Jump to content

Responsible Gun Owner of the Day


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

If you're fretting about the extinction of birds, hang a fuckin' seed feeder in your yard.

We've had clouds of birds around our place ever since we put it up.

True enough but Doug's correct about "outside" cats and particularly feral cats. There was a day but it's gone by. Pop density/tragedy of the commons has necessitated leash laws and all that crap that infringe on our former freedoms. 

I know a gal who was feeding ~30 feral cats at her back porch ... and at least that many on her front porch. In her goofy favor, she trapped all the ones she could and spayed them as she caught them. Another crazy lady with no children.

And people wonder why anyone needs an AR-15 and hi-cap mags?

Feral cats. The musical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 669
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It resides only in a galaxy far far away, AFAIK. Seriously, though...he's kinda right. Whether or not it's SOP on sets for the actor to do the final check,  nearly all accounts it isn't (the indu

I used to be a gun guy...and this bullshit is probably part of why I'm not now. Training is fine.  Practice is fine. This is simulating what is seen in movies/video games not for accurate ta

Posted Images

2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

If you're fretting about the extinction of birds, hang a fuckin' seed feeder in your yard.

We've had clouds of birds around our place ever since we put it up.

What a great idea, thanks for the suggestion :rolleyes:

You mean another one, right? How many suet feeders would you recommend? Keep in mind that we have bears year 'round in this neck of the woods.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What a great idea, thanks for the suggestion :rolleyes:

You mean another one, right? How many suet feeders would you recommend? Keep in mind that we have bears year 'round in this neck of the woods.

- DSK

A bear is another reason for firepower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What a great idea, thanks for the suggestion :rolleyes:

You mean another one, right? How many suet feeders would you recommend? Keep in mind that we have bears year 'round in this neck of the woods.

- DSK

I’m all for bird feeders.  Brings more birds to the neighborhood which means more lunch for the local cats.  
 

If you really want to save birds lives you’d pollute less, go off the grid, open your windows and stop putting damn bird feeders in the back yard.  Instead of that how about creating more nature reserves?  You don’t see too many neighborhood cats there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happier, if the cats around here would keep the crow population down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I know a gal who was feeding ~30 feral cats at her back porch ... and at least that many on her front porch. In her goofy favor, she trapped all the ones she could and spayed them as she caught them. Another crazy lady with no children.

20 Hilarious Cat Lady Memes You Would Totally Love - I Can Has Cheezburger?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The hawks and eagles here are keeping the cat population down.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned bird on bird predation as a leading cause of bird death.  You don’t see nieghbothood cats killing and eating each other.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I’m surprised no one has mentioned bird on bird predation as a leading cause of bird death.  You don’t see nieghbothood cats killing and eating each other.  

I'm surprised that FL scored at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I’m surprised no one has mentioned bird on bird predation as a leading cause of bird death.  You don’t see nieghbothood cats killing and eating each other.  

One day I found a headless large mallard in our driveway. I have no idea what could rip the head off a mallard and leave the rest, but it probably wasn't a cat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong House.

Quote

 

...

The woman told police she saw a man kick in her back door to get in the house. She told officers she then went upstairs to a bedroom, got a gun and shot and killed the suspect.

...

 

She must have a very small penis if she needs a gun to defend herself.

Another article
 

Quote

 

...

Prosecutor Cummings says the suspect could also be heard on video asking for money and pretending to be law enforcement.

“There was audio, and you could hear what he was saying inside. He said, ‘It’s the police.’ He was claiming to be police officer, but he had a mask on,” said Cummings.

...

 

When drug warriors do a no-knock on the wrong house again, they're often wearing masks. If people bust into your house claiming to be the cops and wearing masks, it might just be a good idea to shoot them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Never tried cock - thanks anyway for the offer though.  Maybe you and gaytor can get together sometime.

No, I think you're overly upset far out of proportion to @jocal505's "mistake" because your anesthesiologist GF probably finally realized what a fucking bi-polar psycho, prone to rage at the drop of a hat, cunt you actually are and gave you the boot. 

