Guns Must Microstamp in CA

[Blue Crab]

Good one!

 

[frenchie]

The founding fathers would reject the SAF based on the firepower they support, IMO.

Reality check: what was the most powerful weapon of the time?

Comparison of Navy vs. Privateers in Revolutionary War

Continental Navy Privateers Total ships 64 1,697 Total guns on ships 1,242 14,872 Enemy ships captured 196 2,283 Ships captured by enemy ? 1,323

limited gun confiscation needed in their day.

Oh, come on. Privately owned artillery? Nobody but fringe freaks would advocate that, nowadays. But it was ommonplace in the founding fathers' day.

You really need to learn how to work the linking tool, bro. Neither one is linking to anything even vaguely relevant.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Silent bob? You wanna field that one? You seem to have the best current private artillery pics.

They're like machine guns, Frenchie. The rich can and do own them.

 

[El Mariachi]

Yeah, 'cuz a three hundred pound machine gun that can shoot six rounds in a second is so much more dangerous than a 357 revolver that can shoot six rounds in a second.

Brilliant fuking thinking there, Fed Guys....

 

[jocal505]

The founding fathers would reject the SAF based on the firepower they support, IMO.

Reality check: what was the most powerful weapon of the time?

Comparison of Navy vs. Privateers in Revolutionary War

Continental Navy Privateers Total ships 64 1,697 Total guns on ships 1,242 14,872 Enemy ships captured 196 2,283 Ships captured by enemy ? 1,323

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

Note that by "guns", in this table, we're talking about naval guns, ie cannon.

The revolution was partly won via privately owned artillery.

You really ought to leave the founding fathers out of any gun rights argument. It was a different time, only the most fringe-gun-nut nowadays is half as absolutist as those guys were.

First off, naval guns are used at sea, at war, not on the streets of everyday society, without the threat of foreign occupancy.

The founding fathers are being dragged into this by pro-gunners. Their intentions are pertinent.

The writers of the Bill of Rights were "absolutists" on guns? Cite that, in do it in context please.

The FF's are being routinely misquoted, and their positions are being mis-represented, by "pro-rights" types. These wise leaders supported the modest gun control, and the limited gun confiscation appropriate in their day.

Frenchie, this naval artillery was not used in the cities during peacetime. There was little to control wrt these weapons in daily life...yet, in time, they were outlawed from personal ownership. I don't see the comparison between them and today's very capable AW's being allowed in widespread use and possession.

Common sense tells me the founding fathers and their wives would have deplored AW's based on daily carnage. The naval weapons you have brought up did no daily carnage in 1780's society.

From Frenchie: You really need to learn how to work the linking tool, bro. Neither one is linking to anything even vaguely relevant. Fixed. Yes, link mistakes are my bad. My sincere apologies to all readers.

 

[Dabnis]

I find a lot of rabid gunners new to the hobby. Mid life conversions. My preacher brother in law too. You remind me a lot of him. A lifetime of serving the poor and seeing the best in humanity, washed away as the addiction to the smell of gunpowder takes over. He now views strangers as the enemy who only want to kill him.

Those of us who have grown up around guns and hunting, not so much. We tend to see them as tools like hammers. We don't obsess over them and use them when necessary. Which is why my three guns rarely see the light of day. Last time was a few years ago when I was invited to shoot some skeet. It was fun and I'll do it again if the opportunity returns.

My daddy took me hunting as a youth, it just wasn't my bag. Too messy and I really don't like the flavor of wild game. He really didn't like it either but felt a duty to expose me to it. I felt no value in exposing my son to it. There are so many other ways to enjoy the great outdoors with your family.

Good grief. Your brother in law, if he is a real person, sounds like a mess. I will let you know if my life starts spiraling down the shitter like his, but in the meantime I am enjoying life with my beautiful wife, working on building one business and starting another, hiking and fishing in the summer and hunting in the winter. But don't fret, if I start self destructing because of a gun addiction, I will make sure to let you know.

PS. in my limited experience, it is the field care of game meat which is the problem, not the meat itself. I have yet to find someone who does not love my venison burgers, venison carpaccio, or black bear chilli. I made a bear sausage stuffed turkey for Christmas that went faster than any turkey and stuffing I have ever made, and it was all non-hunters besides me.

