Viking Village Firearms Discussion Thread V. M2 Browning

So my girlfriend went on a road trip with her friends and I stayed behind. I got bored, so I decided to start a simple project. Here are the results:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa210/VikingKarl/DSC_0214.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa210/VikingKarl/DSC_0213.jpg

The flash washed out some of the detail, but whatever.

and as a result, I no longer possess any firearms or my knife. The enforcers have left me entirely defenseless, because I was trying to go home with a rifle case in hand. Welcome to Amerika my fellow Citizens.

my english prof took us out to range a few times for zombie defense society, and since then i've been wanting to get a small gun to take out & target shoot with. any tips + prices?

especially if you're just target shooting, would be to find a decent quality .22 rifle.  They're relatively inexpensive, and ammo is cheap.  It also will have basically no kick, so you can get comfortable with shooting a rifle accurately before moving up to a larger caliber.

If you're looking for a caliber that's light but not so light that you can't hunt with it, I would recommend searching out an old remington model 600.  It fires a 6mm round (used to be called .244) which range from 80gr to 105gr.  I've had one for years, and it takes deer pretty well.

Without knowing the whole story it's tough to know if you were wronged by the officer.  Though I feel like you probably were.  Since you are over 18 it is legal for you to posess the rifle, and I fail to see how posesing a rifel case is breaking any law at any age.  Maybe taking legal action would be a good idea to get your rights back?  I don't know, but I do know someone who may be able to help you.  I stumbled across this lawyers brochure when I was looking into the legality of a few gun issues and it has been really helpful.  anyway here's the web address, maybe they can help you out.

http://www.paduladefense.com/downloads/GunRightsBrochure.pdf

Elizabeth Padula was referred to me by the Second Ammendment Foundation after I called them the day after my arrest. I will likely have to rely upon a public defender though, as I do not have a whole lot of money. I was carrying my AR and my shotgun (both taken down) in the case. My revolver and Mk. II were unloaded and in an opaque case on my person. I am being charged with two counts of violating RCW 9.41.240, because I was not at my place of abode, fixed place of business, or on a piece of real property under my control. However, I was traveling peaceably from my place of abode to my parent's house (a piece of real property under my control, as they were travelling to California), and was stopped en route by an officer of the OHPD.

There's no way that it's illegal to transport unloaded, taken down firearms in a case from one place to another.  there's either some new law that's unconstitutional, or you strait up had your rights violated.  take them to court, even if it's with a public defender. do your homework and you'll win.

Last year, we got a late start on actually getting enough committed people to actually get together and start trying to form an official club. By the time everything was completed, there was only about 3 weeks left of classes before our status would've expired. With that said, I suggest that we get an early start by finding those who are committed to the idea and want to make it happen now, so that we can get the names down and talk to the AS. So, if anyone is interested and is willing to work to make this happen and keep it strong, let me know so that we can set up a meeting and get it started.

 I would love to join your club if it gets organized.  I have an LWRC M6A3 that I store at the public safety department.  I'm planning on getting an Aimpoint Comp M4 over christmas break but just post if there are any more updates.  Thanks

We need 5 names to put on the club roster, so if Beanie is still interested like she was last school year, plus you (dohertj3), gilberb7 (sent me a PM), christ89 (also sent me a PM), and myself make five. There are also the other people from last year's thread, who may still be interested. I'll shoot them an email and see what I get. If I can get 5 confirmed people, we can get the ball rolling on this.

Yeah, I'm still in, though my schedule is not so flexable right now. Last year we got together sort of late in the afternoon which doesn't work for me this year.  anyway just let me know. 

I don't own any guns but I'm definitely interested in any meetings (my father's Texan and i'm from Tennessee, it's damn near a right of passage to own one). I'm also huge on second amendment rights (even though i'm a democrat)

 Hey K. Rollin did you ever get your guns back and win the trial yet?  Because honestly it sounds like the whole arrest was bs and you should win it with your hands tied behind your back.  Any progress on getting the club started yet?

I haven't called for a meeting yet, because I've been busy with the legal crap, school, and Baja SAE. I'll try to set something up for next week though. As for the courts, I have yet to have it settled; I pled not guilty, so I have a pre-trial hearing on the 14th at 9:30. Updates as the news comes in.

 If anyone would like to really master their AR in terms of speed and effectiveness, then I would highly recommend Magpul Dynamics's Art of the Tactical Carbine 1 and 2.  They are great training dvds that I have learned an amazing amount of info from.

OK, I have ask you point blank.  Were you within the boundaries of the law when this happened?  If you were breaking the law with regards to your firearms, is it reasonable then, that the officer responeded within the boundaries of his duties in confiscating the weapon with which you broke the law, and any weapons you had with you at the time?

This might be true, but he provided further information --

For reference purposes, these appear to be the relevant laws.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.240

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

Now, from what I can tell none of these laws mention loaded vs. unloaded weapons.  That might be more of a discretionary call at the time of the 'incident'.  It is likely impossible for an officer to know immediately whether or not this is the case, so for the matter of law, it's irrelevant.

It is also impossible to know what you mean by a case, since you describe it as 'on your person', did you mean a holster or other carrying device, or was it just on your lap in a seperate case intended for transport.  By what you wrote here it would imply that it was 'on your person' in the same sense that a wallet, or a concealed weapon (though it wasn't concealed) might be.  That is, intended for convenent access and use.  Yes it was unloaded, but, again, that doesn't appear to be relevant with regards to whether or not you broke the law.

The law you cited seems pretty clear on the matter, persons between the ages of 18 and 21 are not allowed to have possession of a firearm except in one of 3 conditions.  It would seem that you violated the law in carrying not one, but two, weapons on your person.  You were not cited for the shotgun or the AR, which would indicate that he wasn't 'out to get you', but, in my opinion, they were confiscated with darn good reason.

Just out of curiousity what do you mean by MK II?  It wasn't a Sterling MK II was it?

'm assuming since you cited cited a Washington state law almost verbatim, it happened in Washington, but I can't be sure, since I don't know what OHPD means.

By his own admission they were not all 'taken down', and two of them were on his person.

It's very easy to toss around the term unconstitiutional, while walking on the fence of the ambiguity that allows.  I agree with the right to bear arms. I support it, generally speaking.  I dislike guns in my own household, and for my own uses, but I understand they have a place.  I served in the military and I have done my fair share of target shooting, etc.  I grew up around here and guns were a big thing in my family.

I don't, however, agree that the 'right' to bear arms includes any person, any kind of 'arms', at any time.  Nuclear arms, incindary devices, bombs, etc. are NOT, generally speaking, something that could or should be allowed to bear by the public.  The boundaries of the law (usually) exist for a reason.  Laws governing children, criminals, etc. should be in place.

Washington state has fairly lax gun laws, as we have laws that cover things like 'must issue' (at 21) and 'stand your ground' cases that are much more restrictive in other places.  It does not change the fact that the law is still the law, and a violation of that law subjects you to enforcement of that law.

Whether or not you agree with it, it would appear (at least from the information provided and discovered), that K. Rollin was, in fact, in violation of the law.  Though I freely admit there could be more information here than that provided.  If, by his own admission, he was in violation of the law, where then do you stand on his arrest and removal of weapons?

I understand that people have very fervent beliefs in their right to bear arms.  But if you happened upon an individual who was carrying a revolver AND a Mark II, and had another gun case sitting in the vehicle or in other proximity, what would you think?  If all your weapons were in stored and locked cases for transport, in the trunk of the vehicle, do you think the outcome would have been different?

I have to ask, to what kind of 'training' are we referring?  What exactly is it you are attempting to improve and why?

I'm not a avid gun person, so it's hard for me to fathom why guns are so fascinating.  What, exactly, is it about firearms that is so compelling?  Why are assualt rifles and machine guns necessary in the conversation for the right to bear arms?  Why stop there?

It's a penis thing. Guns are big metallic poles that shoot concentrated death out the business end.

Also, I'm no expert on gun control laws or guns in general, but AFAIK, most of the controversy surrounding "assault weapons" is due to the classification of said weapons. Apparently semi-auto guns are also considered "assault rifles", etc. I don't think anyone in his right mind will want to claim that the 2nd extends to SAWs and machine guns. But then again, with a lot of these NRA folks, it's hard to tell.

 What I mean by training is the ability to quickly and effectively manipulate the AR 15 carbine.  The dvds cover speed reloads, tactical reloads, how to quickly and effectively clear a double feed, how to manipulate your weapon in awkward positions, how to fully manipulate your weapon in case you are impacted by something, and how two operators can deconflict when one (or both) of their weapons systems goes down.  I could go on but honestly i could fill up pages with the important material that these dvds cover.

 any progress on the gun club yet?

Nothing yet, sorry. I have been really busy betwwen classes, Baja SAE, and my pending court case, so I haven't exactly had time to get to work on it. I expect that I should have time to work on it reasonably soon, so just bear with me, and I'm sure we will have something good going in a little while.

On another note, does anyone know about this new XRBR defense ammunition?

Xtreme Rabid Badger Rounds signal a paradigm shift in home defense and anti-terrorism ammunition. Utilizing the same state of the art technology that puts foam dinosaurs in those plastic capsules that dissolve in hot water, I've been able to enhance what would be otherwise boring hollowpoint ammunition with a rabid badger core. The exact process is like, totally secret and proprietary.

Already in use by Elite Team Fighting and many other highly trained special operations forces around the world, XRBR rounds represent the zenith in small arms ammunition technology. Get yours today!

I do know somebody who claims the 2nd extends all the way up to tanks and artillery, and I'm pretty sure they're in their right mind.  The reasoning was that the 2nd is, at heart, the right of citizens to defend themselves against the tyranny of govt., and if you need a tank to stand against oppression, then you have the right to it. 

This was qualified by disconnecting the right to own weaponry from any correlation to the percentage of criminals in the population, since the 2nd was not about protecting people from their fellow citizens, just their govt. 

It's likely a very rare line of reasoning, since the most common reasons I ever hear for carrying (especially in the concealed cases) tend to run towards that statistically-improbable need to prevent a showdown at the local grocery store.  But I figured I'd balance out the quoted thought.

to all small arms, and any weapons/vehicles crewed by a squad. I believe that NFA34 and GCA68 should be repealed, and that the Hughes amendment should be removed from FOPA86. Our freedom was won by our steel - not purchased with gold. We must be ble to stand ready to fight for it again, should anyone threaten it.

Chad,

Can't say that I agree with your very lengthy and detailed response above. Based off of the two RCW provisions you posted, then yes it would seem that k.rollin violated the law. However, there are more provisions that allow for acceptable transportation of firearms, including pistols of persons between the ages of 18 and 21.

The first:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

"(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."

This implies that it is legal for a person at least 18 years of age to have a pistol in their vehicle, assuming it is unloaded.

The second:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060

"The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to...

 (9) Any person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper; or..."

Clearly k.rollin was carrying an unloaded pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case. And the provision does say any person. 

And if you look at this provision again

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.240

Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

     (1) In the person's place of abode;

     (2) At the person's fixed place of business; or

     (3) On real property under his or her control.

Feedback?

When I read Chad's comment (mibrovsky's too for that matter), I was a bit irritated, but didn't feel like addressing either at the time.

In regards to RCW 9.41.240, I was traveling from my place of abode to a piece of real property under my control. There should be an exception for peaceable journey, but I guess that one does not exist.

Regarding my court case specifically, my lawyer is building a case for dismissal.

 Yeah I did lots of research when I bought my pistol because I'm under 21.

That's good. I did too, although I traded my motorcycle for my first handgun. Just out of curiousity, what did you wind up getting?

 I picked up a M1911A1 built on an Essex frame. Has a Wilson combat barrel though, and I think a newer recoil spring guide, although I can't tell who it's made by (although the manufacturer of the guide probably doesn't matter THAT much) . I've been able to get some good groupings with it, although there's a burr on the front sight that makes it shoot about four inches low. Know any good gun smiths in the area? I wanted to get a couple things looked at with it (trigger pull mainly).

I have a few guns and am a major enthusiest. I would for sure join and help get the club going if you guys let me know what i can do. My room mate would probably join as well

Where can a guy store weapons in bellingham?  I was going to Get an M44 a while back but I had nowhere to put it.

Find a friend you can trust, and keep it with him/her, or you can store it with University Police.

Check here (post 40): http://forum.wwu.edu/node/543

cakeface: Your 1911 sounds nice, I almost picked up a Springfield 1911 Champion the other day, but it had been sold five minutes before I had called the guy who was selling it. As for the gunsmiths, there is one at Survival Solutions off of Meridian, but I don't know if he's any good. There is also one at Greene's Gun Shop on the north end of Whidbey Island, but thts about an hour and a half drive. Kesselrings in Alger may have one on staff, but I don't know for certain; they are the best shop in the are though.

It's got to be more than that.  It might be the case sometimes, but I don't think it's just that simple.

This is the core of what I'm asking.  You outline the 'what' here, but you never addressed the 'why'.

So I'll ask again, why is it important for you to understand speed reloads, tactical reloads, manipulating your weapon, etc. to be level of what I would expect of a trained soldier?

I served in the US armed forces, so I have familiarity with weaponry, and as I said, I've done my fair share of target shooting after that point.  I still cannot fathom why it would be necessary for me, or anyone, to go beyond a basic understanding of firearms safety and operation (barring obvious job/career based necessities).

It's this exact kind of thing that that I do not understand.  Perhaps someone could help me understand how I'm supposed to interpret it in any way other than 'dangerous'.

This little marketing snippet shows exactly the kind of triggers (no pun intended) that the manufacturers are using to sell their product.  This bit literally uses eviscerating an oppenent with a hollow point shell as almost a necessary element to demoralize your 'enemy' whoever that unspecified enemy might be.  Is painting a scary face on each round of any benefit to the round itself, or is it primarily intended as psychological re-inforcement to the would be lethal arms bearer?

It's 'already' in use by special forces, etc., meaning that if you buy them, you are like them.  Is that the implication here?  Am I wrong when I say this advertisement seems specifically geared towards promoting the not just the killing power, but the grotesque result of using said product?  What does that say about the manufacturer, and more importantly, what does it say about the customer?

I'm not making assumptions about individual here, I'm asking for a response from the targetted audience.  K. Rollin (and anyone else), what is it about these paragraphs that you find intriguing?

*edit* Redacted but left for continuity.  I did not realize the quoted bit above was intended as a joke. *edit*

By this rationale, each and every person should have the right to own ANY weaponry that would prevent or support defense against the government.

I understand the trickiness with the second amendment and where to draw the line, but I don't think the solution is anything, anyone, anytime.  At what point does it become an unreasonable extension of a supposedly implicit right?

We are a rebublic, with democratically elected leadership, and we (theoretically) can exercise legal ways to reign in and control our governement.  We are not in the hands of any single minded dictatorship that has absolute military control.  Our armed forces is all volunteer, and most of it is not so brainwashed as to do anything that is ordered of it at any time.  The American military would make a poor enforcement arm of the government if any portion of it attempted to start a coup or violently suppress the populace.  So do I NEED a tank to defend myself against my government.  I don't think so.

Lethal weaponry, rightfully, should only ever be the last and most desperate solution in any conflict.  It seems to me that many of those who advocate the second amendment in this context do so by bypassing all the other solutions and preparing for some perceived potential threat.  It seems more likely to me that, at least most of the time, it isn't really about defending themselves against an armed government (a very unlikely result with our own military) as it is just wanting the guns and the perceived or real  power that their lethality conveys to those willing to weild it.

I've had a more than a few conversations in the past with gun toting types (both friends and otherwise), and there often seems to be undercurrents of repressed violent tendencies.  Like the desire to have and bear arms comes is part and parcel to an above average willingness to bring those forces to bear with varying degrees of provocation, and against more than just the 'government'.

I'm willing to admit I could be way off base, of course.

I would argue that it isn't the 'steel' that won our freedom, rather it was the will and desires of our leaders (at the time) to make a stand for what they knew was right.  At the time, the British Empire was still largely colonial and interested in maintaining it's empire, often to the detriment of the colonies established for the sole purpose of expanding and supporting the empire.  The 'steel' was merely a tool by which it could be accomplished.  If Texas were to try to secede, do you think the US government would respond immediately with force?  Do you think it's in the best interest of any government in a (generally) free society to even attempt violent suppression of the will of the people?  We are far too populous, geographically diverse, and steeped in our desire for personal 'freedom' to be despotically governed (by force anyway).

Agreed, but the weapon must also be locked within the vehicle.  The other two he stated were 'on his person' probably did not qualify for being locked within the vehicle, where the others were probably in a case and broken down.  I'm merely guessing, but it's sensible since he was only cited with the two violations of weaponry 'on his person', and the others were essentially ignored.  Was the vehicle locked?  Were the items within view from outside the vehicle (my  assumption based solely upon the earlier incident description)?

Honestly though, I don't know enough about the details of the incident to say for sure, as K. Rollin hasn't provided additional details.  I also don't know how much leeway the police have in these matters, I would guess they have a fair amount depending upon the situation.

Good response though!

Yeah, that one does seem pretty clear.  I missed #9, and his original description does seem to fit snugly under this exception.  If that is the case, then clearly he is not guilty under the exception to the law.

My only remaining question would be, why would a weapon be 'on your person' and in an opaque case in the car?  I can understand if you are walking and carrying the case (with the unloaded weapons) but if you're in the vehicle, wouldn't it be easier to transport in the trunk or backseat?  Is the 'case' described an actual case, or was it a holster of some kind?

 If it was a case, then K. Rollin you would seem to clearly fall into the exception noted above and therefore are not guilty of the cited crime.

Why irritated?  I merely was noting what I could find (though I could probably have dug a little deeper) and was asking for further clarification.  I don't automatically assume either your guilt or your innocence, as it could go either way depending on the facts in this case.

If the police were REALLY trying to screw you, they could have easily been much more harsh.  It boils down to your word against theirs (without some kind of evidence/video proof), so there was much more potential for setting you up if they were so inclinced.

Either you are guily, in which case the officer probably responded appropriately, or you are innocent and the officer was incorrect, and you have legal recourse.  Either way though, I don't think the intent was to leave you 'defenseless'.

There does appear to be, but the exception seems fairly clear in that you have to meet certain conditions to avoid breaking the law.

I was never in a vehicle until after the arrest, when I was placed into a vehicle, in cuffs. The handguns were in an secure, opaque container that I was carrying (my backpack), and I was traveling on foot. Also, the XRBR rounds are a joke, as in they don't exist. Honestly, how does one put a rabid badger into a handgun round? On the note of training, in my circumstance anyways, is if there is something that interests me, I try and learn as much as possible about it. I've done it with cars, paintball, motorcycles, ATVs, reloading ammunition, and the handling of firearms.

My younger brother is in the US Navy, and he has told me about the weapons training he recieved. The sailors in he trained with only worked with the Beretta M9 and the Mossberg 590 shotgun, and while both can be used to teach firearms safety, the fact that they were not trained on rifles is apalling, as it was, for many of those sailors, their first time handling a firearm, and as most people who shoot know, the rifle is what every person be proficient with, and is also what lays down the fundamentals of marksmanship.

And that was the conclusion.  Now, I threw it out there for contrast, and because it was an argument I hadn't heard much before (if at all, but I probably have and just forgot it).

But you have excellent points here too, and I'd be curious to see if there's any correlation between those who feel our freedom must be maintained by sheer force and those who are apt to subscribe to conspiracy theories in general.  In other words, does this reasoning stem from a degree (however large) of paranoia?

Well, in the extreme case of paranoia, no extension is unreasonable, because every step towards mass distribution is a safeguard against despotic tyranny.  In fact, some might argue that to cease expansion of this right is to lose the fight for freedom entirely.  I could easily see the quote "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" coming out of the woodwork here. 

Keep in mind, this isn't my opinion, just my description of the mindset (which I don't hold, so could be overplaying).  But it's not difficult to imagine, and you can see it played out in political and religious contexts all over the place.  Compromise is defeat.  You're only really secure when the opposition is gone.  That kind of thing.

I agree with your first paragraph, but then, I'm not afraid of the government (whether rightly or wrongly).  For those who are, I doubt they'd be reassured by this reasoning; they'd shoot holes in it.  They'll tell you about concentration camps for conservatives and a secret military force that's sworn allegiance only to Obama, not the Constitution, and judges who've been bought off, and all other kinds of alarmist rumors of the perfect centralized government controlling everything right under our very noses.  And the fact that we can't find any evidence for such things doesn't mean they're not true - it means the enemy is even more powerful than you thought. 

So re. your second paragraph, I don't think the majority of people who push 2nd Amendment rights are bluffing about the govt. threat.  I think they fully believe it, and the more they dwell on it, the more it freaks them out and the more passionate they become.

NOTE:  I in no way intend this post to claim that all gun owners are paranoid. 

Ah, OK I misunderstood.  The wording for the exception of carrying firearms says 'closed opaque case or secure wrapper'.  The question is does a backpack qualify.  It certainly could be.  One might argue that 'case' in the exception implies a container specifically meant for holding weaponry.  Which might explain why you were only cited for two of the four items you were transporting.  That's the problem with poorly written language in law, the legal 'intent' often is open to intepretation.

Dunno though.  I'm curious to see how it works out.  Obviously there was no intent to harm or any of that here, so it seems to me anyway.  I hope it gets dismissed, for your sake.

I didn't realize the bit you posted was a joke.  TBH I wouldn't expect someone who isn't a firearms buff to recognize the difference, either.  Take a look at this, though, a real advert that's more subtly says much the same thing:

http://www.winchester.com/marketing/advertising/adsview.aspx?adid=142&name=Personal%20Protection%20-%20Bonded%20PDX1

Remington has some as well, but they're more technical and they use vague language like 'barrier penetration' to discuss hollow point ammunition.

Hunting seems to be the primary focus of most of their rifle ads, but it's bothers me more than a little that a good slice of their marketing is targetted towards being more lethal toward your fellow human being.

Guns are the worst invention man has ever made. Hopefully AS doesn't allow this group/club to be created. I am sorry but I don't understand how you can be so interested in something that was invented for killing. 

Can someone just delete post #35?

I hope that 'unkown' will someday learn to appreciate the freedom afforded to them through the use of firearms.

I

Yeah don't worry about it. Obvious troll.  

It was also about providing for people to eat as well. To take care of people like you who would have to live of plants your whole life. The human race would not have evolved at all if cave men still were trying to throw rocks at wooly mammoths to kill them. Thanks for your support have fun at your soy party.

 Seriously guys. Just ignore it. OBVIOUSLY A TROLL.

As cakeface pointed out, obvious troll is obvious. In any case, this group will exist in some way, shape, or form, regardless of AS approval, because those who are committed to the idea will network, establish dates/times, and will meet to socialize and to shoot.

Humans were evolved before guns were invented. And I actually am a vegetarian and I hate soy. 

You're right that his point was poorly made, but you are expressing your beliefs (as is your right) in the wrong thread entirely. We're not trying to provoke you into an argument, so we would appreciate the same courtesy and ask that you do the same.  

 I was far from provoking. I wasn't the one calling names. I just am completely against guns. I think that the world would be much better without them. You can't disagree that guns can do very bad things and that if they weren't invented we would have A LOT less death. 

 Perhaps we would have less death. However, the invention of guns was most likely inevitable. However, you are being provocative in that you are posting your particular beliefs in this particular thread. 

It would be as if I went to a feminist convention and started telling people that I think men are the superior gender. Even if I said it politely, it would still be provocative. 

And if I may be so bold as to bring up another point, it may do you well to realize that guns HAVE been invented and are a part of life and the world now. So you can either continue to hate guns (which is fine), or learn how to deal with them in the event that you encounter them (which you probably will). 

This thread is going way off track. This was intended to be a place where (like minded) people could discuss the sport of marksmanship, the practical uses for firearms, and to explore related hobbies, not a place for pro v. anti discussion. I appreciate hearing your views, but I do not feel that they belong here. Perhaps an anti-rights thread would be more appropriate venue. In any case, I would like to invite you, and any other anti-second amendment or anti-rights person to come out to the range sometime aand recieve a primer on proper safety and techniques. Who knows, you may like it, and even if you don't, at least then you may better understand the other side of this coin.

Well, the title of your thread is rather ambiguous. As it is right now it's fairly generic and a "discussion" of firearms would not be off topic. You could change the title to make it less ambiguous.

mibrovsky, the title of this thread does promote the discussion of firearms, and had that been all you had read before posting, I could see how you may come to the conclusion that this is a thread that is for broad, generic discussion of firearms. However, had you read the original post, you would realize that the goal is not for antis to come in here and make statements like:

or

but rather to foster friendly discussion in hopes of creating a group for recreational and social purposes. The original post is quoted below, for reference:

I have no problem with friendly debate, but I do not appreciate people making statements like the ones above. If you wish to argue, back it up, with sources other than the Brady Campaign and such.

No need to get hostile with me. I was merely responding to a question Chad had posed.

Is my suggestion that gun-philia is subconsciously phallic, really that offensive to you? Lots of things are phallic. Men like phallic things. It's not gay to like phallic things. It's not a value judgment. I, for one, enjoy skyscraper architecture, which is about as phallic as you can get.

If anything, I am more pro-gun ownership than anti, so you are really barking up the wrong tree.

No hostilities were intended, I just find that Freudian line of reasoning is not all there is to the question of why people like firearms (or big trucks, or fast cars, etc).

November 7th in Monroe; anyone else going?