8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights

[BigJim]

Re: At least the replies get smaller....

QUOTE]Originally posted by shark
To be accurate,my reply about what "I" do means I. You posted about no point,need,or justification concerning whichever gun,or guns, a person owned. I replied. The "little American" stance you mentioned isn't what I had in mind,but it's fine with me if you see that.[/QUOTE] I never doubted you meant you specifically. It's fine with me too, me old mucker. I love it when people take that sort of stance because it shows they have to struggle for any other sort of argument when they have to say, "it's our law and you can't change it, so neener!".

To be exact I said there was no need for one person to own enough guns and ammo to equip a battalion of marines. You make me sound like I said there was no justification for anyone to own a gun full stop. I'll make a point of someone I thought of a few days ago. There was a farmer in England, who was getting consistently burgled and menaced by a familly of gipsies who would not leave him alone. One night they came to ransack his house and he shot one of them in the arse with birshot from a shotgun. Unfortunatley for him, a stray pellet severed the little prick's femoral artery and he bled to death. No great loss, but the farmer got imprisoned for life for murder. (It subsequently got reduced to 8 years or something, for manslaughter.) Personally I'd have had him knighted in the New Year's honours list and had the cretinous bunch of turds who called themselves the burglars familly to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket.

QUOTE]Originally posted by shark
[Antagonizing or offending you might well be how you interpret my posts,but realize one thing:

We have already gone through this type of exchange. You mentioned that you liked being cheeky. My response was, more or less, to point out that cheekiness will get cheekiness back in the course of time.
If you can't cope with that, it's your problem again. [/QUOTE]

I said that? Well I'll revise it. I don't enjoy being cheeky for the sake of it. But I do enjoy getting my teeth into a debate with someone who I find non-sensical.(Not just that sort of person, but anyone really. Depends what the debate is about.) As for not being able to cope with it, whatever gave you that idea? I'm more than happy to play verbal tennis with you for as long as you like dear chap; it gives me good practice for writing my book. I'd hate for you to think you actually upset me. 😀

 

[Strelnikov]

Hey, guys...

...lighten up! Shark, I'm guessing that you lack about 25 years of being qualified to be a curmudgeon. Jim, the same in your case, though being a copper entitles you to extra points.

I'M the grumpy old bastard in these parts, and I'll thank you to remember that!

Strelnikov

 

[revolter]

"For years, the people who want to take away our freedoms have said that we're not smart enough or responsible enough to own handguns," Randall added. "Timothy is proof that even a child is capable of using a handgun for its intended purpose."

So he MEANT to shoot in his own legs.....
Don't know who the dumbass is here, the NRA or...the NRA?

 

[Deleted member 2452]

jim you don't know america, but you're still welcome in my town

first the story was false, as pointed out by strel., and biggles.
next it was offensive, and ment to be. and to show how moronic this story is; the story said it was a revolver. as anyone whose fired one knows, a revolver doesn't discharge when dropped, or fallen on, and can not fire more than once w/o cocking it! so who ever the idiot anti gunner is who wrote the "piece", he should get some facts straight. next, i checked with the athorities, and no, south carolina requires a gun owner to be 18 for rifles, and 21 for hand guns, same as all the other states.
jim, if you think that one amendment can/should be changed ie; the 2nd, then what about the other amendments? how about if some groups want an end to freedom of religion? what's with this pesky 4th amendment, it just gets in the way of quick police work!
see, when you say one part is old fashioned, and should be changed, then you open up the whole thing to debate, and change, just cause of some fringe group. there's no quick fix. there should be prudent laws governing the use, and carrying of firearms, but never the right of ownership of them! you may not think our armed populous has any affect, but it does, believe me.
oh, some of us gun owning, nra members, have been members of the military, and police officers! we are trained, and we keep our guns handy, BUT safely away from our kids!
steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: jim you don't know america, but you're still welcome in my town

next, i checked with the athorities, and no, south carolina requires a gun owner to be 18 for rifles, and 21 for hand guns, same as all the other states.

I'm sure you're right Steve, but I mentioned North Carolina, not South. And if it's that rule for all 50 now, then sometime in the very recent past it was definatley not so for NC.

jim, if you think that one amendment can/should be changed ie; the 2nd, then what about the other amendments? how about if some groups want an end to freedom of religion? what's with this pesky 4th amendment, it just gets in the way of quick police work!

