The Definitive Firearms Thread

3045 posts / 0 new
Last post
gillbilly's picture
gillbilly
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2012
Posts: 423
Thanks Aaron.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I found Diamond's GGS as interesting but certainly not mind blowing. I'm not entirely sure he was blaming the Europeans but rather spelling out what happened, but maybe I wasn't as sensitive to his tone. I agree with you that the turns in history could have easily been any other group of people if their geographic location had been the same. Almost all major civilizations have had their imperialisitic ventures.

I'm finishing up Jeremy Rifkin's "Empathic Civilizaton." Another interesting read. He builds a narrative of how empathy evolved throughout history. There are some surprising conclusions. It's much less judgemental and tries to show how empathy evolved in relation to the development of the concept of the  individual. For instance during the Roman empire, there was a surge in empathic behavior (as well as imperialistic behavior) because of the growing class of cosmopolitan middle class, which allowed people to see themselves more as individuals. This allowed individuals to empathize more with their fellow human being. You might enjoy it. Thanks again.

Calamity Jane's picture
Calamity Jane
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 10 2013
Posts: 34
jdye51

I have been reading, and I really, really didn't want to post, but i'm going to anyways. I have to do it quick, and this is but one point that I want to address.

jdye51, you said at some point in this conversation, that you prefer a "turn the other cheek" mind-set and referenced Jesus Christ, and His teachings. First, I think you have grossly misinterpreted the message, but that's common and since you have proclaimed that you're not necessarily a Christian (which mean you're not at all, by the way. There's no fence-riding allowed) it is understandable that you'd hear this quoted or maybe even read it yourself and think, "Hmmm....that sounds nice."

Maybe you never heard this one, though;

Jesus travels to Jerusalem for Passover, where He finds the money changers in the Temple. He becomes angry, overturning their tables, and running them out, shouting and accusing them of turning the Temple, which He calls, "my Father's house" into a den of thieves.

This is a very clear, distinct example of The Son of God, Himself, demonstrating protectiveness via violence and acting as a "warrior" when something He holds close to His heart is threatened. Jesus, was a man. A spiritual being, having a physical experience, as I believe you stated in the same post. He was as spiritual a being as one could be, yet, still human and still a man. He physiologically responded appropriately to a threat to His Father's house.

I had to make that point, and I have to jump off now. I've a lot more I'd like to say, and I may or may not. But that had to be said. Sorry, I know you all are trying to stay focused and not get all over the place!

C.J.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Spiritual Variety

In addition to self defense being a fundemental value in Judeo-Christian faith, the following are a collection of quotes from other religious and civic leaders on the use of arms:

Dalai Lama XIII:“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)

Mahatma Ghandi“And why do I regard the British rule as a curse?…It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture, and, by the policy of disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking inward strength, we have been reduced by universal disarmament to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness.”

Sikhism requires it's baptized practicioners to carry the Kirpan, summed up as follows:

 it is one of the five articles of faith required to be worn by baptizedSikhs.[2][3]

The word Kirpan has two roots - the first root is: Kirpa, which means "Mercy, grace, compassion, kindness" and the second root is Aan, which in turn means "Honor, grace, dignity".

Sikhs embody the qualities of a "Sant-Sipahie"—a saint-soldier. One must have control over one's internal vices and be able to be constantly immersed in virtues clarified in the Guru Granth Sahib. A Sikh must also have the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their colour, caste or creed.

These are just a few examples, but in general, faith does not demand that we allow ourselves to be victimized. Herbert Weschler's famous quote:

"the privilege of killing in self-defense derives from 'the universal judgment that there is no social interest in preserving the lives of aggressors at the cost of those of their victims"

I hope this provides some diversity to the faith argument in support for arms as both a reasonable and rational tool for people of a great many faiths.

Cheers,

Aaron
 

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1988
On turning the other cheek

How many cheeks do you have? I have two--four if you count the ones in the back. Compassion does not equal doormat.