In all seriousness..... Truly, if there was ever a person on these forums that needed to be on meds for mood disorders - it would be you.  I've not run across many people here who - at the flip of a switch - can go from being a fairly reasonable (if somewhat ignorant) adult in a conversation to threatening to meet somewhere so you can punch them in the nose.  

The only other person here who acted like that was aka GP.  George Petrovic iirc.  He was truly an unstable psycho who finally became so dangerous that Scot had to give him the boot as he was likely to act out irl against some member here eventually.  He was also from Detroit IIRC.  Hmmmmm..........

Just saying.

I'm glad I amuse you.  She's a radiologist.  Go jack off to your guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

 

Humans kill humans Joe.

Correct you are, BC, and you are a bright one, so let's just continue. Follow along, with your fine mind.

  • FACT: Gun proliferation facilitates (and multiplies) the killings of humans, by humans,
  • FACT: A body of scientific study shows that tighter gun laws reduce "humans killing humans."
  • FACT: the American notion of using guns for "self defense" in public is a deterioration of 700 years of behavior. Today, it is an aberration within Ango- American common law.
  • The resulting gun carnage, and the abandonment of duty to retreat, is unique to the USA. 
  • Your bit isn't working.

Humans kill humans with "small pieces of furniture," and with bows and arrows, too. But such repeated false equivalence is beneath a sharp guy like you, IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a canned answer from you. I've read it before. 

My point was simply humans kill humans. One way or another. I thought you might have missed these foreign stories. No equivalency was intended or offered. Might be time to change your answering message.

I see a melding of the missions you and AJ are on. He wants countries to give up their nukes, and you can imagine 100M gun owners giving up 400M guns so you two peaceniks can change horrendous to just plain awful. 

I get the payoff, the-ego-stroke of fighting the good fight no one is expected to win ... the level of fight in the dog and all... fuck yeah but no. 

Snipe Hunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2021 at 1:05 PM, Fakenews said:

I’m all for bird feeders.  Brings more birds to the neighborhood which means more lunch for the local cats.  
 

If you really want to save birds lives you’d pollute less, go off the grid, open your windows and stop putting damn bird feeders in the back yard.  Instead of that how about creating more nature reserves?  You don’t see too many neighborhood cats there. 

Why does it not surprise me that you're the stereotypical gay "cat lady" guy.  I'd ask you to turn in your man-card, but that got revoked long ago.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2021 at 1:05 PM, Fakenews said:

I’m all for bird feeders.  Brings more birds to the neighborhood which means more lunch for the local cats.  
 

If you really want to save birds lives you’d pollute less, go off the grid, open your windows and stop putting damn bird feeders in the back yard.  Instead of that how about creating more nature reserves?  You don’t see too many neighborhood cats there. 

I think this meme applies to you, gaytor....

image.png.bcb023d2edadbda9d40afa8af185a27e.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

I'm glad I amuse you.  She's a radiologist.  Go jack off to your guns.

Anesthesiologist/radiologist/tomato/tomatoe, not an MD, 220/221, Whatever it takes.  It's all ball bearings these days.  

And yes you do amuse me.  Your reply obviously was after your last dose set in, as you are a different person when you don't skip your meds.  You're almost reasonable and worth reading.  Almost.  But when the bipolar shit kicks in, you're riveting.  As in can't look away from a slow-Mo train wreck.  

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Not photoshopped, Jeff .  They really get that big.

---------

Today's  "Responsible gun owner of the day award goes  to

( fanfare )

May be an image of 1 person and nature

 

 

Sorry, I call BS on that one.  That's definitely photoshopped.  He'd stand about 6'9" tall on all fours given the proportion to the dude in the back, unless he's a 3ft tall midget.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Anesthesiologist/radiologist/tomato/tomatoe, not an MD, 220/221, Whatever it takes.  It's all ball bearings these days. 

Wow, you're too stupid to own guns.  How fucking stupid are you.  She has an MD unlike your wife, ex-stripper or straight up prostitute?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

humans kill humans. One way or another.

So the military don't need military weapons then as, by your argument, they're clearly no better at killing than a knife, club or fists...

