Slog Comments
Whites Only
1
Also his store is on "East White Mountain Blvd."
You know what that means don't you?
(I don't but I figure you do...since you like, interpret this stuff and all...)
You know what that means don't you?
(I don't but I figure you do...since you like, interpret this stuff and all...)
2
AK47?? A gun store proudly gets a vanity phone number that ends in AK47, the sportsman's nightmare, an inaccurate Commie-made gun useful only for war and mayhem?
No wonder he's got no pride in America's democracy, either.
No wonder he's got no pride in America's democracy, either.
4
Between Obama and Romney, only one of them has signed into law an assault weapons ban, and he was the one who lost the election.
6
So, as someone that feels more than half of the voters in the country are not sufficiently responsible to hold a gun, this guy strongly favors strict gun control laws, right?
7
Here's one of his many videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMKWn5X1…
That title shot logo does not at all remind you of a certain other black-white-and-red flag, right? I'm sure Christian Nationalists love all races equally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMKWn5X1…
That title shot logo does not at all remind you of a certain other black-white-and-red flag, right? I'm sure Christian Nationalists love all races equally.
9
What will happen to these people when no one comes to take their guns away? Their lives will lose all meaning.
11
@9 Yeah, but if we never tell them...
Remember the story of all those Japanese soldiers who hid out on Pacific islands for years, not knowing the second world war had ended?
I have an image of all these folks hunkered down for years in their bunkers, protecting their weapons from the black helicopters and UN troops that never come for them!
Remember the story of all those Japanese soldiers who hid out on Pacific islands for years, not knowing the second world war had ended?
I have an image of all these folks hunkered down for years in their bunkers, protecting their weapons from the black helicopters and UN troops that never come for them!
12
@9 - He will continue to make tons of money selling guns to people who are convinced that Obama is going to take all of their guns away. Obama's re-election is a huge win for him, but you have to keep the fear up.
13
Now I really want to get a gun. Tell these guys that I'm learning to use it in order to defend myself from them, since right wingers are the ones with the recent record of political violence and mayhem.
14
@4 Yeah, instead of a background check, there should be an intelligence test to own firearms. I'm sure at least 2/3'ds of the gun owners would fail.
15
@#11
The version I like (but whose name and author I can't recall) is a grimly funny story set in Yugoslavia where a partisan leader (and later apparatchik) convinces a bunch of anti-fascists that they have to stay trapped in an improvised munitions factory in a cave, sealed off from all news of the outsie world and in hiding from the occupying Nazis, for decades - through the collapse of the Soviet Union iirc. The metaphorical nature of the story was not especially subtle, but what I like about this version of the same "last remaining deluded resistance fighter" narrative is the role of the exploiter, the person who keeps them deluded and feeds them nonsense, so as to exploit their possessions and their industry.
The version I like (but whose name and author I can't recall) is a grimly funny story set in Yugoslavia where a partisan leader (and later apparatchik) convinces a bunch of anti-fascists that they have to stay trapped in an improvised munitions factory in a cave, sealed off from all news of the outsie world and in hiding from the occupying Nazis, for decades - through the collapse of the Soviet Union iirc. The metaphorical nature of the story was not especially subtle, but what I like about this version of the same "last remaining deluded resistance fighter" narrative is the role of the exploiter, the person who keeps them deluded and feeds them nonsense, so as to exploit their possessions and their industry.
16
I love the logic that Obama doing exactly 0 in the realm of gun control laws means he's going to take everyone's guns away.
17
This "country" will eventually eat itself, and racist yahoos like Mr. Reynolds will be a significant part of that. They can have Arizona, as far as I'm concerned.
Once the US actually loses global dominance and is unable to maintain it's some 800 worldwide military bases and it's ability to "project force" to any square inch of the Earth, things will start to slip here. The US will slowly, tumultuously, begin to carve itself up into enclaves. Happily, though, the First Nations will be strong enough by then to claim territory too.
Me? I'll stick with Cascadia. Although it prolly won't happen in my lifetime. Probably closer to 2100.
