10 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI grew up firing guns on a regular basis. Started with cap guns and BB gun, and then shooting a 22 rifle at age 7, a 410 shotgun at age 8, and inherited an old single barrel 12 gauge from my paternal grandfather at age 10. Killed my first squirel with the 410 shotgun at age 9. I shot the squirrel and it fell out of the tree, still alive floundering around on the ground. My Dad who was with me told me to strike the squirrel's head with the butt of the shotgon, which I did, crushing the squirrel's skull, and it went limp, and we let the dog briefly lick the blood, and then put the squirrel in the bag.
I must say that is surprising news coming from a Texan.
Killed many squirrels with that 410 and 12 gauge. A squirrel up in a very tall pine tree is a tough shot with the 22 rifle and thus I didn't use the 22 rifle much except target shooting (though was a good marksman years later at Texas A&M University). Plus, the 22 rifle was a little more dangerous in a sense in that out in the woods, the 22 bullet would travel so much further than a shotgun blast. Anyway, we did use squirrel dogs (usually a rat terrier breed) to facilitate the squirrel hunt. Also as a kid, eventually shot many additional shotguns (and more high-powered rifles such as when deer hunting or target shooting). Also shot pistols in the woods or at the dump or at the firing range through college.
Ate a lot of squirrel dumplings and gravy. My maternal grandmother cooked it. It was good. My maternal grandfather would break the skull with a nutcracker to access and eat the squirrel brain, or he would just suck the brain through the eye sockets. I still like deer meat till this day. My hunter friends give me deer sausage (mixed with some pork). Lean. Still have my single-shot 12 gauge inherited from my paternal grandfather. Will give that to my son. There were nights on the pipeline as a teenager, I would kill 40 rabbits (yes that is forty) in a single night with that gun. Got $2 a piece for a gutted rabbit. Didn't have to skin them. Sold the meat and skin together. Could get $15 for coon skin, and even more for a grey fox skin, and the most for a red fox skin. My brother ran traps to make money that way -- would quite often find a paw remaining in the trap as the animal had eaten away at their paw to free themselves from the trap.
5 edits
I have a history with guns. No gun expert but I have used them alot. The only gun I have ever personally owned (except for that original Daisy BB gun) and still own now is that 12 gauge inherited from my grandfather and which is about 80 years old, and the single-barrel breaks down to insert a single shotgun shell. That was my gun of choice as a hunter. Very light weigth. Kicks hard. Used 6 shot for squirrel and rabbit, and on the ocassional coon hunt. I think I used 8 shot for birds (and would borrow a 20 gauge shotgun with more than a single shot) but didn't do much bird hunting though wanted to at one point. Used 0/00/buckshot on the ocassional deer hunt but also would be loaned a .30-30 or a .30-6 from my uncle when deer hunting. We ran dogs (hound, blue tick) when deer hunting. I never really liked deer hunting.
Later in life after I quit hunting, I had buckshot with the gun in the house before I had kids. The only time I ever broke out the gun after I quit hunting was when a mentally ill person was banging on my front door in the middle of the night when I lived in Lake Charles, Louisiana. I kept the gun under the bed and with the shotgun shells in a night stand drawer, but no longer have shells now that I have kids.
I support banning of assault weapons including the high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles, as well as high capacity clips. Ban them now. Also, require background checks on guns sold on the secondary market.
Originally posted by FMFNo. The idea that the State should "help" those it determines are "mentally deranged" by locking them up in preventative detention without any showing that they pose an immediate danger to others is repugnant to any principle of liberty I know of. Is this really a serious counterproposal to simply banning high capacity mags which are used time and time again in these types of massacres but seem to be never necessary in legitimate self-defense?
When asked on the BBC what Obama should do about mass murders, Richard Feldman, President of the Independent Firearm Owners Association said:
"I wouldn't do anything to tighten gun laws. I would focus, if we are dealing with mentally deranged individuals, on our mental health system. We can't incarcerate people. We can't take them off the streets until they ...[text shortened]... em beforehand. And our laws prevent us from helping them."
Is Richard Feldman right?
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969A 5.56 such as used in Newtown wouldn't be considered a "high powered assault rifle", would it?
I have a history with guns. No gun expert but I have used them alot. The only gun I have ever personally owned (except for that original Daisy BB gun) and still own now is that 12 gauge inherited from my grandfather and which is about 80 years old, and the single-barrel breaks down to insert a single shotgun shell. That was my gun of choice as a hunter. Ver ity clips. Ban them now. Also, require background checks on guns sold on the secondary market.
I'm unconvinced an "assault rifle" ban is necessary. I'd be happy with just getting a ban on high capacity mags. I'd be in favor of the Feds requiring them to be turned in and reimbursing owners for their cost over a reasonable period of time (say 6 months or a year). If you own them after that time, you get a felony.