Face it, military weapons exist to make it easier to kill. That is their sole purpose for existing. As such, they should not be in the hands of civilians. The only argument to make otherwise is that they are to be "well-regulated". Letting any nonce have one is not well-regulated.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ncik said:

So the military don't need military weapons then as, by your argument, they're clearly no better at killing than a knife, club or fists...

Face it, military weapons exist to make it easier to kill. That is their sole purpose for existing. As such, they should not be in the hands of civilians. The only argument to make otherwise is that they are to be "well-regulated". Letting any nonce have one is not well-regulated.

An embarrassing post, Cap. I said no equivalency was intended or offered.  Apparently you don't understand the terms used, so you lurched into the obvious anyway.

But if you really think 100M people will give up 400M guns, look up fool's errand. And I've got a bridge to sell.

The difference between idealism and pragmatism is where we differ. It's more than spelling.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

But if you really think 100M people will give up 400M guns, look up fool's errand.

Agreed, who said anything about giving them up. The cats out of the bag. The solution has many facets:

  • Societal will to reduce the impact of guns on their lives.
  • Stricter legal access (licensing, back-ground checks, etc...)
  • Limit sales to licensed gun shops (no trade sales, tough rules for second hand market, maybe consignment sales through gun shops)
  • Confiscate and destroy those used in crime or illegally. (probably already happening, but speed it up and close loopholes, define legal uses better)
  • Buy back system for those who don't want them anymore and don't want to (or can't) sell second-hand
  • Some way to limit manufacturing (maybe soft pressure from government buyers)
  • Patience (they don't last forever)

Call me Mr Pragmatic. But this will be a big bureaucracy.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Your mentality thinks that you're fighting a war, this needs to change.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ncik said:

Agreed, who said anything about giving them up. The cats out of the bag. The solution has many facets:

  • Societal will to reduce the impact of guns on their lives.
  • Stricter legal access (licensing, back-ground checks, etc...)
  • Limit sales to licensed gun shops (no trade sales, tough rules for second hand market, maybe consignment sales through gun shops)
  • Confiscate and destroy those used in crime or illegally. (probably already happening, but speed it up and close loopholes, define legal uses better)
  • Buy back system for those who don't want them anymore and don't want to (or can't) sell second-hand
  • Some way to limit manufacturing (maybe soft pressure from government buyers)
  • Patience (they don't last forever)

Call me Mr Pragmatic. But this will be a big bureaucracy.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Your mentality thinks that you're fighting a war, this needs to change.

Heh ... heh OK Mr "Pragmatic" but the law-abiders are not the problem. None of your points address the problem of the bad folks acquiring weapons in any meaningful way. There will be no shortage of illegal weapons available when US Mfgrs are OOB.

I'd guess there are several hundred threads on this. You are very late to the party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Heh ... heh OK Mr "Pragmatic" but the law-abiders are not the problem. None of your points address the problem of the bad folks acquiring weapons in any meaningful way. There will be no shortage of illegal weapons available when US Mfgrs are OOB.

I'd guess there are several hundred threads on this. You are very late to the party.

Law-abiders are a part of the problem when they fight reasonable regulation. Hell, it seems that only the law abiders are the ones putting up any arguments against sensible reforms.

So tightening up the process of destroying bad folks guns will have zero affect on access for those purposes? So a junky won't take the easy cash of selling his gun to a buy back scheme?

What's OOB? Limiting manufacturing isn't a way to prevent illegal manufacturing? Jesus, the fisherman have webcams watching their every move all over the ocean, surely a few manufacturers can be reined in.

Late or not, your pro-guns arguments do not stack up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OOB ... Out of business. 

Personally, I have no pro-gun argument beyond enjoying shooting. I'll grumpily turn my .20 ga in when you've confiscated the illegal weapons. Last year I even agreed we could go ahead and ban ARs of every stripe ... when we have them out of bad guys' hands.

You are way behind the curve here Cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ncik said:

Face it, military weapons exist to make it easier to kill. That is their sole purpose for existing. As such, they should not be in the hands of civilians. The only argument to make otherwise is that they are to be "well-regulated". Letting any nonce have one is not well-regulated.

It was the people, not the guns, who were supposed to be "well regulated," which simply meant "well-trained" at the time.

