Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
The past several years has seen gun control, aka banning certain types of firearms, in the spotlight for various reasons.


I will not vote on that one B. It is a dichotomy that is contrived. There are an infinite number of OTHER POSSIBILITIES, INCLUDING MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO.

Brentenman, The issue you raise is TYPICAL of the neo conservative, You hold up a Straw man, Yes, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.." and then ask that it be debated. Well, the moderator will not allow foul language, but the tactic is both infuriating and infantile. You should learn to debate within an acceptable framework, or ADMIT THAT YOU ARE NAUGHT MORE THAN A TYRANT.
The issue of arms control, and that is what this is, GOT US INTO THE WAR IN IRAQ, IS THREATENING TO DO THE SAME IN IRAN.

You seem to support the Ideal of conquering any country that is not yet abe to stand up to the USA, but might become capable at anytime in the future. That includes every country on earth except THE EU, RUSSIA, AND CHINA. The "others" comprise about 3/5ths of the people on the Planet, or roughly 3.5 BILLION PEOPLE YOU SEEM WILLING TO ABSORB INTO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE, OR SUBJUGATE.

Anyway, controlling Arms in the US is now and has always been on the right track, and raising the straw man of confiscation is beneath contempt.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
I will not vote on that one B. It is a dichotomy that is contrived. There are an infinite number of OTHER POSSIBILITIES, INCLUDING MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO.

Brentenman, The issue you raise is TYPICAL of the neo conservative, You hold up a Straw man, Yes, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.." and then ask that it be debated. Well, the moderator will not allow foul language, but the tactic is both infuriating and infantile.



EdEKit! Good call!

Yes, it's the Straw Man argument. You might also think of it as the Either/Or Fallacy, or the "false dilemma" that he puts forth. I've noticed this issue in several of his polls. His debating skills are less than impressive, so I'm not even sure he knows that he's doing it. Oh well. Same old, same old...
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Gun Control: Holding your weapon in such a manner that depressing the trigger does not disturb the sight alignment.


Sassy, I have a single action colt .44 revolver that has the rear sight cut into the hammer. Squeezing the trigger moves the sight into the frame of the pistol, what should I do?
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Gun Control: Holding your weapon in such a manner that depressing the trigger does not disturb the sight alignment.


Sassy, I have a single action colt .44 revolver that has the rear sight cut into the hammer. Squeezing the trigger moves the sight into the frame of the pistol, what should I do?


That is the way the gun was made. Single-action cap-n-ball revolvers of 19th century design have this feature, a notch cut into the front of the hammer, when c-ocked, acts as the rear sight.

Examples: Colt models 1847 Walker, 1st-3rd model Dragoons, 1851 navy, 1860 Army, etc....
quote:
Originally posted by tdreader:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
Got more people voting in this one, looks like!


These forum polls would get even more response if the all options were not prejudiced toward the pollsters opinion. That reslults in fewer votes because those with opposing opinions are less likely to vote.

The way the political pros do it is to pose nonprejudiced options to draw in a larger populace, thus more votes and interest. THEN they get desired results by applying their prejudice to the analysis.

"Statistics are like a streetlamp to a drunkard, used more for support than illumination."


Yes, yes, and yes! You know, there are lies, there are d*** lies, and then there are statistics. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:

That is the way the gun was made. Single-action cap-n-ball revolvers of 19th century design have this feature, a notch cut into the front of the hammer, when c-ocked, acts as the rear sight.

Examples: Colt models 1847 Walker, 1st-3rd model Dragoons, 1851 navy, 1860 Army, etc....


Once again, I ask: is it just me? Does this guy scare any of you? Does there seem to be an inordinate obsession with firearms in his posts? Add that to his comments that have the "kill 'em all" mentality, and it's really disturbing to me.

I have an in-law who is currently in the Army, an MP, and I've shown him this stuff. He's
seen Iraq. But when he saw this stuff, his eyes got big. He said he hoped it wasn't anyone under his command. I have a close friend who is a Viet Nam vet and served for years with the Marines. He saw front-line action over several voluntary tours of duty. You can't see his chest for the medals he earned. He shook his head at this.

BM has said he has me on ignore. (He PM'd me to tell me that he didn't like me.) I guess he won't see this comment, so I don't worry about upsetting him. But does this seem normal?
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Gun Control: Holding your weapon in such a manner that depressing the trigger does not disturb the sight alignment.


Sassy, I have a single action colt .44 revolver that has the rear sight cut into the hammer. Squeezing the trigger moves the sight into the frame of the pistol, what should I do?


That is the way the gun was made. Single-action cap-n-ball revolvers of 19th century design have this feature, a notch cut into the front of the hammer, when c-ocked, acts as the rear sight.

Examples: Colt models 1847 Walker, 1st-3rd model Dragoons, 1851 navy, 1860 Army, etc....


I didn't ask you. When I want your opinion I will call the warden for permission to speak with you.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Gun Control: Holding your weapon in such a manner that depressing the trigger does not disturb the sight alignment.


Sassy, I have a single action colt .44 revolver that has the rear sight cut into the hammer. Squeezing the trigger moves the sight into the frame of the pistol, what should I do?


That is the way the gun was made. Single-action cap-n-ball revolvers of 19th century design have this feature, a notch cut into the front of the hammer, when c-ocked, acts as the rear sight.

Examples: Colt models 1847 Walker, 1st-3rd model Dragoons, 1851 navy, 1860 Army, etc....


I didn't ask you. When I want your opinion I will call the warden for permission to speak with you.


That's why them cowboys couldn't hit a darned thing with those guns. Have a new set of sights welded onto the frame and barrel, or you could just attach them with JB weld or duct tape.
quote:
Originally posted by tdreader:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
Got more people voting in this one, looks like!


These forum polls would get even more response if the all options were not prejudiced toward the pollsters opinion. That reslults in fewer votes because those with opposing opinions are less likely to vote.

The way the political pros do it is to pose nonprejudiced options to draw in a larger populace, thus more votes and interest. THEN they get desired results by applying their prejudice to the analysis.

"Statistics are like a streetlamp to a drunkard, used more for support than illumination."


I can live with that train of thought... could you make a poll for us that isn't biased in your opinion only? I am not sure if I could or not, I would definitely try though... but sometimes our very own thoughts come out when creating one... just a thought.
Perhaps I'm missing something, the poll looks pretty straight forward to me.

Arms control and gun control, in my opinion, are two different subjects. I would imagine the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not intend for the Second Ammendment to mean everyone could own a cannon. The wording does say "arms", but it says to "keep and BEAR arms". It's hard to bear a cannon, or in todays technology, a tank or MX missle. These type of items would fall under arms control, not gun control.

Some Quotes on Gun control (pro and con).

"Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." -Joseph T. Chew

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Robert A. Heinlein

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
Latin: "A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand." -Seneca (Seneca the Elder)

"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments." -James Brady

"The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." -U.S. vs Cruikshan

If you want quotes on just about every subject, go here. http://www.quoteland.com/topic.asp
quote:
Originally posted by e:
Once again, I ask: is it just me? Does this guy scare any of you? Does there seem to be an inordinate obsession with firearms in his posts? .......... But does this seem normal?


No, it isn't 'you'....it's you and all the others that CANNOT comprehend the 'warrior mentality'. Brentenman is as 'passionate' about his RIGHTS and BELIEFS as most of the regulars on this forum. If you require further 'insight', PLEASE read and study my 'tag line'.
quote:
Originally posted by tdreader:
Guns can only RESOLVE problems, not SOLVE problems. A problem is solved only by a solution. A problem is resolved when it is brought to an abrupt end and someone dies. Resolution is unavoidable when solutions can't be found. The world's problem is resolution is implemented before solutions are sought.


A popular phrase coined during the 'Nam War was "....there are very few problems that cannot be solved with the judicious use of high explosives." So true.... Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
That's why them cowboys couldn't hit a darned thing with those guns. Have a new set of sights welded onto the frame and barrel, or you could just attach them with JB weld or duct tape.


Perhaps THE best shot from the 'Old West', was Wild Bill Hicc*ck. He was a true marksman and knew how to use his pistol's sights, having, on one occasion, drilled his oppenent through the heart at almost a block away...with his pistol. His 'weapons of choice'? A brace of Colt .36 Navy cap-and-ball revolvers.
quote:
"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments." -James Brady


A ca. 1977 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ".....he police, et al, ARE NOT responsible for providing for the safety of individual citizens."

This was AFTER the D.C. police were sured for FAILING TO RESPOND to an emergency call for help wherein a woman and her roommates were held captive and repeatedly raped over several hours' time. Early on, a call for help WAS placed to the D.C. police by one of the women that managed to hide. They came to this residence, knocked, received no answer and left. A 2nd call was placed, to which they DID NOT respond. After this 2nd call, the woman that ade the calls was found and raped.

The times that 'cops' can actually DETER crimes are RARE. The times that they can take REPORTS are, unfortunately, MANY.

"The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." -U.S. vs Cruikshan

This has been DISPROVEN by reading the INTENT of the Founding Fathers in letters written BY THEM to newspapers of their day.

As stated earlier, proponents of 'gun control' NEED to read 'Unintended Consequences' by Congressman John Ross.
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
That's why them cowboys couldn't hit a darned thing with those guns. Have a new set of sights welded onto the frame and barrel, or you could just attach them with JB weld or duct tape.


Perhaps THE best shot from the 'Old West', was Wild Bill Hicc*ck. He was a true marksman and knew how to use his pistol's sights, having, on one occasion, drilled his oppenent through the heart at almost a block away...with his pistol. His 'weapons of choice'? A brace of Colt .36 Navy cap-and-ball revolvers.


I was being sarcastic. I have a matched pair of Pietta 1851 Navy pistols, in .44 caliber, and a 1861 Army, also in .44. Depressing the trigger does not disturb the sight alignment....sight alignment refers to point of aim. David Tutt was the unlucky gambler who had won Hickock's pocket watch, and refused to return it. Did not help that Tutt was a former Confederate and Hickock was a former Union soldier and scout. The shot was allegedly fired from between 50 and 60 yards, and pierced Tutt's heart.

After shooting cap and ball pistols for a while, I'll allow that "any blind squirrel can find an acorn every now and then" when we talk about the accuracy of Hickock's shot in this fight. Although I have no doubt as to Hickock's bravery, I do submit that I doubt he, or anybody, could repeat the shot on demand.
quote:
After shooting cap and ball pistols for a while, I'll allow that "any blind squirrel can find an acorn every now and then" when we talk about the accuracy of Hickock's shot in this fight. Although I have no doubt as to Hickock's bravery, I do submit that I doubt he, or anybody, could repeat the shot on demand.


I've got the time to attempt it. I'll even supply the B27s...if you're 'game'. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by tdreader:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
Got more people voting in this one, looks like!


These forum polls would get even more response if the all options were not prejudiced toward the pollsters opinion. That reslults in fewer votes because those with opposing opinions are less likely to vote."


Thats what I often think of the polls on the front page!
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
quote:
After shooting cap and ball pistols for a while, I'll allow that "any blind squirrel can find an acorn every now and then" when we talk about the accuracy of Hickock's shot in this fight. Although I have no doubt as to Hickock's bravery, I do submit that I doubt he, or anybody, could repeat the shot on demand.


I've got the time to attempt it. I'll even supply the B27s...if you're 'game'. Big Grin


I'll have to take you up on that sometime. It would be interesting....say compare the accuracy of a 1851 with that of a modern pistol, like a Sig or Glock.
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Gun Control: Holding your weapon in such a manner that depressing the trigger does not disturb the sight alignment.


Sassy, I have a single action colt .44 revolver that has the rear sight cut into the hammer. Squeezing the trigger moves the sight into the frame of the pistol, what should I do?


That is the way the gun was made. Single-action cap-n-ball revolvers of 19th century design have this feature, a notch cut into the front of the hammer, when c-ocked, acts as the rear sight.

Examples: Colt models 1847 Walker, 1st-3rd model Dragoons, 1851 navy, 1860 Army, etc....


Regards Brentenman,
I know how the pistol is made, I own it. I asked, how to maintain the sight alighment after squeezing the trigger, since the pistol hides the sights in the frame when you squeeze the trigger. NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW TO MAINTAIN THE SIGHT ALIGNMENT UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS?
You CAN'T maintain sight allignment with a 'disappearing' rear sight. What you CAN do is work on your 'follow through'.

Try placing a coin on TOP of the barrel while DRY firing (not sure HOW to do so w/o damaging the nipples on a c&p relovler). If the coin stays put when the hammer falls, your 'control' is OK. If it falls off, it's a good indication that you are 'jerking' the trigger, or 'something else' is amiss.

Hope that helps a bit....
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Gun Control: Holding your weapon in such a manner that depressing the trigger does not disturb the sight alignment.


Sassy, I have a single action colt .44 revolver that has the rear sight cut into the hammer. Squeezing the trigger moves the sight into the frame of the pistol, what should I do?


That is the way the gun was made. Single-action cap-n-ball revolvers of 19th century design have this feature, a notch cut into the front of the hammer, when c-ocked, acts as the rear sight.

Examples: Colt models 1847 Walker, 1st-3rd model Dragoons, 1851 navy, 1860 Army, etc....


I didn't ask you. When I want your opinion I will call the warden for permission to speak with you.


That's why them cowboys couldn't hit a darned thing with those guns. Have a new set of sights welded onto the frame and barrel, or you could just attach them with JB weld or duct tape.


Well thanks, I was hoping to keep the pistol original, and with that in mind I will just have to keep steady while squeezing.
I don't know if you have had much experience with black powder weapons, but they delay firing, that is the centerfire cartridge is faster to respond to the hammer fall than a cap and ball or flintlock. The very slight delay gives time to recover the sight picture after the trigger squeeze. It is a skill, and with the revolver I own the accuracy is dependent on the shooter's muscle memory.
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
Arms control and gun control, in my opinion, are two different subjects. I would imagine the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not intend for the Second Ammendment to mean everyone could own a cannon. The wording does say "arms", but it says to "keep and BEAR arms". <snip>


The second amendment, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That is a single sentance, Most of the provisions of the constitution are expressed in single sentances because that is how law once required it.
Removing all the secondary clauses, except one at a time, we get only two sentances. One, A Well Regulated Militia shall not be infringed. Two, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But we have a fragment left, "being necessary to the security of a free state" Where does that clause belong, it follows "A well Regulated Militia," and it preceeds "The right of the people." The clause amplifies the need for a regulated militia. The preamble says the purpose of the document is to form and preserve a Union of the States. it says, in a single sentance what the purpose of the document is. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, . . . provide for the common defense, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Within the body of the document is a defined outline of BOTH national and state militias.

The result, taken as a whole, is that the right of the people, by majority or other legislative method to protect their individual states from threats shall not be denied the right to form militias. BUT, THOSE MILITIAS MUST BE REGULATED BY THE STATE, INCLUDING THEIR FOUNDING.

The Second amendment does not guarantee the right of the people to defend themselves as individuals by force of arms against the state. It gives the MAJORITY the right to form defensive organizations named militias. Else where the constituton guarantees the right to petition for redress of greivances.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by tdreader:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
Got more people voting in this one, looks like!


These forum polls would get even more response if the all options were not prejudiced toward the pollsters opinion. That reslults in fewer votes because those with opposing opinions are less likely to vote.

The way the political pros do it is to pose nonprejudiced options to draw in a larger populace, thus more votes and interest. THEN they get desired results by applying their prejudice to the analysis.

"Statistics are like a streetlamp to a drunkard, used more for support than illumination."


I can live with that train of thought... could you make a poll for us that isn't biased in your opinion only? I am not sure if I could or not, I would definitely try though... but sometimes our very own thoughts come out when creating one... just a thought.


Kindred_Spirit The poll questions are designed to prove that ALL poll questions are biased in favor of one subject or another. Just asking the question is a bias in favor of that question instead of others.
These polls are not seeking to determine the public opinion, they are transparently an effort to catagorize the respondents as friend or foe. RESPONDING TO THEM IS A MISTAKE. He wants to know what YOU think so he can respond to your loyalty or opposition.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
Arms control and gun control, in my opinion, are two different subjects. I would imagine the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not intend for the Second Ammendment to mean everyone could own a cannon. The wording does say "arms", but it says to "keep and BEAR arms". <snip>


The second amendment, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That is a single sentance, Most of the provisions of the constitution are expressed in single sentances because that is how law once required it.
Removing all the secondary clauses, except one at a time, we get only two sentances. One, A Well Regulated Militia shall not be infringed. Two, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But we have a fragment left, "being necessary to the security of a free state" Where does that clause belong, it follows "A well Regulated Militia," and it preceeds "The right of the people." The clause amplifies the need for a regulated militia. The preamble says the purpose of the document is to form and preserve a Union of the States. it says, in a single sentance what the purpose of the document is. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, . . . provide for the common defense, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Within the body of the document is a defined outline of BOTH national and state militias.

The result, taken as a whole, is that the right of the people, by majority or other legislative method to protect their individual states from threats shall not be denied the right to form militias. BUT, THOSE MILITIAS MUST BE REGULATED BY THE STATE, INCLUDING THEIR FOUNDING.

The Second amendment does not guarantee the right of the people to defend themselves as individuals by force of arms against the state. It gives the MAJORITY the right to form defensive organizations named militias. Else where the constituton guarantees the right to petition for redress of greivances.




One word: WRONG

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×