Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[numinus]

The best defense against crime and the tyranny of government is an informed and armed populace.

You mean the right to bear arms is intended to protect you from your own government????

That is an armed insurrection, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[vyo476]

You mean the right to bear arms is intended to protect you from your own government????

That is an armed insurrection, if I'm not mistaken.

Screwy, isn't it? Government policies designed to allow people to combat government policies? Nonetheless, in the context of the American Revolution and the subsequent formation of this country, it makes perfect sense. The same people who created the national government rule of America destroyed the British colonial rule of America - British colonial rule which gave every appearance of being perfectly legal and legitimate, but was at the same time intolerable to the colonists themselves.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bunz]

Actually, we did Google you and the picture showed you standing on your back porch, naked, peeing over the edge. We decided that wasn't the best way to show you so we went with PLC1's post.

Amazing, but hey when you dont really have neighbors why bother right?
Could you clearly see me with a gun? I wonder if the resolution is enough to show the target I was after was not a human shaped target as Numinus thinks I shoot at exclusively.

 

[Bunz]

But don't worry; we'll take that other photo and perform any number of Photoshop manipulations on it before creating a slideshow-video, with Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven playing in the background, and posting it online. Within a week it'll be the most popular video on Youtube. Congrats, you're going to be a star.

Just what I have always wanted. Thing is, Ill have to get out of town to watch it streamed, it wont work here. Good call on the stairway. I cant wait to be famous. At the end can I be the guy saying "dude dont tase me"?

 

[Bunz]

A paper target that doesn't move upon the impact of a bullet!?

And a centimeter error in a target of 100 meters will result in how much in a kilometer? Do the math.

Ah Numinus, I know that in your eyes I appear to be a blood thirsty liar, but I will point out a few things. For me personally, I staple my non-human shaped target usually to a cardboard box on all four corners. Then I throw a rock or two in the bottom of the box so it wont move. Plenty of anchor to not move the box enough to make a difference.

I will point out that a centimeter off at 100m is about the threshold of what a human is capable of with current technology. One can shoot smaller groups with match grade rifles and an excellent bench rest. A rifle is considered very accurate if it is off by 1/2 inch at those distances. The variable there enviromental ones. Minute wind differences, humidity, temp, condition of the rifle and other equipment.

As for your notion about shooting at 1000 meters, I dont know of anybody anywhere in a hunting situation that responsibly takes a shot a 1km.
Once again, you are mistaking or falsely grouping together the average hunter and a highly trained military sharshooter.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A paper target that doesn't move upon the impact of a bullet!?

And a centimeter error in a target of 100 meters will result in how much in a kilometer? Do the math.

No, it doesn't. Secured with the simple method of taping it to a backing of heavy cardboard (itself secured to something), the impact will punch cleanly through the paper, not moving it. This is not rocket science.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ah Numinus, I know that in your eyes I appear to be a blood thirsty liar, but I will point out a few things. For me personally, I staple my non-human shaped target usually to a cardboard box on all four corners. Then I throw a rock or two in the bottom of the box so it wont move. Plenty of anchor to not move the box enough to make a difference.

I will point out that a centimeter off at 100m is about the threshold of what a human is capable of with current technology. One can shoot smaller groups with match grade rifles and an excellent bench rest. A rifle is considered very accurate if it is off by 1/2 inch at those distances. The variable there enviromental ones. Minute wind differences, humidity, temp, condition of the rifle and other equipment.

As for your notion about shooting at 1000 meters, I dont know of anybody anywhere in a hunting situation that responsibly takes a shot a 1km.
Once again, you are mistaking or falsely grouping together the average hunter and a highly trained military sharshooter.

Google up the Varmint Hunters Association. They actually have a special patch for anyone who can verify a hit on a rockchuck or prarie dog from 1000 yards. Some of the varmint rifles have absolutely incredibe long-range accuracy.

 

[numinus]

Screwy, isn't it? Government policies designed to allow people to combat government policies? Nonetheless, in the context of the American Revolution and the subsequent formation of this country, it makes perfect sense. The same people who created the national government rule of America destroyed the British colonial rule of America - British colonial rule which gave every appearance of being perfectly legal and legitimate, but was at the same time intolerable to the colonists themselves.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

No. It does not make perfect sense.

The right to bear arms comes from the absence of a professional military under the control of a central government -- as is the case during the american revolution -- when the colony was asserting independence from a foreign threat.

Clearly, it is not the case right now. Sadly, some people simply cannot part with their firearms -- so they use hunting and self-defense to justify their infatuation with a lethal instrument.

Self-defense can no more justify totting firearms than national security justify stockpiling nukes.

That's simple facts and logic.

 

[numinus]

Ah Numinus, I know that in your eyes I appear to be a blood thirsty liar, but I will point out a few things. For me personally, I staple my non-human shaped target usually to a cardboard box on all four corners. Then I throw a rock or two in the bottom of the box so it wont move. Plenty of anchor to not move the box enough to make a difference.

I will point out that a centimeter off at 100m is about the threshold of what a human is capable of with current technology. One can shoot smaller groups with match grade rifles and an excellent bench rest. A rifle is considered very accurate if it is off by 1/2 inch at those distances. The variable there enviromental ones. Minute wind differences, humidity, temp, condition of the rifle and other equipment.

As for your notion about shooting at 1000 meters, I dont know of anybody anywhere in a hunting situation that responsibly takes a shot a 1km.
Once again, you are mistaking or falsely grouping together the average hunter and a highly trained military sharshooter.

Just because you love hunting does not justify bearing firearms in the REST OF THE MODERN, URBANIZED WORLD.

And most rifles have effective ranges well beyond a kilometer. That's why they come with a scope.

 

[PLC1]

A paper target that doesn't move upon the impact of a bullet!?

And a centimeter error in a target of 100 meters will result in how much in a kilometer? Do the math.

Thus, you total inexperience with shooting targets is proven.

You know, it's really OK to admit you don't know about something. No one could possibly have experience with everything. Trying to convince people that you know about something that you quite obviously don't, however, is very difficult.

 

[vyo476]

The right to bear arms comes from the absence of a professional military under the control of a central government -- as is the case during the american revolution -- when the colony was asserting independence from a foreign threat.

The American Revolution wasn't just a foreign war. That's why we call it a revolution - the American colonists were throwing off the otherwise legal rule of Britain. It was a bunch of people with rifles fighting the government, becasue, at the time, they believed that fighting the government was the right thing to do. It would have been hypocritical for a government born from that fight to say that people shouldn't have the ability to fight the government.

Granted, our government hasn't minded being hypocritical on other matters, but they got that one right, as far as I'm concerned. While they did everything they could to build a virtuous government, they also recognized the possibility that sometime in the future, despite their best efforts, it might again become necessary for the people to rise up against their government. That's a part of where the 2nd Amendment came from.

Self-defense can no more justify totting firearms than national security justify stockpiling nukes.

That's simple facts and logic.

What do you think self-defense justifies, or do you think self-defense is unjustifiable?

 

[Bunz]

Google up the Varmint Hunters Association. They actually have a special patch for anyone who can verify a hit on a rockchuck or prarie dog from 1000 yards. Some of the varmint rifles have absolutely incredibe long-range accuracy.

I appreciate you pointing this out, but what you describe is by far the exception of the rule, not the norm. I have several "tackdrivers" including a
.22-250 that I hit a coffee can with at 800 yards. THe far majority of hunting especially larger game is done at distances less than 300 yards.
I do understand some people's desire for pest control, I dont have those issues and wouldnt bother with that sort of shooting myself.

 

[Bunz]

And most rifles have effective ranges well beyond a kilometer. That's why they come with a scope.

Firstly, you are incorrect on your notion of an effective range beyond a KM. But hey what does facts matter. Lets have a look at the standard issue sniper rifle from the USMC. The M-40. It is a beefed up more accurate version of the remington model 700 bolt action rifle with a 10x scope,
in 7.62x54mm(.308) its listed effective range is 800 meters. While it will hit and potentially kill at longer ranges, ensuring accuracy and velocity past those ranges is difficult at best. Same goes for most other hunting rifles.
I hunt the largest game animals in North America, moose and caribou, I have turned away from shots longer than 300 yards because I could not ensure a responsible shot. Because a bullet will travel x distance, does not mean it is within effective range. Your showing your ignorance.

 

[Bunz]

Just because you love hunting does not justify bearing firearms in the REST OF THE MODERN, URBANIZED WORLD.

A few things, number one being that I dont necessarily love hunting. Love is not a word I would use. I enjoy being outdoors, and spending time with my family. But hunting is something I do out of necessity.

The second issue, about the modern urbanized world, if the powers that be in those urban cities dont want thier subjects to have firearms, that is on them. Dont put limits on me because of some urban street war between two gangs or for whatever justification one wants to put on it.

Why limit law abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I appreciate you pointing this out, but what you describe is by far the exception of the rule, not the norm. I have several "tackdrivers" including a
.22-250 that I hit a coffee can with at 800 yards. THe far majority of hunting especially larger game is done at distances less than 300 yards.
I do understand some people's desire for pest control, I dont have those issues and wouldnt bother with that sort of shooting myself.

I didn't say it was common, but it is doable. (For the record, a target comparable to a rockchuck would probably be a soda can, a prarie dog might be comparable to a playing card.) IIRC, a lot of them use highly-customized .243 (6mm) rifles shooting boat-tail hollow-points with very fast-twist barrels.

Personally, I prefer pistols.