Like Mr, Miyagi says in The Karate Kid, "Only for defense."

ralfy's picture
ralfy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 60
A. M. wrote:Ralfy, There are
A. M. wrote:

Ralfy, There are better venues for your rants. There are whole new threads you could start about JIT delivery. If you want to talk about how guns can protect or debauch - cool. You're welcome to it. The post I was referring to had literally nothing to do with this topic, and you've made posts in the past that seem more "aimed" towards blaming a political or economic system than discussing the pros and cons of firearms ownership. Further, you made some assertions that lacked any sort of backing and tied information together using conjecture and opinion. Again, this is fine for your own, new thread, but I think that your offerings to this dialog have been tangential. As to my tangent, it is entirely relevant to the mindset that creates, or retards the growth and cultivation of capable young men, and a core component of that is: can these men defend their lives, families, communities and countries? That's a question that opens a lot of doors (is that for the best? Do we want a warlike society? Do we already have one? Are the directionless aspects of these things causing more firearms related crime?) but still directly relates to the role of arms in society. Your efforts seem to revolve around drawing the conversation more towards the broken international model of governance, economy and distribution. That's fine and valid - but please keep in mind that this isn't the place to break that phenomenon down. In any case, your posts are fine, but they're a bit out of place. Doesn't mean they're not important, just maybe trying clarifying your intent and how it ties back to the topic. Aaron

Now, you're talking about issues concerning "a warlike society" and "the directionless aspects of these things causing more firearms-related crime" which go even BEYOND what I've been mentioning!

 

 

 

ralfy's picture
ralfy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 60
A. M. wrote:"Hunter-gatherer
A. M. wrote:

"Hunter-gatherer communities reveal the opposite of what you argue), then I decided to add to what you wrote and show what the effects of that violence will be." Anthropologists are totally pseudo-scientists and offer only opinion on how they "think" things are, and Jared diamond more than most. HG civilizations have almost ZERO resource scarcity and almost zero competition for those resources. A quick study of the Native Americans' pre-agricultural (which for many of them was still a viable lifestyle when Lewis and Clark came paddling down the Columbia) had significant amounts of intersocial war. Granted their communes were less troubled, but again, this could be attributed to a number of qualities, and is hard to substantiate through verifiable or empirical fact. Our society fosters a detached connection with death, and ideates and on it continually without much risk of actually dying. Native American culture was wildly varied, but tended to rever and respect life, taking what they needed alone, and looking at death as an important transition. Doesn't mean they didn't have spears, and tomahawks, though, does it? Cheers, Aaron

Actually, they have "resource scarcity," which is why they remain hunter-gatherers. And very likely the reason why they did not engage in "intersocial war" is because they did not have surplus resources to do so.

And there is no reference to Diamond in the article.

ralfy's picture
ralfy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 60
Poet wrote:I wonder what the
Poet wrote:

I wonder what the headhunting cultures in Papuna New Guinea would have said if you had happened upon them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headhunting#Southeast_Asia_and_Oceania

Or war amongst the Yanomamo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami#Violence

Now you might argue that it is "Western influence" that has led to war amongst hunter-gatherer societies. Well, since "Western influence" is all over the world now, it's too late. Pandora's box has been opened.

Poet

Read the reference to the Yanomami here:

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-three-complementary-theories/

 

ralfy's picture
ralfy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 60
I forgot to add that the

I forgot to add that the Yanomami is mentioned in the article shared earlier. According to the writer, it is not a hunter-gatherer group.

 

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Time/Inclination

Dude, I really dont have time to go quid pro quo with another internet personality, but suffice to say, cultural tendencies directly tie into the rights and responsibilities of that culture.

Hunter gatherer societies have no need for resources beyond food, water and natural tools and live off the land, which has plenty of resources.  Intersocial war in native American societies was common. Clearly, they had the resources to wage wars.

"Everything you've been mentioning" has been a loosely associated, vague allusion to some sort of political point you hint at expressing.  Express it, then.  Frankly, I just think you're a troll, as you never respond to questions asked of you, never propose solutions and only contribute loose, opinion based information that lacks factual backing, as with your rant against the arms industry some time ago.

What exactly do you see yourself offering to the conversation here?
Make a new thread and put whatever on it you want.

Aaron

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2923
Thoughts regarding "gun free" zones

I've been trying to wrap my head around the "schools as gun free zones" issue.  Why remove a strong psychological deterrent to criminals/wackos that would harm our children? 

I've personally found firearms and firearm education to be a path to greater individual responsibility and self-reliance.  It also helped reveal the intent of this country's founders and the importance of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

My guess is that the reason behind school "gun free" zones has nothing to do with children's safety.  Cue bono?  If you are attempting to "educate" a generation of children about the evils of guns and people that use them, it probably doesn't help to have responsible, armed adults around as potential role models.

