Have no right to carry gun (OT)

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 321 - 340 of total 488 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Gary

Social climber

Where in the hell is Major Kong?

Jun 30, 2016 - 08:10am PT

Never mind the fact that he made that statement in reference to the Black Panthers patrolling the streets of Oakland, CA with loaded guns.

Does that make a difference?

At least he acknowledged that the Panthers were citizens, I'll give him that.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 30, 2016 - 09:10am PT

I beat anorexia

Cosmic for the win. I'm still laughing.

The "gal" collecting "her" winnings, however, sobers me right up!

Wrong. Just wrong.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Jun 30, 2016 - 09:11am PT

Why my shoulder hurt...

And I'm no Donald - I used to be able to palm a b-ball.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jun 30, 2016 - 09:15am PT

That looks almost unreal. Is it possible that's the longest straight wall case caliber in existence?

Looks like something a punt gun would shoot. lol

EDIT: Its nice to see that they annealed the "neck" of that cartrige. Because, well, accuracy is important when you are launching a pointed lead golf ball. Lol.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 30, 2016 - 09:24am PT

Why my shoulder hurt...

How do you have a shoulder at all? I wouldn't even want to be in the vicinity when that bomb went off! I've never seen anything like that monster.

dikhed

climber

State of fugue and disbelief

Jun 30, 2016 - 09:26am PT

I think women call that a pocket rocket

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Jun 30, 2016 - 09:32am PT

I suspect yer right about the case.

The Beast. This gun has a lot of history. We believe it was custom made for either Martin or
Osa Johnson in the early 1920's.* They started the whole wildlife cinematography thing. He
would film while Osa stood guard, all 110 pounds of her! One time she brought down a
charging rhino, possibly with this gun (also Teddy Roosevelt's favorite), with one shot at 10-15
yards! There's a museum in Chanute, KS devoted to them. They gave it to my wife's father's
best friend who gave it to my father-in-law. He fed his family with it, as well as many of the
villagers where they lived in Cameroun.

I find it amazing that a 110 pound waif could remain standing after firing it! By all accounts
she was one badazz momma.

*I think it was hers as the stock seems shorter than normal.

MB, I was only good for three rounds!

Here's a pic from the museum's website showing Martin Johnson holding what is likely this gun...

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jun 30, 2016 - 09:34am PT

It does make for easy chamber boring....

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 30, 2016 - 10:05am PT

Reilly, that's wonderful history. Thank you for sharing!

Regarding...

MB, I was only good for three rounds!

I'm a pussy, I guess. I wouldn't be good for three rounds standing next to you firing it.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Jun 30, 2016 - 10:36am PT

Escopeta posted

I do love the irony of politicians who are protected by guns advocating gun control laws. I makes me giggle.

Thoughts are hard.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jun 30, 2016 - 10:37am PT

Cartridge (Wb@MV) Rifle Weight Recoil energy Recoil velocity
.405 Win. (300 at 2200) 8.0 30.6 15.7
.300 Win. Mag. (180 at 2960)8.5 25.9 14.0
470 N.E. (500 at 2150) 11.0 69.3 20.1

Pretty similar it appears. And too much for my liking.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jun 30, 2016 - 12:26pm PT

Back to Gary..

Does that make a difference?

At least he acknowledged that the Panthers were citizens, I'll give him that.

I think it makes a difference because the Panthers were carrying in direct violation of the law. Reagan was not advocating for a new law.

I picked up on his use of the word Citizens as well. Diplomatic and less confrontational. Even shows some respect. Actually the entire statement is very level headed.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Jun 30, 2016 - 12:32pm PT

Ksolem posted

I think it makes a difference because the Panthers were carrying in direct violation of the law. Reagan was not advocating for a new law.

When are you referencing? Reagan passed a new law when he was Gov.

he Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther party conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while conducting what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2]

Republicans in California supported increased gun control. California Governor Ronald Reagan was present when the protesters arrived and later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” [3]

The bill was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 25850 and 171c.

Gary

Social climber

Where in the hell is Major Kong?

Jun 30, 2016 - 12:45pm PT

So there you have it, Kris. Republican god Ronald Reagan was the point of the spear for gun control in America!

I picked up on his use of the word Citizens as well. Diplomatic and less confrontational. Even shows some respect. Actually the entire statement is very level headed.

There's a very good documentary on the Panthers on Netflix. Shows the good and the bad, their successes and failures. Worth watching.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jun 30, 2016 - 01:29pm PT

I'm unclear regarding the connection between Republicans, Reagan and gun control.

