Repeal the second amendment, because people can’t be trusted with “freedom”
You should make that your bumper sticker ElvisL1ves. I bet everyone would flock over to your side then.:rolleyes:
Yep, Obama’s jackbooted thugs are comin’ for yer guns any day now …
Cool! You did the “strokin’” thing. That one never gets old and, not only persuades people to your point of view, but also highlights what an intellectual you are! Back to the poll thing? Really now, how does that prove the inherent moral superiority and philosophical depth of your position on gun control? Again, perhaps you would like to start criticizing spelling and grammar and throw in a few username-based insults. Every time you try something like that, you highlight that you have absolutely nothing to say in defense of yourself or your position…and that is exactly how I like it. If you made a post that was actually on topic, let alone thoughtful or even factually correct, you wouldn’t be the #1 gun salesman on this board. Wayne Lapierre should send you flowers for all you do for him and the gun industry.
<sigh> I’m sure you must have seen quotes like these before, but I’ll reiterate them:
[ul]
[li]Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison, The Federalist Papers[/li]
[li]“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188[/li]
[li]Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. […] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment[/li]
[li]Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788[/li]
[li]“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788[/li]
[li]“The great object is, that every man be armed. […] Every one who is able may have a gun.”-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788[/li]
[li]That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…-- Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789[/li]
[li]The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals… It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789[/li]
[li]Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.-- Noah Webster[/li][/ul]
And finally, in rebuttal to your broken-record “what does the Constitution say?”:
Actually it’s winning because of people like you. The NRA just has to say “Obama is coming for your guns!” and you lot are all “QUICK, TAKE MY MONEY!!!”. Because fear works on you.
High praise, coming from an expert in “ignorant”, “violently bad-tempered” and “dishonest”.
Armed vigilantes take to the streets in Ferguson:
One can only speculate on the police response to roving bands of openly armed black men.
Not in the Constitution.
Another gun nut telling the same lie as you. Impressive.
BTW, here’s how the NRA made you believe their lies. Among other things,
This is good:
Which, of course, is the form of lie you’re using - the stripping of context.
Read in full if you’re willing to learn how easily gulled you are.
Google, “Schutzenverein.” E.g., DANK Haus Shooting Range
Honestly, it doesn’t bother me, provided the BAC is kept below, say, .04%. Most people probably shoot better after 1/2 a drink than dead sober anyway. The trick, at least from the smallbore hobbiests I shot with, was to use enough chemical help (booze, beta-blockers) to calm down and drop the heart rate, but not so much that you lost focus on building a good shooting position. Just follow the Four Rules, and get draconian on those that don’t.
Scumpup, you actually have the revolver type in question, I’ve never shot one. I just remember reading about the Freedom Arms lawsuit, where a genius dropped a hammer from half-cock on a cartridge under the hammer, and put a large wound in his own leg: it’s impossible, barring mechanical failure of the pistol, for a similar accident to happen with the Blackhawk? I agree that, despite the negligence and stupidity of the shippet, the highest probability is that the accident occurred because the worker was deliberately screwing around with the pistol.
Totally agree with either you or Lumpy who mentioned it, that this Board’s membership’s commitment to fighting ignorance goes right out the window when it comes to firearms issues.
Czarcasm, I’m really sorry to hear about your family’s recent tragedies and losses, this one, and your relative’s suicide you mentioned a short time ago. I don’t know what to say, except that you and your family have my deepest sympathies and prayers.
Except of course that Scumpup first set a number of assumptions as the premise for his “experiment” and then claimed that this proved that we were wrong and the postal worker was lying without the slightest evidence that his various assumptions were true. He didn’t even caveat his argument with “if these assumptions are true”; he just went straight into maniacal-cackle mode.
And since it has been shown that, given a different set of equally reasonable assumptions, the postal worker’s story could be true, arguing with Scumpup remains a form of “fighting ignorance”.
Fubaya in post #5478 laid out more relevant facts on this issue than any of the other posters prattling on about how the postal worker must have been playing gunslinger, but that hasn’t seemed to have mattered either.
If someone orders a pitcher of beer, is the whole table banned from the shooting range?
What still remains is that I did real world experimentation with a gun of the type involved. My results point to the gun not firing from the package being handled. You, and the other willfully ignorant sorts, could have done experimentation of your own and described how your results were different from mine. You didn’t do that though. What you did do was stick your fingers in your ears and yammer lest you have to acknowledge that the situation doesn’t fit your preferred narative.
Here, I’ll even help you. You figure out how the trigger got pressed inside the box. We’ll assume, to make this easy for you, that the stuff about the gun being shipped loaded and cocked is true.
Occam’s razor, man. The simplest explanation is that it was a pre-1973 weapon without a trigger safety. Yet you continue to insist that your real world experimentation is valid even though you know nothing about the specifics of the gun involved.
Cardboard tubes.
Yes, you guys are following SA’s lead. He did a “thought experiment” and called it fact. You have done somw wishful thinking and called it fact.
You display more ignorance. The pre- 1973 models were recalled because they would sometimes fire if the hammer was down on a loaded chamber and the hammer was struck a blow. This most typically happened if the gun was dropped and landed just right on the hammer spur. Like the original Colt revolvers, they were best carried with an empty chamber under the lowered hammer. If we accept the loaded and cocked story, the trigger still had to be pressed to fire the gun.
Who proposed the “loaded and cocked” story? Did I miss something in the original articles stating that the gun was mailed with the hammer cocked? Or is that more assumptions you’re piling on?
We know the gun was loaded because it was fired. We know it went off, which, according to you, can happen if it was a pre-1973 gun and the hammer was hit (no trigger pull required). You then go on to say, in your last sentence, that a trigger pull was required.
Occam’s razor, man. It was a pre-1973 gun and the hammer got whacked somehow. No “Postman Earp” required.
We are laughing at him, yes, but for merely thinking of doing an experiment about his particular fetish (about which decent people are appalled, another similarity you share although you have more than one, don’t you?). You went ahead and did yours. At least you left the kiddies out of this one.
Get help.