BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 12:35 PM

I once suggested tongue-in-cheek to a self-described mercenary that we settle wars by issuing bags of marshmallows and you were 'out' after so many white spots on your uniform. He replied: "Yeah.... that might work for awhile. Then some bastard like me would come along and put a rock in each one... and off we'd go again!"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 12:11 PM

The snag is Bill, throwing rocks evolves into designing guns.

Basically, you're all fucked.

The trick is to evolve to the stage where throwing rocks or playing with bang bangs isn't your initial solution to the neighbour's reaction.

Not hard. Even the Germans got there eventually...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 11:53 AM

You guys are making progress on me. Yesterday I was carrying a colt. 380 instead of a glock. It is much smaller caliber so little steps at a time and some day I may be down to a ball bat

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 11:07 AM

Musket...the rocks I've been banging are disturbing my neighbor, and he's threatening to shoot me. May I throw them at him? I do want to follow the right procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 04:36 AM

You're getting the point, Olddude: the NRA is by far a bigger threat in quantifiable terms to the US than al-Qaida and IS combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 11:21 AM

Any time Bill. Any time.

😸

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 09:58 AM

Gee, Musket... that's really helpful. Thank you so much for your deep insight.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 09:31 PM

Me too, but you gotta see the watch Mahlon made for me. It is awesome Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 06:53 PM

We go round and round my friend no one will budge an endless circle jerk

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 06:51 PM

Musket Lol yes an endless circle jerk

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:59 PM

Keep banging the rocks together guys..

🔫💵

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:50 PM

What is beyond sad is that because of the open carry laws and refusal by the authorities to provide security, 'they' were able to stop her from speaking with only a threat.

Thomas Jefferson and, I'd bet, all of the Founders, would have been appalled at this use of the 2nd Amendment. That idea of revisiting all the relevant laws every 19 years is sounding better & better.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 07:22 PM

Jefferson lived in a frontier nation where guns were quite necessary to existence

You didn't have any more need for a gun in New York or Philadelphia in 1790 than you do now.

Of course Jefferson's generation only had to deal with bears, wolves, escaping slaves, Canadians and pro-British traitors. Obviously if he'd known about the risk posed to America by feminist media theorists he'd have written pipe bombs into the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:35 PM

Frontier days less than 7 people a year shot today more than that a week in one city

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 03:47 PM

You can't educate pork.
Or dinosaurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 03:05 PM

It will probably never sink in to you guys that Jefferson lived in a frontier nation where guns were quite necessary to existence. As exemplified in the passage I quoted below he was not so obtuse as to believe that an anachronistic law would be still be relevant 225 years later.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:59 PM

Uh Hunh, PeeDee. Now can we talk about the 21st Century & situations that never would have occurred to the ol' red-headed bastard?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:56 PM

Reminds me any got a rear sight for an s+with. 44mag. Took the scope off and lost the sights dang

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:54 PM

Thomas Jefferson's quotes on gun ownership:


Jefferson QUOTE-1

"In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary."



Jefferson QUOTE-2

"This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution."

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Civil Rights



Jefferson QUOTE-3

A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Civil Rights



Jefferson QUOTE-4

"I advise the gun"

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407



Jefferson QUOTE-5

"I advise the gun. . . . it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407



Jefferson QUOTE-6

" . . . all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right . . . to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45



Jefferson QUOTE-7

" . . . all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their . . . duty to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45



Jefferson QUOTE-8

"One loves [includes himself] to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341



Jefferson QUOTE-9

"Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407



Jefferson QUOTE-10

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45



Jefferson QUOTE-11

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:43 PM

Read Jefferson quote on guns you can Google it then say that again about what he would do

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,SOL
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:57 PM

Am I correct in saying the margin of votes in a presidential election is held by the gun lobby and also the religious belt?
If so, it seems evidently clear why these two factions are woo-ed (and never challenged) by the candidates of all parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:39 AM

For the record Thomas Jefferson did not author the 2nd amendment. He advocated for a bill of rights but was not present at the Constitutional Convention as he was out of the country as the U.S. Minister to France. James Madison and possibly George Mason are thought to be the main writers of the 2nd.