Any nonce was expected to show up for militia service "bearing arms supplied by" himself. If he didn't, he could be fined. If he couldn't afford a suitable military weapon, the fines would be used to buy him one.

So you're right that "letting" any nonce have one is not well-regulated. "Requiring" any nonce to have one is what was meant.

It's possible to learn most of this stuff just be reading the relatively short Miller opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ncik said:

Agreed, who said anything about giving them up.

There's a pretty long list. Beto comes to mind.

Additionally, FL legislators and those promoting a constitutional amendment want this to be the last generation to legally own battlefield .22's and other such weapons of mass destruction.

If the laws pass and IF (big if) my wife were stupid enough to register her battlefield .22, the plan of passing it along to grandkids would be illegal. She'd be the last legal owner in this state. If our heirs kept the gun anyway, that can get you a felony.

When you make it a felony to continue to possess your property, that's saying anything about giving them up. Specifically, it's saying, "give it up or get a felony."

Pretending no one wants to do that doesn't work on me. I can find and read the proposals, and I have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ncik is WAY late to this,

,  take your crying to the assault weapons thread and be ready to defend the carnage on the highways.

, as far as your fantasy about manufacturers , see the 14th most dangerous thread 

 

Tom has been posting responsible uses in the "shitbag gets ventilated"  category

 

, so I'll continue in the  quest to save the wolf,

, by relocating him to a greenbelt or park in Ncik's and Fakenewb's neighborhood.

 

141072655_208446117611838_6457167762834790300_n-e1611235192554-700x424.jpg

 

TWO responsible gun owners.

141072655_208446117611838_6457167762834790300_n-1-250x333.jpg

Edited by Mike in Seattle
added 2nd pic
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Heh ... heh OK Mr "Pragmatic" but the law-abiders are not the problem. None of your points address the problem of the bad folks acquiring weapons in any meaningful way. There will be no shortage of illegal weapons available when US Mfgrs are OOB.

I'd guess there are several hundred threads on this. You are very late to the party.

when laws like the one in Texas that allows you to keep a loaded hand gun in your glove box, and then you keep you car unlocked and the gun is stolen is part of the problem.   "Bad folks" got gun because "good folks " are fucking stupid....

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dacapo said:

when laws like the one in Texas that allows you to keep a loaded hand gun in your glove box, and then you keep you car unlocked and the gun is stolen is part of the problem.   "Bad folks" got gun because "good folks " are fucking stupid....

Don't give up that day job D.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:
16 minutes ago, dacapo said:

when laws like the one in Texas that allows you to keep a loaded hand gun in your glove box, and then you keep you car unlocked and the gun is stolen is part of the problem.   "Bad folks" got gun because "good folks " are fucking stupid....

Don't give up that day job D.

Yeah but is he wrong?

One of my neighbors is the kind of bonehead who is all enflamed about his RIGHTZ!!! and has had a pistol stolen from his car twice. Is the third time the charm or something?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

"well regulated," which simply meant "well-trained" at the time.

No. "Well-regulated" meant well-led, and well-managed, under the authority of the Governor. Participants were to be balanced, within society. The citizen soldier became a soldier citizen, but only at times. See how that works? 

NO "UN-COOPERATIVES," PLEASE. They had a  LOT of rules for the militia participants. One's standing in the community was determined by his co-operation, or by the lack of it.

Yeah, over seven years not long before the revolution, 10,000 militia member/colonists effectively participated in the French and Indian war...for the King. A large national debt was neutralized by this service. The colonists did not front any jackass militia, Tommy Boy. Their militias had already been through some shit, before the Adams brothers et al.

5 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Any nonce was expected to show up for militia service "bearing arms supplied by" himself.

FALSEHOOD ALERT. ^^^ Cheap propaganda.

The info from Miller is cherry-picking, if used conclusively. Even according to a source you used not long ago: your NY amicus brief mentioned the local armory... from which the local militia was armed. Some militia captains wanted the guns on call, and available, at a strategic, central, point of muster.

All men were not required to keep a militia gun at home, and many men lacked the skills and desire to maintain one.

Boston was one such city (the type which housed an armory)... and there were only three major urban centers at that time.

 

5 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

It's possible to learn most of this stuff just be reading the relatively short Miller opinion.