Originally posted by no1marauderShould the particular grade of weapon used in the most recent massacre define the class of weapons to be banned? Shouldn't the classes of weapons and accessories like mags as you mention, that have facilitated, plus those that can facilitate, mass killings, be banned? We are able to legislate conceptually, and not just about the most recent tragedy, aren't we?
A 5.56 such as used in Newtown wouldn't be considered a "[b]high powered assault rifle", would it?
I'm unconvinced an "assault rifle" ban is necessary. I'd be happy with just getting a ban on high capacity mags. I'd be in favor of the Feds requiring them to be turned in and reimbursing owners for their cost over a reasonable period of time (say 6 months or a year). If you own them after that time, you get a felony.[/b]
Originally posted by JS357moon's proposal was, ban inter alia:
Should the particular grade of weapon used in the most recent massacre define the class of weapons to be banned? Shouldn't the classes of weapons and accessories like mags as you mention, that have facilitated, plus those that can facilitate, mass killings, be banned? We are able to legislate conceptually, and not just about the most recent tragedy, aren't we?
high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles
I tend to respond to the specifics of the post I am answering.
Many classes of weapons and accessories can facilitate mass killings. I'm in favor of banning only those that have no reasonable relation to the right of self-defense. High capacity mags fit into that category; semi-automatic rifles of whatever design do not. As to other items, I'd have to hear a proposal and the reasoning behind it to judge.
Originally posted by FMFObama would like to radically change gun laws, but won't touch the issue, because most American's won't back the idea. American's don't connect guns with gun connected deaths. Tinkering with the U.S. mental health system will do little to stop the killings.
When asked on the BBC what Obama should do about mass murders, Richard Feldman, President of the Independent Firearm Owners Association said:
"I wouldn't do anything to tighten gun laws. I would focus, if we are dealing with mentally deranged individuals, on our mental health system. We can't incarcerate people. We can't take them off the streets until they ...[text shortened]... em beforehand. And our laws prevent us from helping them."
Is Richard Feldman right?
Originally posted by no1marauderI support the social experiment of banning semiautomatic (one trigger pull, one shot) weapons. I think it is worth finding out if it is better than what the current experiment is telling us. Of course, the banning of >10 bullet mags would be part of this. Do you agree? We are dealing in uncertainties here.
moon's proposal was, ban inter alia:
high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles
I tend to respond to the specifics of the post I am answering.
Many classes of weapons and accessories can facilitate mass killings. I'm in favor of banning only those that have no reasonable relation to the right of self-defense. ...[text shortened]... do not. As to other items, I'd have to hear a proposal and the reasoning behind it to judge.
Originally posted by JS357No, I don't.
I support the social experiment of banning semiautomatic (one trigger pull, one shot) weapons. I think it is worth finding out if it is better than what the current experiment is telling us. Of course, the banning of >10 bullet mags would be part of this. Do you agree? We are dealing in uncertainties here.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" where people were being arrested for crimes they would likely commit in the future.
I think we shouldn't be locking people up because of the minute chance that they might be rampage killers. How would one determine such a thing anyway?
What is in common about the rampage shooters. Barely adolescent males. Previous suspicion of ill mental health, in most cases prescribed psychotropic drugs. That seems like a starting point, if anyone really wanted to ask WHY. Why are so many boys on prescription drugs, mostly starting with Ritalin? Can there be a better way of handling ADHD boys than drugging them?
Originally posted by no1marauderMany in the military say the 5.56 or .223 is puny and underpowered, preferring the M14 7.62x51. Those are sold as high end hunting guns, and can be had with 20 round mags.
A 5.56 such as used in Newtown wouldn't be considered a "[b]high powered assault rifle", would it?
I'm unconvinced an "assault rifle" ban is necessary. I'd be happy with just getting a ban on high capacity mags. I'd be in favor of the Feds requiring them to be turned in and reimbursing owners for their cost over a reasonable period of time (say 6 months or a year). If you own them after that time, you get a felony.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderI tend to lean with you towards possibly limiting magazine capacity in rifles. Except that the primary intention of the 2nd amendment was not self defense or hunting. It was military. On a personal level I agree with sasquatch that if you need a 30 round magazine, your in over your head. A militia man or survivalist's best chance is to avoid detection, not getting in a prolonged firefight.
moon's proposal was, ban inter alia:
high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles
I tend to respond to the specifics of the post I am answering.
Many classes of weapons and accessories can facilitate mass killings. I'm in favor of banning only those that have no reasonable relation to the right of self-defense. ...[text shortened]... do not. As to other items, I'd have to hear a proposal and the reasoning behind it to judge.
All that considered for concealed carry, I am comforted by a large capacity magazine, 14-16 rounds in my handgun. Ask a cop why they want large capacity magazines. The great majority of deployments have zero to four rounds fired. Why are typical cop guns high capacity? Ask them not me.