"Field care"? Absolutely. I hunted deer, ducks, geese, pheasants, & doves for about 50 years. Gut them as soon as you can & keep them cool.

With the exception of doves, it was generally pretty cold. The best deer we had was from Northern Nevada, big fat Mule deer. Although the

meat varied somewhat from area to area, it was pretty good stuff. Best part was the liver, tender, sweet with a hint of sage, which made up

a big part of their feed, when the Aspen leaves dried up.

A few memories: http://s641.photobucket.com/user/ptnt11085/library/Hunting?sort=3&page=1

Ducks wood vary, "pond" ducks, Mallards, Sprig, Wigeon, Teal, etc were always good. "Divers", from the northern San Francisco Bay,

"Scaup", aka "Blue Bills", or "Blueies", would occasionally be a bit fishey, but never had a fishy Canvasback.. Doves, although small, always good.

I think the "gamey" flavor some people mention may be caused more by it being a bit "over ripe" than the natural flavor of the meat. I can remember

the smell of blood when gutting deer, not bad, just "distinctive". The smell, real or imagined, would come back to me when first starting

to cook it.

Never hunted Turkeys, we have lots of them in the Sierra foothills & the Coast Range, although I think much of the hunting is

done on private lands.

Hope you enjoy your hunting experiences. Good to see people can still do that.

Dabs

 

[frenchie]

The founding fathers are being dragged into this by pro-gunners.

Not in this case; in this case YOU brought them up - and I told you "it was a different time".

Their intentions are pertinent.

The writers of the Bill of Rights were "absolutists" on guns? Cite that, in do it in context please.

"Shall not be infringed" is some pretty strong wording. Luckily nobody takes it literally at face value any more. But like I said, "it was a different time" - we have a large, well-armed, "standing army" nowadays - we don't rely on civilian militias, armed with privately owned armaments, for national defence.

The FF's are being routinely misquoted, and their positions are being mis-represented, by "pro-rights" types.

Yeah, and you'll often find me correcting them on the sort of misinterpretations your article talks about. Pointing out that the 2nd is not about defending against the government, but rather defending the government from mob rule. Just have to look at the actual use of Militias, in Shay's Rebellion, or the Whiskey Rebellion, to see that.

But did you notice, in the same article, the following passage?

"For years I've seen bogus quotes on gun issues in the Internet," he said. "Since the Founding Fathers were so positive on Second Amendment rights, I couldn't understand why anyone would feel compelled to invent quotes."

Halbrook said Jefferson was a big supporter of the right to own firearms.

"Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and served two terms as president," he said. "He personally possessed numerous firearms for hunting, target shooting, collecting, self-defense and defense against tyranny. He deemed being armed the mark of a true citizen. The American Revolution was won by an armed populace against the British standing army."

I sometimes think you have this selective blindness to things that don't support your opinion.

 

[frenchie]

These wise leaders supported the modest gun control, and the limited gun confiscation appropriate in their day.

Yeah, sure - from disloyal enemy - in order to arm loyal citizens. See my comment above, RE militias.

Frenchie, this naval artillery was not used in the cities during peacetime. There was little to control wrt these weapons in daily life...yet, in time, they were outlawed from personal ownership. I don't see the comparison between them and today's very capable AW's being allowed in widespread use and possession.

Common sense tells me the founding fathers and their wives would have deplored AW's based on daily carnage. The naval weapons you have brought up did no daily carnage in 1780's society.

IN TIME they were outlawed from personal ownership (or, more acurately, as Tom points out, limited to ownership by weathy hobbyists); but in the founding fathers' day, it was just the normal way of things to have more artillery in private hands than in government hands. Ponder that for a second before you go dragging the FF's into our modern debates, next time.

Like I said: IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME.

And naval guns may not have been used in cities, in peacetime... but have you seriously never heard of Blackbeard? Lafitte? Morgan?

