Handgun Lovers

Off Topic
41

[quote]DB297 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
DemiAjax wrote:
Please, don’t use Ancient Greece as a model for fundamental human rights; it makes you look silly.

I wasn’t talking about “fundamental human rights”. I have no idea what these might be.

In fact, I was referring specifically to the fundamental rights of free men, as they have been understood and practiced throughout history, including Ancient Greece. A free citizen of a city-state had the right and the duty to bear arms. If you disagree with this statement, please present your rebuttal. Otherwise you are the one who looks silly.

I’ll be happy to rebut the statement. Citizens had the right and DUTY to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. Last I checked we don’t have a militia anymore.

Please enlighten me why anyone needs a handgun and don’t give me that protection line. When was the last time someone broke into you house?[/quote]

But… but… people like to collect guns! Yeah, maybe Iran just likes to collect nuclear power. I also love the idea that somebody would have to use a handgun to defend their home. Yeah, those shotguns, no good, you need a Desert Eagle .50 if someone wants to steal your TV.

But… But… But… what if I’m walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me, I need to be able to pull out my gun and shoot him. Tighter gun control means LESS VIOLENT CRIME. All this paranoid bullshit about every criminal being able to get a hand-gun even if pistols are illegal and/or extremely hard to obtain is ridiculous.

Petty thugs, about whom you are worried, don’t have a lot of incentive to spend a shitload of money for an illegal handgun from some super secret crime ring. Also the majority of gun deaths are ACCIDENTAL. Handguns are easily concealable people killers - that’s it.

By making them easy to get, you’re simply opening the door to stupid motherfuckers who have no qualification or reason to use them other than to make themselves feel like a big man and end up shooting themselves or someone else. I’m not saying anyone on this forum fits that description; i’m saying that people should stop acting on fear and consider that handguns kill shitloads of people.

Tighter gun control means that more people will get guns who ACTUALLY NEED them (Cops? Qualified people with a legitimate reason for fearing bodily harm?)for protection purposes and not so they can fucking shoot paper on weekends and act like a badass. Oh right, it’ll also prevent their kids from blowing a hole through their skulls while Daddy isn’t home.

42

[quote]DB297 wrote:
I’ll be happy to rebut the statement. Citizens had the right and DUTY to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. Last I checked we don’t have a militia anymore.

Please enlighten me why anyone needs a handgun and don’t give me that protection line. When was the last time someone broke into you house? [/quote]

Because the Constitution guarantees us that right. We have always been an armed society. We always will be.

Why doi crime rates go down in areas that concealed carry permita are issued?

Arming the general public is way safer than disarming everyone but the criminals.

Why do you think you have the right to disregard the constitution because you don’t ‘think’ anyone needs a weapon?

43

[quote]
Tighter gun control means that more people will get guns who ACTUALLY NEED them (Cops? Qualified people with a legitimate reason for fearing bodily harm?)for protection purposes and not so they can fucking shoot paper on weekends and act like a badass. Oh right, it’ll also prevent their kids from blowing a hole through their skulls while Daddy isn’t home. [/quote]

But come on, I’m sure shooting through paper makes them feel better about having a small penis.

I also find it humorus that you can buy a gun in WalMart but can’t buy a CD with the word “fuck” in the song lyrics??? For some reason I thing a gun is a bit more dangerous but hey, that’s just me.

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:
DB297 wrote:
I’ll be happy to rebut the statement. Citizens had the right and DUTY to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. Last I checked we don’t have a militia anymore.

Please enlighten me why anyone needs a handgun and don’t give me that protection line. When was the last time someone broke into you house?

Because the Constitution guarantees us that right. We have always been an armed society. We always will be.

Why doi crime rates go down in areas that concealed carry permita are issued?

Arming the general public is way safer than disarming everyone but the criminals.

Why do you think you have the right to disregard the constitution because you don’t ‘think’ anyone needs a weapon?
[/quote]

Our society was a racist, sexist society, so we shouldn’t have bothered to try and correct that? No, wait, lets keep around something that predates a stable police force and army that results in thousands of accidental deaths a year. Property rights? Owning a house does not increase the chance that someone will die.

So you’d be happy if everyone in the United States who was “qualified” enough for a Concealed Weapons Permit carried around a handgun with him/her 24/7?

Crime rates go down, what about gun deaths? If I could have someone steal my wallet to eventually prevent someone’s death, I’d do it.

45

[quote]DB297 wrote:

I’ll be happy to rebut the statement. Citizens had the right and DUTY to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. Last I checked we don’t have a militia anymore. [/quote]

Aaaahahahahaha! The last time you checked what?! Must not have been the United States Code:

quote The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are?
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[/quote]

And it certainly must not have been Tench Coxe:

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”

Tench was, I hope you understand, using the word “sword” as a metaphor for all weapons.

[quote]
Please enlighten me why anyone needs a handgun and don’t give me that protection line. When was the last time someone broke into you house?[/quote]

(Sigh) Okay, here we go. Your tone implies that you object to private ownership of all weapons, not merely handguns. If this is the case than you are probably incapable of enlightenment, but I’ll do what I can.

You may believe that the United States is a relatively safe country with very little violent crime, and an expertly trained police force in every municipality whose duty it is to protect private citizens from criminals wherever and whenever they may choose to practice their mischief, and that therefore personal weapons are superfluous.

You may further believe that all animals on the North American continent are tame and completely nonthreatening to humans, and therefore one may walk freely wherever he pleases, confident that he will be unmolested by claw, fang or horn of our four-legged furry friends.

If you believe either or both of these, then I would have to say that you are a fool.

Operating on the assumption that you are not a fool, but merely a troll, then I shall continue.

I have never been in an automobile accident, but I still wear a seat belt. The time to put on your seat belt is not after you have just had a head-on collision. A handgun is simply a precaution. If you are confident enough in your fists and feet to defend youself against any threat, then bully for you. Me, I’ll take the gun. Call me a paranoid gun nut if you wish. I’ve been called worse, I can take it.

As a matter of fact, I own two firearms, a rifle and a pistol. I am confident in my ability to hit anything I can see with the rifle, either four-legged or two. Of the two, I would rather have the rifle in case of riot (as in Los Angeles), breakdown of authority (as in New Orleans), or terrorist attack (you think it’ll only happen on airplanes?). The only problem with a rifle is that it’s never around when you need it. A pistol is.

That’s why.

46

[quote]DB297 wrote:

Please enlighten me why anyone needs a handgun and don’t give me that protection line. When was the last time someone broke into you house?[/quote]

August, 2005.

Just 'cause it doesn’t happen to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
In the words of Rage Against The Machine, “Wake Up.”

47

Hey DB? Ajax? I think you may have misread the title of the thread. This is the “Handgun Lovers” thread. This thread is for people who own and love handguns to talk about the handguns they own and love.

There is a gun control thread on this site, where you will find lots of other fools…er, I mean folks with hoplophobic opinions similar to yours. I suggest you go over there with your comments.

Or hey! Even better! Start your own “We Think Guns Are Icky and Scary and that Only Trustworthy People Like Government Agents Should Have Them” thread. We promise that we’ll stay way the fuck out of it, if you promise to do the same with this thread.

48

[quote]DB297 wrote:

I also find it humorus that you can buy a gun in WalMart but can’t buy a CD with the word “fuck” in the song lyrics??? For some reason I thing a gun is a bit more dangerous but hey, that’s just me.[/quote]

You can’t buy a gun in Wal Mart. Try it.

In the words of Ted Nugent, “Got you in a Stranglehold.”

49

[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
Our society was a racist, sexist society, so we shouldn’t have bothered to try and correct that? No, wait, lets keep around something that predates a stable police force and army that results in thousands of accidental deaths a year. Property rights? Owning a house does not increase the chance that someone will die.[/quote]

Niether Womens’ not being able to vote, nor slavery were rights enumerated in the constitution. There were amendments passed to end those things - so I’m not really sure what the hell you are trying to say. The only amendment in the constitutuion that has ever been reversed was prohibition. More people die from drunk driving related incidents than accidental handgun deaths. Should we then ban alcohol again?

Your logic is horrible. Go take away the other big killers like drunk driving and obesity before you decide to take away my fire arms if you are truly affraid someone might die.

Absolutely. You say that like it is a bad thing. I find your pseudo concern comical.

[quote]Crime rates go down, what about gun deaths? If I could have someone steal my wallet to eventually prevent someone’s death, I’d do it.
[/quote]

Like I said before - if you are truly that concerned about preventable deaths, then stop the big killers first. Like slippery bath tubs, drunk drivers, over-eating fat asses, and while you are at it - you might start with trying to get the automobile banned. I think traffic accidents kill more people than anything else.

Somehow - I don’t think the dying part is nearly as important to you as the taking of constitutional rights.

50

[quote]rainjack wrote:
DemiAjax wrote:
Our society was a racist, sexist society, so we shouldn’t have bothered to try and correct that? No, wait, lets keep around something that predates a stable police force and army that results in thousands of accidental deaths a year. Property rights? Owning a house does not increase the chance that someone will die.

Niether Womens’ not being able to vote, nor slavery were rights enumerated in the constitution. There were amendments passed to end those things - so I’m not really sure what the hell you are trying to say. The only amendment in the constitutuion that has ever been reversed was prohibition. More people die from drunk driving related incidents than accidental handgun deaths. Should we then ban alcohol again?

