what many believe, Indians were exceedingly well armed from the very beginning, and nearly always equal to what the whites had. They were warrior societies and always had individual weapons. If settlers didn’t have guns, they would have been driven into the sea. (It’s true many of the earliest settlers used bows and arrows because guns were too expensive)

We don’t have to worry about Sioux and Cheyennes with repeater rifles nowadays, but the enemies of a peaceful and secure life always have weapons.
 
Kacor said:
The defense against such a change lies with the ballot box, not with guns.
Click to expand...
Oftentimes, democracy turns into “one man, one vote, one time” and tyranny follows. Actually, ordinary troops are well known for refusing to fire on civilians. Even in the Soviet Union it happened at times. That kind of thing nearly always requires special brutalized units like the SS, the NKVD, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, etc.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top