Outdoor Adventure USA

BorregoWrangler wrote:Dude, how'd you get your avatar so big?

When I tried to upload the new avatar, the site told me the size limit is 250x250 pixels, so I just resized it down to the upper limit using Paint.

Larry,

I will agree to disagree with you on a few points, such as ALL firearms are to kill, or that having many weapons is a bad thing. I resemble some of those remarks . I collect guns--that is one of many hobbies and I like to have a few rounds of ammo. As competition shooters we have ammo. In my heavy comp days, shooting 2,000 rounds a week was the norm.

In my opinion, as long as someone is not in the class of people who are not allowed to own a firearm, I have no problem if they own one or 1,000 guns.

Not withstanding our friendly debate--I'll buy the first round, no pun intended.

Regards, Steve

ssc wrote:Larry,

I will agree to disagree with you on a few points, such as ALL firearms are to kill, or that having many weapons is a bad thing. I resemble some of those remarks . I collect guns--that is one of many hobbies and I like to have a few rounds of ammo. As competition shooters we have ammo. In my heavy comp days, shooting 2,000 rounds a week was the norm.

In my opinion, as long as someone is not in the class of people who are not allowed to own a firearm, I have no problem if they own one or 1,000 guns.

Not withstanding our friendly debate--I'll buy the first round, no pun intended.

Regards, Steve

Make mine a 50bmg.

Make mine a Martini stirred with 45 cal.

One of these days we'll have to break out the targets and claybirds and have a run & gun. I still know of a few good areas to shoot.

BorregoWrangler wrote:One of these days we'll have to break out the targets and claybirds and have a run & gun. I still know of a few good areas to shoot.

My mother in laws in Hinkley is wide open, fun wheeling and you can shoot where ever you like. She even has a pool to stop by and go swimming afterward.

ssc wrote:Larry,

I will agree to disagree with you on a few points, such as ALL firearms are to kill, or that having many weapons is a bad thing. I resemble some of those remarks . I collect guns--that is one of many hobbies and I like to have a few rounds of ammo. As competition shooters we have ammo. In my heavy comp days, shooting 2,000 rounds a week was the norm.

In my opinion, as long as someone is not in the class of people who are not allowed to own a firearm, I have no problem if they own one or 1,000 guns.

Not withstanding our friendly debate--I'll buy the first round, no pun intended.

Regards, Steve

I'll take you up on your offer, either way .

Gun collectors, and competitive shooters are not the problem; this is the same with any hobby, and for that we are in complete agreement. Now, if you also feel you need to stockpile 1,000 guns and 20,000 rounds under the pretense of "protecting your family and property", well, then, we've reached a fork in the road....

I thank you for the civil debate...

Did someone say fork - oooooh, food

BlueFJ wrote:Make mine a Martini stirred with 45 cal.

So, is that a "double shot" ?

cruiserlarry wrote:I understand that some people feel the need to protect themselves and their family members by having a firearm at the ready - and I think a trained, educated, licensed person should be allowed to.

Licensing does not insure the person will be responsible. Licensed drivers break traffic laws all the time.

I agree safety training should be made available to gun owners. Licensing may accomplish that, but that is not the only avenue to make sure gun owners have training.

By the way, you have said several times that most gun crimes are crimes of passion. I can't find a study that supports that assertion. Can you cite one?

Let’s start off with a few definitions and one giant misconception:

1. The essence of a statist* is one who believes that the populace is not smart enough to run their own lives and the government is best suited to control society. Another way of saying this is that the statist feels compelled to tell other people how to live their lives as they think they are the only ones smart enough to run things. Examples: you don’t need to own that type of firearm or there’s no need to own that many guns or my personal favorite: that gun is good for nothing but killing people and you shouldn’t be allowed to have one (universal translation = you can’t be trusted to be responsible and safe and only we know better).

2. Reasonable gun control, in most cases, is a code phrase for slow, creeping, and ultimate confiscation or banning of all privately owned firearms.

3. Crime is not caused by law abiding gun owners.

4. All gun control efforts are premised on the false belief that if we keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, they will abandon, or be prevented from, their evil ways. These efforts are also premised on the false belief that criminals will be prevented from obtaining guns merely by the imposition of more gun laws.

So, when you hear these phrases or see this type of behavior, you can easily know where the writer or speaker is coming from.

How, you may say, can I spot a statist? Good question. These days, catch phrases are usually a fool proof way of discerning ones beliefs. Take for example the new catch phrase of the statists that: “all illegal guns once started out as legal guns”. Stated somewhat differently, they also say: the more [guns] that are available, the more that are available to criminals” . If you let the statist carry these statements out to their (the statist’s) logical conclusions, this is what happens: If all illegal guns once started out as legal guns, then the only way to eliminate illegal guns is to ban them all. Or alternatively, if more legal guns mean more illegal guns, then we must limit the number of guns that anyone can own.

I love this one: “when talking about firearms, we are talking about a product whose only purpose is to kill” Again, if we let the statist carry this thinking to his logical conclusion, we must be forced to conclude that if the only purpose of guns is to kill, we must ban them all.

Make no mistake, these are the conclusions that are being promoted. The flaw, of course, in this logic, is that the foundational catch phrases are absurd and just plain wrong. The logic is corrupt as well.

Facts never matter to the statist and here are some that prove the point:

1. A gun has no purpose other than that which the operator uses it for. You can talk all day long that guns do things other than “killing”, like target shooting, competition, recreational shooting (plinking), and self defense, but at the end of the day, all you will hear from the statist is the same catch phrase.
2. Guns are just like hundreds of other things in our everyday lives in that they can be used for good or for evil. Automobiles are used to transport illegal drugs (which kill), used by drunks (which also kill), used by drive by shooters, and by bank robbers to escape the police. Fertilizer is used to make bombs. Household chemicals are used to poison.

The statist refuses to hold the perpetrator responsible for his acts and instead focuses his efforts on the innocent gun owner. The statist wraps himself in the cloak of respectability because he claims to care about public safety but his solutions to crime are merely an illusion. Until those responsible for crime are caught, prosecuted swiftly and punished, this problem will never get better. This, Larry, is why the solution lies elsewhere.

Lastly, I’m sorry to say that we do not agree on the basics. It is indefensible to claim that we have enough gun laws and then demand that reasonable and intelligent people come up with more compromises (which, of course, means more gun laws). How many times does it need to be stated - we have enough gun laws (as you have correctly observed.)


I wish I could continue, but there are less than two weeks left to prepare for Borrego Fest and I cannot play with you any more, Larry. And besides, we all know where your heart lies - see below.


*Statist is defined as a person who believes that government should have a major role in the direction of the economy and society, both through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the central planning of the overall economy and society.