Are there people under the assumption that gun control as passed by the Repubicrats is acceptable?

They use gun control as a platform for campaign donations (bribery) just like the Democrats and will drop the issue as soon as it is politically expedient.

Hopefully no one is stupid enough to think that Republicans are opposed to gun control on its merits as opposed to a simple partisan dangle.

Some of the most damaging aberrations of the 2nd Amendment (as well as many other government oversteps) were borne out of Republican administrations.

So, now that you realize that this isn't some partisan chip many people opposed to gun control are trying to play, you don't really have a good response to it do you?

Don't worry, you're not alone....most of the retards on here have their rhetoric tuned to the partisan response but are left with no real reply when they realize there are people out there that find it objectionable to limit the manner in which one can defend themselves. Regardless of which political party it originates from.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 30, 2016 - 01:31pm PT

Republican god Ronald Reagan

The problem I see with arguments taking this approach is that they are double-edged swords, accomplishing both more and less than their authors intend.

1) It bags on present-day repubs for now resisting a supposedly sweeping direction their "god" wanted to go.

2) It shows that republicanism is not by-definition anti-gun-control.

The force of (2) in the liberal mind inadvertently serves to lend more credibility to republicanism than the modern liberal clearly wants to lend.

The problem with (1) is that calling Reagan a "Republican god" is disingenuous. No republican (then or now) would agree with the implication that Reagan was "correct" in all of his perspectives and proposals. So, (1) actually has much less partisan force than it initially appears.

The problem liberals should have with (2) is that it undoes a lot of the partisan divide that provides them with their claim to moral superiority "as a party."

So, (1) gets the author less than intended, while (2) has more implications than the author intended.

And, by the same basic logic as the quoted line, democrats are racist bastards because decades ago "they" staunchly resisted the civil rights movement.

So, the quoted line either contributes nothing substantive to the debate, or it conflates the very partisan divide that liberals now depend upon for their sense of superiority: "Yeah, our party isn't 'perfect,' but at least we're not (gag) republicans!" (In general, repubs have the same sense of partisan superiority.)

Parties are by nature disgusting, corrupt, self-serving enterprises. This election cycle has clarified that fact even to the unobservant among us. There is no "moral high ground" to be found in either of them or in partisanship in general. Arguments inhering in them are necessarily going to be fallacious, particularly composition/division fallacies.

Edit: Well said, Esco. You apparently just beat me to the post. :-)

We're saying the same basic thing from different angles.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jun 30, 2016 - 01:52pm PT

My chronology is off, but my main point stands, that he spoke in reference to the events of the day.

Republican god Ronald Reagan was the point of the spear for gun control in America!

Hardly. The spear-point of gun control came right after the civil war when northern states along the Mason-Dixon line taxed guns to a level where no poor people (such as newly freed slaves, whom they feared) could afford to by a gun. Racism was the spear-point of gun control.

As I said, Reagan's remarks were well tempered and frankly I don't disagree. But then gun control in today's context is entirely another matter. Reagan stood against unrestricted carrying, and against unrestricted ownership of machine guns. And he said that guns are a lousy way to settle a dispute. Again right.

But defending yourself from attack is not settling a "dispute".

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Jun 30, 2016 - 02:02pm PT

madbolter posted

The problem with (1) is that calling Reagan a "Republican god" is disingenuous.

By all means, if you can point to a speech that a prominent Republican criticized Reagan or distanced himself from Reagan in the last 10 years I would be impressed. Republicans do invoke him as some sort of ideological prophet, probably because he's still the only one to actually make conservatism work.

ksolem posted

As I said, Reagan's remarks were well tempered and frankly I don't disagree. But then gun control in today's context is entirely another matter. Reagan stood against unrestricted carrying, and against unrestricted ownership of machine guns. And he said that guns are a lousy way to settle a dispute. Again right.

But defending yourself from attack is not settling a "dispute".

He explicitly said that there was no reason for an average citizen to be carrying a loaded weapon. "Defense" back then meant defending your home. Modern gun control did indeed start due to racist fear...and so did the idea of gun ownership as a means of defense.

Gary

Social climber

Where in the hell is Major Kong?

Jun 30, 2016 - 02:10pm PT

Racism was the spear-point of gun control.

Some truth there. Case in point was provided by a fellow I worked with in San Pedro. He was from some podunk town in Texas. His father made it well known that he kept a rifle or shotgun by each door of his house. My friend said when the klan came into the neighborhood to burn and loot, his house was the one that was left alone.