Firearms for Females

[penguins4me]

That stuff will rot your brain, isn't that crap enough to drive you to NH today!?!
Where we'll meet you at the border and strap one on you right away!

Geez, what part of "shall not infringe" don't they get!?!

On the subject of required firearm carry licensing, while it is an abomination and an affront to the Constitution, some of the training that goes along with it *can* be valuble... if the time is taken to find an instructor who is interested in educating students, rather than just running through the required items.

There are a lot of worthwhile, informative tidbits which can be learned from a good instructor, covering everything from firearm safety (squibs, etc.), criminal violations and the penalties thereof (IIRC, don't carry in a National Park; or do, and pay a fine if caught, hmm), as well as plenty of thoughts on how best to cover the "civil" court aspect and fallout from any potential self-defense incident.

So, while such training should never be mandatory in order to pratice one's "inherant, God-given" rights, it does come highly recommended even if one isn't required to attend.

[Dan]

So, while such training should never be mandatory in order to pratice one's "inherant, God-given" rights, it does come highly recommended even if one isn't required to attend.

You know, like seatbelts.

[Dan]

"A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the democracy of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Read that to anti-gun folks, and ask them if it gives Congress the power to ban books and regulate their ownership, sale, and use.  Most will just backpedal in amusing ways, but a few may actually have that lightbulb turn on above their heads...

Woot!  That was great, gotta look for more 'substitutions' for issues like that.

[money dollars]

I always enjoy trying analogs with anti-gun folks.  They get themselves so worked-up about "guns" that they cease to be able to comprehend English.  So, it is useful to remove "guns" from the equation:

How can you remove "guns" from the 2nd? It says "arms". I like when the pro-gun people try to say the second is about guns, and guns can't be regulated, but they have no problem with the regulation of other arms, like nukes.

[eques]

I propose we ban elbows.

[error]

Indeed. And I seem to recall something about a Supreme Court decision saying the Second Amendment protected the right of individuals to keep and bear military arms.

[Raineyrocks]

I propose we ban elbows.

It took me a day but I get it now, that's funny!

[MaineShark]

I always enjoy trying analogs with anti-gun folks.  They get themselves so worked-up about "guns" that they cease to be able to comprehend English.  So, it is useful to remove "guns" from the equation:

How can you remove "guns" from the 2nd? It says "arms". I like when the pro-gun people try to say the second is about guns, and guns can't be regulated, but they have no problem with the regulation of other arms, like nukes.

Uh, did you actually read my post?  The point was to put something else in there which the anti-gun folks generally don't find offensive, so they no longer have an excuse to retreat to emotion.  Then they are left facing the absurdity of their claims.  They usually run away from that, but a few may actually see the light.

As to why we're discussing guns in regards to the Second Amendment, well, the thread is "Firearms for Females," not "Atomic Weapons for Females."  But yes, the Second Amendment prohibits the restriction of any military weapons, of any sort, from a Ka-Bar to a 300-megaton hydrogen bomb.

Joe

[MaineShark]

Indeed. And I seem to recall something about a Supreme Court decision saying the Second Amendment protected the right of individuals to keep and bear military arms.

United States v Miller

Joe

[money dollars]

I always enjoy trying analogs with anti-gun folks.  They get themselves so worked-up about "guns" that they cease to be able to comprehend English.  So, it is useful to remove "guns" from the equation:

How can you remove "guns" from the 2nd? It says "arms". I like when the pro-gun people try to say the second is about guns, and guns can't be regulated, but they have no problem with the regulation of other arms, like nukes.

Uh, did you actually read my post?  The point was to put something else in there which the anti-gun folks generally don't find offensive, so they no longer have an excuse to retreat to emotion.  Then they are left facing the absurdity of their claims.  They usually run away from that, but a few may actually see the light.

As to why we're discussing guns in regards to the Second Amendment, well, the thread is "Firearms for Females," not "Atomic Weapons for Females."  But yes, the Second Amendment prohibits the restriction of any military weapons, of any sort, from a Ka-Bar to a 300-megaton hydrogen bomb.

Uh, yea, I read your post, duh.  And my point was that most pro-gun people are not for the Second Amendment.

[MaineShark]

...my point was that most pro-gun people are not for the Second Amendment.

Well, most "pro-gun" people really aren't even pro-gun.  Ask the majority of hunters what they think about military arms, and they'll tell you they would gladly vote to ban all military arms, if the politicians promised to leave their "sporting arms" alone.  It's a sad state of affairs, when people can't learn from the past.

Personally... Molon Labe...

Joe

[money dollars]

tru dat

[Beth221]

.....Anyways..........


I went shooting today!!!!  I really enjoyed the 45 I used.  There were three guns we (Dan and I) tried out that my Bro-in law owns.  It was a good day!  How I have been missing the smell of gun powder! 

How many people reload their own ammunition?

I figure it is a smart thing to get into if I am going to be shooting on a regular basis. 

I think I am ready to take the state mandatory blue card test.

Then it will be purchasing time!

How many people here belong to a gun club or range?   

[penguins4me]

I don't reload, but it may not be worth the time and effort upfront as opposed to simply shooting a more economical caliber more often. Walmart (and other places) sell 9mm ammo for roughly fifteen cents a round (up from ten cents six months ago ): and decent .22LR ammo can be had at around two cents per round.

You can also buy bulk ammo from outfits such as ammoman.com, Black Hills Ammo, Georgia Arms (no firsthand experience ... yet), etc. for more reasonable prices.

However, if those prices are still a bit high, reloading is usually the cheapest way to go for the less common calibers. Do be aware that being careless while loading ammunition can cause firearms which your ammo is used in to fail, sometimes violently, often due to such things as a double charge of powder. As long as a reloader pays attention to detail, it can be a good way to shoot the more expensive ammo for less. :)

Reloading is also about the only way for bulls-eye shooters to get those perfectly consistant cartridges they need for the best shot groupings possible.

[KBCraig]

.....Anyways..........


I went shooting today!!!!

Congrats! And congrats on liking the .45; even atheists admit that John Moses Browning is God's personal gunsmith.

What variety of .45 did you shoot?

How many people reload their own ammunition?

I figure it is a smart thing to get into if I am going to be shooting on a regular basis.

There are only three reasons to reload:
1) To save money (not much, but a little) over the price of commercial ammo.
2) To fine-tune a more accurate and/or lethal load for hunting or self defense.
3) Just because you enjoy the process.