We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Draad: Het 'n knal by die knop gehad. knop spruit dit is
Nee, ek het dit nie gisteraand in 'n handleiding gelees of in 'n Holiday Inn Express gebly nie. dis net die feite Mevrou.
Wat is die verskil tussen 'n vark en 'n ingenieur?
U kan met die vark stry.
Aansluitdatum April 2013 Ligging Net hier .. ten minste was ek 'n minuut gelede Plasings 4,629
Ek dra 'n Nuke50, want die opruiming van die gemors is dom!
Verkoop poeierdekpoeier van hoë gehalte
PULSAR nagvisie en termiese handelaar. PM my vir 'n goeie deal
Verkoop poeierdekpoeier van hoë gehalte
PULSAR nagvisie en termiese handelaar. PM my vir 'n goeie deal
Ek is nie mal nie, my ma het my laat toets
Daar is 'n fyn lyn tussen genialiteit en mal ... ek is die lyn
en na gelang van die dag kan ek dalk net oor daardie lyn stap.
Nee, ek het dit nie gisteraand in 'n handleiding gelees of in 'n Holiday Inn Express gebly nie. dis net die feite Mevrou.
Wat is die verskil tussen 'n vark en 'n ingenieur?
U kan met die vark stry.
Moenie moer koop wat u nie huis toe kan neem nie
Guru van termiese onderklere.
Eksklusiewe internasionale verspreider van Jeff Brown Hunt Club -klere
Verskaffer aan die rykes (?) En berug.
Ek het pas tuis gekom van 'n lllloooooooonnnnnggggg naweek daar. 13:00 tot 17:00 Donderdag, 07:30 tot 20:30 Vrydag, 08:00 tot 22:00 Saterdag. en 08:00 tot 18:00 vandag. Ek raak te oud vir sulke werk. Dit is al 10+ jaar. Sedert ek geweerskoue gewerk het, onthou ek hoekom ek dit opgegee het.
Al met al 'n baie aangename tyd. Ek het kortliks met Sgtonory Vrydag gepraat. Hy is een van die min Cast Boolit -lede wat ek op sigself ken. As ek dit weer doen, kry ek 'n CB-hoed of t-hemp sodat ons mekaar kan ontmoet. As u kind 'n gratis 50BMG -kissie gekry het, was dit van Tim en my by TNW Firearms.
Die poeier was baie kort. Sommige primers was beskikbaar teen pryse wat nie heeltemal verregaande was nie, en hulle het vinnig verdwyn, maar daar was koeëls en koper in militêre en LE -kale. in oorvloed. Ek sê & quotin oorvloed & quot, maar. daar was baie beskikbaar, maar dit het nie lank gehou nie, weens redelike pryse. Ek het 'n 30 cal. ammunisie kan vol 55 gr. .223 vir $ 70/K van Jeff Bartlett by GIBrass, wat die beste prys is wat ek in 'n paar jaar gesien het. Ek was gelukkig om dit om 09:00 Saterdag te kry. hy het 'n paar minute later uitverkoop. Hy het die eerste vragmotor teen die middag Vrydag verkoop. Hy het nog laat poeier 'n bietjie oortollige poeier gehad, ek dink dit is 'n goeie teken. Ek dink nie hy het eers Sun opgestel nie.
Tim het ongeveer 100K 50 cal gebring. AP en tracers en 50K of so 50BMG koper en dit alles verkoop teen die beste pryse waarvan ek onlangs gehoor het. Sommige was in 'n baie jammerlike toestand, maar dit lyk asof almal bly was om dit weer beskikbaar te kry.
Dit is nie u geweervertoning nie, maar een ding wat ek opgemerk het, was die AR15-toneel. of eerder die verandering daarin. Ek het nie soveel ouens met AR's gesien as wat ek gewoonlik by plaaslike shows sien nie. Ek verwag om baie AK's in hierdie skare te sien, maar hierdie keer lyk dit asof dit meer na die AK versus die AR kantel. Baie mense het gesê dat hulle nie rakke vol AR's gesien het soos hulle verwag het nie. Noudat almal en sy broer 'n AR -vervaardiger is, word die mark uiteindelik versadig. Onlangse pryse lyk weer terug na '06 -vlakke.
Maar. 'n Goeie vriend het al die 80% AR-laer ontvangers wat hy gehad het, uitverkoop ('n nommer wat jou waarskynlik sou verstom), al sy in-die-wit laer en boonste en die meeste van sy rou smeersels in .223 en .308. Ek is nie seker wat aangaan nie, maar ek dink ten minste dat daar iewers 'n verklaring is oor die huidige politieke klimaat.
Anyhoooooo. 'n redelike goeie naweek in die algemeen.
Tim se oorspronklike ontwerp. Ek was op drie landskoue en 'n rotmoordenaar, en ek het nog nooit iets gesien waarvan ek meer hou nie.
Knob Creek-masjiengeweer skiet
Die gewere wat u kan huur, wissel van basiese Amerikaanse vuurwapens soos die M-16 en M-14 tot die AK-47 en Uzi en skaars vintage wapens soos die Duitse MG-42.
Noem alle liefhebbers van militêre geskiedenis en militêre entoesiaste! Is u moeg om net te lees oor militêre wapens? Smag jy daarna om hulle in aksie te sien? Het u gedroom om self 'n regte masjiengeweer te kan vuur, om die rou, vernietigende vuurkrag van 'n .50-kaliber Browning of MG-42 te beheer? As dit die geval is, dan is die Knob Creek-masjiengeweerskiet en die militêre geweerskou 'n droom wat bewaarheid word!
Die Knob Creek-masjiengeweerskiet, saam met die saamval Knob Creek Military Gun Show, is 'n halfjaarlikse naweekbyeenkoms wat elke April en Oktober naby West Point, Kentucky gehou word. Die skietery en skietery vertoon gewoonlik drie dae, begin omstreeks 09:00 op 'n Vrydag en eindig om 16:00 op 'n Sondag en sluit 'n vyfuur lange nagskiet op Saterdag in.
Die opname word deur duisende mense van regoor die wêreld bygewoon. Die wye verskeidenheid kragtige en eksotiese wapens wat te sien is en van miniguns tot PPSh tot 0,50-kaliber skerpskuttersgeweer en mdash maak die masjiengeweer 'n ware fees vir die oë, as dit 'n bietjie rof is oor die ore. Die hoeveelheid militêre wapens wat vertoon word by die Knob Creek Shoot is meer as wat die meeste burgerlikes in 'n leeftyd sal sien.
Volgens die amptelike brosjure, & ldquoThe Machine Gun (sic) Shoot self, bestaan uit vier rondes vuur op 'n wye reeks toestelle, voertuie, piramides van bande en vate brandstof met pirotegniese ladings daarby. Die pyrotechnic ladings is dan. . . vertrek. . . Skep groot en klein sampioenwolke en vuurballetjies. . . & rdquo
Die meerderheid van die skietery word op 'n groot boonste baan uitgevoer. Skuts moet hul wapens vooraf registreer en 'n afstandpas kry voordat hulle aan die skiet kan deelneem. Vuur word streng deur die sekuriteitspersoneel vasgestel en gemonitor en word gewoonlik op 'n halfuur op, halfuur af en op 'n halfuur uitgevoer, wat om 09:00 begin op die Vrydag waarop die geleentheid begin.
Benewens die boonste reeks, is daar 'n kleiner, onderste reeks waar masjiengeweerhuur beskikbaar is vir almal wat hul eie kans wil hê om 'n regte militêre wapen af te vuur. Die gewere wat u kan huur, wissel van basiese Amerikaanse vuurwapens soos die M-16 en M-14 tot buitelandse vuurwapens soos die AK-47 en Uzi en skaars vintage wapens soos die Duitse MG-42. Om 30 rondes (een tydskrif) van 'n M-16 of AK-47 af te skiet kos $ 40, terwyl dit 50 rondes met 'n MG-42 veroorsaak, kos $ 65.
