Revolvers for Everyone!

[wabrams]

Yes it would be very disturbing for me to have to sit down with someone with loaded weapons as he is imbibing alchoholic beverages. Especially if he knows that the person facing him is a strict gun control advocate. I recommend that you imbibe your alcoholic beverages with someone else, perhaps a friend with a loaded assault weapon.

Paranoia at its worst; you truly believe someone would shoot you over a difference in politics? To believe such shows a lack of maturity. I’ve yet to meet a responsible gun owner who mixes guns and alcohol. As a matter of fact, I can count on one hand the number of people that I’ve met who would mix the two and that has only been on their own property.

 

[royal_archer]

Why don’t we add a couple more so you don’t give the other posters the wrong idea: Rifles (non-automatic), shotguns. That way your post is a little more truthful.

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to be in front of a shotgun or in the scope of a high powered rifle. I think they are pretty efficient.

Glad to hear you support someones right to have an assault rifle.

So let’s here you advocate the right of people to walk around in public and go to public places such as stores with a rifle or shotgun slung over their shoulders.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes it would be very disturbing for me to have to sit down with someone with loaded weapons as he is imbibing alchoholic beverages. Especially if he knows that the person facing him is a strict gun control advocate. I recommend that you imbibe your alcoholic beverages with someone else, perhaps a friend with a loaded assault weapon.

So are you equally concerned with off duty police officers having a drink?

 

[sidbrown]

Paranoia at its worst; you truly believe someone would shoot you over a difference in politics? To believe such shows a lack of maturity. I’ve yet to meet a responsible gun owner who mixes guns and alcohol. As a matter of fact, I can count on one hand the number of people that I’ve met who would mix the two and that has only been on their own property.

The gun owner on this thread is the one who mentioned imbibing alcoholic beverages. Why should I, who is unarmed, sit down with an armed gun owner who is imbibing alcoholic beverages?
You go ahead and have your alcoholic beverages with your friends armed with their loaded assault weapons.

 

[sidbrown]

So are you equally concerned with off duty police officers having a drink?

I am unarmed and so would not get near anyone with loaded weapons imbibing alcoholic beverages. You go ahead.

 

[gamewell45]

Glad to hear you support someones right to have an assault rifle.

So let’s here you advocate the right of people to walk around in public and go to public places such as stores with a rifle or shotgun slung over their shoulders.

To answer your question; I have no problem with people being able to walk around in public places such as stores, churches, temples, and other public places with rifles, shotguns or muskets. If you want to sling it over your shoulder or carry it in your arms/hands, that likewise is fine if you feel the need to protect yourself, family and/or property.

Let me make it plain again; its handguns and automatic weapons i don’t think citizens need to have.

 

[wabrams]

The gun owner on this thread is the one who mentioned imbibing alcoholic beverages. Why should I, who is unarmed, sit down with an armed gun owner who is imbibing alcoholic beverages?
You go ahead and have your alcoholic beverages with your friends armed with their loaded assault weapons.

If you had bothered to read my post, you would have read that most of those I know do not mix alcohol and firearms, which I agree with. Nice of you to throw in the buzz words “assault rifle” to add more emotion.

 

[sidbrown]

If you had bothered to read my post, you would have read that most of those I know do not mix alcohol and firearms, which I agree with. Nice of you to throw in the buzz words “assault rifle” to add more emotion.

It was a gun owner on this forum who brought up the subject of imbibing alcohol. I said that since I would not be armed, I was not interested in drinking alcohol with people armed with loaded guns. You gun owners can go ahead with your drinking alcohol but I won’t be around.

 

[wabrams]

It was a gun owner on this forum who brought up the subject of imbibing alcohol. I said that since I would not be armed, I was not interested in drinking alcohol with people armed with loaded guns. You gun owners can go ahead with your drinking alcohol but I won’t be around.

Funny, he never mentioned being armed while having a drink. Be careful about making assumptions.

 

[chriso]

To answer your question; I have no problem with people being able to walk around in public places such as stores, churches, temples, and other public places with rifles, shotguns or muskets. If you want to sling it over your shoulder or carry it in your arms/hands, that likewise is fine if you feel the need to protect yourself, family and/or property.

**Let me make it plain again; its **handguns and **automatic **weapons I don’t think citizens need to have.

Ok, thats pretty plain, so does this mean we finally find something we agree on… the present system of regulations in the USA regarding ownership of “automatic” weapons is satisfactory… whereby one must pass a background check, get a letter of permission from local law enforcement, promise upon criminal punishment to record any future transactions with the NFA registered weapon, and pay a $200 transfer tax to the federal government in order to possess an “automatic” weapon… correct? Or do you propose we change the NFA rules to eliminate private ownership of automatic weapons altogether?

By the way, I’ve been unable to find ANY circumstances where crimes were committed with the use of NFA registered weapons from my limited internet searching abilities, not that I’d go so far as to claim “none” existed…

 

[chriso]

I think it goes hand-in-hand that should handguns be eliminated the laws regarding illegal ownership ought to be increased as well. If your caught and convicted you should go to jail just like a common criminal.

It seems the only difference between you and me on this issue is, I’d like to try increasing the laws regarding illegal ownership and especially “illegal use” of handguns first.

I think it is entirely possible that were we to do so, even you would stop seeing the need to take away my handgun once the results of appropriate punishments and enforcements began to show themselves.

 

[chriso]

It was a gun owner on this forum who brought up the subject of imbibing alcohol. I said that since I would not be armed, I was not interested in drinking alcohol with people armed with loaded guns. You gun owners can go ahead with your drinking alcohol but I won’t be around.

Thats funny Sid, and taken quite a bit out of context I might add.

Looks like you and I actually agree on one thing finally… **I’m not interested in drinking alcohol with people armed with loaded guns either! **(even though thats not remotely what was stated in the post you’re referring to)

I might finish off your statement a bit differently though… “You automobile owners can go ahead with your drinking of alcohol but I wont be around” for example? Or, “you wife beaters can go ahead with your drinking”…? Or “you child molesters…”? Or, “you car thieves”…? It would seem the common denominator to your statement and other similar ones I can conjur up, would be the “alcohol component” not the “firearms” component…

 

[chriso]

I guess they could teach “Shooter’s Ed,” like Driver’s Ed. A fool with a car can kill many more people than an idiot with a gun. Most of the time, anyway.

-Tina “Support Your 2nd Amendment Rights” G

I know its a while back since you posted this Tina, but you know most states offer some sort of “hunters safety” classes largely aimed at youths, and largely focused on firearms safety? Here in alaska, my kids took it at the 4th grade level in the local Catholic Elementary school. It was taught by the local Fish and Game dept, assisted by several of us “dads” and Father Al. It ended with a .22lr target shootng competition at the local rifle range. My daughter took 3rd place out of 40 kiddos!

Anyway, I’ve not seen you posting much on a thread you initiated, so was wondering if you’ve been finding the info you were seeking? Are you still wondering if revolver ownership ought to be required? Or have you become convinced that surely a bloodbath would follow such a thing?

I sure appreciate having had the chance to voice some of my thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Chris

 

[royal_archer]

To answer your question; I have no problem with people being able to walk around in public places such as stores, churches, temples, and other public places with rifles, shotguns or muskets. If you want to sling it over your shoulder or carry it in your arms/hands, that likewise is fine if you feel the need to protect yourself, family and/or property.

Let me make it plain again; its handguns and automatic weapons i don’t think citizens need to have.

Since you didn’t say you were against “assault weapons”, should we assume you don’t have a problem with people walking around in public with “assault weapons”?

Why do 22 revolvers scare you more than a 12 guage?

 

[Lycorth]

Lycorth;

WOW! Powerful statement.
Where did you get the idea of going off in a tangent by embellishing your defence that I was against owning a firearm? Morally there is nothing wrong owning a firearm unless you’re obsessed by it.

And NO I did not misconstrue Christ’s words: Matthew 26: 51 And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?

If you didn’t intend to imply you supported pacifism, then you should have worded yourself more clearly. I apologize if I have misunderstood.

However, why then did you even bother citing the incident with Peter? Why just throw out the verse about living and dying by the sword? To most folks, that’s a pretty clear attempt to make Jesus out to be a pacifist and/or to imply that the episode with Peter and the high priest’s servant is meant to be a lesson to us about pacifism or something similar. My point is that Christ’s words to Peter were relevant to that moment in time, not to ours, where none of the gun owners here are advocating “living by the sword”, much less gun-obsession or the like.

It’s a standard tactic to accuse those who recognize their right and duty to be able to defend themselves with the most effective means at their disposal (including firearms) of “gun-obsession”. Sorry, but the moment I see the words of our Lord being used in this manner I will take issue with it.

 

[gamewell45]

Since you didn’t say you were against “assault weapons”, should we assume you don’t have a problem with people walking around in public with “assault weapons”?

Why do 22 revolvers scare you more than a 12 guage?

Would you be so kind as to define what you believe to be assault weapons? I view assualt weapons as automatic rifles, pistols, etc.

I never said that I was scared about .22 Cal revolvers, however, and correct me if I"m wrong, but you can be killed from a .22 Cal revolver? If you agree then its good reason to be leary about that particular weapon as well as others.

 

[gamewell45]

It seems the only difference between you and me on this issue is, I’d like to try increasing the laws regarding illegal ownership and especially “illegal use” of handguns first.

I think it is entirely possible that were we to do so, even you would stop seeing the need to take away my handgun once the results of appropriate punishments and enforcements began to show themselves.

I have a compromise; how about we do both? Increase the laws regarding illegal ownership and eliminate ownership of handguns, automatic weapons?

That way you get to kill two birds with one stone.

 

[royal_archer]

Would you be so kind as to define what you believe to be assault weapons? I view assualt weapons as automatic rifles, pistols, etc…

Personally I use the term mockingly since it is a term that lefties like to throw around to instill fear in hoplophobics. Technically it is a term for any object that could be used as a weapon in an assault. But here is the definition as understood by most of the public.

From Wikpedia:
An assault weapon is non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms including certain semiautomatic rifles with a specific cosmetic features, some pistols, and some shotguns. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.

There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1] Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.

I never said that I was scared about .22 Cal revolvers, however, and correct me if I"m wrong, but you can be killed from a .22 Cal revolver? If you agree then its good reason to be leary about that particular weapon as well as others.

You can be killed by lots of things from cars to shoestrings that in itself is not a reason to ban anything. So why do you want to ban .22 caliber revolvers but not shotguns and AK47s?

 

[gamewell45]

Personally I use the term mockingly since it is a term that lefties like to throw around to instill fear in hoplophobics. Technically it is a term for any object that could be used as a weapon in an assault. But here is the definition as understood by most of the public.

From Wikpedia:
An assault weapon is non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms including certain semiautomatic rifles with a specific cosmetic features, some pistols, and some shotguns. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.

There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1] Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.

You can be killed by lots of things from cars to shoestrings that in itself is not a reason to ban anything. So why do you want to ban .22 caliber revolvers but not shotguns and AK47s?

AK-47’s are difficult to conceal on one’s body.

 

[royal_archer]

AK-47’s are difficult to conceal on one’s body.

Ahh, so it is concealment. So do you advocate for everyones right to open carry hand guns?