 

[GRUMPY]

The origins of the field gun competition lie in the Second Boer War in South Africa. The legendary story tells of the siege of the British garrison in Ladysmith in 1899. In support of the British Army, the Royal Navy landed guns from HMS Terrible and Powerful to help in the relief of the siege. The Naval Brigade transported guns over difficult terrain and brought them into action against the Boers.

The Royal Navy landed two 4.7-inch (120 mm) guns and four 12-pounder naval guns creating improvised field guns using makeshift gun carriages. The guns were transported inland by rail and then drawn on makeshift carriages by oxen. For the final part of the journey, sailors from the Naval Brigade manhandled the guns over very difficult terrain. One story tells of sailors carrying one of the 12-pounder guns for 2 miles (3.2 km) after one of the wheels collapsed.

 

[Guest]

But did you notice, in the same article, the following passage?

"For years I've seen bogus quotes on gun issues in the Internet," he said. "Since the Founding Fathers were so positive on Second Amendment rights, I couldn't understand why anyone would feel compelled to invent quotes."

Halbrook said Jefferson was a big supporter of the right to own firearms.

"Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and served two terms as president," he said. "He personally possessed numerous firearms for hunting, target shooting, collecting, self-defense and defense against tyranny. He deemed being armed the mark of a true citizen. The American Revolution was won by an armed populace against the British standing army."

I sometimes think you have this selective blindness to things that don't support your opinion.

Its taken you THIS long to figure that out???

 

[jocal505]

The issue isn't gun rights, or "our precious" - the issue is an approach that wants to restrict the responsible, legal behaviors of the majority because a very small minority behaves badly - instead of addressing the factors that contribute to the minority behavior.

That position is defeatist, in that it assumes an inability to inhibit the undesirable behavior, and focuses primarily upon mitigating the potential impacts of that behavior by reducing access to the implements thru which that behavior is typically manifested.

I don't care what instance of behavior you're talking about - this approach is simply bound to fail.

Bound to fail? Stop signs are targeted at lousy drivers. Even good drivers need to heed them, all things considered.

Stop sign laws work just fine.

That dynamic is typical of most laws. Gun laws are no exception.

Why Are They Punishing Me?

 

[Happy Jack]

The issue isn't gun rights, or "our precious" - the issue is an approach that wants to restrict the responsible, legal behaviors of the majority because a very small minority behaves badly - instead of addressing the factors that contribute to the minority behavior.

That position is defeatist, in that it assumes an inability to inhibit the undesirable behavior, and focuses primarily upon mitigating the potential impacts of that behavior by reducing access to the implements thru which that behavior is typically manifested.

I don't care what instance of behavior you're talking about - this approach is simply bound to fail.

Bound to fail? Stop signs are targeted at lousy drivers. Even good drivers need to heed them, all things considered.

Stop sign laws work just fine.

That dynamic is typical of most laws. Gun laws are no exception.

Why Are They Punishing Me?

Until you get T-boned by a drunk or a texter

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Lawsuit to block microstamping law will proceed

But if you actually want a polite discussion of that issue by people who are affected by it and informed about it, you've come to the wrong place. Try here. That's what I'm about to do.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

These wise leaders supported the modest gun control, and the limited gun confiscation appropriate in their day.

Yeah, sure - from disloyal enemy - in order to arm loyal citizens. See my comment above, RE militias.

Frenchie, this naval artillery was not used in the cities during peacetime. There was little to control wrt these weapons in daily life...yet, in time, they were outlawed from personal ownership. I don't see the comparison between them and today's very capable AW's being allowed in widespread use and possession.

Common sense tells me the founding fathers and their wives would have deplored AW's based on daily carnage. The naval weapons you have brought up did no daily carnage in 1780's society.

IN TIME they were outlawed from personal ownership (or, more acurately, as Tom points out, limited to ownership by weathy hobbyists); but in the founding fathers' day, it was just the normal way of things to have more artillery in private hands than in government hands. Ponder that for a second before you go dragging the FF's into our modern debates, next time.

Like I said: IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME.

And naval guns may not have been used in cities, in peacetime... but have you seriously never heard of Blackbeard? Lafitte? Morgan?

By "today's very capable AW's" he means ordinary .22's with fixed magazines. You don't have to be all that wealthy to own them. I have one and I live in a trailer in a swamp.