Once the US actually loses global dominance and is unable to maintain it's some 800 worldwide military bases and it's ability to "project force" to any square inch of the Earth, things will start to slip here. The US will slowly, tumultuously, begin to carve itself up into enclaves. Happily, though, the First Nations will be strong enough by then to claim territory too.
Me? I'll stick with Cascadia. Although it prolly won't happen in my lifetime. Probably closer to 2100.
18
When has the Obama administration said anything about coming after our firearms? Am I missing something? Or is this some false alarm syndrome going on here hating on our Black president?
I voted for Obama, I am gay, and I even own a firearm.
Oh, well. We won. Fuck that guy.
I voted for Obama, I am gay, and I even own a firearm.
Oh, well. We won. Fuck that guy.
20
@18: When has the President been guilty of any of the supposed crimes against humanity leveled at him by the lunatic fringe?
21
@2 AKs are not competition target rifles, but the consensus is that they are accurate enough for hunting out to normal hunting distances.
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-…
In addition to hunting, you forgot another use to which they are perfectly suited: goofing around with noisy guns and wasting money on ammo. That's the bulk of civilian use of guns in the US. Even most hunters shoot far fewer rounds at game than at targets.
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-…
In addition to hunting, you forgot another use to which they are perfectly suited: goofing around with noisy guns and wasting money on ammo. That's the bulk of civilian use of guns in the US. Even most hunters shoot far fewer rounds at game than at targets.
22
@19- no, but there are a lot of things in the real world that prevent it from being so. Low grade/worn tooling in many factories usually results in poor tolerances, -often a boon to reliability in poor conditions, but not accuracy. Muzzle climb, poor cleaning practices, poor QC with 7.62x39 ammo, etc.
24
Exactly, @23. Even bursts result in a pretty chewed up "trophy".
Stick with a decent 30.06 with a scope and stop pretending you're an Army of One.
Stick with a decent 30.06 with a scope and stop pretending you're an Army of One.
25
@24 No, my point was that most civilian AKs are semi-auto, and you would use one shot at a time. Muzzle jump and follow-up shot timing are not usually important in hunting.
26
@18:
It's a perennial right-wing "bugbear"; wing-nuts said the same thing about Clinton when he signed the Brady Bill back in '93. Hell, Birchers were bloviating about some nefarious U.N. scheme to confiscate American firearms as far back as the late '50's. It never happens, of course, and never will, but it's one of those enduring dog-whistle issues that easily whips the gun-nuts into a frothing mass of fear and indignation.
It's a perennial right-wing "bugbear"; wing-nuts said the same thing about Clinton when he signed the Brady Bill back in '93. Hell, Birchers were bloviating about some nefarious U.N. scheme to confiscate American firearms as far back as the late '50's. It never happens, of course, and never will, but it's one of those enduring dog-whistle issues that easily whips the gun-nuts into a frothing mass of fear and indignation.
28
Too bad his place didn't burn down in the spate of wildfires down in the Pinetop/Springerville area over the past few years. The ones that Obama sent firefighters and funds for...I'm just sayin'. But the White Mountains area of AZ - while beautiful - is filled with some vile, racist, hypocritical residents. Lots of Mormons too, coincidentally.
29
@#15 That movie is called "Underground" and is by Kusturica who has also made some fabulous and hilarious Gypsy movies such as "Black Cat, White Cat". His work is totally worth tracking down and watching.
30
AK's generally shoot around 4 MOA, that is a 4 inch group at 100 yards for you laymen, and better than most people can shoot. The the 7.62x39 round does suffer from it's ballistic trajectory steeply dropping off after around 300 yards but the 4.45x39 AK-74 solves this problem, has reduced weight and enhanced terminal ballistics.
As for racism, the only racist here is Goldy, as usual.
The AK was my first rifle a fine weapon, I have one in 5.56 NATO as my back up rifle.
As for racism, the only racist here is Goldy, as usual.
The AK was my first rifle a fine weapon, I have one in 5.56 NATO as my back up rifle.
31
Guy sounds like an asshole but I think the racism allegation is a stretch. Stop projecting, Goldy.