Can the cherry picking, Dogballs.

Keep your mind open to sources which are not Miller. But while we have the Miller link here, from the ghost database, let's document the part where Miller grants beaucoup gun rights to The People. <_<

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah but is he wrong?

One of my neighbors is the kind of bonehead who is all enflamed about his RIGHTZ!!! and has had a pistol stolen from his car twice. Is the third time the charm or something?

- DSK

funny how it isn't the gubament that is taking away their gunz..........

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah but is he wrong?

One of my neighbors is the kind of bonehead who is all enflamed about his RIGHTZ!!! and has had a pistol stolen from his car twice. Is the third time the charm or something?

- DSK

Dunno how you guys would define this guy or the Texans as good guys when they're so casual about their gun storage. But it's pie in the sky hoping things will improve by further restrictions on legal ownership.

Realistic suggestions for dealing with illegal ownership?

This is what we need: Realism. Internet puffery is just that. We're not in Kansas anymore.

I can think of several issues more urgent than new gun legislation instead of door to door ghetto search teams, and FBI special agents assigned to gun shops.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled gun thread featuring Tom and Joe aka pragmatism vs. low calorie pie in the sky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

But it's pie in the sky hoping things will improve by further restrictions on legal ownership.

You mean like they way the merchants of death in the NRA have fought smart guns ?? 

https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/national-rifle-associations-campaign-stop-smart-guns

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

But it's pie in the sky hoping things will improve by further restrictions on legal ownership.

You are a pleasure to encounter, since you are so wrong a lot. These laws work, according to a body of peer-reviewed studies. This general truth was mentioned on this page...and you dismissed the facts, as "canned."

And many mature individuals have found the skills and resolve and choices to simply reject guns in their lives. My thoughts run along the lines of healthy people accepting the known results. Crude gun mayhem will result in choosing "stand your ground" over "duty to retreat," and the civilized world shows us the way. The USA is a (stubborn) deviant, based on the numbers. This is some blind stupidity, mate.

Yo, identifying and rejecting the BC-type urban myths, which you proliferate, is a key part of this. We are discussing the known facts here (which are very consistent within scientific study).

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You mean like they way the merchants of death in the NRA have fought smart guns ?? 

https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/national-rifle-associations-campaign-stop-smart-guns

I'm with you on the NRA, AJ.

Gave up on them decades ago. I'd vote against this proposed legislation if I could but I'm ok with it. Fair is fair. It could save some lives I suppose.

I'd prefer to see some progress on all the illegal guns out there. The ones that Joe would rather not talk about ... calling them urban myths. Dunno how he can type that with a straight face. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah but is he wrong?

One of my neighbors is the kind of bonehead who is all enflamed about his RIGHTZ!!! and has had a pistol stolen from his car twice. Is the third time the charm or something?

- DSK

Maybe if you're so lax about storing your weapons you lose your privilege to own them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ncik said:

So tightening up the process of destroying bad folks guns will have zero affect on access for those purposes? So a junky won't take the easy cash of selling his gun to a buy back scheme?

Have you been outside in the last 10 years?

I think cops routinely destroy confiscated weapons [mostly] but the junkie will find much more cash and much less hassle on the everyday urban corner than any buy-back scheme I've seen proposed. Reality sucks Cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Maybe if you're so lax about storing your weapons you lose your privilege to own them.

I know of zero gun owners (and I know plenty-many) who would disagree with that Ish.

Course, trouble is, it won't stop them finding a replacement in a friend to friend transfer or other under the table deal. 

Reality is "guns are a fact of life" says 400 MILLION GUNS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

You are a pleasure to encounter, since you are so wrong a lot.

I don't think you're being sincere Joe. There are surely others but I've been called wrong by you and AJ lately. 

Two dreamers ... off to see the world♪

Two dreamers, missionaries really, with lofty but improbable goals that go against human nature. I can live with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

You mean like they way the merchants of death in the NRA have fought smart guns ?? 

https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/national-rifle-associations-campaign-stop-smart-guns

A 2014 story that is long since over.

