Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't. I was never a fast runner and after a stage injury during the Obama-McCain election, my running days are over.
My options are now limited to whatever I can use to avoid him and if not that, then take him out.
What do you tell the other people who are not fast runners?
Tamara; reasonable people would not demand you deny yourself the ability to defend yourself in Today's America. Reasonable people would also however probably query your need to use what is now being discussed. I don't believe for one second you would sling an AR over your shoulder to go Walmart diving.
Reasonable people would consider the use and benefit of a particular firearm juxtaposed by the conditions prevalent in the area for which it's going to be used. Restriction as a word does not automatically equate to removal banning or confiscation. In the U.S. the AR platform has become the defacto optimum choice for feral hog hunting. For good reaons, they're light, they're recoil kinder, they're able to be optioned up for the need of being used for an activity that is not so much hunting as it is a necessary population control.
Bernie et-al need to consider all aspects of some contentious piece of legislation before just going after something based upon it being used for an unintended purpose. I see denying you the ability of carrying your preferred sidearm as an infringement of a right you've had since the 1700's. With me, it's not about God given rights, or Constitutional guarantees….it's about the decades of having a right, then having it stripped due to the actions of a relatively few.
My way would be to restrict the sales of those types of firearms that can be agreed upon as having a unique design purpose such as extended magazine capacity to deal with a group of feral hogs clustered together where you might conceivably with a suppressor equipped AR nail ten or fifteen with them not running far when one of their brethren drops over. Farmers, ranchers and some others need that ability as those things are a scourge on the land.
You might need your personal carry firearm because of threats to your safety that comes with place of habitat, required activity taking you into questionable areas, any number of other reasons...your carrying does not occasion a threat to me or mine. Why would I desire to remove that which does not cause me concern?
Discussion about firearms and their control within the uniquely American theater should be done outside the partisan political arena. It should be done rationally and without rancor....impossible now.
New Zealanders have spoken. They will not occasion this as a "loss" of freedom but rather the "gaining" of one. Different country, different dynamics with probably few to no New Zealander ever claiming he/she needed a firearm for self defence.
Tamara; reasonable people would not demand you deny yourself the ability to defend yourself in Today's America. Reasonable people would also however probably query your need to use what is now being discussed. I don't believe for one second you would sling an AR over your shoulder to go Walmart diving.
Reasonable people would consider the use and benefit of a particular firearm juxtaposed by the conditions prevalent in the area for which it's going to be used. Restriction as a word does not automatically equate to removal banning or confiscation. In the U.S. the AR platform has become the defacto optimum choice for feral hog hunting. For good reaons, they're light, they're recoil kinder, they're able to be optioned up for the need of being used for an activity that is not so much hunting as it is a necessary population control.
Bernie et-al need to consider all aspects of some contentious piece of legislation before just going after something based upon it being used for an unintended purpose. I see denying you the ability of carrying your preferred sidearm as an infringement of a right you've had since the 1700's. With me, it's not about God given rights, or Constitutional guarantees….it's about the decades of having a right, then having it stripped due to the actions of a relatively few.
My way would be to restrict the sales of those types of firearms that can be agreed upon as having a unique design purpose such as extended magazine capacity to deal with a group of feral hogs clustered together where you might conceivably with a suppressor equipped AR nail ten or fifteen with them not running far when one of their brethren drops over. Farmers, ranchers and some others need that ability as those things are a scourge on the land.
You might need your personal carry firearm because of threats to your safety that comes with place of habitat, required activity taking you into questionable areas, any number of other reasons...your carrying does not occasion a threat to me or mine. Why would I desire to remove that which does not cause me concern?
Discussion about firearms and their control within the uniquely American theater should be done outside the partisan political arena. It should be done rationally and without rancor....impossible now.
New Zealanders have spoken. They will not occasion this as a "loss" of freedom but rather the "gaining" of one. Different country, different dynamics with probably few to no New Zealander ever claiming he/she needed a firearm for self defence.
Nope, much too bulky and I prefer concealed. So , semi auto handgun for me and the wife prefers revolvers. As far as a rifle, I enjoy having one for target shooting at one of the indoor ranges near my home and if the need arises hunting. Being it is not my number one thing, I refuse to spend a lot of money for one. The AR in 5.56 is perfect, it is low power enough to shoot in an indoor range and has enough power to take down a deer, and can be assembled for under $700.
Tamara; reasonable people would not demand you deny yourself the ability to defend yourself in Today's America. Reasonable people would also however probably query your need to use what is now being discussed. I don't believe for one second you would sling an AR over your shoulder to go Walmart diving.
Reasonable people would consider the use and benefit of a particular firearm juxtaposed by the conditions prevalent in the area for which it's going to be used. Restriction as a word does not automatically equate to removal banning or confiscation. In the U.S. the AR platform has become the defacto optimum choice for feral hog hunting. For good reaons, they're light, they're recoil kinder, they're able to be optioned up for the need of being used for an activity that is not so much hunting as it is a necessary population control.
......
