marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I'm curious if the OP has any reason to suspect that Zimmerman loaded his gun after seeing Trayvon, as opposed to having had it loaded the whole time (as is common practice).
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
T
>The_Liberal<
Guest
Thank you for your responses. Please let me respond.
Let me take the time to deny this. I have only posted using this account. There is another one, but nothing posted with it yet. It's set aside to resist censorship. If this account is banned by a moderator then I'd quickly switch to the dormant one.
I want to try and get OCDO's understanding of guns. Let me rattle off what I know so far. Just quickly without qualifying it.
1) I think carrying a firearm will more likely set you back then give you any kind of advantage.
2) Polymer pistols help criminals take gun through metal detectors by reducing the amount of metal present in the gun.
3) Clips, strips, and belts hold bullets until they're ready to shoot
4) A shooter has to reload less often with bigger clips.
5) Assault weapons can shoot faster than normal guns.
6) Some bullets are designed to pass through body armor and kill police.
7) .50 caliber guns were invented to destroy tanks and can certainly shoot down an aircraft.
There's more, but I'm almost late for work. Please share your thoughts. I'd like to know what it is about guns that matter to you all the most.
Clips hold bullets. Don't they?Plankton said:
Nonsense. Sometimes restrictions can improve liberty. With 32,163 gun deaths a year in the U.S. we can certainly improve liberty with some gun restrictions.OC for ME said:
I tried that. I seem to have different sources than OCDO. Like with Automatic pistol.OC for ME said:
MKEgal said:
Let me take the time to deny this. I have only posted using this account. There is another one, but nothing posted with it yet. It's set aside to resist censorship. If this account is banned by a moderator then I'd quickly switch to the dormant one.
I want to try and get OCDO's understanding of guns. Let me rattle off what I know so far. Just quickly without qualifying it.
1) I think carrying a firearm will more likely set you back then give you any kind of advantage.
2) Polymer pistols help criminals take gun through metal detectors by reducing the amount of metal present in the gun.
3) Clips, strips, and belts hold bullets until they're ready to shoot
4) A shooter has to reload less often with bigger clips.
5) Assault weapons can shoot faster than normal guns.
6) Some bullets are designed to pass through body armor and kill police.
7) .50 caliber guns were invented to destroy tanks and can certainly shoot down an aircraft.
There's more, but I'm almost late for work. Please share your thoughts. I'd like to know what it is about guns that matter to you all the most.
This.
Handguns are designed to be completely handled and used with one hand, if necessary. This is only possible (outside special training and time availability) if they are already loaded, with one in the chamber. This is why nearly all handguns have built-in safeties that prevent a chambered round from firing unintentionally.
I know of zero law enforcement professionals who would advocate against, or carry without, a loaded chamber.
Zimmerman would likely be dead if his purely defensive use of a handgun had required him to load it before he could fire.
Last edited:
Clips do not feed ammunition in a firearm. Clips are used to load magazines more quickly than without a clip and most shooters do not use clips but just load their magazines by hand. Magazines are the feeding device in the firearm. Even when detachable from the firearm, it is still a magazine, not a clip. At the same time, even when held in place inside the firearm, a clip is still a clip, not a magazine, the M1 Garand en bloc clip for example. That said, I am not pedantic to correct every single wrong use of the word "clip" (or "bullet") though it makes you look ignorant and school by television, but since you asked...
1) What you think needs to be amended based on facts.
2) No polymer pistol has any chance of making it through a metal-detector. Commercially-available "polymer pistols" are still mostly steel! They just have SOME polymer parts! Surely you must know this if you know anything other than what you see on TV shows. This has been true since the very first "polymer" HK and Glock pistols and the metal detectors in use at even that time.
3) I've no idea what your point is here.
4) Okay. And what is the point? Do you know how long it takes to reload? Do you know how many reloads occurred in the Virginia Tech massacre against unarmed victims?
5) False. The term "assault weapon" is a legal term that applies to certain semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features. They are no faster than other semi-automatic firearms that are not classified as "assault weapons."
6) Perhaps, and those designed for handguns are already illegal and were marketed TO police, since body armor in most states is NOT illegal for non-police to own/wear. Nearly all deer rifles are capable of this anyway.