Quote

In a separate development, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg has promised to repeal New Jersey's smart gun law -- which makes adoption of the technology mandatory once smart guns come to market -- if the NRA promises to not interfere with the retail sale of smart guns nor target manufacturers who develop smart gun technologies.

A couple of years later, the law was repealed and stores are now allowed to sell other guns, even after smart guns are on the market. I haven't seen any opposition to smart guns since, possibly because the opposition all along was to the prohibition on all other guns, not to the smart guns.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking: 

MADISON, NC—Noting that the new formula provides immediate relief to those prone to dry skin, itchiness, or rashes, weapons manufacturer Remington announced a new line of ammunition Friday made for sensitive skin. “Our new ammunition ensures that gunshot victims stay clean, clear, and under control for hours after they’re rushed into the ICU or packed into a body bag,” said company president Anthony Acitelli, adding that the specially formulated high-performance ammo hydrated skin as it penetrated the body while soothing away flakiness that could cause irritation or other pesky issues next to the bullet wound. “When you’re dragging your bullet-ridden body across a mall floor, the last thing you want to worry about is whether you’re about to have another unsightly breakout. That’s why this hypoallergenic ammunition is designed to be free of fragrances and other irritants. Our company sincerely wants you to look your best, dead or alive.” The company also announced plans to release an acne-clearing bullet specifically designed for teens before next school year.

https://www.theonion.com/remington-introduces-ammunition-for-sensitive-skin-1847857477

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Wow, you're too stupid to own guns.  How fucking stupid are you.  She has an MD unlike your wife, ex-stripper or straight up prostitute?

Who said anything an her being an "ex" stripper?  :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

No. "Well-regulated" meant well-led, and well-managed, under the authority of the Governor. Participants were to be balanced, within society. The citizen soldier became a soldier citizen, but only at times. See how that works? 

NO "UN-COOPERATIVES," PLEASE. They had a  LOT of rules for the militia participants. One's standing in the community was determined by his co-operation, or by the lack of it.

Yeah, over seven years not long before the revolution, 10,000 militia member/colonists effectively participated in the French and Indian war...for the King. A large national debt was neutralized by this service. The colonists did not front any jackass militia, Tommy Boy. Their militias had already been through some shit, before the Adams brothers et al.

FALSEHOOD ALERT. ^^^ Cheap propaganda.

The info from Miller is cherry-picking, if used conclusively. Even according to a source you used not long ago: your NY amicus brief mentioned the local armory... from which the local militia was armed. Some militia captains wanted the guns on call, and available, at a strategic, central, point of muster.

All men were not required to keep a militia gun at home, and many men lacked the skills and desire to maintain one.

Boston was one such city (the type which housed an armory)... and there were only three major urban centers at that time.

 

Can the cherry picking, Dogballs.

Keep your mind open to sources which are not Miller. But while we have the Miller link here, from the ghost database, let's document the part where Miller grants beaucoup gun rights to The People. <_<

 

Paging the Dogballs @Excoded Tom.

  • Why are you ignoring the many armories of the Colonists?
  • Why are you ignoring the depth of colonial militia regulation?
  • And why did you booger up the case law in the Miller decision, repeatedly, by introducing bullshit about The People?
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Why are you ignoring the many armories of the Colonists?

You mean Boston? That's not the only place in that state where The People lived.

It is a place where, as I said, "well-regulated" meant, among other things, "required to show up with your own battlefield weapon." Readers of the Miller decision, unlike you, know this.

 

Quote

 

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

14

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, * * *.' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

You mean Boston? That's not the only place in that state where The People lived.

It is a place where, as I said, "well-regulated" meant, among other things, "required to show up with your own battlefield weapon." Readers of the Miller decision, unlike you, know this.

 

 

How about New York, Dogballs?

New York's Historic Armories An Illustrated History

Chronicles the evolution of the armory as a specific building type in American architectural and military history, and the role these buildings played in the history of America’s volunteer militia

Built to house local units of the state’s volunteer militia, armories served as arms storage facilities, clubhouses for the militiamen, and civic monuments symbolizing New York’s determination to preserve domestic law and order through military might. Approximately 120 armories were built in New York State from the late eighteenth century to the middle of the twentieth, and most date from the last quarter of the nineteenth century, when the National Guard was America’s primary domestic peacekeeper during the post–Civil War era of labor-capital unrest. Together, New York’s armories chronicle the history of the volunteer militia, from its emergence during the early Republican Era, through its heyday during the Gilded Age as the backbone of the American military system, to its early twentieth-century role as the nation’s primary armed reserve force.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

How about New York, Dogballs?