32
there is no such thing as a perfect system. Our aversion to government over-reach is certainly borne out by history (The Alien and Sedition Acts, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, Woodrow Wilson's attacks on anti-war and socialist persons and groups, the Patriot Act), but anarchy has also produced it's share of ugliness in our history too (riots everywhere from Tulsa to Detroit, extralegal mobs like the KKK, lynchings, hate crimes, serial killers and spree shooters).
This country has a gun problem. And this problem is not going to be solved by ideology. Libertarians may decry some dystopian future nascent in any regulatory attempt, but possession of firearms isn't going to fend such a nightmare off. we have got to pay attention to the statistics, which are more informative of what actually harms our society than ideology is. The numbers are awful. If this number of avoidable deaths were attributable to food poisoning, we'd be up in arms demanding a ban on the offending chemical. but because the agent of death is a bullet rather than a bacterium, our ideology prevents us from removing this danger from our society.
This country was born in ideology, but we need not die in ideology. The evidence is clear; guns must be banned in the US.
This country has a gun problem. And this problem is not going to be solved by ideology. Libertarians may decry some dystopian future nascent in any regulatory attempt, but possession of firearms isn't going to fend such a nightmare off. we have got to pay attention to the statistics, which are more informative of what actually harms our society than ideology is. The numbers are awful. If this number of avoidable deaths were attributable to food poisoning, we'd be up in arms demanding a ban on the offending chemical. but because the agent of death is a bullet rather than a bacterium, our ideology prevents us from removing this danger from our society.
This country was born in ideology, but we need not die in ideology. The evidence is clear; guns must be banned in the US.
33
Having read gun related stories above this article, perhaps Mr. Reynolds has no problem selling guns, assault weapons, hand grenades, nuclear bombs, or any other contrived death machine to those that voted for Romney that also suffer from Alzheimer's Disease, dementia of any kind, or are presently off balance from a lack of antipsychotic medication.
34
These are the paranoid nutbags who drove the price of ammo sky-high through panic-induced hoarding after Obama was elected the first time, because he was a-comin' after their guns ... which he never did. Gun and ammo manufacturers love them.
35
@34 But THIS time, he doesn't have to worry about re-election, so he's REALLY coming for our guns! Hillary started arranging it with the UN on the day after the election!!! (That's not a Poe: I'd seen it on right-wing gun-nut* websites within a couple of days of the election.)
@24 I agree that a 30-06 is a far better and more versatile hunting rifle than an AK. However, after reading "you can't hunt with an assault rifle" repeatedly on DKos after the Aurora, CO massacre (no doubt posted exclusively by people who'd never been hunting), it occurred to me that there has been a generational shift in gun-buying habits. It's similar to the trend that most people now prefer SUVs primarily for stylistic reasons, even though for most uses, a station wagon or minivan would do the job better or more efficiently. Lots of shooters now prefer their guns black and semi-auto, not wood-stocked, blued-steel and bolt/lever/revolver actioned. Some of these people are highly motivated by SHTF/TEOTAWKI/black-helicopter scenarios, but I'll bet for every real survivalist nut, you'll find several who just want what the cool kids are buying, not their grandfather's fusty old Remington.
This fashion trend is at least part of the reason for the development of several 6.5 mm to .30 caliber cartridges which are small enough to run through an AR-15 action, but unlike the standard 5.56 mm round, do enough damage to be reliably used on deer-sized game. A good, old-fashioned .30-06 or .270 would do the job cheaper and better, but it's not cool.
*that's not ENTIRELY redundant: there are small numbers of liberal gun-nuts. Google "liberal gun club." It's a tiny fraction of the size of the wing-nut-friendly forums, of course. The Calguns forum seems to have a pretty large number of participants who are not complete loons, too.
More...
@24 I agree that a 30-06 is a far better and more versatile hunting rifle than an AK. However, after reading "you can't hunt with an assault rifle" repeatedly on DKos after the Aurora, CO massacre (no doubt posted exclusively by people who'd never been hunting), it occurred to me that there has been a generational shift in gun-buying habits. It's similar to the trend that most people now prefer SUVs primarily for stylistic reasons, even though for most uses, a station wagon or minivan would do the job better or more efficiently. Lots of shooters now prefer their guns black and semi-auto, not wood-stocked, blued-steel and bolt/lever/revolver actioned. Some of these people are highly motivated by SHTF/TEOTAWKI/black-helicopter scenarios, but I'll bet for every real survivalist nut, you'll find several who just want what the cool kids are buying, not their grandfather's fusty old Remington.
This fashion trend is at least part of the reason for the development of several 6.5 mm to .30 caliber cartridges which are small enough to run through an AR-15 action, but unlike the standard 5.56 mm round, do enough damage to be reliably used on deer-sized game. A good, old-fashioned .30-06 or .270 would do the job cheaper and better, but it's not cool.
*that's not ENTIRELY redundant: there are small numbers of liberal gun-nuts. Google "liberal gun club." It's a tiny fraction of the size of the wing-nut-friendly forums, of course. The Calguns forum seems to have a pretty large number of participants who are not complete loons, too.
36
@32 And that's how you give the White House back to the Repugnicants.
Want to put Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and most of the upper-Midwest back in the red? Run on banning guns.
I'm not saying the statistics are wrong. I'm sure concealed carry and ready "home-defense" guns are more likely to get you or an innocent bystander hurt than "protect" anyone. I'm all in favor of keeping guns locked up and unloaded when you're not playing with them. But even reasonable levels of gun registration, let alone restriction, would KILL the Democrats.
Want to put Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and most of the upper-Midwest back in the red? Run on banning guns.
I'm not saying the statistics are wrong. I'm sure concealed carry and ready "home-defense" guns are more likely to get you or an innocent bystander hurt than "protect" anyone. I'm all in favor of keeping guns locked up and unloaded when you're not playing with them. But even reasonable levels of gun registration, let alone restriction, would KILL the Democrats.
38
About a decade ago, in the Bay Area, I was sufficiently money ahead to buy a pistol and occasionally do some shooting (I was a good pistol shot as a teenager and in the military, and wanted to pick it back up.)
It took a month and ten different gun shops before I found one that wasn't plastered with rightwing bullshit, owned/staffed by nasty little would-be Rambos and John Waynes, and/or had a history of "losing" stock out the back door.
I finally did find one that was polite, professional, ran their business strictly to the law, and didn't cater to crazies. (I often brought my own targets when using their firing range, and the rangemaster always insisted on inpecting them before I went on the line. I found out why when a first-timer turned up with a variety pack of targets featuring the Clintons and Bin Laden, among others; they bounced the guy and barred him for life on the spot.)
Weirdly, the gun shops I've been in the Northwest don't seem to trowel on the teabagger craziness to any extent at all.
It took a month and ten different gun shops before I found one that wasn't plastered with rightwing bullshit, owned/staffed by nasty little would-be Rambos and John Waynes, and/or had a history of "losing" stock out the back door.
I finally did find one that was polite, professional, ran their business strictly to the law, and didn't cater to crazies. (I often brought my own targets when using their firing range, and the rangemaster always insisted on inpecting them before I went on the line. I found out why when a first-timer turned up with a variety pack of targets featuring the Clintons and Bin Laden, among others; they bounced the guy and barred him for life on the spot.)
Weirdly, the gun shops I've been in the Northwest don't seem to trowel on the teabagger craziness to any extent at all.
39
This is a pathetic excuse of journalism, you ought to be ashamed. All you've done is take somebody's political statement (which they're still entitled to, even if you don't agree) and spin it into some sensationalist bullshit calling him a rascist. I have a lot more respect for Cope Reynolds than the clown that wrote this. This is some Newt-Gingrich style shittalking, shame on you.
40
There's a misspelling in the add. I think he meant "you're business."
Posted by Minneapolitan on November 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM
You're kidding, right? "add" should be "ad" and the "your" in the ad was correct. you're the last person that should be making corrections.
you're = YOU ARE......so "you are business" is what you think they should have used?
Posted by Minneapolitan on November 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM
You're kidding, right? "add" should be "ad" and the "your" in the ad was correct. you're the last person that should be making corrections.
you're = YOU ARE......so "you are business" is what you think they should have used?
41
36,
Your argument consists of two parts.
1) The GOP is the Party of Death (POD). They endorse zero restrictions on high caliber assault rifles, rape, deregulation of everything including Public Health, the death penalty, constant warfare, and police brutality.
2) The Democrats must therefore compromise with the Party of Death, because not compromising with the POD would mean the POD would win the next election cycle.
The fact that one major party can endorse pro-Death politics and not have the argument framed in those terms by their opposition is a sign of where we have come as a country. The GOP has no problem using hyperbole to cast the Democrats in an unappealing light, but the Democrats have a hard time locating their spinal column when asked to do the same. This is like having a boxing match where one boxer has a club to beat the other with and the other just sort of stands there and whines about how juvenile his opponent is.
Do you want to know an even faster way to lose the White House to the GOP/POD? Insist on playing by the rules when your opposition doesn't have any rules.
You see this clown in AZ, the gun shop owner? You think he has any problem at all with the way he describes us? You think hes afraid he m,ight lose votes for his party if he calls for arming every US citizen, man woman and child, and declaring war on Canada? No, he's not afraid of losing votes for saying that kind of crazy bullshit, because he's likely to win votes for saying that kind of crazy bullshit. he doesn't compromise, and that's why he wins.
But you want to compromise. You want restraint. You want to appeal to the voters sense of reason rather than their viscera. he wins by talking to their emotions, their fears, their feelings, and you lose by talking to their reason.
You know what? Fuck the Far Right. I don't just want legal pot, I want Municipal Marijuana, growing out of a planter in front of City Hall. The Far Right is afraid of abortion? Fine, lets have it available at a drive thru at McDonalds. Fight hyperbole with hyperbole. Show them that if they want to play crazy, then two of us can play that game. They think Michelle Bachman is a serious politician? Then let's elect Roseanne Barr to the Senate.
More...
Your argument consists of two parts.
1) The GOP is the Party of Death (POD). They endorse zero restrictions on high caliber assault rifles, rape, deregulation of everything including Public Health, the death penalty, constant warfare, and police brutality.
2) The Democrats must therefore compromise with the Party of Death, because not compromising with the POD would mean the POD would win the next election cycle.
The fact that one major party can endorse pro-Death politics and not have the argument framed in those terms by their opposition is a sign of where we have come as a country. The GOP has no problem using hyperbole to cast the Democrats in an unappealing light, but the Democrats have a hard time locating their spinal column when asked to do the same. This is like having a boxing match where one boxer has a club to beat the other with and the other just sort of stands there and whines about how juvenile his opponent is.
Do you want to know an even faster way to lose the White House to the GOP/POD? Insist on playing by the rules when your opposition doesn't have any rules.
You see this clown in AZ, the gun shop owner? You think he has any problem at all with the way he describes us? You think hes afraid he m,ight lose votes for his party if he calls for arming every US citizen, man woman and child, and declaring war on Canada? No, he's not afraid of losing votes for saying that kind of crazy bullshit, because he's likely to win votes for saying that kind of crazy bullshit. he doesn't compromise, and that's why he wins.
But you want to compromise. You want restraint. You want to appeal to the voters sense of reason rather than their viscera. he wins by talking to their emotions, their fears, their feelings, and you lose by talking to their reason.
You know what? Fuck the Far Right. I don't just want legal pot, I want Municipal Marijuana, growing out of a planter in front of City Hall. The Far Right is afraid of abortion? Fine, lets have it available at a drive thru at McDonalds. Fight hyperbole with hyperbole. Show them that if they want to play crazy, then two of us can play that game. They think Michelle Bachman is a serious politician? Then let's elect Roseanne Barr to the Senate.
42
@41: I'd read it as suggesting that we cement our advantage over the GOP before trying to tackle this issue. We need to neutralize the social conservatives before we can go up against the NRA.
44
42,
You do not win a fight by running away from your opponent's strengths. You win a fight by transforming an opponent's strength into a weakness. Political jiujitsu.
you claim the NRA is too strong to take on. Your fear of the NRA therefore amplifies their perceived strength. They punch above their weight, having a much smaller membership and less of a campaign warchest than most people see them as having. And the reason why this overblown image of the NRA as being too mighty to fight (kind of like the Great Oz) is so persistent is because liberals and progressives run from the NRA at the mere mention of their name.
The NRA is like a cat that puffs itself up to make itself seem larger than it is. I'm not claiming that kitty can't fight, but I am suggesting that you should stop describing it as a mountain lion when its really just a tabby.
Fly right at the NRA, take the fight to its doorstep and kick it in the jaw. You want to see just how small the NRA membership really is? Find someone who works for the organization as a paid member and get some snapshots of them in some kind of sexual imbroglio or smoking a joint. Within hours, every politician on the Hill will claim they've never been an NRA member.
it took one not very talented kid with a videocamera and a girlfriend who dresses in cheap furs to destroy ACORN. I won't deny that ACORN had its own problems (Wade Rathke robbed the organization and then the leadership refused to allow unions to organize their workers), but it was a political force to be reckoned with. And if all it took was this kid who still to this day lives in his parents' basement, that shows that nobody is too big. The NRA isn't too big, either. And if you had any real desire to win, you'd grab your videocamera and tell your bf to put on a cheap fur outfit, and then head over to NRA headquarters to put together a show.
Fight, you wussies, fight!
More...
You do not win a fight by running away from your opponent's strengths. You win a fight by transforming an opponent's strength into a weakness. Political jiujitsu.
you claim the NRA is too strong to take on. Your fear of the NRA therefore amplifies their perceived strength. They punch above their weight, having a much smaller membership and less of a campaign warchest than most people see them as having. And the reason why this overblown image of the NRA as being too mighty to fight (kind of like the Great Oz) is so persistent is because liberals and progressives run from the NRA at the mere mention of their name.
The NRA is like a cat that puffs itself up to make itself seem larger than it is. I'm not claiming that kitty can't fight, but I am suggesting that you should stop describing it as a mountain lion when its really just a tabby.
Fly right at the NRA, take the fight to its doorstep and kick it in the jaw. You want to see just how small the NRA membership really is? Find someone who works for the organization as a paid member and get some snapshots of them in some kind of sexual imbroglio or smoking a joint. Within hours, every politician on the Hill will claim they've never been an NRA member.
it took one not very talented kid with a videocamera and a girlfriend who dresses in cheap furs to destroy ACORN. I won't deny that ACORN had its own problems (Wade Rathke robbed the organization and then the leadership refused to allow unions to organize their workers), but it was a political force to be reckoned with. And if all it took was this kid who still to this day lives in his parents' basement, that shows that nobody is too big. The NRA isn't too big, either. And if you had any real desire to win, you'd grab your videocamera and tell your bf to put on a cheap fur outfit, and then head over to NRA headquarters to put together a show.
Fight, you wussies, fight!
45
I voted for Jill Stein,* so I guess that means I'm welcome!
*Yes, I'm one of those Glen Ford / Black Agenda Report Obama-is-not-the-lesser-evil-but-the-more-effective-evil guys, but don't bother jumping on me; Washington was not a swing state. But hey, a hard-core socialist getting over 27% of the vote in the absence of a Republican greater evil -- Kshama Sawant vs. Frank Chopp in the 43rd LD -- is certainly interesting.
*Yes, I'm one of those Glen Ford / Black Agenda Report Obama-is-not-the-lesser-evil-but-the-more-effective-evil guys, but don't bother jumping on me; Washington was not a swing state. But hey, a hard-core socialist getting over 27% of the vote in the absence of a Republican greater evil -- Kshama Sawant vs. Frank Chopp in the 43rd LD -- is certainly interesting.
46
I feel sad that people don't get @5's joke. I guess they haven't read enough Tea Party literature.
47
@46 (Anon7): I'm sure a bunch of us got it but were just too busy shaking our heads (sadly) at those who didn't to bother chiming in... I'm tempted to start nitpicking about the misuse of the adjective "proven" as a past participle (in lieu of the correct "proved"), but it's widespread enough in American usage that I wouldn't get much sympathy.
48
@47, "proven" is less traditional (except in Scotland), but it's still an etymologically sound verb form. It's not a "misuse of the adjective", it's the same sort of formation as with "weave" (e.g. "the spider had woven her web"). Anyway, that you speak of a "correct" form is at odds with the reality of English. There is no Académie anglais, though we can speak of style guides and preferences of particular institutions. Even these may be at odds with common practice -- the Oxford English Dictionary prefers spellings like "realize", but most Britons spell it "realise".
