How many members would like a firearms discussion area

Btw, if your old plan is not good enough and doesn't give enough benefits, no you can't keep it. If you are allready insured, you don't need to, if you are too poor, you get a govt. voucher to help pay it for you. There is a maximum for an individual that you will ever have to pay, the govt. will pay the rest.

Why is coverage mandatory ? It's to cover preexisting conditons and never being dropped. No one can deny you insurance no matter how ill you are. In order to pay for that, the plan must cover healthy people too. The good think is, you can play Russian routlet with your health, but you don't have to.

 

Suicide is everyone's personal option. Liberals go you one better. Liberals voted to decriminalize assisted suicide. They will allow you help if you are incapable .....
Conservatives won't do that I believe.

 

Then why are members of the liberal party the ones claiming that firearms should be restricted in order to try and reduce the rate of suicide, if suicide is not the business of government?

 

Probably because you are too messy to clean up after. In reality, how is restricting guns going to keep some one from committing suicide. Too many times, people intent on shooting themselves try to take someone else with them who isn't. Guns are too easy and people might change their mind if they had to do a little more planning. But anyone can do it easily without a gun. It happens a lot by accident when people are just practicing. They admit to it if they survive. Many are young kids and guns are too easy. Making if more difficult gives them time. Lots of studies of many survivors who are happy to be alive show that it's beneficial to make it require more time.

 

Then they are not respecting the rights of others who wish to end their lives, but rather are trying to keep them alive against their will because they know better than the ones who are directly affected.

You claim that the liberal party respects the rights of others, yet you are making an effort to justify government interference with said rights. The two standards are not interchangeable with one another.

Should we discuss how making members of the public seek government permission to legally exercise their constitutional rights amounts to respecting the rights of others?

 

Make what more difficult or what more time ?

That makes no sense, what about Police Officers that commit suicide ?

I used to respond 24/7 if a Police Officer or other First responder felt suicidal, My personal cell phone number and landline phone number and 800 pager number was posted in those days on all BBs as a crisis councilor, and I was very busy, I had 24/7 use of an unmarked Official emergency vehicle so I could respond.

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Councilor.

Why not have end of life centers like in Soylent Green ?
Just no recycled people made into food !

 

So, are we to have a firearms discussion area at last ????

 

You're rambling about anecdotal situations. Firearms are too available as suicidal instruments. If some one works with one, there is little one can do except monitor their mental state. You can't keep people from committing suicide but you can make it more difficult which we as a society should be doing. ,

 

I bought a Glock 19 last week. I have been working out of town in Arkansas and Virginia for 2 weeks, but hopefully, I'll get a chance to test it out now that I'm home.

My wife is wanting to learn to shoot and maybe get a CHL. She has already learned how to load a magazine and chamber a round with snap caps. I may start her out on my son's Beretta Neos .22 and then maybe the Glock 19. After a little familiarity and basic safety, I think I will get her some professional training. I think she would listen to a stranger more than she would to me. After that, we'll try to decide what kind of gun she wants. She wants a manual safety, so I will let her practice with my Ruger P85. The rest of my pistols are DAO with no manual safety.

 

The very definition of anecdotal nebulous claptrap in relation to suicide.

I never knew firearms commit suicide.

 

I voted no simply because I can't have a firearm. There was a slight problem of domestic violence. The person was abusive to me for decades and I finally paid that person back. No regrets.

Anyway, I am jealous of people who can have firearms, and especially those who can get conceal carry. If I can't have some, no one can.

I used to be an expert markswoman. Such is life.

 

Your situation is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You're the last person they should be preventing from having a gun. The law is screwed up. Violent crime does not get prosecuted fully anymore, and sex offenders get off way too easy.

 

Discussing guns and firearms with some reminds us of "Beneath the plane of the Apes" and the worship the mutants had for the Dooms Day bomb. Their very existance was predicated upon the worship of a weapon, like yours seems to be.

It's like, no other amendment exists but the second amendment. What is really funny is, the second was written around times when weapons were so inaccurate, you need a militia company standing in ranks and all shooting at the same time and at the same targets to hit anything. The insanity that it now translates to an entire militia now each with 30 round clips shooting at what ? It is often just a contrivance of your fears.