Same. They also required The People to own suitable military weapons. You want the existence of armories to mean that private gun ownership was banned and that militias would gather indoors to practice with government guns. Much like your tag, "moderate, informed, gunowner" none of that is true.

Quote

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. * * * That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; * * *.'

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Excoded Tom said:

You want the existence of armories to mean that private gun ownership was banned and that militias would gather indoors to practice with government guns.

No. Research by Tom Ray has strayed from the level of the National Merit Scholarship Award, to silliness and self-imposed ignorance.

What was a central armory doing in Boston, if every gun was privately obtained?

Beyond your silliness, I want to confirm that each state mandated which guns were to be specified, and how they were (theoretically) to be obtained, and how they were to be managed. It was a confusing situation, several solutions were in play, and the needs and resources displayed a variety of conditions. 

One size did not fit all, Dogballs... and the scramble was prefetory, you might say. It was certainly not about personal protection, in spite of the shit Scalia maintained.

 

Publius and his compadres did not march to the Miller decision.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2021 at 12:50 PM, Blue Crab said:

Snipe Hunt.

You are the Snipe, and you are dead meat. Fucking let the damn main out.

snipe-de-madeira-85530060132254686857544951544565x.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

we all learn at a early age guns and killings from the movies/Tv's are good, maybe that's why we're number 1 in gun killings

They should take the lead and end gun violence ,

I think of the "Wick " movies  more bullets fired then words said

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dakotasailor said:

BAN Assault weapons NOW!!!!  Do something!  If it saves just one child director.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mike G said:

Seriously, how the fuck does a gun get real bullets on a set?

 

Yeah, if only those damn liberal, hypocritical actor$ in Hollywood would stop making movie$ glorifying gun$ and violence, we might get somewhere.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mike G said:

Seriously, how the fuck does a gun get real bullets on a set

Likely wasn't a bullet.  

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/entertainment/prop-gun-meaning-deaths/index.html

In a regular gun, a charge fires the projectile which is a bullet. "Blanks" refer to a blank cartridge which usually consists of a shell or casing, gunpowder, but no bullet. Instead there is a tip that has has been "crimped" by wadding or wax, according to the "Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics." 
 
"It doesn't mean the blank rounds are safe because if you were to get in the way of that or get too close to it, lots of dirt and debris can get thrown out the end of the gun, and that can cause harm," Simmons said. "It's extremely rare for it to happen and it's even rarer for it to cause death."
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Likely wasn't a bullet.  

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/entertainment/prop-gun-meaning-deaths/index.html

In a regular gun, a charge fires the projectile which is a bullet. "Blanks" refer to a blank cartridge which usually consists of a shell or casing, gunpowder, but no bullet. Instead there is a tip that has has been "crimped" by wadding or wax, according to the "Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics." 
 
"It doesn't mean the blank rounds are safe because if you were to get in the way of that or get too close to it, lots of dirt and debris can get thrown out the end of the gun, and that can cause harm," Simmons said. "It's extremely rare for it to happen and it's even rarer for it to cause death."

Like you'd have to put the muzzle against someone's head to cause an injury with a blank.  And there is usually a muzzle device that blocks the flow of the gas in order for the weapon to even function.  You can't just put a blank round in a normal gun and have it cycle.  There has to be back pressure as the bullet travels down the barrel for the gas function of a rifle like an AR-15/M-16 type weapon or enough recoil from the bullet mass for a semi-auto pistol like a Glock to cycle.  I'm just not seeing how a blank caused injury enough to kill someone and injure another.  I'm not buying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Like you'd have to put the muzzle against someone's head to cause an injury with a blank.  And there is usually a muzzle device that blocks the flow of the gas in order for the weapon to even function.  You can't just put a blank round in a normal gun and have it cycle.  There has to be back pressure as the bullet travels down the barrel for the gas function of a rifle like an AR-15/M-16 type weapon or enough recoil from the bullet mass for a semi-auto pistol like a Glock to cycle.  I'm just not seeing how a blank caused injury enough to kill someone and injure another.  I'm not buying it.