English teachers have done a great disservice to students by instilling all sorts of wrongheaded nitpicks that enable to both empower the nitpicker to impede conversation ("well surely you mean _____") and to make condescending attempts at some sort of class distinction.
English teachers have done a great disservice to students by instilling all sorts of wrongheaded nitpicks that enable to both empower the nitpicker to impede conversation ("well surely you mean _____") and to make condescending attempts at some sort of class distinction.
49
@38
I agree, in fact I think my gun club is far more diverse than the strangers readership.
@32
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
I doubt you want to be the one doing confiscations, you would send someone else to do your dirty work you authoritarian piece of shit.
I agree, in fact I think my gun club is far more diverse than the strangers readership.
@32
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
I doubt you want to be the one doing confiscations, you would send someone else to do your dirty work you authoritarian piece of shit.
51
@46: Maybe not the best place, considering nobody seems to have noticed Goldy's "grocer's apostrophe" in the headline of the Twinkies post.
52
@50
So you want to wish death on those who exercise their Constitutionally enumerated natural right?
You will be doing us all a favor when you die of AIDS commie shit stain!
So you want to wish death on those who exercise their Constitutionally enumerated natural right?
You will be doing us all a favor when you die of AIDS commie shit stain!
53
@50 Hey TT, cigarettes kill a lot more people than guns do. In fact, the number of death attributed annually to secondary smoke alone exceeds the number of shooting deaths by a wide margin. Should we ban tobacco?
54
@46 Got it. Liked it.
If everybody commented on every comment that made them grin, the comments would be mostly comments commending comments. A comment's commendations would command considerable space, confounding continued consideration of the conservatives' confabulation.
If everybody commented on every comment that made them grin, the comments would be mostly comments commending comments. A comment's commendations would command considerable space, confounding continued consideration of the conservatives' confabulation.
55
@54: That sentence deserves a standing ovation! Brilliant!
@53: Smoking tobacco should indeed be banned everywhere, what people stick into their own bodies should be their business, but when they poison the air around them they make their choice everyone's choice.
@53: Smoking tobacco should indeed be banned everywhere, what people stick into their own bodies should be their business, but when they poison the air around them they make their choice everyone's choice.
57
@44: The NRA isn't an insurmountable opponent. I'm just saying we should handle the social conservatives first.
58
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I am getting very tired of the Right ignoring the first half of that Amendment and the Left ignoring the second half.
I am getting very tired of the Right ignoring the first half of that Amendment and the Left ignoring the second half.
61
@60 Beginners luck!
@58 Come over to Bob's Country Bunker. We've got both kinds: Country AND Western!
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/…
@58 Come over to Bob's Country Bunker. We've got both kinds: Country AND Western!
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/…
62
@35 no, it's a good point. I'm actually far more accurate (higher level skill) on full auto compared to single shot. Partially because I learned to shoot on full auto, so walking the drift to get a good shot is second nature.
But ... in actual hunting, single shot is the only way to go. A good scope is worth it, too.
In Canada we were trained to fire bursts, no limiter on our weapon sets, so it's not the mechanical cut out on the US versions, but we actually were more able to fire better bursts than US soldiers, because we "thought" about how the burst would be and compensated for it.
The only thing I can think that might be an exception is a Grizzly. A single shot from a 30.06 is unlikely to stop one of those, unless you get the difficult front on head shot that I would never try. Head shots are fine when sniping humans, but only because they uparmor the rest of their bodies. And only when you have clear surprise.
But ... in actual hunting, single shot is the only way to go. A good scope is worth it, too.
In Canada we were trained to fire bursts, no limiter on our weapon sets, so it's not the mechanical cut out on the US versions, but we actually were more able to fire better bursts than US soldiers, because we "thought" about how the burst would be and compensated for it.
The only thing I can think that might be an exception is a Grizzly. A single shot from a 30.06 is unlikely to stop one of those, unless you get the difficult front on head shot that I would never try. Head shots are fine when sniping humans, but only because they uparmor the rest of their bodies. And only when you have clear surprise.
Comments (62) RSS