7) Most .50-caliber guns are weak muzzleloaders, actually, or handguns, but assuming you are specifically referring to the .50 BMG rifle, they can NOT certainly shoot down an aircraft, and can not do so with any greater likelihood than a normal deer rifle.
If you are serious about dialogue, please research your response before posting things you learned on TV.
Last edited:
Law abider
Regular Member
He keeps 'shooting' himself in the leg. I am REALLY enjoying the liberal mind. .5 cal to shoot tanks????? LOL
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
[size=+3]Not a Liberal[/size]
Again, this guy doesn't deserve to sit on the moral high horse (even if it's just in his own mind) of having co-opted "liberalism".
JamesCanby
Activist Member
"Nonsense. Sometimes restrictions can improve liberty."
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
I think I'll stick with what Franklin said...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
I think I'll stick with what Franklin said...
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It became clear to me at some point that the progressive co-option of the word "liberal", in addition to being completely disingenuous, was a very intentional perversion of language with very specific goals. I've never liked the tactic of making your argument correct by redefining the words used to make it, and progressives do not deserve to benefit from this deceit.
Law abider
Regular Member
True and cannot trust liberals to expound on the constitution either. It is like asking a monkey to fly a plane.
T
>The_Liberal<
Guest
Thank you all for your replies. I have a lot more time to write now. Let me get back to an older post.
My understanding was that the .50 caliber M2 Machine Gun was developed in world war 1 for the military as an anti-tank rifle. Surely the tanks back then were much thinner skinned then they are now. Of course it's kind of moot. The insidious gun industry invented a .500 caliber handgun.
I would like to press the disadvantages of carrying a loaded handgun in public. I for one try very hard to keep my nose out of trouble (except maybe on the internet.)
Would someone be nearly as careful when they have a loaded handgun on them? Why or why not?
Wouldn't it make it harder for police to distinguish good citizen from criminals if the good citizens weren't armed? Why or Why not?
With the few gun control law that we do have aren't you worried about breaking them and suffering legal penalties? Why or Why not?
What is there to stop someone from committing a mass murder at an indoor gun range like the one at Badger Guns?
If shooting is a normal thing there how would someone know there's a mass shooting?
If they don't screen for felons on the range isn't it more likely for a murderer to be on it?
Please respond. I'm curious to know what your thoughts are.
That's exactly what I was talking about when I referred to this article.marshaul said:
How so? I would think that carrying a loaded gun would make someone less likely to avoid a confrontation. And there's cases of people carrying openly being targeted.marshaul said:
Most of what I know about guns comes from www.vpc.org.MAC702 said:
Law abider said:
My understanding was that the .50 caliber M2 Machine Gun was developed in world war 1 for the military as an anti-tank rifle. Surely the tanks back then were much thinner skinned then they are now. Of course it's kind of moot. The insidious gun industry invented a .500 caliber handgun.
I would like to press the disadvantages of carrying a loaded handgun in public. I for one try very hard to keep my nose out of trouble (except maybe on the internet.)
Would someone be nearly as careful when they have a loaded handgun on them? Why or why not?
Wouldn't it make it harder for police to distinguish good citizen from criminals if the good citizens weren't armed? Why or Why not?
With the few gun control law that we do have aren't you worried about breaking them and suffering legal penalties? Why or Why not?
What is there to stop someone from committing a mass murder at an indoor gun range like the one at Badger Guns?
If shooting is a normal thing there how would someone know there's a mass shooting?
If they don't screen for felons on the range isn't it more likely for a murderer to be on it?
Please respond. I'm curious to know what your thoughts are.
Plankton
Regular Member
If you get your gun info from vpc.org, that would explain your total lack of factual information. Try to find real information, not anti-gun extremist lies and hysteria.
Last edited:
That's like asking the electrical utility company if you should use natural gas for home appliances and heating.
1) Insidious? Do you know what the capabilities of the .500 handgun are? Do you know how utterly ridiculous it would be to use one for evil?
2) If you actually talk to people who carry a handgun, you'd find they are even more careful to stay out of trouble.
3) Wouldn't it be easier for the police to distinguish good citizens from criminals if the good citizens were the only ones being shot in crime?
4) I very purposely live in a place with few gun laws. They are easy to know and obey. I am certified to teach these laws by two states. I would never attempt to teach gun laws in a state such as California, and anyone who says they are an expert in California gun laws is a liar.