Jefferson did argue that constitutions and laws should expire after 19 years and that each succeeding generation should write their own according to their own circumstances:

" Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

If Jefferson were around today he certainly would have seen our "enslavement to previous generations" in the 2nd amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 04:53 AM

Unbelievable?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:09 AM

Senior moment. Trying to think what the U stands for in USA

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 09:46 PM

I don't live in Utah, and I don't read far left or far right propaganda shit.


God, Guns, and Geetars

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Oct 14 - 07:03 PM

I guess oldude thinks gun nuts silencing feminists and driving them out of their homes with legalized death threats is just the defence of American freedoms:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/15/3579863/utahs-concealed-carry-laws-force-feminist-speaker-to-cancel-event-after-death-threats/

Utah really is a sick shithole.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:16 PM

Supercilious IS saying "we did it, why can't you?" when the situations cannot be fairly compared. I and others have explained why they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

Just ask thomas Jefferson what he meant you will have your answer

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:27 PM

It bemuses me when the current crop of take credit for what came before. It is common- and probably invariably so- to take credit for what we did when we weren't even there.

Bitter? Me? Nah.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:48 PM

We're not being supercilious, we're thinking about the next dozen kids shot by a nutter authorised by Wal. (That's what you get when you turn Law backwards. Whether you pile it high and sell it cheap is entirely up to you).

The reason we're not being supercilious is because we did something about it, we didn't blether like a bunch of silly sheep. The Ukraine's doing something about their bunch of failures, too. This is what I mean when I say they have you cowed: you say you need arms to defend yourselves against the State, but what happens when you have something to defend? Thankfully you won't use them, which means you don't need arms to defend yourselves after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:32 PM

"...this is how to deal with intractible politicians such as the current crop of Republicans."

Gosh... what a good idea! I'll be heading right down to Georgia, Alabama, Texas and get started... then on to Kansas, Oklahoma and..... oh, wait, you didn't mention what to do when they climb back out, or where to get 500 tons of feathers and how to deal with their gun toting supporters.... ah well.... I suppose my looking here for that 'pragmatic solution' to our legal/political situation was silly to begin with. I'll just go back to voting, writing letters and supporting the many efforts already underway.... (I'd pray....but...)

The United Nations? In 1945, it seemed like a good idea. Ask Canada if they'd like it... or maybe London.

I don't think "the norms for the world" are easily set, no matter where the building is located.

___________________________________

In a semi-serious mode, it does amaze me how easy it is to be supercilious from a distance.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:02 PM

It would also have no right to host the United Nations, which is supposed to set the norms for the world. The generation of responsible and mature politicians documented by Alistair Cook in the 1950s has, it seems, been supplanted by scoundrels. At any rate, the evidence of social progression expected in any nation the size of the US has evidently been stalled by a set of do-nothings who history will almost certainly blame for the rise of IS. If you do not lead, then you will be led to places you may not like to go to.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

If Q is right, then the US has no right to call itself a civilised society.

In the mean time, this is how to deal with intractible politicians such as the current crop of Republicans. Whether you fill the dumpsters with tar and feathers is entirely up to you.

It's the only cure for a society where the politicians forget who serves who.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 01:43 PM

"If the democratic will of the people...."

There seems to be an assumption that the will of the people is to "take gun ownership for self defense out of existence." This is untrue.

If the polls I posted on 01 Oct 14 are an indication of the will of the people, there is no real support for such a move. The polls indicate the will is to keep the basic laws pretty much as they are.

Room for tinkering, but that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:11 AM

Heh heh.. Tony Benn posed those at me when I chaired a health authority (PCT) where he was an MP... Possibly the best questions in politics and they cut it regardless of political flavour.

The fixed mandate isn't worth the Hansard it is printed on. Clegg could have pulled the plug if he wished and forced a confidence vote that just needs an amendment to suspend the fixed term arrangement in the interim, should it be clear that a minority government could not see a legislative agenda through.

Sorry, getting off track.

If the democratic will of the majority of people is to take gun ownership for self defence out of existence, and you say it can't be done, it isn't us who don't understand your system, it's your system that doesn't understand you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 09:38 AM

It may need someone with pull getting mixed up in a massacre. That, of course, was why you are changing the Head of the Secret Service: it's the last thing they want, it happening to them - they don't give a shit about anyone else, which is about the first level of compromise in politics. But until it does, just keep reminding them who exactly is responsible the next time a massacre happens: the shooter for doing it and the politicians for allowing him to have the means to do so. The shooter's likely to end up shot, fried or jabbed, but you let the politicos walk away. They take the money, they must deliver the goods, and if they don't, skewer them.