They were filming a Western, pretty sure it wasn't a Glock that Baldwin shot.  Probably no AR15s or M-16s to be seen as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Speculation & wild ass guesses makes people look stupid

Live round in revolver

Alec Baldwin Fires Gun Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director on Set | IndieWire

 

this is not an accident any more

Ok, but you're now citing comments made by a union with NO members on the set.  I'll wait for the police report and they (in your article) are quoted as saying that they don't know what kind of projectile was fired.  The union with nobody there knows more than the cops?  Wow.  

It was a revolver, how hard is it to dump the loads, verify, and reload before handing it to the actor?  Maybe 30s?

Tragic and if it was a bullet, absolutely criminal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Ok, but you're now citing comments made by a union with NO members on the set.  I'll wait for the police report and they (in your article) are quoted as saying that they don't know what kind of projectile was fired.  The union with nobody there knows more than the cops?  Wow.  

It was a revolver, how hard is it to dump the loads, verify, and reload before handing it to the actor?  Maybe 30s?

Tragic and if it was a bullet, absolutely criminal.  

Agree.  The question is:  Whoodunnit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Agree.  The question is:  Whoodunnit?

Brandon Lee was killed by prop gun that had been improperly disarmed.  There was still a bullet lodged in the barrel when the blank was fired.  Total human error in that case.  A revolver is so damn simple to clear and verify.  Cops will figure it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Agree.  The question is:  Whoodunnit?

They are talking about it on CNN, they have a movie firearm expert saying he thinks there was a bullet in the chamber and a blank was placed behind it. If there is liability it would be the firearm coordinator, or the Armorer who was supposed to check before handing it to the actor. I am a little surprised Baldwin wasn't instructed to not point that thing at anything he didn't intend to kill. Why he fired at the cinematographer and the director is curious. Expect lawsuits all around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

They are talking about it on CNN, they have a movie firearm expert saying he thinks there was a bullet in the chamber and a blank was placed behind it. If there is liability it would be the firearm coordinator, or the Armorer who was supposed to check before handing it to the actor. I am a little surprised Baldwin wasn't instructed to not point that thing at anything he didn't intend to kill. Why he fired at the cinematographer and the director is curious. Expect lawsuits all around.

How can you load a blank behind a bullet in a revolver? Asking because I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

They are talking about it on CNN, they have a movie firearm expert saying he thinks there was a bullet in the chamber and a blank was placed behind it. If there is liability it would be the firearm coordinator, or the Armorer who was supposed to check before handing it to the actor. I am a little surprised Baldwin wasn't instructed to not point that thing at anything he didn't intend to kill. Why he fired at the cinematographer and the director is curious. Expect lawsuits all around.

It's been years since I fired a revolver, but my memory is that a proper bullet fills the chamber pretty completely.  I could see some kind of projectile lodged in the barrel that could be propelled by the blank firing, that's what happened to Brandon Lee.

Cinematographers and Directors like to see what the camera is seeing and it was probably a scene where Baldwin was firing at the camera.  All speculation on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If there is liability it would be the firearm coordinator, or the Armorer who was supposed to check before handing it to the actor.

agree, to a point. 

Ultimately, it was Baldwin who pulled that trigger.

17 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

A revolver is so damn simple to clear and verify

He should certainly have done that before starting the scene

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

 

agree, to a point. 

Ultimately, it was Baldwin who pulled that trigger.

He should certainly have done that before starting the scene

It's possible Baldwin doesn't know anything about guns. Regardless, he should have some instruction and I am pretty sure Baldwin has handled guns before, so it's hard to excuse him

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

It's been years since I fired a revolver, but my memory is that a proper bullet fills the chamber pretty completely.  I could see some kind of projectile lodged in the barrel that could be propelled by the blank firing, that's what happened to Brandon Lee.

Cinematographers and Directors like to see what the camera is seeing and it was probably a scene where Baldwin was firing at the camera.  All speculation on my part.

Damn good speculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites