Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

RolandTD20Kdrummer

onelongsong wrote:

so why keep coming back?

Why go the to the zoo when you've already seen the monkeys?

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

you seem to know everything; do some research.

I guess you don't have any evidence otherwise you'd just show me a link, a title, something to further prove your point. I'll do some research.

Collin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why go the to the zoo when you've already seen the monkeys?

If you don't have anything interesting to say or wont partake in the debate, just leave instead of resorting to childish behaviour.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I guess freedom of speech and opinion...

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

I guess you don't have any evidence otherwise you'd just show me a link, a title, something to further prove your point. I'll do some research.

thank you. i'm working 2 computers back to back so i can be here and run my business. if i had the time i'd gladly look for you but i'm swamped. sorry.

Collin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I guess freedom of speech and opinion...

Unfortunately, this is a message board with posting guidelines, which you agreed with.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Collin wrote:

Unfortunately, this is a message board with posting guidelines, which you agreed with.

I'll take things that are anal retentive for $1000 Alex...

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

thank you. i'm working 2 computers back to back so i can be here and run my business. if i had the time i'd gladly look for you but i'm swamped. sorry.

No problem. I actually have a ton of work to do too, so I won't be looking it up any time today. I doubt I'll find anything when I do and it all seems so futile anyway, I think we can establish that we disagree on this issue.

Collin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I'll take things that are anal retentive for $1000 Alex...

ps don't take it personally but your user name gives me the heebie jeebies, I know what it is but it reminds me of MAN Roland printing machines, which I hate with a passion.

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

No problem. I actually have a ton of work to do too, so I won't be looking it up any time today. I doubt I'll find anything when I do and it all seems so futile anyway, I think we can establish that we disagree on this issue.

i think we can. i took a gunsmithing class in the '80s and we had an entire chapter on ballistics. frankly i didn't believe it either. my favourite gun is the thompson 1927 (A1) and i thought it would have out-killed any other. but because of muzzle jump it's hard to hang on to. i'm still looking for one so if anyone has one for sale; PM me.
anyway; i'll try to find it when i have time. the point of the chapter was to explain why snipers use single shot weapons. and also how to determine proper bullet design for it's intended purpose. for example; the perfect bullet for hunting deer is one which will mushroom and be found on the opposite side inside the hide. this varies with conditions. out west where most shots are 100 yards plus; a different bullet is used as compared to close range shots in wooded areas like michigan or wisconsin.
this is getting to be more info than you care to know but i'll find the stats.
forgive me if i sounded disrespectful when i told you to look it up yourself.

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

forgive me if i sounded disrespectful when i told you to look it up yourself.

No problem.

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

i think we can. i took a gunsmithing class in the '80s and we had an entire chapter on ballistics. frankly i didn't believe it either. my favourite gun is the thompson 1927 (A1) and i thought it would have out-killed any other. but because of muzzle jump it's hard to hang on to.

I've seen documentaries about the gangster era talking about how some of those guys were so accurate with the tommy gun, they could shoot their initials into something with one clip. They showed footage of them being pretty damned accurate too, so what gives?


By the way, i found a site that's selling them for 1450. I have no idea if thats a good price or not, I dont buy guns. But how come you're having such a hard time finding one?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Collin wrote:

ps don't take it personally but your user name gives me the heebie jeebies, I know what it is but it reminds me of MAN Roland printing machines, which I hate with a passion.

MAN Roland printing machines? There might be a support group out there somewhere for that.

Collin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

MAN Roland printing machines? There might be a support group out there somewhere for that.

Well not just Man Rolands, Heidelberg, Ryobi... printing machines in general.

Great, now I'm going to have nightmares!

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I've seen documentaries about the gangster era talking about how some of those guys were so accurate with the tommy gun, they could shoot their initials into something with one clip. They showed footage of them being pretty damned accurate too, so what gives?


By the way, i found a site that's selling them for 1450. I have no idea if thats a good price or not, I dont buy guns. But how come you're having such a hard time finding one?

i think it's the same as in police shoot-outs. a cop can qualify on the range but you can watch these police video shows and see a cop empty a 17 round glock without hitting the suspect at 15 feet away. first; it's a moving target. second; it's hard to be accurate when you're being shot at.

as to shooting initials; i'd like to see that. i'm sure it's true. i can shoot a wooden match because i have over 40 years practice. annie oakley was deadly accurate shooting over her shoulder with a mirror. she traveled the country shooting cigarettes out of her husband's mouth. i recently saw a guy throw 7 clay pigeons in the air himself and shoot every one before they hit the ground. i guess i should have worded my remark as "the average person".

1450 is about twice the going rate. i heard some company bought the patent and will start making them again. i think i'll wait to buy one made with modern technology. i don't want it for shooting. i'm a collector.

69charger

my2hands wrote:

why the hell would you ever need that fuckiing thing?

any gun that weighs 34 pounds and comes with tylenol is not designed for hunting.

A) Because it can hit a target 2000 yards away.

Because it's the biggest baddest gun you can own without major hassle from the government.

and perhaps most importantly...

C) Because it strikes fear in the heart of every liberal hippie douchebag on the planet.

You are right about it not being for hunting! It's an anti-material weapon! Last time I checked, the constitution didn't have a "for hunting use only" clause attached to the 2nd Amendment. However, you could use it to hunt and many do.

Guess how many of these weapons have been used to commit a crime in the US....

Answer....

ZERO!

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.

actually no onelongsong england didn't take our freedom. january 26 commemorates the establishment of the first english penal colony at sydney cove. it's the date when the english basically stole the land from the indigenous population through a faulty precedent called terra nullius. australia has never been 'disarmed' by the english as you so quaintly put it.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
looking back at the last century; old societies that felt the need to disarm had been taken by other forces. iraq was disarmed and taken by a dictator. but a better example is europe. twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it. only to condemn it for helping others obtain their freedom in the same manner it helped them.
oz is different in that it's an island. but america is a country of "outsiders". each day thousands of people sneek into america illegally. we have no idea who or what their purpose is. so for a country constantly under invasion; it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have. why doesn't anyone jump on the swiss? the last i heard it's swiss law that every head of household MUST own and know how to operate an automatic weapon. YET IT'S AMERICA EVERYONE SHITS ON ABOUT LOOSE GUN LAWS. i guess americans are good targets.
now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
so maybe it is a false sense of security for americans to think we could defend ourselves. it was twice that americans owning guns twarted the queens attempt to take our country. and we won't forget that. nor will we forget hitler and the kaiser taking europe; or musillini taking italy. all in recent history. and that is why we would fight our own government if it tried to disarm us. however misguided; we've learned from other societies. and we learned that a small group of terrorists could attack america and almost take out the pentagon and almost our capital. yes i'm talking about 9/11. so as a country under attack; we'll keep our guns.

You so know I'm coming back to this! Anyway, it'll be later, but there's NO way I'm letting it slide! Which is probably EXACTLY what you want!

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

looking back at the last century; old societies that felt the need to disarm had been taken by other forces. iraq was disarmed and taken by a dictator. but a better example is europe. twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it. only to condemn it for helping others obtain their freedom in the same manner it helped them.
oz is different in that it's an island. but america is a country of "outsiders". each day thousands of people sneek into america illegally. we have no idea who or what their purpose is. so for a country constantly under invasion; it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have. why doesn't anyone jump on the swiss? the last i heard it's swiss law that every head of household MUST own and know how to operate an automatic weapon. YET IT'S AMERICA EVERYONE SHITS ON ABOUT LOOSE GUN LAWS. i guess americans are good targets.
now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
so maybe it is a false sense of security for americans to think we could defend ourselves. it was twice that americans owning guns twarted the queens attempt to take our country. and we won't forget that. nor will we forget hitler and the kaiser taking europe; or musillini taking italy. all in recent history. and that is why we would fight our own government if it tried to disarm us. however misguided; we've learned from other societies. and we learned that a small group of terrorists could attack america and almost take out the pentagon and almost our capital. yes i'm talking about 9/11. so as a country under attack; we'll keep our guns.

oh i'm sorry but all this made me laugh. please don't lecture us about mussolini and hitler, australia was in the war from the get go.
we did not fall to our knees when the Queen arrived on our doorstop. i don't even know where you get that from. and for the record when the colonies were first formed in what was then called new south wales, not australia, there wa a KING on the throne. learn some history and then maybe we can have an infromed discussion about the formation of australia.

Scubascott

onelongsong wrote:

hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies? as for the ability to kill; i have a single shot bolt action. in 2005 i had to kill a deer for food. i killed it with 1 shot from 300 yards. i couldn't have done that with an assault rifle. the bullets are too small for one. assault weapons are made to injure and that's the second reason. in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.
as for hunting; if an animal hears a twig snap; all you'll see is tail for a brief moment.

Huh? Automatics are designed to maim but not kill? That's one of the strangest comments I've heard from you so far.I can't say I've ever been to war, but last time I watched the news I saw plenty of bodies lying on battlefields.

When my sister did her basic training a few years ago, the Australian army was using a .223 automatic rifle. I think its called a Styer. I use a .223 bolt action for shooting roos and pigs, and the projectile is plenty big enough to do the job. The amount of powder behind the projectile is more important than the size of the projectile itself.

Edit: Re-reading your post, it looks like you are actually agreeing with my position, ie that automatic and semi-automatic firearms are not needed for hunting.