What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Shouldn’t we be asking why when you were growing up it wasn’t an issue and now it is?

the only people that really had guns then were hunters. Gun humping wasn't really a thing yet.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

the only people that really had guns then were hunters.
I believe gun ownership statistics show that the number of people who own guns now, say as compared to 40 years ago, has dropped significantly. However, the number of guns owned by people who still have them has increased even more significantly.

That last number is not, at least to me, a surprise. There is no doubt that a portion of the gun owning population has increased the number of guns they own as a result of a misguided belief the government is going to stop the sale of them or some such thing. There is another pretty easy explanation for how it is that the number of guns owned by each gun owner, on average, has increased. Take my example.

40 years ago I think I owned three guns. One was a shotgun, one was a small caliber rifle I used for target practice, and the third was a rifle I used for deer hunting.

I probably own 10 guns now, and I don't for a minute believe that Obama or anyone else is coming to take them away.

I bought a second shotgun because I needed a much smaller and lighter gun for hunting upland game, as opposed to the ducks and geese that I hunted with my original shotgun. I later purchased a second rifle that operated with a bolt action because I was dissatisfied with the semi-automatic rifle that I owned.

In both cases I hung onto the original guns, partially out of sentimental value (one was the first gun that I'd ever owned, the other was a gift), and partially because I still occasionally used them.

Since then I've essentially "inherited" a number of guns. My father gave my brother and me a couple of his guns that had been owned by my grandfather. I received a couple from other family members who passed. The next thing you know I own about 10 guns.

When I needed a new gas grill, I gave my old gas grill away. Guns aren't a product like a gas grill where you get rid of the old one if you acquire a new one. Yeah, I could sell them. But they're also like the cedar chest I inherited from my grandmother when she passed. I don't really need it, but I've kept it out of sentimental reasons and I probably wouldn't get much for it if I did sell it.

I know there are posters here who like to believe that all gun owners just have an insatiable fetish for guns because, well, that fulfills the jerk off fantasy they have about gun owners. So long as those posters keep a closed mind on the subject, the interminable debate will continue.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

So the takeaway from this is...SJHovey is old :p
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

I know there are posters here who like to believe that all gun owners just have an insatiable fetish for guns because, well, that fulfills the jerk off fantasy they have about gun owners. So long as those posters keep a closed mind on the subject, the interminable debate will continue.

So long as the jack-wagons that insist guns are totally safe despite the tens of thousands killed by them every year keep a closed mind and refuse to budge an inch on any meaningful regulations, the interminable debate will continue :rolleyes:

The blame game can be such fun!
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

I prefer terms like "experienced" or "seasoned." One doesn't have to be so cruel if a little effort is made. :p

At what point do "old," "experienced," and "seasoned" become "creepy?"
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

So long as the jack-wagons that insist guns are totally safe despite the tens of thousands killed by them every year keep a closed mind and refuse to budge an inch on any meaningful regulations, the interminable debate will continue :rolleyes:

The blame game can be such fun!

Guns themselves are completely safe. Mine are a collection of steel and wood sitting quietly in my home.

Guns in the hands of people who don't know how to safely handle them, who are too young or incapacitated to safely handle them, or choose to pick them up and use them for evil intent, are weapons capable of great harm.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Guns themselves are completely safe. Mine are a collection of steel and wood sitting quietly in my home.

Guns in the hands of people who don't know how to safely handle them, who are too young or incapacitated to safely handle them, or choose to pick them up and use them for evil intent, are weapons capable of great harm.

So no issues with Iran and the Norks stockpiling nukes? They are, after all, just a collection of materials sitting quietly.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

So no issues with Iran and the Norks stockpiling nukes? They are, after all, just a collection of materials sitting quietly.

Ala the "automobile", there is some positive (or neutral) usage of a personal firearm: target shooting, hunting, personal defense.

There is no purpose for a nuclear weapon but mass destruction hence its designation as a weapon of mass destruction.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Ala the "automobile", there is some positive (or neutral) usage of a personal firearm: target shooting, hunting, personal defense.

There is no purpose for a nuclear weapon but mass destruction hence its designation as a weapon of mass destruction.

I started typing the same response, and then thought, "if this has to be explained, what's the point?"
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Ala the "automobile", there is some positive (or neutral) usage of a personal firearm: target shooting, hunting, personal defense.

There is no purpose for a nuclear weapon but mass destruction hence its designation as a weapon of mass destruction.
So basically it's like a far more powerful AR-15. Glad we got that settled.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

So basically it's like a far more powerful AR-15. Glad we got that settled.

Since you guys persist in driving off this cliff, let me ask you this question. What do you think the debate over nuclear weapons would be like in this world if you could also take an ICBM with a nuclear warhead and hook it up to the power grid and supply all of the electrical needs of Tehran?
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Ala the "automobile", there is some positive (or neutral) usage of a personal firearm: target shooting, hunting, personal defense.

There is no purpose for a nuclear weapon but mass destruction hence its designation as a weapon of mass destruction.

Those are all very subjective. Guns are for killing, just likes nukes. I believe Kim Jong Un would tell you nukes are necessary for his countries national defense. He shoots off missiles for target practice so if they are needed he knows he can hit his target. From his perspective there would be plenty of "positives" to his having a nuclear arsenal. Objectively VERY few people NEED a gun.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Those are all very subjective. Guns are for killing, just likes nukes. I believe Kim Jong Un would tell you nukes are necessary for his countries national defense. He shoots off missiles for target practice so if they are needed he knows he can hit his target. From his perspective there would be plenty of "positives" to his having a nuclear arsenal. Objectively VERY few people NEED a gun.

Comparing a WMD to a personal firearm makes comparing a scimitar to a scalpel sound reasonable.

PS - Who decides who of "VERY few people NEED a gun"? You? Me? SJ? Kep? Barack Obama? Sarah Palin? Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Neil Gorsuch? Chuck Schumer? Mike Lee?
 
Last edited:
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Those are all very subjective. Guns are for killing, just likes nukes. I believe Kim Jong Un would tell you nukes are necessary for his countries national defense. He shoots off missiles for target practice so if they are needed he knows he can hit his target. From his perspective there would be plenty of "positives" to his having a nuclear arsenal. Objectively VERY few people NEED a gun.

One of the things that I think is extremely funny, while at the same time being extraordinarily sad about the entire gun debate and "assault weapons" (i.e. AR-15's) in particular is 25 years ago no one ever purchased an AR-15 even though they were readily available and for sale to the public since the 1960's. They were the gun version of a 1998 Kia.

Then, someone got the spectacular idea of banning the sale of them, but only temporarily. When GWB elected not to renew the ban maybe 10 years later, they suddenly became one of the most sought after consumer goods in the country.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

Comparing a WMD to a personal firearm makes comparing a scimitar to a scalpel sound reasonable.

PS - Who decides who of "VERY few people NEED a gun"? You? Me? SJ? Kep? Barack Obama? Sarah Palin? Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Neil Gorsuch? Chuck Schumer? Mike Lee?

Comparing firearms to cars and knives is just as dumb, yet you do it all the time. Way to ignore the substance and change the subject though. You gave completely subjective reasons as "positives" for gun use, while comparing it to automobiles that have a very objective positive use.
 
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: But the Second Amendment!

So basically they should just reinstate the ban and then don't lift it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top