The past several years has seen gun control, aka banning certain types of firearms, in the spotlight for various reasons.
Original Post
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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....
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....
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
quote:Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Metro-Dade PD was THE FIRST U.S. LEO agency to adopt the G17 as an issued sidearm.
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'.
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....
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.
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>
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.
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.