This last week, we saw our UK politicians try to weasel their way out of responsibility for their expenses claims - again. It's being nailed by the population immediately. You have to start doing it in the US too, if you can't trust them in small things, you can't trust them in big ones, like your liberty and welfare. The Republicans are obviously utterly out of control, so the starting point must be to get sufficient voters together to hold a sword of Damocles over the heads of the Democrats. If you want our votes, you commit to a control mechanism. It didn't work four years back in the UK, quite, but we did get the principle of referenda happening. The next thing will be to usse it to force them to actually be accountable to their constituency, by "recall"/"denunciation"/"firing" - it's being jargonised, but the principle is that if you don't do what you said, we won't have to wait five years to get rid of you.

It comes down to Tony Benn's test for a democracy:

"In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person - Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates - ask them five questions:
    What power have you got?
    Where did you get it from?
    In whose interests do you exercise it?
    To whom are you accountable?
    And how can we get rid of you?
If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."

That, my friends, is how you sort out your political system. In the UK, they fought back by giving themselves a fixed mandate of five years, no way to go earlier - usually if they screw up badly. They may claim that they have the Law on their side if they do so, but they will discover that they who make the Law cannot shelter behind it. We saw that 350 years ago, when the Long Parliament had to be overthrown because they tried to - they lasted just three years beyond the term the current batch have.

Never forget why we have a political system - they do the bits we don't want to haave to muss with. Belgium lasted without a government for a year in 2010 and bid fair to take even longer this year - they had an election in May and have barely got to grips with the question so far. The King appointed nine lead negociators then, doing different jobs in fact-finding and reconciliation, and has only appointed three so far. If a country can survive without politicians interfering for one year in four, and again, then one must ask whether they have the importance they claim?

And if they do not, why the fuck are you so worried about what they and their Supreme Court cronies think? You've been cowed, just tell them they're wrong, they too crap most mornings. The reason for this is that because of the Great Lie, 30 000 Americans die every year. They are a bigger danger to you than all your enemies put together, and yet you allow it. What's the National Security Advisor doing? Focus on her, keep pushing her, get the bugger to do her job. "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?" That is how she thinks, so use it, you have an election coming up.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:11 AM

There you go. Another good reason guns for self defence aren't needed in a society that looks after its people.

Granted that UK survivor is possibly a pisstake so best ignored, let's work on the idea he exists, (apart from the 'paras, SAS, Jedi knight etc).

A country where such disturbed individuals could legally obtain guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:21 PM

Been there myself more than once

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:07 PM

My son took Kung-Fu lessons for awhile. The instructor (a 6th or 7th degree black belt) told them of being accosted by 2 guys on a dark street near the school. They grabbed him and demanded his money. He (about 60 years old) left them sprawled on the pavement, wondering what happened. He did NOT report it or bother to hang around... perhaps to avoid the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:11 PM

"And what do you do with a Martial Arts Master. If he or she is attacked and severly damages someone of kills them defending themselves, are they wrong."

Somebody I know, who was a member of UK Special Boat Service, used that ability to clobber two burglars he found rifling his home, in spite of being disabled and needing two canes to walk.

He went to jail for using excessive force.

I think that answers your question.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:59 PM

"Referendums in the UK are rare, not simple,..."

It seems I mis-stated what I wanted to say and did not accurately refer to the UK process.

I meant referendum in a general way as a public process of discussing and voting on an issue.

I heartily approve of the ability to get a new, relevant law through in the UK... would that it were that simple here. We have made progress on limiting tobacco, but that took awhile, even with medical support. Weapons are an entirely different matter, as they 'seem' to be protected by the Constitution. (see Ebbie's remark) *I* don't agree that's what the Constitution says, but I don't have a seat on the court. I have said a dozen times that the 2nd amendment needs to be re-written to avoid ANY ambiguity left over from 1789 and to reflect life as it is now......and the process for doing that? Yes... that's right. Uphill all the way...with snipers & potholes.