For some "non-gun free zone" education, a couple of PNW choices:

Insights Training at the West Coast Armory - Bellevue, WA

Firearms Academy of Seattle - Chehalis, WA

my 2 cents

larry's picture
larry
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Posts: 51
range time

this thread is still going, great job SSGT

seems to be offtrack a little,

religion has killed so many in the name of (fill in your god) ... maybe even more than the Marines..but probably not..

turn the other cheek and die, darwin rules.

 

hope everyone is reloading or learning the process, ammo is precious these days,

anyone been to the range lately? Lot of matches out there to test/improve your skills,

3gun, 2 gun, shotgun only, IDPA, USPSA,... get some,

stand up for your right to bear arms or the uneducated politicians will take it away,

backed by the equally biased and uneducated media,

train hard, mind and body, don't be a pos,

best of luck to all of you.

Larry

 

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
gun control or people control

This gentleman, a former Secret Service agent, expresses my sentiments perfectly.

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Gun control – A clash of cultures

I agree with Ao.  The real issue is not guns, it’s control.  I posted about this in the Firearms Group.  I’ve reproduced that post below.

---------------------------------------------------

Gun control – A clash of cultures

The gun control debate is passionate, divisive, and angry.  But ultimately it is not about guns.  It is about control.  This is becoming the line in the sand where some people say – Enough!  We won’t be pushed any further.

This is the fault line of two cultures with very different views of the world, and freedom.  It will not go away, and it will be a fight to the bitter end.

To better understand this I recommend reading the remarks below.  Then see the full essay.

Fred Reed wrote:

A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone.  Call it “freedom.” Because we were free, we felt free.  It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.

Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged.  Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we became the Hive.

Serving as little more than cubicle fodder, they could not survive a serious crisis like the first Depression. And they look to the collective, the hive, for protection. The notion of individual self-defense, whether with a fist or a Sig 9, is, you know, like scary, or, well, just wrong or macho or something. I mean, if you find an intruder in your house at night, shouldn’t you, like, call a caring adult?

Read the full essay

Travlin

Lnorris's picture
Lnorris
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 105
Mila 18 - Leon Uris

I'm re-reading Mila 18. I read it when I was in high school. What feels like a life time later, I wanted to read it again. It is a story of the Warsaw ghetto during the Nazi tyranny.

It's an eye opening account of the people who defied the odds and struggled against one of the most horrific times in our human history - a time that we should all remember no matter what our heritage is.

Lynne

Jdcstar's picture
Jdcstar
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 10 2011
Posts: 2
Freedom

Dog: Your information and delivery is well spoken as well as your kind response to Sue's reference to the arms race . I was blessed with a houseful of girls which all possess their Texas CHL's and are very proficient with both their Glock 19's and Springfield XD's. I personally prefer the Kimber 1911 frame in both .45 and 9 mm. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. Ronald Reagan

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Travlin wrote: I agree with
Travlin wrote:

I agree with Ao.  The real issue is not guns, it’s control.  I posted about this in the Firearms Group.  I’ve reproduced that post below.

---------------------------------------------------

Gun control – A clash of cultures

The gun control debate is passionate, divisive, and angry.  But ultimately it is not about guns.  It is about control.  This is becoming the line in the sand where some people say – Enough!  We won’t be pushed any further.

This is the fault line of two cultures with very different views of the world, and freedom.  It will not go away, and it will be a fight to the bitter end.

To better understand this I recommend reading the remarks below.  Then see the full essay.

Fred Reed wrote:

A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone.  Call it “freedom.” Because we were free, we felt free.  It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.

Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged.  Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we became the Hive.

Serving as little more than cubicle fodder, they could not survive a serious crisis like the first Depression. And they look to the collective, the hive, for protection. The notion of individual self-defense, whether with a fist or a Sig 9, is, you know, like scary, or, well, just wrong or macho or something. I mean, if you find an intruder in your house at night, shouldn’t you, like, call a caring adult?

Read the full essay

Travlin

Travlin,

Good essay.  It's sad though that the majority in this country probably no longer know what this man is talking about.  That's the way I grew up and that's the way it is up here but even here, it's changing ... just slower.

Here're some experiences I've had this past week that underscore the differences ... and this is just one week.

A person I know had his gun safe (containing both guns and other valuables including PMs) confiscated this week.  His brother evidently put some items in the safe unbeknowst to him.  The person's mother let the brother put the items in and the brother got in trouble with the law.  But the law confiscated the good brother's safe.  He'll likely get it back with legal intervention but to have a SWAT team come to your house and do this, when you are a legal law abiding citizen, is disconcerting.  Can anyone say "innocent until proven guilty".? 

I sent in papers this week related to a civil law suit.  All told, I've spent a good 20 hours of my time already on this issue with more to come.  I'm being sued by a pedestrian who ran into my car.  Four witnesses found the pedestrian at fault and the police found him at fault but I'm getting sued.  My insurance company is taking care of it and it'll likely be dismissed since the plaintiff's lawyer is simply taking a long shot at an out-of-court settlement but this is our litigious society.  Can anyone say "trying to get something for nothing". 

My office manager is going to court shortly with a patient of more than adequate financial means who we billed numerous times and was given multiple notices prior to being sent to collections.  Collections made over 100 calls.  He only finally responded after being notified of court action by a lawyer.  He claims he was never billed or contacted.  Yeah, right.  Can anyone say "self responsibility"?

Had two different patients call this week asking to be seen immediately.  I'm not an emergency service, these were not emergencies, and I'm booked solid all day well into the evening.  What am I supposed to do ... tell the other patients that this person is more important than them and I should clear my schedule just for them?  Both were mildly perturbed when the soonest we could offer them was the next day ... when I would stay late specifically to see them.  Nope, they wanted it TODAY ... didn't want to wait.  They had other things they had to do tomorrow.  Can anyone say, "deferred gratification" and "it's not all about ME"?      

After going through a review and conference call with the reviewers last week, I realize I need to raise my documentation standards even higher to ensure no questions regarding any aspect of my evaluation, treatment, or reimbursement.  I'm at the point where I'm ready to walk around with a video camera on a helmet to make sure every second of my work is accounted for.  I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to that in the future.  Can anyone say "if the monied interests can find a new way to screw you out of your hard earned money, they'll try it"?

Our local police department just got a $40,000 grant from the federal government for individual cameras on the officers (not just on the cruisers).  Nice to see my tax money at work.  Town and police officials seem to think the money was free because it came from the feds, not realizing that they're paying for it.  Can anyone say "the government's money is my money"?   

Just got a notice this week for future jury duty.  I'm sure I'll have some more stories to tell after that.

I'm also going to be visiting a certain person I've corresponded with overseas.  That should be even more interesting.  See ya in the not too distant future.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1254
State of Conn. boots on the ground

What is up in connecti...their registration is several months old now and little new is in the ether world. anyone from their or close by? Opinions from the locals?

 

robie

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1801
sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2142
Compiling Lists in Connecticut

Marc Slavo at SHTFplan.com reports on the recent demand that Connecticut owners of unregistered high capacity firearms and magazines surrender these items:

Sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire. And that is exactly what Mike Vanderboegh has chosen to do. The state of Connecticut wants to make a list – a list of gun owners. So, Vanderboegh has created his own list – a list of those state legislators who are insisting that certain firearms be [surrendered].

This strikes me as a very creative response to the implied threat of "list-making."

So now the State of Connecticut appears to be the place where a new tactic might be field tested:  How can it force the redistribution of firearms (so that only representatives of the oligarchy are well armed) while maintaining the appearance of legitimacy (a government of the people, by the people and for the people)?

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 862
Control vs. legitimacy

At some point, maintaining the appearance of control becomes more important to the government than maintaining the appearance of legitimacy.

Anyone ever read http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Foreign-Domestic-Matthew-Bracken/dp/0972831010/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393780335&sr=8-1&keywords=enemies+foreign+and+domestic ? 

I fear that, at some point, there will be a spark. It is inevitable.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
When you smell smoke...

Assume there's fire. 
More often than not in politics and news these days, there's a reason to view everything skeptically. This issue in CT is something else, though. 

I had a discussion today with a police officer, in which I questioned the double standards latent in the mentality of the modern officers' MO, and how it related to the pressures placed on the citizen. 

The points that stand out to me now are:
1. There is a difference between laws ethics, and therefore things that are legal are morally reprehensible, and things that are morally positive are illegal. This creates the added confusion of creating infractions amongst non-offenders, and allows behaviors that are essentially criminal (for example continuing to take money from contractees before filing for bankruptcy, knowing that your LLC will retain all debts and your privately held funds are 'safe' is legal, but it's illegal for me to keep chickens inside the city limits.)

2. Laws are "fixed" for citizens, and flaccid for policy makers (Nancy Pelosi's bodyguards, who retain no special federal exemption can carry a firearms when on duty into gun-free zones, where as you probably cannot). 

...with exception if you're a police officer. This double standard seeks to eliminate self-reliance in favor of a 'run and tell' mentality that ties directly into point 3:

3. Law Enforcement involvement accomplishes almost nothing, as they're usually too late to prevent a crime and therefore are relegated to simply arresting suspects (when possible) when no real result will come of it. Often as not, the crime has already been committed and the punishment will either be drawn out and insufficient or will result in prison time in an costly and overpopulated prison system which does little to prevent re-offense. Your chances of being saved by a police officer are not great. Your chances of saving yourself by using a little forethought and having some gravel in your gut... well, see point 2. Your chances would improve if a culture of self-reliance was allowed to flourish, and the double standards were trimmed back to "absurd", or (and this is pushing it) 'reasonable'.

4. Law Enforcement is, often as not, legally illiterate. In many cases, they're simply going to respond to a call with a textbook procedure, and let the court (see three above) resolve the issue later. Meaning they'll gladly put you on the pavement, confiscate your property, and take you to the station for resisting arrest, if you decide to pull away when they reach for you, your property or loved one constitution be damned.

Maybe you'll get charged with something else, too. One of the benefits of having so goddamned many laws is that you're *always* doing something wrong, it just goes unpunished until it's convenient. So you might be innocent, but that doesn't save you from the headache of having to prove it, even if you've acted morally. 

The reason I'm singling out LEOs here is that there are still a lot of good ones.
There is no question that our national leadership has absolutely no concern for your well being, and as such, the "thin blue line" is the true front, and so by identifying the negatives amongst that front, we can be more active in pushing it towards the rights of the citizen and individual.

What officers choose to do from this point (Fully embrace modern society in which the law is the law, regardless of character, or a more traditional approach that adjusts for circumstances [these laws are unconstitutional and I know these are folks of good character]) will define how this goes. 

If the Law Enforcement community sides with the state, we will see a civil war within a decade, and 'terrorism' will take on a whole new meaning (thankfully, we need to justify keeping Draconian legislation and laws, as well as our grossly inflated federal paramilitary). 

If the Law Enforcement community sides with the community, we will see a capitulation of unenforceable legislation. This would be ideal, but it will not be sustained, considering that the whole of the citizenry continues to be largely uneducated, uninterested and utterly ambivalent to anything that isn't mindless nonsense.

Sadly, the conversation I referenced got me labeled a delusional, offensive, Alex-Jones watching, sovereign citizen by the officer in question. There was not a second of hesitation by the officer; he instantly became defensive of the pervasive use of violence that typifies American Law Enforcement in urban areas. "We do it to protect ourselves", was the notion. Yes, fine. Did you stop to think about WHY people are resisting in such numbers? Is this of no concern?

Interestingly enough, of the judgments, I am only offensive.
Mainly because I find it interesting how willing those personalities are to cast stones when they're negative, while withholding any positive values. Indicative of the mindset, which is why I expect shots to be fired in CT in response to this legislation within this year. It'll start with SWAT. Some random 'do gooding' neighbor will get pissed because a gun owners dog shit in their yard, and the next thing you know... we will dive headfirst back into the age of Ruby Ridge, Waco and various other horrific incidences of culture clashing with heavy political hands, who value their agenda above life.

Using this 'double standard' of enforcement paradigm - making a list for a lawmaker will be a prudent course of action to isolate potential troublemakers. For a citizen, it will be conspiracy with intent to commit murder, and of course be subject to RICO and a host of other statutes. It's a bad idea. It won't last, and soon after, it'll become a federal matter. Kill the rebellion quick.

Wandering thoughts, and after nearly 3000 posts, I find that I'm more interested in peace than pistols. 
Being left alone sounds preferable to fighting over pedantic, unenforceable issues centered around greed and power. I suppose it's never been any other way...

Aaron

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3245
New New York law

This is of particular importance to NY residents.

NY residents know of the badly named "Safe Act" that was passed by NYS after being pushed to do so by Gov. Cuomo.  The main effect for most of us was that we had to register any assault type weapons, like semi-auto AR 15s or AKs.  I waited until the last minute and complied while holding my nose.  Its a good thing I did because those who did not register their guns by the deadline cannot legally sell or possess them.  IOW, they are criminals no matter what they do.

I was speaking to a friend/retired cop who is also a gun dealer today.  It turns out there is a Safe Act II in the works that .probably will be presented to the public after the coming election, in which Cuomo is running and has a commanding lead.

The new proposal has a number of increasingly severe restrictions on gun ownership, including the necessity to register all guns, limit gun purchases to one every 30 days, submit an advanced application to register/buy a gun and a 15 day waiting period after receiving approval from the state before actually taking possession of the gun.  But, perhaps most damaging to an individual's ability to buy a gun is a requirement for dealers to have a $1 million liability policy for EVERY GUN THEY SELL.  These policies would pay out if that gun accidentally or intentionally injures any person, no matter who actually shoots it.  That will put all dealers out of business except possibly for those selling to very wealthy buyers.  Which, of course, raises my darkest suspicions. 

According to a guns rights group Cuomo can be defeated if every gun owner votes against him.  Unfortunately, as it turns out, gun owners vote in very low numbers.

Oh well, maybe this is all someone's fevered imagination.  But, its the direction all this seems to be moving.

Doug

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Fingers crossed

That this doesn't come to pass.

New York's ability to thrust its Draconian mandates on its citizens is pretty disgusting. I suppose they can't just leave matters be. It really illustrates nicely how democracy works.

This thread has been dormant for a while and I was thinking of posting some major lessons learned and concept that I've been testing for a few years now. Is there still enough interest here to discuss those things?

Cheers,

Aaron

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
Yes there is interest sir!
A. M. wrote:

This thread has been dormant for a while and I was thinking of posting some major lessons learned and concept that I've been testing for a few years now. Is there still enough interest here to discuss those things?

Cheers,

Aaron

Yes!

Yes there is interest sir!

thatchmo's picture
thatchmo
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2008
Posts: 484
bring it on....

Always enjoy and am enlightened by your postings Aaron.  Would appreciate any new info you have to share on this forum.  Aloha, Steve.

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2269
Definitely interested

Hi Aaron, ditto what Tycer and thatchmo said.  I always appreciate benefiting from your knowledge and experience here.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3245
Please do

I'll be interested in whatever you have to say. Thanks.

Doug

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Great!

Thanks guys - I'm glad to hear this. 

I'll get a couple projects in the works regarding some interesting lessons I've learned regarding emergency firearms. I've put about a year into determining if they're viable and have come out with some good results.

It may take me a week or so to get it all together, but I'm looking forward to having some more discussions on this topic. There seems to be a tide of violence lately, so I still would rather emphasize the importance of being situationally aware and avoiding problems, but the firearms corner represent the lessons of last resort. 

Does anyone have any other news?
I'd like to see/hear how other people have been preparing.

Cheers,
Aaron

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
I've come a long ways... Been

I've come a long ways...

Been competing in PPC and IDPA.

Watched an "experienced" competitor have a ND, no more than 5' away from me with the muzzle loosely pointed in my direction.  It ended up putting a .22LR in his leg.  I left that club and have never returned.

Have a Dillon 650, and loving it.

Have a conceal license and have become active in the firearms community and regularly OC.

joesxm's picture
joesxm
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 12 2011
Posts: 1
joe reporting in

Aaron,

It would be nice to have some more firearms discussion.

I have been somewhat laying low this year.  I continue to train with King 33 and have taken an Advanced Pistol and a Carbine class with Mike Pannone.

I also did a 300 yard rifle class with K33 which was interesting.  Seeing the steel target swing and then waiting to hear the clang of the bullet striking the target was a good science project on the difference between speed of light and speed of sound.  Which leads me to the side thought of if Washington DC were nuked it would take 30 minutes for the sound to reach New England, assuming that the flash and sound could make it that far.

K33 has added a Laser Shot Training System, which is a computer controlled video paired with modified SIRT pistols.  The computer controls the video and can track the shots.  It can run basic marksmanship drills, IDPA stages as well as interactive self defense scenarios with alternate endings controlled by the instructor based on your reactions.  Quite the nice setup.

phecksel,

Glad to hear that you are making progress.  On thing though. If by "OC" you mean Open Carry please consider the following:

If you live in one of the more anti-gun states, open carrying needlessly aggravates things.

One of the main advantages of carrying a pistol is the surprise factor since people do not know that you have it.  Open carrying negates the surprise factor and provides no tactical advantage.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments