I like really old guns.like the ones that were invented right after the age of the knights vanished.Here is something that forced knights to change.Tons of the finest knights were going to kill the French army.They went there and were stopped by musket balls.I also really like blunderbusses and musketoons.

I've grown up around guns and have been taught how to properly handle them. I hunt about four weekends out of the year. I own a .22 rifle, Remington 870, a .270, a .45 revolver, and a 20 gauge that has been in my family for 5 generations. If the government wants to take my guns, they can get them out of my cold dead hand. I have taken the class for a CCW permit, but I didnt get the license.

I must say that I feel sorry that you have to carry a gun to feel safe and protect yourself in your own homes. I have my wepons to hunt and compeat. I dont lock my door at night and I dont have a fence around my house. I take feeling safe for granted and it hurts to learn that that isnt the case for so manny of you. I hope that you never have to use a gun ever again to protect your self or family.

This is your rifle, this is your gun, this is a forum frequented by a lot of kids.

And adult's Ped...This forum was started to keep certain issues from popping up on other thread's...I think it's working....

Thanks, Dent, you know I have you in high regard, and it will not change because of this subject. But the fact that there are adults ALSO on this FORUM doesn't prevent children to read this THREAD, because this thread is INSIDE the Main Dogfight Forum, isn't?
But, I recognize that I am being too stubborn, too invasive, and too repetitive. I will let you USA citizens with your matters alone. Sorry again. Let it be.
I will act as Wigbomb is acting - being mute, just seeing what will happen from distance, asking myself when and where the next bad news about kids-and-guns will come from.
I know that I already promised this before, but now its for good: I promise that I won't talk about this anymore. Not my business. Sorry if I pissed you people off.

Your not being stubborn... Your opinion's mean just as much as anyone's....
I am a parent. I'm sure my parenting skill's have been questioned many time's, Even for what I may have...... You ought to see the looks I get when I go with my daughter shopping for Bra's.......
I wouldn't do anything that I thought would put my Wife or Daughter in Harm's way...
Wig has every right to verbalize his view's along with so many other's.....I just don't like seeing it get heated....
You have a heart and your putting it where you think it should be......
I just want to keep thing's civil.....
Thanks PED

Oh, brassieres... Laura is only 14 months "old", but I am already worried about these boys at the neighborhood going around my little "mulata" few years ahead...

Offtopic, I know. I'm leaving this thread now.

Pedrinho wrote: Oh, brassieres... Laura is only 14 months "old", but I am already worried about these boys at the neighborhood going around my little "mulata" few years ahead...

Offtopic, I know. I'm leaving this thread now.

LMAO...... I actually have fun shopping with my daughter.... I am constantly being handed clothes from the dressing room door and being told to get her another size...Sooooo all by my self I go look at the young ladies clothes and pick... Boy do I get starred at.... Usually the laughing commences when they hear "DADDY I'M NOT THAT BIG" from the dressing room....

I Owen antique guns lee Enfield mrk iV born 1942, also Russian mosseninagant shorter version born in 1943 ,also 2 guns from the cash in Nepal one from 1864 other from 1871

Well I wrote and thought I posted a rather long and well thought out reply to Mr. Ped. But it ain't here. So let me summarize it thusly....






But seriously, please feel free to post your thoughts and opinions. As long as they are presented in a civil manner, I welcome it.

I would like to say, that nearly all of the pro-gun contributors to this thread have promoted and advocated gun safety, proper handling and training and law abiding behavior. If there were anything posted to the contrary, I would support censorship of those posts as they would be reckless and irresponsible.

As to appropriateness of this topic for children that may read it. I suggest that education and support of proper and responsible gun use and ownership is far better than ignorance. I would also like to point out that the entire premise of this game is shooting other players with....... What? That's right, guns... Big ones and weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I reiterate, education and discussion about real world applications of firearms is entirely appropriate.

Thank you Ped for your opinions, please keep em coming and thank you Dent for your reply as well.

PH

Thumbs up, parrot!

Despite my position about this matter, I see that you are way more polite than others I faced here.
Thanks for your kindness!
But as I said, this is not a subject that I'll discuss from now on - at least not here on dogfightplay.
I like people with sense of humor, and Im sure we will laugh a lot together in other threads!

This is the newest edition to my collection, a Marlin 1895 sbl, it shoots a .45-70 round.

Bobbysox wrote: no....they usually used 30cal on those old planes. the allied planes mostly carried vickers or lewis guns ( the round drum on top )..not sure what the germans used.

i was a gun dealer for 25 years...sold some pretty exotic stuff including machineguns and silencers. never was intereted in hunting but always love shooting...and the faster the better...lol.

edit: just looked up the color code...it is an armor piercing incendary tracer. you got the whole ball of wax in that round! and no it is not illegal to own or possess an armor piercing round....

The Germans initially used the Parabellum for their air service, but once the problem was solved about how to safely fire through a spinning propellor, they switched over to the Spandau machine gun, as the Parabellum wasn't really suited all that well for modification. Thoretically, the Spandau had a firing rate of 500 7.92 mm rounds per minute, and were usually fitted in pairs. Hope that helps.

Just wanted to address some concerns about this topic. As Parrothead said, this is a thread for those interested in the topic of guns, which includes enthusiasts, but also includes those who object to them, with a civil discussion being the theme. And having those discussions organized here being the goal (since it's distracting and off-topic for other topic threads and squad threads).

As for kids reading the topic, I personally see no problem there. Again, as long as posts remain civil and mature. From the enthusiasts' side, I think that means we never ever say anything that might be interpreted as glorifying misuse of guns. Plus, safety is paramount in the handling of equipment that may be dangerous, whatever that equipment is, and all the youngsters out there (and oldsters too) should know that safe handling is fully implied here. When we post about guns, you should be darned certain that none of us treat safety lightly.

About the Connecticut shooting, and all other horrible tragedies involving firearms. Enthusiasm for guns is not meant to glorify such events in any way, just as car enthusiasts aren't glorifying vehicular homicides and plane enthusiasts aren't glorifying 9/11. But we should be sensitive to the fact that it may be difficult for some readers to separate the abusers from their weapons of choice, especially when that weapon is a gun. I don't agree with it, but it's reality.

On the other hand, we are ALL playing a video game that simulates pilots using planes equipped with automatic machine guns to shoot down other planes, and those planes are crashing in flames, likely killing the pilot if this were real life. We're also shooting pilots in parachutes, and destroying tanks. And sinking aircraft carriers. The reality is that we are all finding sport in a simulated destruction environment, and perhaps simulated killing if you really think about it. The fact that players come right back does not mitigate that reality; in fact, one of the objections that society has to violent video games is that it numbs players to the act of destruction and killing.

Anyway I don't think it's unnatural to see threads on gun enthusiasm and model plane enthusiasm, in a Dogfight Game Forum.

Manfred

Hi all.
Guns are a very important subject in my house. My two oldest kids have both shot guns, and know very well that they are not toys or trifles because they have had them in their hands. Their experience is not limited to a Hollywood movie.

I have 3 kids, 14, 11, and 5. I am a sensitive sap when it comes to children and families; in other words I have every, and I mean EVERY sympathy for the parents who lost kids in CT. My kids go to school one hour's drive from where the shooting occurred.

Please forgive me the length of the following post, but it is among my passions:

I am an originalist; I believe in the original intent of the Constitution as specified by Jefferson and Madison. The Constitution is not "living" or evolving, nor is it an anachronism. It was set up to establish parameters to limit government, limit it in such a way that government would never encroach upon the life or property of a citizen.

However the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just pieces of paper. They (Const and BoR) only have teeth if the people are vigilant and keep the government at bay by the "soap box, ballot box,.." and at last resort in the setting of real impending tyranny, ..cartridge box".

The second amendment is not about hunting. It is about a person protecting himself, his family, or a community protecting themselves, etc. An armed population is the counter to a standing army in the hands of a leadership bent on destroying the Constitution.

The Oath to preserve and protect the Constitution is against all enemies...foreign and domestic; it is not about allegiance to a man or a government. It is an oath to the People, and to protect their liberties by upholding the Constitution.

Guns are a tool for protection of one's life and property.

---

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

Speaking of teaching youth to respect firearms ... nice job..

....123321...

My take on this, guns should be allowed. Not for the reasons that u hear on the news though, that total bull crap. "its to protect ourselves from the govt", no- govt has tanks and planes, guns are useless against it. "to protect ourselves from criminals"- most people keep guns locked in a closet or something, by the time u go get it u would be shot, and if guns were banned then the criminal wouldn't have a gun either. Fair fight i guess- when i was little, someone broke in our house with a gun, my dad got hold of him, threw him on the ground and broke his gun, with his ribs. my dad couldn't get to his gun but we survived, if that criminal didn't have a gun because it was banned then we would have never been in danger. Then why i think guns should be legal- that criminal would have gotton the gun from some where else, its like gettimg drugs. Banning guns won't stop incidents such as the one that took place few weeks ago. And my dad has guns too, he has them because he loves collecting them and shooting them. He hunts with them and showed me how to use them too. They are all registered of course, at least the ones that are legal to register

Bomer,

I agree with your reason. But IMO Pappy's reason is the Big One. Sure, a government has tanks. But a government that governs a free and armed populace will check itself from turning into a dictatorship. A government that governs unarmed people may remain benevolent, but that critical piece of check-and-balance is gone... and all it takes is leadership that is not benevolent. It's not about tanks; it's about drawing the line at things like mass confiscation. An armed populace tips the balance, just so.

At least that's what America's Founders believed. And a lot of us continue to believe it and cherish it as a key principle. It's not paranoia; it's just making sure that the original Ideas that founded the country, and that kept it in reasonable balance through the years, are always in place, and not trivialized as "we don't need that freedom any more."

IMO.

Manfred

2005 murder total in the US was 16,692. If you had that level for 100 years you would see 1,669,200.

The Nazis, in roughly 12 years managed to murder 10-11 million people. Remember, those were the guys who banned or at least heavily regulated personally owned guns during their reign.

1,669,200 = 2005 avg x 100

---

10,500,000 = the gun banners in about 12

Interesting numbers, huh?

Manfred wrote: Bomer,

I agree with your reason. But IMO Pappy's reason is the Big One. Sure, a government has tanks. But a government that governs a free and armed populace will check itself from turning into a dictatorship. A government that governs unarmed people may remain benevolent, but that critical piece of check-and-balance is gone... and all it takes is leadership that is not benevolent. It's not about tanks; it's about drawing the line at things like mass confiscation. An armed populace tips the balance, just so.

At least that's what America's Founders believed. And a lot of us continue to believe it and cherish it as a key principle. It's not paranoia; it's just making sure that the original Ideas that founded the country, and that kept it in reasonable balance through the years, are always in place, and not trivialized as "we don't need that freedom any more."

IMO.

Manfred

Give Manfred the gold medal. He gets it too. Thank you

Jacklpe that makes no sense, ur comparing the US to the nazis. And if u want to compare something than compare the 2005 gun murders of the US to 2005 gun murders of germany(any country that has banned guns).


Manfred i agree with u but when the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they didn't have tanks back then. If the govt were to take over we would be helpless. But it can't take over of course

Well I own no guns but if I ever felt the need to get ahold of one so as to do my bit in overthrowing big brother, i should have no problem getting them illegally like the criminals already do. Just like I would have very little trouble getting ahold of any banned substance if I really wanted to. (Prohibition, yeah that worked -- not).

If it came to that, I suppose I would. But I aint holding my breath. And I aint getting my dander up over anyone else's views on this, nor am I trying to change any minds. Meanwhile I will continue to fearlessly go about my daily business, unarmed! I know, right? I must be out of my mind!

Exactly, it wouldn't solve anything beacuse people can still get it illegally, which is quite easy actually.

bopes wrote: Well I own no guns but if I ever felt the need to get ahold of one so as to do my bit in overthrowing big brother, i should have no problem getting them illegally like the criminals already do. Just like I would have very little trouble getting ahold of any banned substance if I really wanted to. (Prohibition, yeah that worked -- not).

If it came to that, I suppose I would. But I aint holding my breath. And I aint getting my dander up over anyone else's views on this, nor am I trying to change any minds. Meanwhile I will continue to fearlessly go about my daily business, unarmed! I know, right? I must be out of my mind!

Nah, not out of your mind. My dad and my bro have made the same decision as you. My wife and I made that same decision for years. Right to bear implies a right to not bear. Then we made the alternate decision, and it wasn't just then that the 2nd Amendment was important -- it was important ALL ALONG, whichever way we went. Going back to Pappy, it isn't about the entire citizenry deciding to arm themselves; it's about having the Open Option being a continuous check and balance.

It certainly isn't about having masses of armed citizens overthrowing big brother. I agree, that's a rather ludicrous picture. It's the hesitation of government to step over a line versus non-hesitation. Just like criminals themselves would take a second thought if they knew an owner was armed and trained, a government (who are a bunch of individuals making decisions) would hesitate, thinking "I don't think we could pass that law that confiscates that first layer of xxxxx," with xxxxx being certain types of guns, private property at the border, large gas-guzzling Hum-Vees, collectors' swords, etc.

I understand these alternate thoughts being played out here. Just chiming back with my own.

Manfred

bomer1 wrote: Jacklpe that makes no sense, ur comparing the US to the nazis. And if u want to compare something than compare the 2005 gun murders of the US to 2005 gun murders of germany(any country that has banned guns).


Manfred i agree with u but when the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they didn't have tanks back then. If the govt were to take over we would be helpless. But it can't take over of course

Trivia Time! Which "radical" document contains these words?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"

Bomber, I guess my point is to look at the numbers to try to understand the big picture.

Governments that went haywire during the 20th century murdered, if I remember right, about 56 million of their own citizens.

I would guess a lot of those people had the "it can't happen here" or "it won't happen to me" attitude.

In a government vs citizen relationship, if only one side is armed, then one side is at the mercy of those calling the shots on the other side. If it remains balanced, like Manfred said, certain lines won't be crossed by either side.

I threw a very unscientific and assumed 100 year murder total for our country (pick a random near modern year and multiply by 100) to I guess show the contrast between one being murdered here in our own gun totin country, vs one being murdered by their leaders in other nations throughout the last century...

As far as the Gee, they were Nazi's analogy, I think it would be naive to think that our country, or any country for that matter, couldn't go down the same path. It's happened over and over. Civilized vs crazy as hell is a delicate balance.

bopes wrote: Well I own no guns but if I ever felt the need to get ahold of one so as to do my bit in overthrowing big brother, i should have no problem getting them illegally like the criminals already do. Just like I would have very little trouble getting ahold of any banned substance if I really wanted to. (Prohibition, yeah that worked -- not).

If it came to that, I suppose I would. But I aint holding my breath. And I aint getting my dander up over anyone else's views on this, nor am I trying to change any minds. Meanwhile I will continue to fearlessly go about my daily business, unarmed! I know, right? I must be out of my mind!

Funny thing is Bopes, I totally agree with you. As strange as it may seem, I could care less about changing anyone's mind. I'm basically only trying to prove that my side has enough valid reasoning for its beliefs that it justifies it to be left the hell alone.

If you don't like guns, if they are scary and such to you, by all means don't buy one. It's nobody 's choice but your own. But, because YOU have made that choice, it does not in any way give you the right to make the same one for ME.

That's really my whole argument in a nutshell.

They also didn't have a govt like ours. Even if we didn't have guns we would make it.

bomer1 wrote: They also didn't have a govt like ours. Even if we didn't have guns we would make it.

Each government is unique, but the common thread of these horrible examples of tyranny is that (a) they moved gradually toward the cliff, (b) the people either didn't see it or denied that it would go anywhere (like a frog sitting in a pan of water that is slowly raised to the boiling point), and (c) once at the cliff, it was easy for the government to go the rest of the way. An armed populace (which means a populace that has the right to be armed, and some will and some won't) keeps the government from creeping toward the precipice. The weird slippery slope laws for confiscation etc. will have much more pressure to never be proposed or passed. Take away the right, and in the hands of the wrong government leaders, the precipice will be reached rather easily over time.

Again, not paranoia that it will happen; just a belief that certain rights and balances are needed to keep it from EVER going there.

Manfred