Vlamwerper kan ook in die boonste reeks gehuur word, teen die stewige prys van $ 195. Gatling-geweerhuur en skilderagtige helikopterritte aan boord van 'n UH-1 Huey-helikopter is ook beskikbaar.
Die Knob Creek Military Gun Show word saam met die Machine-Gun Shoot gehou. Die vertoning, wat in 'n groot verligte paviljoen langs die vuurlyn en die hoofkantoor van Knob Creek geleë is, stel deelnemers in staat om klas III-vuurwapens te koop, te verkoop en te verhandel (masjiengewere, haelgewere met kort loop of gewere en ander wapens wat onder Titel 2 van die vuurwapenwet van 1968). By die geweerskou is daar veel meer as wapens te koop, maar dit is 'n eklektiese gebeurtenis in elke sin van die woord, met verkopers en goedere wat wissel van geweeronderdele tot militaria tot oorskot tot meteoriete. Selfs 'n Tweede Wêreldoorlog 25 mm Franse tenkgeweer geweer was op die mees onlangse vertoning te koop.
Die herfs 2008 -skietery is op 10 en 12 Oktober gehou. Die datums vir die volgende lente en herfs -lote is 3 April en 5 en 9 en 11 en 11 Oktober.
Vir meer inligting, besoek die amptelike Knob Creek Machine-Gun Shoot-webwerf. Klik hier om meer te wete te kom oor die Knob Creek-reeks, wat die hele jaar oop is.
Foto's links na regs: 1. Die skrywer vuur 'n AK-47 af 2. Die vuurlyn 3. Huur van vlammeier 4. Na afloop van die boonste reeks 5. Knob Creek Military Gun Show 6. Die skrywer se broer met 'n MG-42 7 . Twin MG-42 lugafweergeweer.
Knob Creek masjiengeweer skiet 26 Julie 2007 15:29 Teken in
Terwyl jy na 'n klomp grootmense kyk, vertel skietdoelwitte jou iets oor die skieters, maar al die skietery maak nie skade nie, maar hul eie sakke en af en toe 'n skieter sonder af en toe. Dit was so idioties en gevaarlik om die kind die manier waarop hy terugdeins, aan die kind te gee, so ek dink dat sommige dit weer en weer sal doen.
Justinianus skryf "Om te ry is nie in die Grondwet nie."
Dit dra ook nie ammunisie nie
geplaas deur elpapacito op 16 Julie 2007 om 16:21
die fontein, die GE Minigun (die M134) vuur tussen 3000 en 6000 rpm. Grootmaat 7.62x51mm (AKA .308) verkoop vir ongeveer $ 249/1000 of .25 per ronde.
As dit nou gebeur, maak hierdie mooi ronde getalle dit redelik maklik om uit te vind hoeveel dit per sekonde kos:
(laat ons aanneem dat dit teen volle spoed sal brand) 6000 rpm / 60 sekondes = 100 rondes per sekonde * 0,25 = $ 25 per sekonde.
Wat, net soveel pret as wat ek seker is, te ryk is vir my bloed.
geplaas deur quin om 16:26 op 26 Julie 2007
Kentucky het geen wapenwette op staatsvlak nie
Sekerlik, ons doen dit. Ons staatsgrondwet het 'n ietwat breër en strenger weergawe van die Amerikaanse 2de wysiging. En daar is 'n paar beperkings op die besit van jeugdiges (handwapens, dink ek, maar gewere is goed) en misdadigers, en versteekte dra is slegs toelaatbaar met 'n permit.
Oop dra is egter fyn en dandy.
geplaas deur dilettante om 16:48 op 26 Julie 2007
Ek het dieselfde gedagtes oor ammunisiekoste gehad. Sjoe. Praat oor die besparing van u $$ om dit te blaas op 10 sekondes nadat u iets vernietig het. Aan elkeen sy eie.
Ek word geïrriteerd ten koste van .22 ammunisie, so ek dink nie ek is in dieselfde ligas as hierdie ouens nie. 'n minigun? hoe gereeld kry jy dit regtig? Hy moet die afguns van sy (swaar gewapende) portuurgroep wees, wat ongetwyfeld die punt was :)
geplaas deur EricGjerde om 16:56 op 26 Julie 2007
Baie prettige plasing. Ek is verbaas dat daar nie meer geweerhaters kommentaar lewer nie.
Goed, ek haat gewere. Dit klink egter asof hierdie jokels net lekker is.
geplaas deur litfit om 17:06 op 26 Julie 2007 om 17:06
maar, net soos ek wonder oor elke klassieke motor- en fietsvertoning waarheen ek gaan, is dit net 'n blanke manlike poging?
Ek neem aan dat u nog nooit 'n lowrider gesien het nie (byna altyd ouer modelle). En ek ken talle nie -blanke geweerliefhebbers. En selfs motorfietsryers is meer divers as wat jy sou dink.
geplaas deur jonmc om 17:15 op 26 Julie 2007
het ons nou pienkies? Om 'n handwapen te dra, is die vinnigste manier om jou kans om in die stad geskiet te word, te verdriedubbel.
Kan wees. Maar terselfdertyd kan sommige queerbasher twee keer dink. Maar ook so sou 'n burgerpatrolliegroep in die styl van Guardian Angels in gay woonbuurte. Ek praat nie van waaksaamheid nie, net 'n subtiele herinnering daaraan dat sulke dinge nie geduld moet word nie.
geplaas deur jonmc om 17:26 op 26 Julie 2007
Knob Creek is 'n ontploffing. Sommige miniguns brand so vinnig dat dit soos 'n vaste toon klink. Ons het probeer uitvind hoeveel megahertz gelyk is aan 30-50 rondtes per sekonde.
en as twee vuur ontstaan, ontwikkel hulle harmonieke soos reuse plofbare basonne.
geplaas deur Megafly om 17:45 op 26 Julie 2007
Daar moet van mense verwag word om opleiding te kry en 'n toets te slaag voordat hulle wapeneienaars word. Daar is te veel idiote met gewere - niemand kla dat u 'n toets moet slaag voordat u ry nie.
Stem saam, maar as daar meer as 43 000 voertuigsterftes per jaar is, in vergelyking met 900 sterfgevalle deur vuurwapens, moet die bestuurstoetse en voertuigregulasies moontlik ook strenger wees.
geplaas deur BrotherCaine om 17:49 op 26 Julie 2007
Stem saam, maar aangesien daar jaarliks meer as 43 000 voertuigsterftes is, vergeleke met 900 sterftes in vuurwapens per ongeluk, behoort die bestuurstoetse en voertuigregulasies ook strenger te wees.
Voordat u 'n betekenisvolle vergelyking kan maak, moet u inligting hê wat die voorkoms van gebruik van vuurwapens vergelyk met die voorkoms van motorgebruik.
Maar miskien skiet Amerikaners werklik hul gewere net so gereeld as wat hulle met hul motors ry?
geplaas deur PeterMcDermott om 18:39 op 26 Julie 2007
Stem saam, maar as daar meer as 43 000 voertuigsterftes per jaar is, in vergelyking met 900 sterfgevalle deur vuurwapens, moet die bestuurstoetse en voertuigregulasies moontlik ook strenger wees.
Moet u nie die mense wat opsetlik vermoor is, insluit nie?
geplaas deur ssg om 19:01 op 26 Julie 2007
Miskien kan ons 'n motor maak wat gewere afvuur.
Eh, was daar. Ek wil 'n geweer hê wat heel skiet motors.
geplaas deur loquacious om 19:31 op 26 Julie 2007
totale vuurwapensterftes (2004) 29 500.
net 'n datapunt. van hierdie heeltemal netjiese webwerf
geplaas deur edgeways om 20:05 op 26 Julie 2007
Ons het probeer uitvind hoeveel megahertz gelyk is aan 30-50 rondtes per sekonde.
30-50 Hertz, 'n bietjie laer as elektriese neurie. Of 0,00003 tot 0,00005 MHz.
wat? WAT?
geplaas deur longsleeves om 20:09 op 26 Julie 2007
Een hertz is net een [wat ook al] per sekonde.
geplaas deur ROU_Xenophobe om 20:42 op 26 Julie 2007 om 20:42
edgeways - Wat die statistiek nie in ag neem nie, is die groot persentasie van diegene wat nie toevallig is nie, insluitend veral selfmoorde. Gewere is 'n gewilde manier om jouself af te weer, om redes wat voor die hand liggend is.
In elk geval, toe ek in Maine was (wat geen staatsvlak-regulering van klas III-vuurwapens het nie, behalwe die federale goed), was ek altyd jaloers op die ouens met gordels. tot ek gekyk het hoeveel hulle aan ammunisie bestee. En vate. Ag, en wat ek gehoor het, sal 'n wettige een u gemiddeld ongeveer $ 10 000, plus die BATF -belasting, betaal. (Nie sleg vir 'n geweer wat oom Sam waarskynlik eers 'n paar honderd dollar gekos het nie.)
Wat hulle in die middag blaas, kan ek die grootste deel van 'n jaar met my semi-motor skiet. Tog is hulle netjies. En anders as 'n klassieke motor, hoef u nie 'n ekstra motorhuis te bou om dit binne te hou nie.
Ongelukkig het ek gehoor dat die vervaardiging en invoer van klas III's onlangs geblokkeer is, so daar gaan nie meer daarvan wees nie. Ongelukkig, veral as daar slegs een (uit meer as 100,000) in 'n misdaad gebruik is.
geplaas deur Kadin2048 om 23:32 op 23 Julie 2007 om 23:32
Toe my dogter in die tweede graad in die state was, het hulle gereeld gereelde noodoefeninge gehad waartydens sy en haar klasmaats onder die lessenaars moes wegkruip in 'n poging om die koeëls van 'n gewapende indringer te vermy. Dit was eerlik genoeg vir my.
*bereken die afstand tussen kinders en Knob Creek geestelik*
Sjoe. Miskien moet ons 'n bietjie verder ooswaarts beweeg. Ywerige & quotbut-ek-het-'n-reg-tot-'n-aanval-wapen & quot gun freaks gee my die jeebies.
V: & quotGee, chuckdarwin, waarom het u u gesin geneem en die Verenigde State verlaat? & Quot
A: & quot Die koeëls kan ons nie hier bereik nie. & Quot
Let op aan iemand wat dom genoeg is om die ou kastaiingbruin te glo oor die verdediging van u eie regering (net as u weet): jou popgeweer gaan nie veel baat by 'n AC130 -geweer nie, 'n swerm aanvalshelikopters of 'n lugaanval (dit is hoe u geliefde regering Bagdad aangeneem het). Jy is 'n idioot. As u persoonlike vuurwapen ooit 'n lewe sal neem, is dit waarskynlik een van u eie familielede.
*vee gat met 2de wysiging*
geplaas deur chuckdarwin om 01:50 op 27 Julie 2007 om 01:50 [2 gunstelinge]
odinsdream - Selfs as daar elke week 'n massamoord in Columbine / Virginia Tech -styl in Amerika was, sou niemand iets doen om die wet te verander nie. Een of ander vriendelike siel sou die webwerf begin. Mense sou 'n oomblik ophou om hul gewere te poleer en te besin oor die tragiese lewensverlies.
Daar kom 'n tyd dat 'n mens gedwing word om op te gee oor Amerika: sy burgers sal nooit rede hieroor kry nie.
geplaas deur chuckdarwin om 07:19 op 27 Julie 2007
Daar kom 'n tyd dat 'n mens gedwing word om op te gee oor Amerika: sy burgers sal nooit rede hieroor kry nie.
Wel, gee ons dan op. Goddank, want ons het u goedkeuring nodig.
Ek dink presies wat ons in die Verenigde Koninkryk het, ons moet afstand doen van die Verenigde Koninkryk, want hulle sal nooit rede hieroor kry nie.
Wat die oorspronklike pos betref, wil ek graag een jaar na Knob Creek gaan vir die opname. Ek sal dit vir April en my man moet bespreek, dae van outomatiese wapens? So baie pret. Die beste tyd wat ek nog ooit geskiet het, is wanneer ons outomatiese wapens by die baan gehuur het.
As antigun -mense net 'n minuut kon sien dat skietery en wedstryde soos hierdie lekker is, sou dit hierdie bespreking vergemaklik.
geplaas deur SuzySmith om 08:38 op 27 Julie 2007 [1 gunsteling]
OK.
geplaas deur chuckdarwin om 09:09 op 27 Julie 2007 om 09:09
Ek was nog nooit daar nie: dit is te ver om te loop en my & quotSO & quot sal my nie dryf nie.
Het hulle 'n Pat Tillman -teiken?
geplaas deur davy om 09:13 op 27 Julie 2007 [1 gunsteling]
Het hulle 'n Pat Tillman -teiken?
Wat de hel is dit met jou?
geplaas deur Scoo op 27 Julie 2007 om 09:59 [2 gunstelinge]
Wonderlike Steven C. Den Beste, want ons weet almal hoe goed dit vir die Black Panther Party uitgewerk het. het ons nou pienkies?
Eintlik is die pienk ouer as die swartes.
geplaas deur Pollomacho op 27 Julie 2007 om 10:11
'Let op vir iemand wat dom genoeg is om die ou kastaiingbruin te glo oor die verdediging van u eie regering. ” - chuckdarwin
En u ervaring met enige soort vuurwapens? Enige militêre ervaring? 'N Geskiedenisboek opgetel? Weet u iets van basiese polisiëring?
Let op vir iemand wat dom genoeg is om die ou strooi -kastaiingbruin te sien dat u regering sy eie bevolking met lugaanvalle aanval of woonbuurte met 'n magiese draak aanrand om 'n geweer -eienaar te teiken - dit gebeur nie. As jy dink dit is, is jy 'n idioot.
Maar kom ons volg die denkrigting vir 'n oomblik. Die regering JOU regering stuur aanvalshelikopters na die middestad (laat ons sê) Chicago (omdat ek hier woon) en vermoor almal binne 'n radius van 4 kilometer van sê Western en Division. Wat gaan jy doen, skryf jou kongreslid?
Selfs dan - sou ek skei. Dit neem tyd om ernstige vuurkrag te ontbied. As ek snip, slaan ek en vervaag. Maar dit is alles 'n fantasie.
Geweld kan mag vernietig, maar dit is absoluut nie in staat om dit te skep nie (om 'n aanhaling uit Arendt te vee).
Maar die belangrikste rede waarom ek 'n handwapen het (in teenstelling met gewere en ander wapens wat by enige soort guerrilla -operasie nuttig is) is om mense soos jy dood te maak.
Jy lees dit reg. Beslis, nie u spesifiek nie. Dit is nie 'n bedreiging nie, dit is 'n uiteensetting van 'n baie ernstige punt - dit is presies mense soos jy, wat die fan as mense soos ek sal "veroordeel". Ek sou hulle in een -en -twee doodmaak, gewoonlik met behulp van onderduim (en, jy weet, 'n pistool).
Miskien was u besig met hiperbool toe u gesê het dat u u gat afvee met die tweede wysiging. Verswakte punt. Daar is mense wat presies dit sou doen en die 'suiwerheid' van hul idealisme bo, prakties of die regte van ander of selfs geregtigheid sou plaas, sou hê en sou doen. (Ons het baie hiervan van die huidige administrasie gesien).
Dat u ideale 'links' toevallig (of blykbaar) is, is nie relevant vir die vorm wat despotiese heerskappy aanneem nie. (Gee aan dat dit die 'regte' is wat die aanklag tans tot totalitarisme lei, maar ek vermoed dat dit tans net twee sokkies uit dieselfde despotiese bron is. Ek sal baie verbaas wees as - wie ook al president is, nie die aanklag lei 'n 'linkse' president sou so 'n stap baie help, net soos hierdie huidige 'regse' president deur sy kader gehelp is om ander regte in te perk. En ek sou verbaas wees as die toekomstige president nie aangemoedig word nie op presies dieselfde manier as hierdie.)
Prakties gesproke kan regerings nie massief vernietigende hardeware gebruik om sy meer individueel ingestelde bevolking uit te wis nie. Hulle het ten minste die betoning van wet en orde nodig. Die voorkoms daarvan. Selfs Stalin het die vertoningsproewe gehad.
Maar regtig, despote het nie swaar militêre hardeware nodig om die bevolking te beoefen nie. Was u selfs in 'n land wat deur 'n despoot beheer word? Dit is presies die Milgram -eksperiment. Almal speel 'n rol. Die belangrikste is om u eie rol te versterk (as 'n goeie ondersteunende lid van die party of wat ook al) deur ander aan die kaak te stel.
Dus, in die aangename voorbeeld van Joe Steel, het hy nie lugaanvalle, helikopters, masjiengewere of selfs koeëls nodig gehad nie, net klein groepies met logistieke ondersteuning vir gevangenes (in die Black Mariahs) omdat hy miljoene gewone Sowjet -burgers ontmasker het hul medeburgers.
'' N Samelewing wat intens is in sy stryd om verandering, het 'n ander kant van sy idealisme: onverdraagsaamheid. Mense het oral vyande gesien, vyande wat die revolusie wou vernietig en die resultate van hul harde werk en prestasies wou verminder, vyande wat om selfsugtige redes kapitalisme wou herstel teen die kollektiewe belange van die nasie. As diegene aan die bopunt van die Kommunistiese Party en 'n ou revolusionêr soos Trotsky by die vyand kon aansluit, wat van minder mense? In fabrieke en kantore is massavergaderings gehou waarin mense aangemoedig is om waaksaam te wees teen sabotasie. Dit was aan die gewone mense om die onderskeid te tref tussen onbevoegdheid en opsetlike vernietiging [d.w.s. sabotasie], en enige ongeluk kan die rede wees vir die vernietiging. Afsprake het algemeen geword. Bure het bure veroordeel. Veroordelings was 'n goeie manier om te slaan teen mense waarvan u nie hou nie, insluitend u ouers, 'n manier om mense uit te skakel wat u bevordering blokkeer, en. 'n manier om 'n mens se patriotisme te bewys. Baie het besef dat sommige onskuldige mense geviktimiseer word, en die gesegde het gesê dat 'as jy die skyfies kap,' net soos met Lenin, word geglo dat sommige wat onskuldig was, 'n slagoffer sou moes wees as al die skuldiges sou wees aangekeer. ”
En omdat sommige mense graag hul esels afvee met wat ek as 'n belangrike regsbeginsel beskou, kan ek net vermoed wat hulle in een of twee of massaal aan my sou doen. Hel, ek kan despots pop. Hulle is redelik blootgestel. Al wat nodig is, is bereidwilligheid om daaraan te werk. As hulle my - 'n anonieme niemand - sou kry, sou dit 'n werklike probleem wees. Ek kan wegkruip, my naam verander, ens., Hulle kan nie, hulle moet regeer.
Maar net soos die ateïs se greep op Jesus, op persoonlike vlak is dit nie die regering wat ek verwag om my dood te maak nie, dit is hul fanklub.
geplaas deur Smedleyman om 12:03 op 27 Julie 2007 [4 gunstelinge]
Let op vir iemand wat dom genoeg is om die ou kastaiingbruin te glo oor die verdediging van u eie regering (vir ingeval u weet): u popgeweer gaan nie veel baat by 'n AC130 -geweer nie, 'n swerm aanvalshelikopters of 'n lugaanval ( dit is hoe u geliefde regering Bagdad ingeneem het).
Let op vir iemand wat dom genoeg is om die bogenoemde te glo: dit help om dit te onthou terwyl ons geneem Bagdad met lugaanvalle, is dit nodig om hou dit met infanterie. En die geskiedenis van die 20ste eeu-die hel, die laaste dag of twee van sluipskutteraanvalle in Bagdad-toon duidelik dat guerilla-taktiek met klein arms teen infanterie werk. Die mense van Irak is hoofsaaklik gewapen met geïmproviseerde plofstof en handwapens, en hulle weerstaan 'n besetting wat deur die magtigste weermag ter wêreld veroorsaak is.
Dit is duidelik dat 'my popgun' 'n beter versekering teen tirannie is as wat u dink. en dit is in elk geval beter as niks. Dit verbaas my nie dat sommige mense nie bereid is om hulself te bewapen nie - dit is natuurlik nie vir almal nie - maar ek is voortdurend verbaas oor argumente soos joune, wat die werklikheid van fisiese krag heeltemal ignoreer. As oorlog net so eenvoudig was soos 'aanvalle' en klein handwapens ', sou niemand ooit na 1945 of so geveg het nie, en ons beslis sou nie leef in 'n wêreld waarin een van die mees goed opgeleide en goed toegeruste leërs wat ooit bymekaargemaak is, meer as een oorlog teen kleinwapenvryheidsvegters verloor het nie.
geplaas deur vorfeed op 14 Julie 2007 om 14:25 om 14:25
Enige militêre ervaring, hoegenaamd?
Bill: "Ek glo dat aborsie moreel verkeerd is."
Dave: & quot; Natuurlik sou jy dit sê, jy is 'n priester. & Quot
Bill: "Wat van die argumente wat ek aangevoer het om my standpunt te ondersteun?"
Dave: & quot Hulle tel nie. Soos ek gesê het, jy is 'n priester, so jy moet sê dat aborsie verkeerd is. Verder is u net 'n lakei vir die pous, so ek kan nie glo wat u sê nie. & Quot
geplaas deur chuckdarwin om 15:09 op 27 Julie 2007 om 15:09
vorfeed maak 'n baie sterker saak, maar oortuig my nie.
. dit is beslis beter as niks.
Nie vir my nie. Die mees waarskynlike scenario waarin ek geroep word om 'n geweer te gebruik, is om te verdedig teen 'n inbreker. Ek sou eerder wou hê dat hulle die TV neem, eerlik. Ek wil nie iemand se lewe op my gewete hê nie.
Dit kom daarop neer: mense in die VSA wil hul pistole en semi-motors aanhang omdat hulle die regering wil beveg ['n hoogs onwaarskynlike scenario]. Intussen kan enige nutjob een kry en tientalle studente op enige kampus in die land uitwis.
Is ek die enigste persoon wat dit as 'n kak afruil beskou? 'N Geweer sal beslis goed genoeg wees om jouself mee te verdedig. en 'n groot geweer is beslis moeilik om by 'n skool in te sluip.
Maar nee. Mense sal nie wankel nie. Sommige van u sal nie gelukkig wees as u 'n Howitzer kan besit nie.
geplaas deur chuckdarwin om 15:21 op 27 Julie 2007 om 15:21
Enige militêre ervaring?
Nee, dit is nie ad hominem dat iemand met militêre ervaring sou weet dat daar 'n groot verskil is tussen gevegte en besetting, soos vorfeed beskryf het.
mense in die VSA wil hul pistole en semi-motors hou omdat hulle die regering wil beveg ['n hoogs onwaarskynlike scenario].
Dit is deels 'n hoogs onwaarskynlike scenario omdat mense vasgehou het. Daar is geen manier dat 'n regering hier kan bestaan sonder die ondersteuning van die mense nie.
op 27 Julie 2007 om 15:45 deur my en my aap geplaas
'N Mens hoef nie 'n soldaat te gewees het om die verskil tussen 'n geveg en 'n beroep te onderskei nie.
Aanval op my en my persoonlike agtergrond in plaas van om my argument aan te val, is 'n ad hominem -argument. Lees daaroor.
geplaas deur chuckdarwin om 15:55 op 27 Julie 2007 om 15:55
chuckdarwin - my punt om u ervaring te vra, is om die uitgangspunt waarop u stelling was gebaseer te bevraagteken.
Moreel kan u enige posisie beklee wat u wil. Waar hierdie morele grondslag in stryd is met die werklikheid, kan dit op 'n praktiese, nie teoretiese, basis betwis word.
U kan dan argumenteer dat aborsie moreel verkeerd is.
U kan die morele argument egter nie werklik ondersteun deur te beweer dat 'n aborsiedokter die fetus en die pasiënt en die hele omgewing met skadelike bestraling bombardeer nie.
Dit is eenvoudig nie feitelik uit praktiese ervaring (my eie, maar nog belangriker, maklik nagevorsde ander) en uit die gedokumenteerde geskiedenis dat klein groepies wat handwapens gebruik ondoeltreffend is teen groter swaarder gewapende militêre magte.
U wil aanvoer dat die aantal sterftes as gevolg van die besit van wapens te hoog is om 'n gegewe interpretasie van die tweede wysiging te regverdig - boete. Ek kan dit konseptueel aanspreek en ons kan redelik argumenteer op grond van die mate waarin ons lewens en vryheid respekteer.
U wil sê dat ek nie allerhande hel kan opwek in iemand anders se swaar beveiligde agterplaas nie, dit is net nie waar nie.
Argumente oor die doeltreffendheid van weerstand om politieke doelwitte te bereik, is 'n heel ander saak.
Maar die Arendt -aanhaling (geweld kan die mag vernietig, maar dit is absoluut nie in staat om dit te skep nie) is stewig gebaseer op direkte waarneming, sowel as 'n groot mate van geleerdheid oor politieke wetenskap, menslike gedrag, gesag, totalitarisme en geweld in die algemeen. U stelling is in stryd met dit sowel as my eie studie.
My vraag is: op watter praktiese werklikheid is die bewering wat u gemaak het, gebaseer?
Is daar 'n historiese basis vir u geloof? Ek weet nie van enige nie - vandaar die vraag.
En dit is nie 'n ad hominem nie. 'N Ad hominem sou beweer dat u argumente geen verdienste het nie, want u is 'n soort vuilnis wat weier om punte aan te spreek wat deur 'n teenargument gekenmerk word, en eerder betrokke is by hierdie akademiese reëls van retoriese dwaling.
Miskien werk ek nie regtig nie. Maar nee, ek het u argument baie ernstig opgeneem en ek het moeite gedoen om op te let dat ek persoonlik nie met u in stryd is nie.
En as dit nie implisiet duidelik was nie, sal ek dit duidelik stel: ek gee die ander argumente af (nie die meer irrasionele uitbarstings waaraan ons almal soms blootgestel word nie) - veral die idee dat 'n geweer -eienaar outomaties is - een 'n meer verantwoordelike burger - dit is nie so nie.
Ek het verder geen argument oor die getalle dooies of iets dergeliks nie. Ek is bereid om (soos hierbo) oor die moraliteit van die eienaarskap van vuurwapens te debatteer, maar dit is glad nie wat ek hier aangespreek het nie.
Wat ek wel gevra het - duideliker gestel: hoe is dit dan - of wat maak dit - onmoontlik vir 'n gewapende burger om die militêre mag van sy of haar land te weerstaan?
Ek het uiteengesit waarom ek die idee verwerp dat 'n regering oorweldigende geweld op sy eie onderwerpe sal gebruik op grond van die simboliek van mag (ek onthou inderdaad dat die Chinese moeite gedoen het om nie te hardloop oor 'n ongewapende burger wat 'n tenkkolom konfronteer nie) en ander redes - maklik gegoogle (aangesien my eie ervaring nie oop is vir objektiewe ondersoek nie).
Iets om u standpunt - op die stelling - te staaf, buite die dwalende woordeboek?
Om verder te verduidelik: ek sou 'n toegewing nie as 'n 'oorwinning' vir 'n voorgeweer-posisie beskou nie. My passie oor hierdie onderwerp is afgelei van die begeerte om die gebruik van vuurwapens behoorlik te klassifiseer - nie om die moraliteit daarvan vas te stel nie. Verskillende onderwerp.
Net soos ek die bogenoemde karakterisering - onverantwoordelike bombardement deur bestraling - van aborsie betwis.
(Alhoewel ek sal sê dat ek nog nooit verstaan het hoe sommige mense voorkeurs- en vuurwapen kan wees nie. Dit lyk nie inkonsekwent om te beweer dat die lewe van die ongeborenes sekondêr is aan die lewe en vryheid van die moeder nie, en die regering het geen pogings nie om hierdie lewens te beskerm, en tog weier om die vryheid te beskou as die belangrikste van die lewe as dit kom by die besit van vuurwapens.
Die uitgangspunt sou ek oorweeg om 'n fetus te oorweeg om nie 'lewe' te wees nie. Ek koop dit nie self nie (ek kies egter presies om die redes). Daar is sekere aspekte van tegniek en ander praktiese aspekte wat dikwels deur die magte aan die een of ander ideologiese kant verdraai word. Hierdie saak - handvatsels wat ondoeltreffend is teen militêre magte - sien ek in dieselfde trant en ek wil die verdraaiing verwyder, maar in elk geval nie in hierdie draad die ideologie betwis nie.)
geplaas deur Smedleyman om 16:04 op 27 Julie 2007 om 16:04
'N Mens hoef nie 'n soldaat te gewees het om die verskil tussen 'n geveg en 'n beroep te onderskei nie.
Tog was dit asof u dit nie kon doen nie.
Aanval op my en my persoonlike agtergrond in plaas van om my argument aan te val, is 'n ad hominem -argument. Lees daaroor.
In plaas daarvan om te lees, sal ek net sê dat ek dieselfde reaksie as Smedleyman gehad het - niemand met militêre ervaring sou geskryf het wat jy geskryf het nie. Maar dankie vir die nuttige raad, dink ek. Op sy beurt wil u miskien meer lees oor die geskiedenis van die ontwapening van bevolkings onder despotiese regerings. Daar is talle voorbeelde beskikbaar.
op 27 Julie 2007 om 16:07 deur my en my aap geplaas
Dit kom daarop neer: mense in die VSA wil hul pistole en semi-motors aanhang omdat hulle die regering wil beveg ['n hoogs onwaarskynlike scenario].
Is it so completely impossible for people to understand that for a lot of us, it's not about fighting off the government or defending our homes from pirates or whatever, and it's that we enjoy shooting? That is what the links here are about. A bunch of people who like to go out into a big empty space and shoot guns.
You can see in this very thread people have discussed how enjoyable they find this experience.
Meanwhile, any nutjob can get one and wipe out dozens of students on any campus in the country.
Ja. And any nutjob could also do the same thing with a knife, or a propane bomb, or a car. Nutjobs are nutjobs, the gun in their hand don't change that.
Am I the only person who sees this as a shitty trade-off?
No, there are lots of people just like you. Which is why whenever anyone posts anything about guns, invariably it turns into a discussion just like this one.
Surely a rifle would be good enough to defend yourself with. and a large rifle sure is hard to sneak into a school.
Again, not everyone who shoots is doing so to defend themselves. And in some cases, no a rifle is not an ideal choice to defend yourself. In a confined space for example.
But, no. People won't budge. Some of you won't be happy until you can own a Howitzer.
Is that an option?
posted by quin at 4:14 PM on July 27, 2007
It comes down to this: people in the US want to hang on to their pistols and semi-autos because they want to be able to fight off the government [a highly unlikely scenario]. Meanwhile, any nutjob can get one and wipe out dozens of students on any campus in the country.
Am I the only person who sees this as a shitty trade-off? Surely a rifle would be good enough to defend yourself with. and a large rifle sure is hard to sneak into a school.
I'm not sure why you're including semi-autos in this. Semi-auto or full-auto "assault weapons" of the sort in the video are very rarely used in crimes, and on top of that, many long-rifles of the typical hunting persuasion (i.e. the type you'd apparently let people keep) is semi-automatic.
Also, a rifle is certainly nie an appropriate weapon for self-defense. Rifles fire high-velocity, high-penetration rounds by design, which means they're likely to go right through the attacker, the wall behind him, the wall of the other house behind daardie, and then through your neighbor's kid. Rifles are offensive weapons meant for hitting something between 50 and 300+ yards away from you, not 5 yards or less, as in the case of a physical or handgun attack. This is the very reason why bayonets and/or handguns are carried by soldiers: because rifles don't make good defensive weapons. If you want a home-defense weapon, you want a handgun or a shotgun. and a handgun is much easier to secure and conceal, things you need to think about when choosing such a weapon.
So yeah, it's a trade-off, but not as simple a trade-off as you seem to think, particularly since Constitutional rights are in the mix. That goes double when you realize that our 200-million-plus guns kill around 15,000 non-suicides a year -- this doesn't exactly lend credence to the idea that guns are such tremendously hazardous objects that we ought not be allowed to have them. At best, a perfectly effective (and perfectly draconian) gun ban could save a few thousand lives. by eliminating a Constitutional right and disenfranchising millions. That's a shitty tradeoff, if you ask me.
posted by vorfeed at 4:19 PM on July 27, 2007
So vorfeed, you guys are willing to trade 15,000 lives a year for your right to own a pistol?
I think that says more than any argument I can make.
Besides, Smedleyman, if your arguments were really persuasive, wouldn't every country in Europe have already legalised gun ownership? Maybe they all think that 15,000 extra murders per year are too high a price to pay for 'freedom'.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:57 AM on July 29, 2007
So vorfeed, you guys are willing to trade 15,000 lives a year for your right to own a pistol?
I think that says more than any argument I can make.
For one thing, it's obviously not a direct trade. A perfectly effective gun ban might prevent 15,000 "gun deaths", but I rather doubt they'd prevent 15,000 deaths total, because I'm pretty sure people aren't going to immediately stop murdering each other if they don't have any access to guns. And at any rate, a perfectly effective ban on anything is a dream to begin with -- in reality, both criminals and citizens who want self-defense would simply turn to illegal sources for guns. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that would be a positive development.
Also, it's not just about "my right to own a pistol", it's about "my right not to have yet another perfectly harmless action turned into an excuse for the government to throw me in jail". Judging by how well the War on Drugs has worked (for the prison industry, that is), I'd say a War on Guns would probably end up ruining an order of magnitude more than 15,000 lives. We already have laws against murder. If you want to save lives, enforce those, and leave law-abiding people who don't hurt anybody alone.
Besides, I'd be willing to trade my life for my right to own a pistol, if need be. This may blow your mind, but some people really do have convictions that matter more than the simple existence of life. For me, one of those is self-defense.
Besides, Smedleyman, if your arguments were really persuasive, wouldn't every country in Europe have already legalised gun ownership? Maybe they all think that 15,000 extra murders per year are too high a price to pay for 'freedom'.
Here's another mind-blowing concept for you: different countries have different cultures! If (for example) the UK likes surveillance cameras more than guns, more power to them, and better them than us. I'm not interested in dictating the proper lifestyle for people in places I don't choose to live in, unlike some I could mention in this thread.
Also, considering that at least one country in Europe has not just legal, but compulsory gun ownership, maybe "freedom" is an important concept overseas as well. Then again, you'd have to actually know something about European gun ownership rates (hint: Guns are legal with restrictions in many EU countries. Some countries even have rates of per-capita firearm ownership close to ours, yet markedly lower homicide rates. So much for your easy trade-off.) And for more on the trade-off I mentioned earlier, read this, a paper written by an Austrian criminologist about gun control in the EU. The bottom line: gun control doesn't have an obvious effect on crime rates, but it doen have an obvious effect on rates of illegal gun running and on civil rights. For more on the non-connection between legal gun ownership and crime, try Gark Kleck's "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America".
posted by vorfeed at 11:55 AM on July 29, 2007
Thanks for a well-made argument: if it really does come down to culture over facts, let me be the first to say that I'm glad that I live in a country that eschews guns. Are my kids less likely to be shot living here or living in the states?
Here.
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:17 PM on July 29, 2007
Oh, come on. "Culture over facts"? I haven't seen a single supported fact from you this entire time. Nor have you responded to any argument made in this thread, other than to insult people and make snarky and/or factually incorrect one-liners.
At any rate, it's clear that you're only interested in making assertions, not arguments. Funny how someone who claims that "Americans will never come to see reason on this issue" hasn't actually employed any rede to back up his beliefs. Yes, you value a sense of personal safety over gun rights -- good for you, perhaps now you'll bother to make some argument as to why such values should be adopted by Americans, or, failing that, why we should be considered "idiots" for not sharing them. I've given plenty of reasoning to support my position, but I'm not seeing any from you, and I'm getting tired of bothering when it's obvious that you're not really interested in challenging your previously-held notions on this issue. Easier to think of people on the other side of the issue as fools, I suppose.
p.s. Correlation (e.g. "the UK has relatively few guns and a relatively low violent crime rate") is not causation (e.g. "if the US also had relatively few guns, it would therefore have a relatively low violent crime rate"). There are many differences between your country and mine that het been shown to have a strong causative relationship with violent crime (namely poverty and inequality), and I've shown that there's a distinct lack of such a connection with regards to gun possession. So, while I understand why the relative lack of violent crime in the UK affects your own opinion about which country you'd like to live in, I don't see why it should have anything to do with American gun policy, and, by extension, this argument.
posted by vorfeed at 9:33 PM on July 29, 2007
“Besides, Smedleyman, if your arguments were really persuasive,”
Apparently my previous comment held absolutely no sway, or you ignored it, or are incapable of understanding the difference.
The point being - what arguments? My contention with you is over a point of fact.
“Maybe they all think that 15,000 extra murders per year are too high a price to pay for 'freedom'.”
Perhaps all the babies aborted each year are too high a price to pay for the “freedom” to choose.
- you see, that’s one of the (many) reasons my argument is over the reality of the situation and meaning of the words.
Forgive me for belaboring certain points, I don’t mean to insult your intellect, but you don’t seem to be understanding it. That there that I just did? That’s an example of how you are attempting to characterize the argument devoid of acknowleging that certain facts are contended. It’s similar to arguing a practical point with a religious fanatic or a pro-lifer. Many of them refuse to acknowlege the practical points against their “facts.” This doesn’t dispute the ideology, merely the realities. Yet they refuse to relinquish them when faced with solid evidence.)
Some countries don’t bring moralistic arguments into a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body - I favor that because although morally I’m entirely pro-life, I can’t in good conscience allow the government to have that power. For me it’s a legal right, period. Similar to gay marriage - which I oppose, but I respect the legal right. There’s a difference between the practical applications of power in terms of how it violates rights or creates a privileged class and any given moral standard.
Some countries have legalized drug usage, I favor that (in some cases) as well. I see many willing to sacrifice their health for the sake of certain freedoms.
But again - this is academic as you refuse to concede to any facts brought to bear that interfere with your ideology.
To again belabor the point - while I refuse to allow the government to interfere with the birth cycle - I do so on principle. Not because of any given technique of abortion - whether one is painful or harmful or not. That would be a sub-set of the overall question. And obviously I would oppose any harmful technique.
In much the same way “kids getting shot” is a subset of the overall question of gun ownership that is obviously universally opposed. The two positions - while related - are different in kind.
While I happen to agree with vorfeed that you have not brought any reasonable argument to support your position, I suspect that it is because you do not understand this difference. I’m not saying you’re stupid or anything, it is often the case that deeply held beliefs can occlude, in the passion to pursue them, a clearer perspective of not only what others are saying, but what one is saying oneself.
And vorfeed’s patience has been exemplary. My own is at an end.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:48 AM on July 30, 2007
Easier to think of people on the other side of the issue as fools, I suppose.
I don't think that either of you are fools I think you're people who are convinced that guns make you safer. This is merely perception.
So, while I understand why the relative lack of violent crime in the UK affects your own opinion about which country you'd like to live in, I don't see why it should have anything to do with American gun policy, and, by extension, this argument.
You're right it's too late. Even in the event of a ban, there are too many guns in America to ever be recovered. Keep your pistol. just don't point the fucking thing at me and mine.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:10 PM on July 30, 2007
Thanks for trying to change my mind. Right before I left the states, three kids were executed on prom night. This was very near my house.
I can't say that it made me feel very good about sending my kids to said high school.
Call me stubborn.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:13 PM on July 30, 2007
I don't think that either of you are fools I think you're people who are convinced that guns make you safer. This is merely perception.
Here's something you said in an earlier post. In case you have problems finding it, it's just a few posts before you started crying about ad-hominem:
"Note to anyone stupid enough to believe the old chestnut about defending yourself from your own government [. ] You are an idiot."
It's pretty hard for me to take your "I don't think that either of you are fools" statement seriously, considering that you came right out and said the opposite just a couple of days ago. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Also, please find even ONE place in this thread where I said something to the effect that I believe guns "make you safer". I haven't used the word "safe" at all, other than to describe your position, because I personally believe that feelings of "safety" are misleading and ultimately meaningless. What guns do is give you the ability to fight and kill if necessary, and that's clearly not safe in the least. I have guns precisely because I'm nie willing to bet my life and well-being on passive ideals of "safety". Instead, I cherish active values of self-sufficiency and self-defense: that is to say, the personal, physical ability to fight unto death, if need be. This is probably why we've been talking over each other -- we have two very different world-views. I'm not interested in your "safety", and you're not interested in my "freedom". It's the sort of cultural difference one can live with. until you start smearing shit on the latter, yes?
As for my conviction being "merely perception", tell me: since there is no evidence that rates of gun possession have a direct relationship with rates of violent crime, how is your own conviction that a lack of neighbors with guns makes you safer not also merely perception? What do you think convictions even is, if not matters of mere perception? Yes, optimally, they should be backed up by facts. but that's why I don't understand your continual failure to offer any to defend your point of view.
At any rate, I was right -- you're NOT interested in reason or in responding to anyone's points, as demonstrated by yet another specious bunch of one-liners. I'm more than happy to exercise politeness and reason in debate (or "patience", as Smedleyman kindly put it), but when you fail to respond in kind, even after having been repeatedly called out for it, I'm just wasting my time.
posted by vorfeed at 5:42 PM on July 30, 2007
I cherish active values of self-sufficiency and self-defense: that is to say, the personal, physical ability to fight unto death, if need be.
That says it all, vorfeed: you're willing to take another life if need be, and I'm not.
If someone wants to rob me (which could happen almost anywhere), I'll certainly try and disarm the person or diffuse the situation, but if I have no choice, I'd rather give them the money than kill them. I'm no killer, and I don't wish to be.
You're correct: this is a waste of time.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:48 AM on July 31, 2007
Chuckdarwin, if you fear murder, you are right to live in the UK, because guns aside, it is a less murderous culture. Personally, I fear death in general for myself and my loved ones. I don't want to be run over, misdiagnosed, exposed to bad nutrition, or die in a household accident. As far as I'm concerned, gun homicide is a drop in the bucket when compared to the statistics of death. The best thing I can do for me and mine is shorten our time on the roadways.
You are right that it is too late for America to embrace gun control. There are over 200 million guns in this country, and at least 39% of households have one. Judging by the countries that have gun bans and higher gun homicide rates like Mexico, I doubt it would have gotten us anything positive to ban them.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:24 PM on July 31, 2007
« Older Are They Not KoRn? | Don't Go Breakin' My Art Newer »
Kentucky: Roar of the Tommy Guns, smell of the crowd
WEST POINT, Ky | Sat Oct 20, 2012
The slow-moving snarl last weekend brought upwards of 17,000 people to Knob Creek’s three-day Machine Gun Shoot, an event that twice a year draws machine gun collectors and enthusiasts from around the country to test out weapons like Tommy Guns, water-cooled Brownings and M16s.
“Guns aren’t bad,” said Knob Creek manager Kenny Sumner. “They’re only bad when the wrong people have them.”
The event, which started in the 1970s and bills itself as the country’s largest, shows the attraction for some people of firing off renowned big guns, even as the presidential candidates spar over whether modern military-style weapons should be allowed in civilian hands.
In the recent debate, President Barack Obama said he would back an assault weapons ban, while Republican candidate Mitt Romney said he’s not in favor of such a law, though he signed one while governor of Massachusetts.
Machine gun shoots like Knob Creek – and this weekend’s competing Big Sandy shoot in Arizona – offer enthusiasts a rare opportunity to get their hands on fully automatic weapons, which can be difficult to buy under federal laws, and to fire a variety of them.
Most of the guns used and sold at machine gun shoots are fairly old. Federal law prohibits private individuals from possessing or acquiring machine guns other than those lawfully registered before 1986.
Inside the gates of the Knob Creek Shoot, gun dealers mingled with Tea Party activists and sport shooters. Knives, ammunition, all types of guns and accessories, and bumper stickers were on sale from about 225 vendors.
There were military insignias, tri-cornered hats and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. At least one booth sold flags and banners with swastikas, and uniformed paramilitary groups also displayed signs bearing the Nazi symbol.
Most of the vendors were arrayed around the range’s main firing line, the event’s center stage with weapons pre-positioned on tripods or other mounts.
Concession stands and the National Rifle Association signup booth shared prime real estate next to a line of packed bleachers. Nearly everyone used ear protection to counter the extreme roar from the simultaneous firing of well over a dozen machine guns only a few feet away.
Dust, smoke and the smell of gunpowder filled the air.
Targets included old appliances, cars and boats spread out down a narrow, wooded valley, some perched on the hillsides, others right handy to the shooters. Some were set ablaze by tracer bullets. The night show, which featured barrels of fuel with pyrotechnic charges attached, resulted in fiery mushroom clouds and fireballs.
Admission for adults was $10. The crowd was almost entirely white, with twice as many men as women. Kids under age 12, mostly boys, some riding their fathers’ shoulders, got in for half price. Some even got to have their own quality time with an assault weapon.
Nine-year-old Cody Miller from Cincinnati was among them. At a secondary firing range a few hundred yards from the main one, a gun range assistant laid an empty ammo box on the ground for the youngster to stand on to fire a Soviet-made PKS heavy machine gun.
“Are you ready for this?” the spotter asked. The boy nodded and opened fire as his proud father looked on and photographed the scene. Cody said this was his second year firing machine guns. No big deal, he shrugged.
“We shoot a lot,” explained his father, Jeff Miller.
Joshua Horwitz, director of the Washington-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said his group has no position on organized shooting events like Knob Creek.
“Our feeling is that if you’re going to use a firearm, that’s the place to do it – on a range,” said Horwitz, whose organization is typically at odds with the National Rifle Association on relaxing gun laws.
Horwitz said he does see something disturbing in the symbolism and right-wing themes that sometimes emerge at shoots.
“Often at these events … we see vestiges of the insurrectionist idea – the idea that firearms are to be stockpiled and used against the government,” he said.
Many people who attend such events profess patriotism, he said, but “their contempt for the government borders on treason.
“I worry far more about the political ideology of these events than I do the firearms.”
(Reporting by Steve Robrahn Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Prudence Crowther)
The blast wave thumping into my body felt familiar. My mind flashed to a memory — face full of grit, ears ringing, eyes fixed on a convulsing, dying 13-year-old boy whose legs had been blown off by a bomb hidden on a dirt path in Southern Afghanistan.
I began to take a knee, but paused. I was not in a war zone. I am no longer a soldier. I was in America, at a gun range in Kentucky. This was a show, an experience manufactured for my entertainment. The muted grunts from a child’s blood-filled mouth were replaced by cheers and rebel yells.
The Knob Creek Gun Range is 30 minutes outside of Louisville near the town of West Point, on a former military testing range. Twice a year, the range hosts “the Machine Gun Shoot,” arguably the most famous — and impressive — display of civilian-owned firepower in America.
For three days in late October, the firing line was packed. Shooters unloaded everything from the type of gas-operated machine guns my grandfather used in World War II to the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon I was first given as an 18-year-old Infantryman. They shot weapons I’ve fired, and weapons that have been fired at me. They aimed downrange at cars, washing machines, kitchen appliances, barrels filled with explosives, and even a boat. Thousands of spectators watched from a nearby observation stand, their smartphones extended skyward to capture the action.
Attending the shoot as a veteran was a complex experience. My first instinct was to try to convince myself that I was having fun. The shoot felt like an essentially American activity, after all — regular citizens legally and safely fire fully automatic weapons and blow inanimate objects to smithereens. Fully automatic weapons are almost exclusively owned by collectors — they cost tens of thousands of dollars — and are almost never used in crimes.
Some of the attendees were curious onlookers, or enthusiasts looking to vent some pent up frustration or stress by paying hundreds of dollars to blow up a propane tank or annihilate an old car. Between firing sets, shooters and spectators were allowed to walk out on the range to observe the targets torn apart and aflame. Children posed for photographs next to burning cars and skipped between pockmarked household appliances, digging through the dirt to find bullets that were theirs to keep.
But the novelty quickly wore off. It felt too much like a raw outpouring of the new masculine standard of American gun culture: possessing weapons systems and gear more complicated and high-tech than what I carried into combat. And there was hatred on display.
People sported shirts emblazoned with “Armed Infidel” or “Fuck Hillary.” In the range’s vendor area, sellers offered tables of guns, armor, and survivalist equipment. One sold Nazi uniforms, billed for “re-enactment purposes.” Another offered a t-shirt that read, “Lee Harvey, we need you now!” in bold block letters across the front. Several sheriff’s deputies stopped momentarily to observe the message, but continued on their way.
While walking the grounds I noticed a familiar sight, the Army’s Combat Action Badge on the hat of a man in his mid-20s, my age. He’d served two tours in Iraq, he told me. He was also an avid weapons collector. I asked about some of the anti-government rhetoric I’d heard, and seen — and what he thought about the recent arrest of several anti-government extremists in rural Kansas who had been caught plotting a terror attack on Somali immigrants.
“What do you think the guys hauling off all this gear and ammo at the show are doing?” he joked, implying that some people in attendance might be capable of similar plots.
As the sun set, I settled into the stands to watch the long weekend’s main event: the night fire: literally, shooting high-powered weapons after dark. Explosions lit up the sky. I snapped photos and enjoyed the view, but I couldn’t help but think of that shirt.
The attempted terrorists in Kansas were outed by a colleague, who alerted police to the same types of words and political energy I’d seen worn on t-shirts and patches all weekend. At Knob Creek, most of the crowd, I assumed, was harmless: people who like big guns and have the money to spend on them. But I’m worried that the violent words might escalate to action — that what’s billed as entertainment and play is practice for something real.
Alex Flynn is a photographer working out of Missouri and New York. He spent six years in the Army, serving as an infantryman and then as a combat correspondent.
Machine gun shoot vacation (VIDEO)
While some people call a beach and hammock their vacation place, Richard Creager of Frederick, Maryland likes to relax and unwind at the bi-annual Knob Creek machine gun shoot in West Point, Kentucky. ‘Its one of the few things I do for vacation.’ He says.
He’s obviously not alone. Dozens of other machine gun enthusiasts wait up to ten years to get a spot on the coveted firing line where they get to fire off a few thousand rounds at exploding targets. Tens of thousands of spectators attend the event to watch the ruckus.
Richard brings a small arsenal with him. Among his favorites firearms are an assortment of AKs, some of which he made himself, a 1910 Maxim machine gun and a model 1917 Lewis gun. Referring to his guns, he says, ‘They’re reliable and that’s kind of my hobby. I enjoy shooting them and they have a little history with them which is interesting.’
He insists that anyone that enjoys guns must attend the night shoot at the Knob Creek. It takes place on the Saturday night of the event and is second to none in terms of sheer firepower and explosions.
Read More On:
Latest Reviews
The Glock 19 Gen 5 is a great pistol, that’s one of the reasons it was a top seller in 2020. The FN 509 is also an excellent polymer-framed handgun manufactured by one of the premier companies in this industry. We compare the two for defensive use.
Perfect for year-round concealed carry, Inside the Waistband aka IWB holsters are among the most popular style of holster sold today. IWB concealed carry keeps the holster and your gun out of sight and extremely secure.
Leupold puts hunters on the straight path to success with their new BX-5 Santiam binoculars. Many hunters already top their rifles with Leupold optics, but the time is now for these premium handhelds.
Knob Creek Late Night Gun Shoot - HISTORY
Upcoming on the History Channel:
Knob Creek Gun Range: #90.
Airs on Tuesday, January 3 at 8:00pm ET
Host R. Lee Ermey heads to Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky, outside of Fort Knox, for the Knob Creek Shoot, a weekend when machine-gun owners and collectors converge for unbridled mayhem. At this former military-munitions test range, shooters nationwide come to buy, sell, and trade.
First, the Gunny shows us around, talks about the history, hits sales tables, and fires off a few thousand rounds--from state-of-the-art to early vintage.
Next, Lee takes a turn on the "Jungle Walk", a machine-gun shooting course with hidden targets and dense brush to recreate what it was like for the grunts in Viet Nam and he gets a lift on a mule to the Knob Creek helipad where he goes aloft in a Cayuse OH-6A Helicopter for the range's aerial shooting course.
Then, it's the night shoot, when you really get to see raw power as machine guns shoot tracers and fire at targets filled with diesel fuel and dynamite, incinerating cars, refrigerators, and oil drums.
Now, since not all of you have access to the History Channel, you can download the entire program and watch it at your leisure. Be warned, however, that it's a 47 meg. file! If you don't have broadband, don't even try!
1 Comments:
A friend of mine was down there at the time and go to meet him.
He said he was a very nice, friendly guy, and interestingly, a total chick-magnet.
2008 Steel Challenge World Championships, Piru, California.
ABC News Used Footage From a Kentucky Gun Show and Said It Was Syrian Warfare
Trust in the news media is at historic lows. Days like today won't make it any better.
During Sunday evening and Monday morning broadcasts, ABC News showed footage from a gun show at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky. Except they told viewers it was a showdown between Syria and Turkey.
"We've taken down video that aired on World News Tonight Sunday en Goeie môre Amerika this morning that appeared to be from the Syrian border immediately after questions were raised about its accuracy," a network representative told the Washington Examiner, which first reported this story. "ABC News regrets the error."
Tensions have indeed escalated between Turkish forces and the Syrian Kurds after President Donald Trump abruptly pulled back U.S. troops from northern Syria, essentially greenlighting an invasion from Turkey. "Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria," said a statement from the White House last week. There have already been reports of violence, including footage of Turkish militants executing a group of civilians and a Kurdish politician on the side of a highway.
Many say Trump's sudden decision was devoid of foresight, which made a bad situation much worse. Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), a non-interventionist by all means, tweeted that the president "facilitated a disaster" in choosing this course.
"The situation rapidly spiraling out of control in northern Syria," said ABC News anchor Tom Llamas as he narrated the video clip on Sunday. "One week since President Trump ordered U.S. forces out of that region, effectively abandoning America's allies in the fight against [the Islamic State]."
So perhaps ABC was searching for footage—dramatic, explosive footage—that confirmed that narrative. Or maybe it was a clumsy mistake. Whatever it was, it shows how few journalists understand the particulars of guns.
Last year, for instance, the Eksaminator highlighted an Associated Press story which continuously differentiated between semi-automatic and non-automatic rifles, which are the same thing. Perhaps more seriously, "assault weapons"—a vague term that no one quite understands—are constantly compared to machine guns and weapons of war, although they fire at the same speed as other semi-automatic weapons.
Those mistakes are relatively small, though, when compared with ABC's latest blunder.
2013 Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot In One Word…Bacchanalia!
USA –-(Ammoland.com)- The Knob Creek Machine Gun shoot runs Friday through Sunday, twice a year, and Saturday night is the main event.
About an hour before dark, folks are out on the range setting up all sorts of explosives while a crowd builds, anxiously awaiting what we all know is coming.
The lights go out, and the next thing you know machine guns are going off for almost 20 straight minutes. This year’s October 2013 edition did not disappoint. I’ve now crossed this off of my “Things to Do Before I Die” lys.
Check out the video below, other than the beginning, my favorite part is at the 5:50 mark. Geniet dit! Oh yeah, turn your volume all the way up for best effect.
