Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jun 14, 2016.
These folks might be members of Log Cabin Republicans.
Preaching fighting back and protecting ourselves isn't exactly a new thing in the gay community. We've been getting bashed and murdered for years. The difference is now those who are often blind to such abuse can't exactly ignore it anymore.
All this does is show the futility of trying to put everyone in neat, little "left" and "right" boxes.
I get the feeling that we've reached the point where gun-rights advocates will advocate more guns no matter what the problem.
Is that table a little tippy? Here's a .22 to shove under the leg.
Need to pound in some nails, try this .45.
Need to weight-train, lift this Browning Automatic Rifle above your head 10 times.
And, again we see the complete absence of the "good guy with a gun." We got an off-duty police officer serving as a security guard, and a whole SWAT team, but we still haven't gotten our civilian with CCW in hand, ready to defend the innocent.
Who's advocating more guns? More of them? Or is it the opposite — maintaining the right to own and bear arms?
"A gay gun group is urging the LGBTQ community to consider carrying weapons to fight back against attacks like the weekend slayings in an Orlando club."
A gun group is advocating for people to consider carry weapons—i.e. purchase guns if they don't have them and/or start carrying them in public venues.
Well In my state I can't carry in a bar, sporting event, school, church, government buildings. Most places where nut cases like to empty their automatic weapons. So how exactly would owning and carrying more guns help?
Even in Wild West days, citizens in cities like Dodge and Tombstone realized they needed to ban guns in city limits. Remember Earp and brothers enforced no gun rules.
Nut cases have killed people at firing ranges and service academies. They have attacked secure facilities and holiday parties. There have been just as many events where a gun could legally be carried as not.
Right. And, they enforced those limits using violence, so that a man carrying a weapon on his hip was an immediate target for law enforcement—and he'd be flanked and confronted by several armed men.
Or, they'd simply wait for him to go to sleep and then they'd sap him, viciously beat him and throw him in the local jail.
Increasingly, we're heading toward a society operating in cities with rules that only worked on the frontier.
And, we have to acknowledge two facts about the "Old West." First, guns and ammunition were relatively expensive. Second, the guns of that era were slow and less accurate. The technological evolution of firearms from the Colt Peacemaker to the Glock 17, or the Winchester repeating rifle to the AR15 creates an enormous difference.
They're not. I used to own a 1911 forum and the guy that started the group posted there sometimes. They are not politically inclined at all and you do not have to be gay to join and show support. There are something like 45 chapters in the us, some in canada. Don't know about other countries.
Not sure exactly where this misconception (re: accuracy) comes from...
The typical revolvers of the era, such as the 1873 Colt, S&W Model 3, and Remington Model 1875, and their cap and ball predecessors, such as the Colt 1851 Navy and 1860 Army and Remington Model 1858, were capable of shooting "two inch groups" at 25 yards (which is in the ballpark of what a typical "off the shelf" modern semi-auto pistol shoots.)
To give you a real world example: In 1865, at a distance of about 75 yards (70 meters), "Wild Bill" Hickok killed Tutt with a single shot to Davis Tutt's left side between the fifth and seventh ribs with his .36 Colt Model 1851 Navy revolver. (Wild Bill Hickok – Davis Tutt shootout)
Probably a combination of bias toward modern weapons and misunderstandings about the accuracy of pistols at large.
It's worth noting that Hickok was an incredible shooter and may have fired the shot that killed Tutt by steadying his arm against a building.
But, let's accept that the Colt Frontier 1873 is as accurate as a Glock 17—or pick your modern gun.
Can a relatively mediocre shooter make the same grouping using both weapons? I don't think so. The Glock is inherently easier to fire.
Come to think of it, we do need more guns. One person could have turned the tide at the club.
.45 colt is still a very popular revolver round and arguably better than 9mm. .45 acp is just a turn of the century semi auto version of .45 colt.
A .45 colt revolver is in most cases a better grouping pistol than a glock, glocks are not made for incredible grouping. As far as easier to fire irdepends on the revolver. Many da revolvers are smoother than striker fired glocks.
So it depends. All glocks are pretty much the same, all revolvers are not.
Move up a few years to the 1911, still as accurate as you can get depending on who had a hand in it. I can turn one into a tack driver.
In the word "could" is a vast land of possibility.
Is anyone familiar with the phrase "this is why we can't have nice things"? Gun owners have to allow that the lowest common denominator is ruining it for them. Fix that - all the guns you want.
Muslim terrorists are ruining it for everybody everywhere.
If you want to shoot an "easy shooting" handgun, you should try firing a .45 caliber revolver that weights just under 3 pounds, which is approximate weight of a typical Colt or Remington revolvers of the 1850-1870 period. Much, much "easier" to shoot (and control) than a Glock in terms of recoil.
In terms of it being a "natural pointer" there's arguably nothing that can compare to a Colt 1851 Navy other than a Colt "Peacemaker" (both of which use the same grip design.) A Glock isn't even in the same ball park.
Lock and load and rock and roll! More guns for EVERYONE!
However I am starting to think my cat might possibly be anti-gun or might just not care. We are still working on that issue.
--- Post Merged, Jun 14, 2016 ---
Read my tagline.
--- Post Merged, Jun 14, 2016 ---
And this is the problem.
Do you really think that every tragedy in the United States is caused by "Muslim terrorists"? That if we could just get rid of those troublesome Muslims, we could go back to the good old days when everyone in America lived peaceably with their neighbors and died, gently and adored, in their sleep?
Get real. There is an epidemic of gun violence in this country that has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims. Islamic extremism. ISIL. Or any of your other bogeymen.
Gun violence kills almost as many young people in this country as motor vehicle accidents. Thats totally unprecedented compared to pretty much every other advanced society in the world.
Don't make me post the statistics. Because in the grand total of senseless gun deaths in the United States, the number associated with "Muslim terrorists" - no matter how tangentially associated with ISIL or Islamic fundamentalism - is a rounding error.
Why is this a Muslim issue and not a gay-hate issue?
<edit> Thanks vrDrew for saying what I was thinking
are you seriously pretending it's not a good start? remove the extremist , regardless of religion.
Cats are both plotting your death and couldn't care less about it.
That's a lot of effort for a maybe, and statistically speaking, you're still better off putting down a mat in your bathtub. But, it's also your right.
Well, gay hate mass shootings are very rare and Muslim terrorist mass shootings are very common. Who exactly is the "lowest common denominator" you're referring to?
The problem comes depending on the method we use to root out extremists. A Baptist preacher in Sacramento praised the shootings during a sermon on Sunday, saying:
"I think Orlando, Florida is a little safer tonight. The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. I’m kind of upset he didn’t finish the job."
Do we remand Pastor Roger Jimenez to Guantanamo Bay? Or, recognize that vicious asshats are still protected by the First Amendment?