Hey... you guys over there want to re-claim this errant colony long enough to straighten out some awkward details? (Don't wear bright red coats this time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:54 PM

"They were armed. He held them till police came. They had a string of violence against the elderly. They picked the wrong guy"

Coincidentally, in the last fortnight, a UK octogenarian drove off two would be robbers with a golf club.

And?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,UK Survivor
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:12 PM

I've followed this with amusement.

In the UK you can own any weapon, from a semiautomatic rifle to a Swiss Army knife. In general, rifles and shotguns must be registered with the police. However, an air rifle with a muzzle energy of no more than 12 ft. lbs. is completely legal. So is a paintball gun, and these can do some damage. The air rifle could be used for shooting rabbits and hares and would certainly harm someone.

A catapult can kill small game, and they are legal in the UK. The best ammunition would be steel ball bearings, but pebbles could also be used.

And don't fool yourself. Should a disaster of any sort happen, the UK would be WROL.

I have made arrangements for myself and my family. For reasons that should be obvious I have made myself anonymous. I will say that I have served in the paras and the SAS, and that I am not sending this from my own computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 01:48 PM

Easy for a trained sniper I did that in my head in four secs. Try eight inches approx with a quarter to half inch drift at 250 yards with nato 155gr grain

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:43 PM

Until and unless the United States Supreme Court changes its ruling on the Second Amendment, there is no hope that the situation will change. And they have shown no willingness to revisit the issue.

To me- and many others - the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear: "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."

But the latest ruling (2008) of the US Supreme Court says otherwise. They, in a 5-4 vote, basically said that there can be few or no lawful restrictions.

In earlier rulings (respectively 1876 and 1936)the SCOTUS said ""The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government." and "In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

(Gleaned from several sites in Wikipedia.)

You UKers have only yourselves to blame. Did you know that:

"The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:17 PM

you in the UK have a very different way to DO banning!!!! You can have a simple national referendum and vote in Parliament and it's done!

Referendums in the UK are rare, not simple, and confined to constitutional issues, which guns are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

Bestiality isn't a constitutional issue either. Anybody who wanted to amend UK law to reflect the US and allow them to wave pistols and shag sheep would have to go through a different procedure.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:00 PM

Musket & MGM & Rahere... you do fine at **describing** a situation, but remarks about a "can do country" and "new car sales" are rhetorical evasions which do nothing to address pragmatic solutions.

"No way of going back to ▢·1, and trying redrafting the whole shebang from top to bottom ...?"

Of course there is. And that 'way' is up a steep mountain road with land mines and snipers who have papers allowing them to be there!

All we have to do is go through this process. Very clear & *cough-cough* simple.


"Dunblane was NOT simply a referendum, Bill, simply communal expression led by the Press that enough was enough, forcing MPs to act"

But the MPs' action, once done was binding upon the country at large! We do not have a way for "communal expression" to be directly leveraged on the Congress as a whole! Why? Read the link above. We have a huge amount of communal expression happening, but it is like... ummmm... people sitting on a series of islands with sharks between them, yelling about better swimming rules. (best metaphor I could do with this damn cold I have.)

**IF** we had a Supreme Court with a good, Liberal majority, we could possibly challenge various state & local interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

One more metaphor... the UK is like a moderate sized sailboat which can tack with the winds. The US is a 2000 ft long ocean liner going at 25 knots with a stubborn crew... sticking long oars out the portholes is not exactly gonna change its course easily. Muddy? Read again the link above.........

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:23 AM

sniper training ok, lets talk ballistics , grain, charge, and doping the scope I am your huckleberry. The british snipers are trained on a host of weapons what are they and what caliber and bullet grain do they use. What is the powder that is used. What is the drop at 250 yards, 10 mph cross wind, humidity at 95% outside temp 102 degrees. on a .308 caliber which is the most common sniper weapon for the brits

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:04 AM

That double magnum my doc buddie has will kick like a mule and I fire damn near every rife in the US arsenal including a host of .50 cal's. If you ever fired one of those heavy SOB you would know what I mean. Not a fun gun by any standard. It was for elephants. Now a modern .454 Socom .. no problem

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:56 AM

Ru kidding me. I hunted with a .308 and an ott six since I was 12. That is nothing. I hunted before I could ride a bike. Compared to a .454
you don't what you are talking about for sure.