Well a problem is someone else deciding what is reasonable.
You know the other week, I was probably seen as unreasonable because standard load out for me is 3 magazines.
But, it is more than that. In a bureaucracy, it is far easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission. If you have to ask permission, expect it to be denied because TPTB will err on caution, their caution, if they can. They don't have to worry about the risk for they are not there to take it.
But it is probably more than that in that there are those who just want to have the guns and for others to not have them. I do not fall for the argument of "You can have yours for we trust you," for I know they are just saying that to pacify me until a time comes along when they can take mine, too. I am not one of them and therefore, they will eventually disarm me as well.
As others have said, 20K laws on the book and they still want more? Reasonable is not having more laws. If anything is reasonable, it is the other side doing things to show they can be trusted.
Tamara; reasonable people would not demand you deny yourself the ability to defend yourself in Today's America. Reasonable people would also however probably query your need to use what is now being discussed. I don't believe for one second you would sling an AR over your shoulder to go Walmart diving.
Reasonable people would consider the use and benefit of a particular firearm juxtaposed by the conditions prevalent in the area for which it's going to be used. Restriction as a word does not automatically equate to removal banning or confiscation. In the U.S. the AR platform has become the defacto optimum choice for feral hog hunting. For good reaons, they're light, they're recoil kinder, they're able to be optioned up for the need of being used for an activity that is not so much hunting as it is a necessary population control.
Bernie et-al need to consider all aspects of some contentious piece of legislation before just going after something based upon it being used for an unintended purpose. I see denying you the ability of carrying your preferred sidearm as an infringement of a right you've had since the 1700's. With me, it's not about God given rights, or Constitutional guarantees….it's about the decades of having a right, then having it stripped due to the actions of a relatively few.
My way would be to restrict the sales of those types of firearms that can be agreed upon as having a unique design purpose such as extended magazine capacity to deal with a group of feral hogs clustered together where you might conceivably with a suppressor equipped AR nail ten or fifteen with them not running far when one of their brethren drops over. Farmers, ranchers and some others need that ability as those things are a scourge on the land.
You might need your personal carry firearm because of threats to your safety that comes with place of habitat, required activity taking you into questionable areas, any number of other reasons...your carrying does not occasion a threat to me or mine. Why would I desire to remove that which does not cause me concern?
Discussion about firearms and their control within the uniquely American theater should be done outside the partisan political arena. It should be done rationally and without rancor....impossible now.
New Zealanders have spoken. They will not occasion this as a "loss" of freedom but rather the "gaining" of one. Different country, different dynamics with probably few to no New Zealander ever claiming he/she needed a firearm for self defence.
"reasonable" lets talk about that. Actually let's talk about reality more so.
Pro ban gun people's idea of reasonable is in discussion they talk and we listen, their idea of compromise is they take and we give. If we refuse, we are being unreasonable and a extremist. They sometimes use other derogatory terms toward us also.
When we show them facts based on logic as in reality, they say we are being unreasonable.
But here are some facts in reality. The AR-15 has become the most popular rifle among law abiding citizens, go to the range and half the lanes you will see one. To ban them, would create hundreds of thousands of instant criminals who never did anything wrong in their life before. To actually get the guns out of the hands of these owners would be difficult to say the least.
Reality, these maniacs choose unarmed people to massacre, who can't or won't fight back, so they are going to be massacred even i a semi auto gun is not used because no one is fighting back so the maniac has all the control and time to do what they will do.
Reality, the AR-15 rifle and other semi auto rifles are no more lethal than other types of guns, there is nothing magically special or lethal for what has been deemed "assault rifles" the only thing they have is detachable magazines that can carry 20, 30 or so rounds but when attacking unarmed people who can't or won't fight back "firepower" doesn't give much of a advantage , because no one is fighting back.
Reality, "assault" is a action not a item. If someone attacks someone with a AR-15 they are assaulting, if someone defends themself with a AR-15 it is a defensive action.
So given those realities, how is it reasonable to give into pro ban the gun people's demands?
Well a problem is someone else deciding what is reasonable.
You know the other week, I was probably seen as unreasonable because standard load out for me is 3 magazines.
But, it is more than that. In a bureaucracy, it is far easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission. If you have to ask permission, expect it to be denied because TPTB will err on caution, their caution, if they can. They don't have to worry about the risk for they are not there to take it.
But it is probably more than that in that there are those who just want to have the guns and for others to not have them. I do not fall for the argument of "You can have yours for we trust you," for I know they are just saying that to pacify me until a time comes along when they can take mine, too. I am not one of them and therefore, they will eventually disarm me as well.
As others have said, 20K laws on the book and they still want more? Reasonable is not having more laws. If anything is reasonable, it is the other side doing things to show they can be trusted.
I think you misjudge those "reasonable people" I mentioned. I believe they still form the majority. I also believe they would listen to both sides of a uniquely American conundrum.
Now; as to how you go about getting those reasonable people as the ones doing the "listening" and "deciding"....therein lies the rub.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