4th amendment? I'm presuming that's the one that deals with freedom of religion? (Or is it the right to a fair trial?) Weeeeelllllllll...........all my personal feelings about most religions aside, I think anyone should be able to follow the spiritual path of their choosing without being forced into one or the other, or having state enforced atheism. However, I suspect it might not deal with freedom of religion, because I don't see how that can get in the way of police work, unless you meant the right to search religious premises.

see, when you say one part is old fashioned, and should be changed, then you open up the whole thing to debate, and change, just cause of some fringe group. there's no quick fix. there should be prudent laws governing the use, and carrying of firearms, but never the right of ownership of them!
steve

Don't confuse me with gun abolitionists mate, I'm not in that lobby at all. I just believe that it should not be so easy to legally aquire a firearm and I don't believe in people owning a bleeding great vault, that looks like that place in Mexico in Terminator 2. It may be a part of American history for some people to do so and it may even feel vital for the wellbeing of the country to some people; but I can honestly see no reason or justification for it. There is no need for one person to own half a dozen assault rifles, a dozen handguns, three brace of shotguns and lawd alone knows what else. I suppose I can believe that it would have been vital at a time when the redcoats were either enforcing horrendous taxes on tea or razing your then capital city to the ground; but even though I've tried I cannot see how owning an arsenal like I just mentioned gives common people any benefit. I also don't think it's such a bad thing for legal constitutions to be always under review. There is no point in honouring tradition simply for the sake of it, when society is evolving faster than it has ever done. That doesn't mean that any old fringe movement can tear down something vital, I just believe that any constitution's main Gold Star will be it's flexibility to evolve. Not degrade mind you, but evolve.

I agree with two thirds of your last sentence Steve. Prudent laws for storage, use and carrying of firearms are vital. But restricting ownership doesn't mean restricting who can own them. I always regarded it as meaning that anyone who could be vetted as reliable and responsible enough could own them, without necessarilly owning enough to declare war on China. I think we NEARLY agree on this issue, but not quite. Which is a hell of a lot better than Mr. Heston and his opposite number ever managed so far. I'm certain we agree that the farmer who was imprisoned for life for shooting that burgular in the ass should have been honoured, not punished.

 

[BigJim]

Re: jim you don't know america, but you're still welcome in my town

oh, some of us gun owning, nra members, have been members of the military, and police officers! we are trained, and we keep our guns handy, BUT safely away from our kids!
steve

I never doubed it. My beef doesn't lie with people like you, but with people like that fucking idiot in New York who blew away the Brit tourist without so much as peeping round the door first.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Hey, guys...

Jim, the same in your case, though being a copper entitles you to extra points.

I'M the grumpy old bastard in these parts, and I'll thank you to remember that!

Strelnikov

Being a copper entitles me to have my familly hate me, spend most of my work time off sick with stress and to eat massive quantities of doughnuts. Apart from that Strel, I do most humbly apologise for daring to be a more grumpy bastard than you. 😛 I will now resume my rightful place six paces behind you. 😉

 

[Deleted member 2452]

PREACH, BROTHER PREACH!

yes jim you and i agree more than you might think.
esp. about that poor farmer. give him a medal, and new glasses, so he hits them in the chest next time!
wait, what's wrong with a chain gun? or a flame thrower? i promise to only use them to start sack races, and bar-b-ques...honest🙄
i'll tell you what i have, then you show me yours...i mean tell me what you carry on duty. i own a ww2 vintage m1 garand, a ww2 vintage m1 carbine, a 12 gage pump shotgun, a 22 plinking rifle, a colt python .357 magnum revolver, a colt gov. model.45 pistol, and a ruger9mm pistol. the 2 ww2 rifles i use in my hobby, hence a re-enactor. the python i carried on duty, when with the chicago police. the 45 was a back up, and off duty carry piece. the shotgun? nothing like it for home defense! the 9mm, cause at the time the clinton administration anounced that after 9/9/97(?) no one could buy a new pistol that had a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. so i like a lot of people bought one as a colectors item. a 9 isn't worth shit in my opinion.

in all honesty, if i could afford it, there are several other fire arms i'd love to get, for various reasons. but what's great is that if i have the $ i can get them.

i understand what you mean about a flexible evolving gov./constitution. but i don't agree with it. with the american system we can make a change every 2 years. there is no reason to tamper with the bed rock of our system. that actually scares me.
steve

 

[BigJim]

Oddly enough I used to be a re-enactor as well; only I used to re-enact the American Civil War. We had to apply for shotgun and blackpowder licenses. One guy told me that a member of the local force came out to inspect his cabinet and was examining the muzzle loader he used. "So how do you break it open?" he apparently asked. 🙄 Even more funnily enough, I nearly included mini-guns and flamethrowers in my list, but thought that would be a little too tongue-in-cheek.

I think 9/9/97 might refer to the Oklahoma bombing. Clinton pushed a lot of dodgy legislation through after that without so much as a fart from any senator, because to do so would have exposed them to the dreaded acusation of being un-patriotic. One of the most dodgiest pieces of all was about giving the US military greater powers during civil disturbance. Quite possibly that is the sort of thing that you say the 2nd amendment is supposed to guard against. I personally believe it is pointless to meet force with force in domestic issues of that kind, because it would only land the genuinely aggrieved in greater shit; but that's just me.

The weapon I'm trained in, is the Browning 9mm semi-automatic pistol. Vintage stuff; could'nt hit a barn wall if you were inside the fucking thing. lol Actually, they suit the purpose we use them for. To my knowledge only one fatality has ever resulted in an MOD (Ministry of Defence) Police officer discharging his weapon. To make matters worse it was an ND caused by the prick slamming his pistol on a table when a round was chambered and the hammer cocked back. It went off and burst the kidney of his best mate who was standing three or four feet away. Gives you confidence doesn't it? We are also trained in long arms. The SA80 was our primary rifle, but is now being phased out on account of being a cheap piece of plastic shite and replaced where it can be afforded, with the H&K MP5.

My pistol is not actually my pistol, it belongs soley to the government. It's kept under lock and key at all times and the thought of me having it when I retire would drain the blood from many a face in the head shed.

I see what you mean about changing the bed-rock. No-one is suggesting instant and sweeping changes, but a rule that was created to deal with conditions that existed 2 centuries ago and MIGHT be modernised, is hardly changing a fundemental pillar of constitutional society.

Now, as to my thoughts on your gun collection...........

The 2 WW2 rifles are discounted, because such a weapon can easilly be claimed to be used only for a hobby that benefits the public and teaches history. The only thing I'd stipulate (if it was up to me, and of course I know it never will be) is that they be de-activated to the point where they could only fire blanks. (Unless there's a specific aspect to your hobby requiring live rounds, that I havn't thought of.) The pump shotgun is, as you say, the perfect home defence item. No problem. The advantage of it not being double barrelled is that it can double as a suppository if the burglar surrendurs. (Nothing against DRIVING the lesson home, eh? 😀) The .22 sounds like a typical hobbyists, target shooter so again, no prob. As to the pistols, I can't see why you'd need to own four of them. From what I understand, police officers stateside get to keep their weapons when they leave the force, so that accounts for the Python and the .45. You didn't mention the origin of the .357, so I took that to mean it was a weapon bought for personal collection reasons. Gun collection here is still quite common, but said guns are either de-activated or replicas. (Any working pistols in the UK must be .22 calibre maximum, if privatley owned.) I don't have much issue with your collection overall, except for the quantity of handguns. I would imagine (as an un-american with no domestic concept of the gun culture) that the shotgun and the two guns you got from the Department being all you'd need to defend one house. I genuinely don't see the need for four working handguns in one household. I would'nt be against someone collecting multiple firearms if they weren't all functional though. Indeed that's the way it has to be here now. (As you might have gathered, I don't totally approve of the UK gun laws.)

So that's it. Hopefully I don't sound too shocking or disapproving.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i must not have explained it well

jim the colt python is the .357 cal. revolver i mentioned. so i have 3 hand guns, not 4.
the 9mm i have has never been fired. the other 2 hand guns, only on the range. both ww2 rifles are blank adapted. actually i'd put my garand up against an m-16 any day. i have fired both live, and earned expert in both. the garend has better range, and stopping power.
steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: i must not have explained it well

jim the colt python is the .357 cal. revolver i mentioned. so i have 3 hand guns, not 4.
the 9mm i have has never been fired. the other 2 hand guns, only on the range. both ww2 rifles are blank adapted. actually i'd put my garand up against an m-16 any day. i have fired both live, and earned expert in both. the garend has better range, and stopping power.
steve

Sorry Steve, I mistook the . in .357 for a comma. That's what happens when you post at 4 in the bloody morning. lol

3 handguns I'd say would just border between necessary and collection. As 2 of them were presented by the force, I'd say I would'nt have a prob being your neighbour. 😉 Think of all the interesting discussions about commies and fascists we could have. 😀

I'm not suprised the Garand is longer and better. As they say, "they don't make em, like they used to!"

 

[QBWeaver]

Well it's good to see that everyone has now had their nap and their cookie! ok... Back to the playground!

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Well it's good to see that everyone has now had their nap and their cookie! ok... Back to the playground!

oh this woman needs such a good feathering! (notice i didn't say the "t" word)lol
steve

 

[shark]

Mommy QB, can I have a glass of water and a story too,please?




I just had to do it.

 

[BigJim]

oh this woman needs such a good feathering! (notice i didn't say the "t" word)lol
steve

You throw her Steve, I'll catch her! 😀

 

[Strelnikov]

Jim, it's all a matter of cultural perspective. Joby once observed that, for many Americans, having firearms is as much a part of being a citizen as having free speech. Jefferson County (Birmingham) Alabama has a population of roughly 650,000, and 60,000 active concealed handgun carry permits. There's lots more guns than that, of course. No permit is necessary to carry a handgun openly on your own property, or while hunting/shooting with permission on someone else's property. And many of us own more than one.

I've been collecting guns for 30 years. I've had a concealed carry permit since 1977. Just counted the collection - there's 32 handguns, 30 rifles, 4 shotguns. All of them work. Most of them are obsolete military arms e.g. a Martini-Henry Mk. II and an M-1 Garand like Steve has. The number varies - I buy, sell, trade, as the urge takes me. I've built a room to store them, with a solid door and good locks.

Am I a hazard to society? Nah - Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun collection. And that, too, is true of most of us.

Strelnikov

 

[BigJim]

Jim, it's all a matter of cultural perspective. Joby once observed that, for many Americans, having firearms is as much a part of being a citizen as having free speech.

I believe you Strel. Joby was quite spot on with what she said. I also believe that most people like yourself who collect firearms aren't about to go out and perpetrate another Dunblaine.