Your logic is horrible. Go take away the other big killers like drunk driving and obesity before you decide to take away my fire arms if you are truly affraid someone might die.

So you’d be happy if everyone in the United States who was “qualified” enough for a Concealed Weapons Permit carried around a handgun with him/her 24/7?

Absolutely. You say that like it is a bad thing. I find your pseudo concern comical.

Crime rates go down, what about gun deaths? If I could have someone steal my wallet to eventually prevent someone’s death, I’d do it.

Like I said before - if you are truly that concerned about preventable deaths, then stop the big killers first. Like slippery bath tubs, drunk drivers, over-eating fat asses, and while you are at it - you might start with trying to get the automobile banned. I think traffic accidents kill more people than anything else.

Somehow - I don’t think the dying part is nearly as important to you as the taking of constitutional rights.
[/quote]

You’re hilarious. You accuse my logic of being flawed and then try to degrade my argument by making two absurd, nonsensical comparisons.
Take away obesity? That makes sense - oh wait, no it doesn’t. Do you see a lot of fat people killing other people by sitting on them? Right now outlawing obesity makes less sense than “outlawing” suicide.

Guess what genius? There’s a LAW against drunk driving! See, we have these things called laws, and basically they make it so people don’t do things harming other people because they’ll get in trouble. See, when people drunk drive, they’re not thinking “I’m going to kill someone and possibly myself by ramming into him/her.” They do it, BY ACCIDENT.

Traffic accidents? 99% of the time, someone breaks a traffic LAW and somebody else gets killed.

There are traffic LAWS and drunk driving LAWS because situations were found where people died at a much higher rate. Why the hell shouldn’t there be laws against handguns if they’re killing people in comparable numbers?
Just like how thousands of people are killed by handguns BY ACCIDENT. Except, wait, what’s this? There’s no LAW against handguns.

By the way, where the hell did i say, that i would “Take away your firearms” ? You can keep your shotguns, your rifles, whatever. My problem is with easily obtainable HANDGUNS. I’m not even for BANNING, i’m for stricter control of them. Stop making up things.

About your constitutional amendment “argument.” I was arguing that societal ills should be taken care of. Accidental gun deaths are a societal ill in this country. Also, and i’m going to make this very clear, I NEVER mentioned repealing the second amendment. It was my fault that I didn’t nuance my earlier post enough to express what I had been expressing all along.

I think that a law should somehow nuance the second amendment to prevent easy access to handguns. But your argument is completely and totally moot anyways, since my intention was NOT to abolish the 2nd amendment.

Even if I were arguing for the abolition of the second amendent, by citing the abolition of the Prohibition amendment, you give precedent to constitutional amendments resulting in negative societal characteristics (ie. increase of organized crime, and sustained popular subversion of the amendment under prohibition) being nixed.
Nice try though.

I was only pulled into this debate because of that ridiculous comparison the Ancient Greeks, and the quality of counter-arguments isn’t encouraging me to stick around.

51

[quote]rainjack wrote:

A lot of really good shit that completely dismantled what that silly anti-freedom nut wrote.[/quote]

God damn, Rainjack. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Why is it that the Left has this image of themselves as intellectuals, and the Right being stupid and inarticulate? In exchanges between the firearm owners and the hoplophobes, the gunners always seem to present their arguments in a thoughtful and logical fashion, while the anti-gunners seem to fly off the handle and make silly statements like “if I could have my wallet stolen to prevent somebody’s death, I’d do it!” or my favorite, “Property rights? Owning a house does not increase the chance that someone will die!”

Classic.

You’re all right, RJ.

V

52

I second that, please discuss gun control somewhere else like in the politics thread. No need to reply just post somewhere else.

I’d like to keep this thread strictly on handguns, just as the rifle thread is about rifles.

Thank you.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey DB? Ajax? I think you may have misread the title of the thread. This is the “Handgun Lovers” thread. This thread is for people who own and love handguns to talk about the handguns they own and love.

There is a gun control thread on this site, where you will find lots of other fools…er, I mean folks with hoplophobic opinions similar to yours. I suggest you go over there with your comments.

Or hey! Even better! Start your own “We Think Guns Are Icky and Scary and that Only Trustworthy People Like Government Agents Should Have Them” thread. We promise that we’ll stay way the fuck out of it, if you promise to do the same with this thread.[/quote]

53

Hey everyone, ya hijacked Cezar’s thread.
Cezar:

Currently shooting a Sig P226 in 9mm right now. The ammo is cheaper than .45. Had a new roll mark Colt for a while and foolishly traded it on another (mistake). The .45 rocks, but I need a slight bit of gunsmithing since I’m left handed. I did not like the Sig at first with it’s trigger pull. Have gotten used to it now after a little over 4000 rounds and it’s damned sweet.

Would like to have a p220 in .45 I think. Although I might be looking into the Glock21 as well.
Shoot what ya brought,
N8dawg124

54

i like the the '‘old’'colt 1911,carried one when i was an infantryman on the ‘‘Z’’ in korea ; many moons ago , in the early 70’s. also have a colt 22 auto,s + w mod.10 38 sp

'‘better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it’'an old western saying

55

This forum has about two dozen regulars who could turn a thread on the color of grass into a dick-measuring contest. All that testosterone is great, but you get better results if you take it out on the iron rather than some other bastard with a keyboard.

I have a number of favorite guns. If I were to recommend one handgun in general, it would be an H&K USP .45. I prefer the feel of the .40, it’s not quite as wide, but the .45 cartridge is generally more common and probably a more practical choice for a single handgun owner. If you’re really into the gun geek scene, get the Tactical and have fun with the various attachments.

Aesthetically, I’m partial to the Jericho 941 (or Baby Eagle as it’s often seen over here). I love the look, and I’d be happy to own one in .41AE just for the sheer oddity of it. Doesn’t feel quite as good in hand as I’d like, though.

My favorite ‘classic’ gun these days is the Beretta 92. Yeah, it’s not that old, but I’m a pretty big fan of John Woo’s early films, and Chow Yun-Fat just looked really cool with that gun. I can totally respect the 1911, but I would never own any kind of SA pistol.

I’d love to check out an FN 5-7, just to see what that cartridge feels like. Such a small round, wonder if it’s anything like a .22.

56

[quote]CEZAR wrote:
I second that, please discuss gun control somewhere else like in the politics thread. No need to reply just post somewhere else.

I’d like to keep this thread strictly on handguns, just as the rifle thread is about rifles.

Thank you.

[/quote]

Sorry bud, didn’t mean to wreak your thread.

57

[quote]vermilion wrote:
This forum has about two dozen regulars who could turn a thread on the color of grass into a dick-measuring contest. All that testosterone is great, but you get better results if you take it out on the iron rather than some other bastard with a keyboard.[/quote]

I prefer taking it out on big chunks of granite with a 15-pound sledgehammer, but point taken. There is a new thread over in the Politics forum called “Liberty Control” for anyone who is interested.

[quote] I can totally respect the 1911, but I would never own any kind of SA pistol.
[/quote]

But as soon as you cock or fire a double-action pistol, it becomes a single-action (well, except for the Taurus Millennium).

I’ve always thought that double action was a pretty good idea for a revolver, but kind of redundant on an autoloader. If you don’t like to go cocked and locked, then put the hammer down.

58

[quote]JPBear wrote:
CEZAR wrote:
I second that, please discuss gun control somewhere else like in the politics thread. No need to reply just post somewhere else.

I’d like to keep this thread strictly on handguns, just as the rifle thread is about rifles.

Thank you.

Sorry bud, didn’t mean to wreak your thread.[/quote]

Yeah, sorry, Cezar. I think I was probably one of the biggest reasons it got so out of hand. Too much Spike in my coffee this morning, I guess. :wink:

59

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
vermilion wrote:

I can totally respect the 1911, but I would never own any kind of SA pistol.

But as soon as you cock or fire a double-action pistol, it becomes a single-action (well, except for the Taurus Millennium).

I’ve always thought that double action was a pretty good idea for a revolver, but kind of redundant on an autoloader. If you don’t like to go cocked and locked, then put the hammer down.
[/quote]

It’s not a personal preference of mine, but a problem I have with my hand. For whatever reason, my thumb and first two fingers of my right hand are sort of ‘wired’ together - I can’t bend my thumb without my index finger (and to a lesser degree my middle finger) contracting as well. That makes manually pulling the hammer back with my thumb very awkward. I can operate a 1911, but not quickly or safely enough (IMO).

The fingers of my left hand work in the usual fashion, but I’m not left-handed, so that’s not an option either :slight_smile: As a result, I stick with true DA handguns to ensure I can operate them one-handed without any issue. As it is, some pistols’ magazine releases, slide catches and safeties still give me trouble, so I’m pickier than most about the design of handguns I prefer to handle.

60

[quote]vermilion wrote:
As it is, some pistols’ magazine releases, slide catches and safeties still give me trouble, so I’m pickier than most about the design of handguns I prefer to handle.[/quote]

Have I got the pistol for you! Behold the Heckler & Koch P7M10. Caliber .40 S&W, 10 round double-stack magazine, single-action, with NO hammer and NO safety. Magazine catch is in the same place as the 1911.

To cock, you squeeze the lever in the front of the grip with the three fingers of your right hand. The gun remains cocked and unlocked until you release your grip, and virtually impossible to fire unless the lever is depressed.

P7s are also available in 9mm (blecch!), and a few (like maybe six) were made in .45 (too bad).