You want weapons the army needs.......for what, no sane person can figure out.

 

**************************************

You show now your ignorance of firearms of that era, I have had quite a few.

C&B and even Flintlock Muskets, and they were extremely accurate, shooting patched ball, preffering .70 caliber and black powder, slow rifling twist of 1:70, I could take squirrels with head shots all day long.

Innacurate ? Yes, your statements are highly inaccurate Hog Wash !

The M-1 Garrand used "clips" the M-16 and other rifles uses Magazines...

 

Good grief. You don't even know the difference between a revolutionary musket and a rifle with rifling ?


I won't embarrass you with your usual lack of historical fact. I was in a revolutionary reenactment militia company for ten years. We did everything by the book. The primary hand held firearms during the revolution were Brown Bess English muskets and Charleville French supplied SMOOTH BORE muskets among other musket makers. THEY DIDN't EVEN HAVE FULL SIGHTS.

They had no rifling. They were used instead of the "rifle" because they were easy to load and a mounting for the bayonet which is a close quarter weapon. Rifles required a special slug. Muskets used a ball or anything else like a shot gun, you could find, from .69 to .75 cal. . They were essentially, long barred shot guns without sights. Rifling with the mini ball came into use during the civil war. They were accurate and devastating. The Pennsylvania rifle was not used by the regular army in the revolutionary war because of it's long loading time.
http://www.gunsgunsguns.com/guns-of-the-american-revolution.html


It doesn't matter what you pretend you had, I did this (*)(*)(*)(*) and obviously seem to have more experience then you in these matters. I was also on the cannon crew. Anything thing you need to know for real about those that I can help you with ? Now, for the umpteenth time, you are wrong. Check history. You redefine hogwash.

 

So, you do know they were accurate, I have shot smoothbores that were extremely accurate, even compared to rifled, I have no trouble admitting or admiring your expertise in these matters in any case.

Please feel free to enlighten me in a historical education on firearms anytime !

You were initially wrong in saying such guns lacked accuracy however.

 

You just told me they had rifling ! THEY DIDN't even have full sights. Accurate ? Accurate like a shot gun.....anything beyond 75 yards and you fired in volleys from ranks in hopes you could hit something. If you think a smoth bore musket was accurate, you're pretty near sighted. Inside 75 yards if you missed, it was straight to hand to hand before you could reload. Reloading was the key and why they used "shot guns" . THEY WERE NOT ACCURATE.....no rifling, no full sights and they killed as many with the bayonet as they did with ball.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifled_musket

I have had good effects on Deer out to 125 yards with smoothbores, with barley corn sights.

 

Getting back to the main point. This we discussed with many "living historians" who lived this existance as well in our company.

The reason militia and the idea of self defense and bearing arms is defined together in the 2A with just a comma between them is, self defense with these weapons is best done in groups. You had no way of defending your self vs just two Indians with one musket. They were inaccurate and you could not reload fast enough and it was usually one vs two in hand to hand combat. The settler lost. You needed literally, a militia company to defend yourself vs Indians or outlaws or any attack of more then one person. Even one determined person needed group defense. The weapons were that bad compared to today, militia was the only choice, even for local protection let alone warfare.

 

No argument there.

 

That I easily believe.....with today's powders and better sights.


I had no inclination to use them for hunting.

 

No, black powder and open iron sights of that period, Bannerman's had such original guns.

 

I am too lazy and clean up is a mess and I feel safer using pyrodex. We used black powered during some reenactments that were filmed for authenticity and in open areas but even during parades through towns shooting blanks, rather then create a mess, we used it instead of black powder.

 

That sounds like a messed up situation. If gun ownership is very important, you may do better in another state. Many states even grandfather some felonies so that you could eventually own a gun. I don't know the specifics in this area as it doesn't affect me and I haven't had a need to research, but you might be surprised what a little research will turn up. Once you find something, go to a local gun forum for that state and get some real world advice and legal sources to verify.

 

Charges of Domestic Violence can be successfully vacated by the Court that upheld that charge if the plaintiff can satisfy the Court that person no longer poses a threat to the original defendant in the original case.
By application for restoration of rights applicable for hunting.
This will also apply as complete restoration of all firearms related rights.