Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chewybacca
Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 06:54pm PT
|
Some of us are terrible shots. I NEED a rapid fire weapon and massive clip so I can kill Bambi.
The smaller the Pee Pee, the bigger the gun needed to compensate. Where's my howitzer? ;^}
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 06:56pm PT
|
Charles Whitman is the UTA Sniper.
From Wiki:
"Whitman sawed off the barrel of the 12-gauge shotgun, and packed the weapon, together with a Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, into his footlocker. The footlocker also held a 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35 caliber pump rifle, a .30 caliber carbine, a 9mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliber pistol and a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver, and over 700 rounds of ammunition."
BTW, you can still find bullet holes in the areas around the tower (limestone I think)
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 07:25pm PT
|
Wasn't Whitman found to have a large brain tumor?
And Mannlicher designed the bolt. Carcano manufactured the 6.5mm that Oswald used.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
www.climbaddictdesigns.com
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 08:57pm PT
|
who the hell cares about who manufactured what?
He was simply correcting what he felt or knew was misinformation posted earlier. Maybe that is more his area of expertise than Constitutional Law and the interpretation of that.
Maybe we should be pretty thankful right now that the area of expertise of our President IS Constitutional Law.....
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 09:02pm PT
|
Did that gun show have those handy little hand sanitizer dispensers?
I mean to wipe the sticky stuff off.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 09:21pm PT
|
Toker V. writes:
"And Mannlicher designed the bolt. Carcano manufactured the 6.5mm that Oswald used."
Don't confuse the middle school kids with facts, Ron. Beavis and Butthead are having too much fun giggling at "ManLicker" right now.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 09:32pm PT
|
The tribe/team concept is very strong with the Sheeple.
If you like firearms then you're a gun-nut and obviously in league with the NRA.
Everyone just has to fit into a nice tiny box so we can hate and ridicule rather than fixing anyone.
Republican, Democrat, Gun-nut, Libtard, etc...
Why does anyone hate that Wayne/NRA character? Because he made a stupid suggestion? So what? The other side is making equally stupid suggestions. Who cares what the NRA suggests? Who cares what the US government suggests?
NEITHER HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS IN MIND.
Read that again.
I was watching someone grill that Wayne guy in an interview. The host was practically dripping with venom. You could see him just seething with hate like he had Hitler and Ted Bundy in the hotseat. I don't know this Wayne from anyone else but he seemed like typical corporate deadwood like you'd find in any boardroom across the US.
When something tragic and horrible happens the Sheeple demand an instant answer so they can have the illusion of "safety" again. They are typically incapable of rational thought or simple problem solving. So main stream media whips everything up into a frenzy. Today's sacrificial goat? Wayne Lapierre? Really? Who the f*#k is he?
And yet, nobody focuses on the issue because that would be too difficult. We have to apparently have someone to hate and BLAME, preferably a group of people we can hate. The NRA, "gun nuts", the evil Government, the NWO, Bushmaster, pick one.
It must be just assumed young males are now going to go on random murderous sprees with no manifestos. That "just happens".
Just a clue. Obama, the US government, the NRA, Wayne L., have nothing to do with this problem, or the solution.
But it won't matter now, the wooly folds have taken their sides of the pasture intent on fighting each other.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 09:48pm PT
|
How do you figure?
By being the largest gun safety promoter in the country?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 09:50pm PT
|
How many guns do you own, jghedge?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 09:52pm PT
|
So you're un-armed, then.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 09:57pm PT
|
I like these guys with no first hand firearm ownership experience, who, using nothing but their immagination, claim to know why others do own firearms.
No experience, no knowledge, but your uninformed opinion is supposed to matter the same as someone who has both knowledge and experience.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:00pm PT
|
Toadgas, look up Eddie Eagle.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:02pm PT
|
I'm not going to get into the gun debate in much detail. I own guns. I know people who have taken the AR platform and created some outstanding hunting guns. I will say that there are a lot of people out there who like playing Navy Seal, and spend a lot of money on guns with no real use, unless you believe that the frail United Nations is going to take over the country under Obama's invitation. The NRA actually believes this.
The NRA actually believes that Obama is going to flood the country with U.N. troops to take over America. How do I know this? Because I left the tube on in the other room one night, tuned to one of the Sportsmen hunting channels. All night long they played the same thirty minute infomercial that was pretty much just nuts. The NRA had gone Ted Nugent insane. It isn't about teaching gun safety like when I was a kid, it actually makes outrageous claims.
Hey, if we are gonna be invaded by the U.N. you are gonna see their asses kicked, because U.N. troops consist entirely of small contributions from various countries around the world. They rarely get in a real fight. They are only good for trying to save people from genocide in Africa and attempting to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. They failed at both. In Africa, the bloodshed was unchecked. In the Balkans, the U.S. had to take over and bomb the sh#t out of Serbia's infrastructure. The U.N. is a pitiful organization for military force. Compared to being invaded by Canada or Mexico, I would far prefer the U.N. They would go down in two weeks because they are so weak.
Nevertheless, LaPierre was right there in these crazy infomercials, just like a new and gun laden Jim Jones, preaching a right wing gospel that really had nothing to do with gun safety.
I am one that believes that gun problems are extremely region specific. Alaskans who live in the interior would starve without guns, even the crazy ones. Even the AR platform has been around so long that they are now regularly tweaked as fer real hunting platforms. This, of course, has no purpose in inner city Chicago.
It is a social problem. I don't think it is a gun problem. Personally, I don't like guns which are only designed to kill people, like high mag capacity handguns or AK-47's in the hands of gangs. Others like a high capacity mag on their conceal carry licensed pistol, just in case they are met with a criminal. OK, I don't see them as much of a risk.
The fact remains that the NRA has indeed gone Ted Nugent batshit crazy over guns. They serve the gun industry, who likes to sell their products, and limitations on certain things like super high capacity magazines piss off the gun dealers and manufacturers.
Do you know who is one of the biggest arms traffickers in the world? Us.
The old NRA is gone. Now they are a mouthpiece for the extreme right, and posit extreme theories about arming yourself to the teeth to defeat an imaginary foe, no matter that coming up with a credible foe is impossible.
So La Pierre is an awful spokesman for them. Because he is crazy and needs to go on the list. He is obviously crazy. Crazies should not own weapons, he said it himself.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:24pm PT
|
Similarly to the so-called fiscal cliff, Obama simply needs to push through a revived ban on assault weapons and similar things, together with the restrictions agreed to even by a vast majority of NRA members, then push it through a court challenge. Get the supreme court to finally rule on what the second amendment actually means - that is to say, that it almost certainly gives both state and federal governments reasonable powers to regulate the manufacture, sale, ownership and use of firearms by individuals. The leadership of the NRA and its business backers is scared stiff of that happening - well, actually they're generally frightened people, pushing an agenda of fear.
NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/?mobile=nc
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:39pm PT
|
The list quoted is simply the restrictions that NRA members themselves agree to, and no doubt they'd consent to others. They're not so fanatic as their widely-mocked 'leadership'. Some of them would surely even agree to a ban on assault rifles and related weapons, which should be the centrepiece of what Obama proposes, together with uniform federal regulation, and reasonable measures for phasing assault weapons out, e.g. a buy-back program.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:44pm PT
|
That list is all common sense, but notice it is all about keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, not doing away with the wrong guns.
You'll be hard pressed to craft a law banning any kind of gun that will be supported by the NRA.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:47pm PT
|
Yeah, TGT , I was just going to point that out to Anders.
Base 104's invasion of the smurfs scenario is not realistic, however using the unabashedly anti-gun ownership platform of the UN as an excuse to be part of the gang is.
For the first time in man's history (and that of this country) more humans live in cities than rural areas. The demographic is changing and firearms are becoming more of a foreign tool to the population.
The anti-gun crowd is attempting to use this to erode piecemeal gun rights. On this much I agree with some of the more strident voices here.
Overall I hope that they fail.
But if the type of "ban" that they tried two decades ago comes back I stand to make a $hitpile of $.
Win/ win.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:52pm PT
|
Well Anders already answered. I wish he would define assault weapon.
The gun owners that would ban defense weapons because they only own hunting pieces are a myopic judases (judasses? judi?), the exceptions used to "prove" the rule.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:57pm PT
|
Nice attempt to redefine the debate. It won't work.
The gun owners that would ban defense weapons because they only own hunting pieces are a myopic judases (judasses? judi?), the exceptions used to "prove" the rule.
We're talking about assault weapons, not defence weapons. Nobody said anything about banning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Reasonable regulation as to their acquisition and ownership, no more. The 1994 statute did a reasonable job of defining them, although it could perhaps be improved. Severely restricting assault rifles and such is quite another question.
Are those gun-owners who are in favour of prohibitions on public ownership of machine guns, cannon, bazookas, recoiless rifles, and other heavier weapons then also judases? Even you're smart enough to agree that there are many gun-like weapons that the public shouldn't be able to own, and has no legitimate reason to own. It's just a matter of where the line is drawn, isn't it? And it's been drawn far too permissively.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!