“Shrounded”?
Shrouded; typo.
A shrouded hammer is enveloped within an enclosure, but protrudes enough to be manipulated. This allows for a smooth profile; traditional exposed hammers (like this one) can snag on clothing when drawn. A shrouded hammer can be manually cocked to allow single-action function, meaning that the trigger pull just drops the hammer without also rotating the cylinder, this makes the trigger pull shorter and easier, which facilitates accuracy. Here is a 651 with the shrouded hammer, note that it just barely protrudes enough to be drawn back.
Another option is a hammerless revolver, like this Smith & Wesson. You lose the ability to fire single-action, but gain an even smoother, snag-free draw.
I salute you for embracing the intellectually honest approach, rather than claiming that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I do contend it was not intended to. Whether it does depends on whether you go by “original intent” or “strict construction,” which are not the same thing even though RWs seem to invoke them interchangeably.
Ah, I see. I misunderstood you.
After D.C. vs. Heller, there is at least precedent from SCOTUS for the individual right, which means eliminating protection of the right would require an amendment or a reversal by a later Court.
Agreed. That is, I can agree with that as a fact without agreeing with the decision.
OK so as long as I lock up my guns, I am not liable if someone breaks into my gun locker and goes on a shooting rampage right?
Chart 7, maybe? On closer inspection, the site I was looking at uses burglary and “home invasion” interchangably so let me amend my previous statement to say 10,000 burglaries/year. Home invasion is apparently a term that home alrm and security companies made up to scare people.
Ahh, this was not clear to me until just now. I thought the idea was that we should either ignore it or that the proposals were consistent with the second amendment. I don’t think the second amendment is in any danger despite what the gun nuts (and perhaps you) think.
Then why burden the push for these two highly effective measures with speculative practices that MIGHT work.
You mean physically? I’m not a glock fanboi but they are infinitely customizable and you can get just about any grip you want for it. Or do you have a problem with the lack of a safety?
[quote]
I’m not a big revolver fan, but I really like my 651. It’s amazingly concealable, has a shrounded hammer so as to be snag-free, and packs a lot more power than similarly-sized .380 autos.
I can make a pretty good case for using the raging judge as a home defense weapon but you might not be convinced. My wife wasn’t. So, I just fessed up and admitted it was just loads of fun.
Before Heller I would have agreed with you. Before Heller I would have said that your right to bear arms was the “higher of” whatever the state or the federal government would allow. So if the federal government wanted everyone to have access to M-16s so that people would be more prepared in case of war, state could not gainsay them. If a state considered every citizen a member of the militia then the citizens of that state (the unorganized militia) would have access to whatever weapons the state can give its organized militia. But it turns out I was wrong and the second amendment confers an individual right to bear arms because of the unwritten parts of the constitution doesn’t merely give you the right to contraception and abortion, it also gives you the right to keep a gun in your house.
Both sides of the gun-rights debate seem to put too much emphasis on home defense. I place much more on defense outside the home, hence concealed carry.
It’s both; the grip angle and the slide release feel awkward (worst slide release I’ve ever used was the Glock 21’s), and the DAO trigger with no safety makes me uneasy. I need either a DA/SA pull, or a safety.
Oh, that’s reason enough.
Ninth Amendment; just because it’s not in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right.
A beaver tail helps… you can get “on top” of gun much better.
I’m sure, but why pay more for a Glock, then have to add accessories to make it ergonomically acceptable, when you can just get a Sig or a Taurus and be set from the word go?
I concur with the two other voices who made comments about the press. At present the Left is on the top. Of course if your particular ox is being gored you’ll have trouble seeing damage on the other guy’s.
There is a tremendous amount of social pressure on us moderates to say and do the correct thing or suffer, at least, social censure. At worst, jobs can be lost if you aren’t politically correct. This creeps so close to thought crime it chills me.
After years of seeing Presidential Halloween masks on parade, both Republican and Democrat, look what is happening in Missouri because a rodeo clown wore one of Obama. The furor is drawing national attention and legislators are getting involved. Lives are ruined by this kind of seriousness over a crude joke. They can’t get a budget in place so - expend energy on this.
I don’t doubt, human nature being what it is, if the situation were reversed, and reversed for any length of time, we would begin to see a similar fear of loss of what they have worked for coming from the Left.
(I know what some of you are thinking right now, if you can get your minds off Hitler and guns for a moment) And that’s, “But it’s because ours is the True and Noble cause.”
I sit in the middle and hope for a balance. People can’t ever get there and stay for long. Human nature demands that someone wins and someone else feels the loss, but what a sweet world that would be.
Just heard now that the NAACP has demanded of Eric Holder that the rodeo clown be investigated. Wonder how much that will cost the taxpayers.
It must be a Republican plot!
I think it’s about time for a RW/LW alliance. Get the moderates! :mad:
Do moderates ever have a voice?
We need some folks who know how to compromise on both sides. And the persuaders.
You mean, torture implements?
No, that’s just right wing propaganda. The media is dominated by the right wing and has always been dominated by the right wing.
This thread is about paranoia, right? 
It largely comes from the same place as American left-wing paranoia comes from.
Honestly, as an outsider looking in it seems the American left is just as paranoid as the American right. Didn’t Barack Obama, then a senator, along with Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry publicly state their opposition to American ports being sold to a Dubai holding company based on some weird fantasy about them becoming terrorist gateways (despite ~75% of American ports already being owned by foreigners)?
Not quite. The Paranoid Style is always the same, but both content and social causes are highly variable.
I dearly love watching the amount of delusion I see in every one of these posts where lib bashes conservative or vice versa. No, our side is not nearly as bad as their’s. Oh, you have some evidence to the contrary? No, that is not nearly the same. Your biases are oh so obvious.
Whichever side you are on, you most likely don’t see something occurring to a politician mimicking your views as nearly as bad as if the same thing occurred with a politician on the other side.
For every whacko theory on a conservative side, there is an equally whacko theory on the other side.
I just get so tired of the extremists from either side…lame. Very rarely is a solution to be found on the extreme side of any issue…the middle is where it is at. Unfortunately, moderates seem to be in short supply.