The Evil Genius Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by redman You're safer amongst a group of NRA members than you are among a group of peace activists. Only because the NRA members won't less their asses get tear-gassed and beat down by the Police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius Only because the NRA members won't less their asses get tear-gassed and beat down by the Police Or loot and pillage the stores around them as they march, prompting the police presence. Ever heard of violence at a gun show or an NRA function? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by redman Ever heard of violence at a gun show or an NRA function? I think that says it all...:notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Sheesh, I don't think I said all, Redman. I believe I said that the cynic in me gets nervous that when there is a waiting list for a gun that some of the folks on that waiting list might not be wholesome. Of course, that could probably be said for most groups, but I almost never speak in absolutes. As I said earlier, I enjoyed this thread because we were discussing points and leaving labels aside. This allowed for a more complete discussion without resorting to cliches, assumptions, and name-calling (thankfully, we've none of that yet). I don't believe there are many who are 100% anything. If we leave out the left, right we have a chance to gain more insight or at least reduce the defensiveness that I've read on other threads. Then again, maybe I'm just getting stir crazy with a busted up arm and being a bit snow bound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by redman Or loot and pillage the stores around them as they march, prompting the police presence. Ever heard of violence at a gun show or an NRA function? Yes I have heard of it and witnessed it. I saw lots of fights at a gun show in Va. Beach back in the early 1990's. There was a big shooting at a gun show out here in the Bay Area in 1998 (Pleasanton fairgrounds) that lead to the eventual banning of weapons on public property in Alameda County (which includes Oakland). Is it prevalant - of course not. But you only asked if I had heard of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold Sheesh, I don't think I said all, Redman. I believe I said that the cynic in me gets nervous that when there is a waiting list for a gun that some of the folks on that waiting list might not be wholesome. Of course, that could probably be said for most groups, but I almost never speak in absolutes. As I said earlier, I enjoyed this thread because we were discussing points and leaving labels aside. This allowed for a more complete discussion without resorting to cliches, assumptions, and name-calling (thankfully, we've none of that yet). I don't believe there are many who are 100% anything. If we leave out the left, right we have a chance to gain more insight or at least reduce the defensiveness that I've read on other threads. Then again, maybe I'm just getting stir crazy with a busted up arm and being a bit snow bound. I'm with you, regardless of which side of the issue we are on, it's nice to not be labled or a total frickin idiot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Burgold, I never said a gun wasn't meant for killing. That's the ENTIRE purpose of a gun. Guns, bows and arrows, spears, ANY weapon was designed as a killing tool. I.e. A sword is good for NOTHING other than fighting with. But if you read it, I also said proper training must be obtained. Both in handling guns AND when out hiking in areas where bears or other wild animals are. On the trip I mentioned, we not only saw a couple of grizzly at a distance, we also saw several moose close-up, and caribou close up. I have pictures of a mother moose and twin calves from about 30 feet.....that's much too close. And of a bull moose from a separate occasion. And when my fool of a friend tried to move away from the vehicle for a better picture, the mother moose looked at him and took a step forward in a threatening posture..... I also have pictures of my friend and a caribou in real close proximity...he dashed back to cover when the caribou kept coming to him. Now picture surprising a mother moose or mother grizzly... the first thing she will do is try to protect the youngsters...... if you're lucky you may have time for one shot..... I'm not saying this would happen often. It shouldn't if you know how to behave when out in the wild. But it's best to be prepared for ALL possible scenarios. A gun can be used to protect yourself if you have to.... I haven't hunted since high school. but when we did we ate the deer. It wasn't some "trophy hunting" like some people think. I grew up eating as much deer (maybe more deer) as I did beef or pork. Most hunters actually eat what is killed...whether it's duck, deer, or moose. One person who came back from a hunt made some of the best chili I've ever had; from an elk he shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 I didn't read through all of the posts on this subject. I skimmed through the first two pages. It seems that those who are against this weapon seem to doubt its use as a hunting weapon. Let me just say this........... I hunt big game with handguns. It is far more challenging than hunting with a high powered rifle. I have three handguns that I use. One is a Thompson Contender. I have three different barrels for that gun. One is a 45-70 governmet. This was the round that killed most of the buffalo on the plains during the mid to late 19th century. This round is approximately three inches in length and as big around as your index finger. I hunt Elk with this round. For all of you that think that the 500 magnum would not be useful for hunting, I can only say that your wrong. The 45-70 round is far more powerful than a 50 cal round from a desert eagle. I've used both. There are other calibers available in a handgun such as the 454 casuell. Twice as powerful as the .44 Mag. This also is a prime hunting caliber. Big enough for Elk and not too overpowering for Deer. Furhtermore, most people who hunt wild boar only use handguns because rilfes are too cumbersome. This 500 mag would be a great hunting weapon. I would seriously consider purchasing one for hunting because the .44 Mag I currently take hunting with me is only useful for big game out to about 65 or 70 yards. It sounds as if this caliber would be effective out farther than this. Those who think that the only good this weapon would serve is to kill other humans obviously haven't utilized simialr weapons for useful purposes such as hunting. You will always have those who misue weapons to kill other people. This will never change, but restricting my second amendment right to utilize them legally should not be curtailed for the misuse of others. This caliber would be useful in hunting. It would allow hunters that believe that hunting with handguns are more sporting than using rifles a more versitile weapon and a greater chance of success. Although controversial, its just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.