5) The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. You can wait for a uniformed badged good guy or you can be one yourself. Your choice.
Are you advocating that all people be background checked every single time they go target shooting?
Shouldn't we do background checks on every person when they leave their house and set foot on public property? Wouldn't that be even more effective at finding known criminals? After all, most criminals don't use guns.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
lol. A .500 caliber handgun.
Oh noes! He'll probably have trouble sleeping after he sees these .65 caliber handguns:
:lol:
Oh noes! He'll probably have trouble sleeping after he sees these .65 caliber handguns:
:lol:
Motofixxer
Regular Member
How so? I would think that carrying a loaded gun would make someone less likely to avoid a confrontation. And there's cases of people carrying openly being targeted.
Most people I know that do carry, will definitely try to avoid a confrontation. Most of those people I have met are some of the most intelligent, conscientious, and many know the regulations better than those who are paid to enforce it. And as for the gentleman who supposedly was targeted for carrying...who has asked his attackers for their motives. I haven't seen any reports that can confirm any of the theories he was targeted. But even if he was. Let's see 5 more stories where a person was targeted for open carrying. I haven't seen em yet and I have asked a few anti's. I wonder how many people are attacked each year because they carry a purse? Well if they are...we should ban em cuz it would save people right??? If you begin to open your eyes a bit more you will realize the silliness of the logic you and many others have. I don't mean to come off as rude or criticize you but I really wish people would think before they speak.
A similar comment I hear is "why would you need a gun at a.....grocery store, restaurant, laundromat..." Let's think...if I knew I needed one at a given location, street or parking lot do you really think I would go there???
Quote Originally Posted by Law abider
He keeps 'shooting' himself in the leg. I am REALLY enjoying the liberal mind. .5 cal to shoot tanks????? LOL
My understanding was that the .50 caliber M2 Machine Gun was developed in world war 1 for the military as an anti-tank rifle. Surely the tanks back then were much thinner skinned then they are now. Of course it's kind of moot. The insidious gun industry invented a .500 caliber handgun.
The gun industry is a business. They are in business to make money. They wouldn't and couldn't design and continue to manufacture products that didn't sell. They seen a need, made a product and sold it. If they continue as they have with most models, there clearly is a desire and market for them. You and many others again attempt to place blame on inanimate objects and corporations. The problem is the people committing the crimes. Not the caliber or make, not the number of rounds it holds or the size of the magazine or the accessories attached to the firearm. People have been killing with any object they could find for thousands of years. We are no different in this time period.
Wouldn't it make it harder for police to distinguish good citizen from criminals if the good citizens weren't armed? Why or Why not?
The criminals are not my concern in my freedoms and liberties, except that I will defend myself against harm. Nor the police who voluntarily choose to apprehend them. My right to life(self defense) liberty and pursuit of happiness always trumps. I don't really care what the officers think. My job, responsibilities, duties or obligations are not to make an officer's job easier. So I will not modify my whole life or put myself at a severe disadvantage for that once in a blue moon possibility I may encounter an officer.
With the few gun control law that we do have aren't you worried about breaking them and suffering legal penalties? Why or Why not?
Do you worry about violating statutes and penal codes and suffering legal penalties when you get in your car? But you might accidentally do something or hurt someone how could you possibly operate one of those death machines that killed 500 people last year? How could you? We need to ban them all there is no need for all those people to die. If we just banned em those people would live. See the lack of common sense in that whole argument??? Of course we know there might be some violation etc. But that's why you educate yourself. I know of nobody that went out and bought a firearm and threw it on their hip without having a clue. Sure I know there are some out there. But they are definitely a minority.
What is there to stop someone from committing a mass murder at an indoor gun range like the one at Badger Guns?
Not much stopping someone from mass murdering at a range like Badger Guns, or a grocery store, Mcdonalds, gas station or driving a car into a crowd of people standing on a street corner. Or loading your vehicle with explosives and detonating it on a street. So what exactly is your question? The world is a dangerous place. Your at risk everywhere. I just heard of a cow that crashed through a roof landing on a couple laying in bed and killed em. Bet they didn't see that coming. All we can do is use our senses and brain to reason and attempt to stay alive. That is why I have made and active step to carry a highly efficient tool to give myself every advantage to stay alive. And I wear it openly to hopefully dissuade a would be attacker to find a softer target. Very few criminals will attack if they know a target is armed.
If they don't screen for felons on the range isn't it more likely for a murderer to be on it?
There could be a felon there, or standing behind you at the grocery store, or parked beside you, or the cashier in front of you. Just because someone is adjudicated for something doesn't mean a whole lot. I have worked side by side with felons. Many of them are some of the more honest people I have met and were very careful they did nothing to get sent back. If you worry about the people around you and let it hinder you ...you will have a very sad lonely life. Those same felons are people like me and you too. They have to eat, drink and buy their clothes at the store. They have just as much of a right to life and defense as anyone else.
If bans and restrictions are the answer go check Chicago, New York or LA; how well are those bans and restrictions are working. Look back in history at Prohibition and the result of that. What happened to it? It didn't work, now ask yourself why and start asking the right questions and getting at the root of the problem.
And one more thing you may not know is that the police have NO DUTY or OBLIGATION to Protect us. The courts have ruled personal security is a personal responsibility. That whole Protect and Serve thing is a joke. But don't take my word for it do some reading then ask yourself why would you place your security in others who have no duty or obligation and won't be there when your getting attacked. I will get you started.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989))
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968).
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975) http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/51629
South v. Maryland http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../396/case.html
Bowers v. Devito http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...WAR1-1950-1985
Davidson v. City of Westminster http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/d...tminster-28281
Westbrooks v. State of California http://law.justia.com/cases/californ.../173/1203.html
No duty to protect article, with sources.
http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
And finally welcome and I commend you for at least making an attempt to learn, for whatever your motives may be.
Most people I know that do carry, will definitely try to avoid a confrontation. Most of those people I have met are some of the most intelligent, conscientious, and many know the regulations better than those who are paid to enforce it. And as for the gentleman who supposedly was targeted for carrying...who has asked his attackers for their motives. I haven't seen any reports that can confirm any of the theories he was targeted. But even if he was. Let's see 5 more stories where a person was targeted for open carrying. I haven't seen em yet and I have asked a few anti's. I wonder how many people are attacked each year because they carry a purse? Well if they are...we should ban em cuz it would save people right??? If you begin to open your eyes a bit more you will realize the silliness of the logic you and many others have. I don't mean to come off as rude or criticize you but I really wish people would think before they speak.
A similar comment I hear is "why would you need a gun at a.....grocery store, restaurant, laundromat..." Let's think...if I knew I needed one at a given location, street or parking lot do you really think I would go there???
Quote Originally Posted by Law abider
He keeps 'shooting' himself in the leg. I am REALLY enjoying the liberal mind. .5 cal to shoot tanks????? LOL
My understanding was that the .50 caliber M2 Machine Gun was developed in world war 1 for the military as an anti-tank rifle. Surely the tanks back then were much thinner skinned then they are now. Of course it's kind of moot. The insidious gun industry invented a .500 caliber handgun.
The gun industry is a business. They are in business to make money. They wouldn't and couldn't design and continue to manufacture products that didn't sell. They seen a need, made a product and sold it. If they continue as they have with most models, there clearly is a desire and market for them. You and many others again attempt to place blame on inanimate objects and corporations. The problem is the people committing the crimes. Not the caliber or make, not the number of rounds it holds or the size of the magazine or the accessories attached to the firearm. People have been killing with any object they could find for thousands of years. We are no different in this time period.
Wouldn't it make it harder for police to distinguish good citizen from criminals if the good citizens weren't armed? Why or Why not?
The criminals are not my concern in my freedoms and liberties, except that I will defend myself against harm. Nor the police who voluntarily choose to apprehend them. My right to life(self defense) liberty and pursuit of happiness always trumps. I don't really care what the officers think. My job, responsibilities, duties or obligations are not to make an officer's job easier. So I will not modify my whole life or put myself at a severe disadvantage for that once in a blue moon possibility I may encounter an officer.
With the few gun control law that we do have aren't you worried about breaking them and suffering legal penalties? Why or Why not?
Do you worry about violating statutes and penal codes and suffering legal penalties when you get in your car? But you might accidentally do something or hurt someone how could you possibly operate one of those death machines that killed 500 people last year? How could you? We need to ban them all there is no need for all those people to die. If we just banned em those people would live. See the lack of common sense in that whole argument??? Of course we know there might be some violation etc. But that's why you educate yourself. I know of nobody that went out and bought a firearm and threw it on their hip without having a clue. Sure I know there are some out there. But they are definitely a minority.
What is there to stop someone from committing a mass murder at an indoor gun range like the one at Badger Guns?
Not much stopping someone from mass murdering at a range like Badger Guns, or a grocery store, Mcdonalds, gas station or driving a car into a crowd of people standing on a street corner. Or loading your vehicle with explosives and detonating it on a street. So what exactly is your question? The world is a dangerous place. Your at risk everywhere. I just heard of a cow that crashed through a roof landing on a couple laying in bed and killed em. Bet they didn't see that coming. All we can do is use our senses and brain to reason and attempt to stay alive. That is why I have made and active step to carry a highly efficient tool to give myself every advantage to stay alive. And I wear it openly to hopefully dissuade a would be attacker to find a softer target. Very few criminals will attack if they know a target is armed.
If they don't screen for felons on the range isn't it more likely for a murderer to be on it?
There could be a felon there, or standing behind you at the grocery store, or parked beside you, or the cashier in front of you. Just because someone is adjudicated for something doesn't mean a whole lot. I have worked side by side with felons. Many of them are some of the more honest people I have met and were very careful they did nothing to get sent back. If you worry about the people around you and let it hinder you ...you will have a very sad lonely life. Those same felons are people like me and you too. They have to eat, drink and buy their clothes at the store. They have just as much of a right to life and defense as anyone else.
If bans and restrictions are the answer go check Chicago, New York or LA; how well are those bans and restrictions are working. Look back in history at Prohibition and the result of that. What happened to it? It didn't work, now ask yourself why and start asking the right questions and getting at the root of the problem.
And one more thing you may not know is that the police have NO DUTY or OBLIGATION to Protect us. The courts have ruled personal security is a personal responsibility. That whole Protect and Serve thing is a joke. But don't take my word for it do some reading then ask yourself why would you place your security in others who have no duty or obligation and won't be there when your getting attacked. I will get you started.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989))
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968).
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975) http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/51629
South v. Maryland http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../396/case.html
Bowers v. Devito http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...WAR1-1950-1985
Davidson v. City of Westminster http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/d...tminster-28281
Westbrooks v. State of California http://law.justia.com/cases/californ.../173/1203.html
No duty to protect article, with sources.
http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
And finally welcome and I commend you for at least making an attempt to learn, for whatever your motives may be.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Hey, The Illiberal, check it out!
According to a recent study paid for by the CDC:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=16
What a surprise.
According to a recent study paid for by the CDC:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=16
What a surprise.
Last edited:
Law abider
Regular Member
This is a OC blog. We can't oc machine guns. Thanks for your knowledge anyway. By the way .5 is the same as .50 is the same as .500 is the same as .5000 etc...
Last edited:
Law abider
Regular Member
When you are in public your nose is always in the realm of possible/unforeseen/unseen trouble. You take a risk when you are out in the public. When you drive you never know if you are going to have an accident. That is why you have a car insurance for your car. Same for carrying handguns. I want to never use it, but then you never know. When One flies, one takes a risk by putting one's life in the pilot's hand. That is one reason to take out a life insurance policy or you buy one at the airport before flying.
Criminals do not open carry and cops/ people can instinctively know when a person is acting suspiciously. I suppose in your world you would want that all the time. I am around leos who know me and who don't know me. I am never detained. Leos know how to smell a criminal out.
We (Law abiders) don't go around breaking gun control laws. We get to know them.
Never been to a range. My farm is my range. Whatever you do in life you take a risk in being hurt or death. A gun is one tool to protect life.
The weight of responsibility is very heavy on my heart when I am OCing with a loaded gun. I avoid showoffs. That is a NO NO. It NEVER comes out of my holster UNLESS it is NEEDED. So far so good.
Why do you need so many questions answered? These are common sense issues. Are you wanting to carry a gun but are afraid?
MKEgal
Regular Member
Guys, quit feeding the troll.
Doug already knows the answers to his own questions.
In fact, he probably knows several different & contradictory answers.
Doug already knows the answers to his own questions.
In fact, he probably knows several different & contradictory answers.
Law abider
Regular Member
Last edited: