I started a thread in this forum about open carry gun nuts and I've been barraged by gun/NRA apologists for the last 3 days. I almost thought I'd posted in a gun worshiper website, not a liberal Democratic site.

I suggest donning an asbestos suit! Some people here seem to be DEVOTED to the church of the sacred firearm. Apparently, the true answer to gun violence is to throw more guns at the problem.

in 12 years here I'd put a total of 6 people on ignore. in the last 72 hours, I've added NINE more to that list from ONE thread...Yikes!

PEACE!

...is that some people cling to their guns and religion.

I believe that for some people their guns ARE their religion. Yuck & yikes!

PEACE!

I do from time to time drop a piece of information here but because I have so many on ignore I can't see the worst offenders.

That said, recently some of the denizens of the gungeon made positive contributions in GCRA. It's hard to see the people open to honest discussion through the swarm of necroguniacs but it's still worth the effort to offer thought provoking threads.

The emotional need of Controllers for epistemological closure probably explains why they're such miserable failures in the political arena. The inability to debate around the water cooler leaves them defenseless answering even the most basic inquiries of the Undecideds. Meanwhile, those who defend rights are capable of offering retorts and do so readily and without being contradicted by their Controller counterparts.

The only way gun control advances is by circumventing the democratic process. Hence the late night passage of the NY-SAFE Act, the Colorado senate's disgraceful shutting out of rape survivors, EveryLie.org patsies sent to testify but unable to answer basic questions without having to phone a friend, etc.

Gun control doesn't just fear guns it resents free speech, freedom of conscience, equal participation, not to mention their willingness to dispense with other rights enshrined in the such as 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendment rights.

...I've "ignored" 6 people. In ONE thread in the last 3 days, I've added another 9.

Gee, did you know that gun rights are a foundation of liberal philosophy?

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, but the NRA sponsored paranoia is just too damned much.

PEACE!

Willful ignorance isn't really something to be proud about.

Whenever I see someone banging on about "I have X posters on my ignore list",
the phrase "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" comes to mind:

...I have chosen to ignore the willfully ignorant.

6 in 12 years hardly indicates that I'm too fast to pull the trigger on the ignore button. Or perhaps, I should have seen the light and have been converted to the church of the sacred firearm?

I think you are implying that the NRA is sponsoring paranoia. Since I am not a member and not privvy to its tactics, does that sponsorship extend to DU?

Actually, "gun rights" is a sloppy, sometimes mis-leading expression (like "assault weapon&quot . Do you mean the RKBA? If so, that right IS a foundational component of liberal philosophy. It may not jibe with some peoples' notion of " progressivism" (a latter-day outlook), but the right to self-defense, and the recognition of that right (and possession of weaponry to effect defense) is within the liberal tradition even before the founding of this country.

..."Obama is coming fer yer GUNS" had to come from somewhere.

I've always wanted to ask Wayne LaPierre if a mass shooter turns his gun on himself, does he automatically go from being a bad guy with a gun to being a good guy with a gun?

I have no problem with the responsible practice of RKBA. At one time I owned 3 guns. I legally sold them because my then fiancé, now wife of 17 years, was uncomfortable with them when she moved in with me. he meant a lot more to me than any stupid gun. Have you ever tried to make love with a gun?

My problem is with the Sledge Hammer wannabe open carry nuts who feel the need to have their assault rifles with them anywhere

Or do just object to idiots open carrying rifles to get attention?

...that I have no issue or problem with responsible gun ownership.

My problem is with the idiot gun nut ammosexuals who feel the need to have their assault rifles with them when they go to a restaurant for a cheeseburger or to the supermarket for groceries. I will not stay with my family in the same place with these idiots and I'll make damn sure that the manager knows why we're leaving. I've been doing this for at least 10 years when Igo into a place with Fox "News" on. I always ask that it be turned off. I'm a strong believer in voting with my pocketbook.

All 3 guns that I've owned in my life were revolvers. I never saw the need for anything more. If someone legally buys and responsibly owns an assault rifle, I'm OK with that. Just don't wave it in front of my or my wife or son's faces.

I shoot recreationally and competitively with an AR that is also set up for defensive use. I could see taking it camping, but carrying it into a restaurant or grocery shopping would be pretty silly from either a defensive or a public-relations standpoint, and IMO being intentionally rude to others is stupid and counterproductive no matter who does it.

FWIW, I have a carry license and carry a 9mm, concealed, and have only open carried camping/hiking or in other circumstances in which it wouldn't make a scene; I don't believe any non-gunnie has ever noticed me carrying in the 20+ years I've been licensed to do so. Quietly and responsibly carrying a gun while going about one's daily business is one thing; parading around the grocery store with a FAL saying "look at meeeee!" or trying to get a negative reaction is quite another.

The 3 guns I've owned in my life were all revolvers. I know that I could've learned how to shoot & properly care for a 9mm or (as was more popular when I had my guns) a 45, but I honestly didn't have the confidence hay I wouldn't shoot my toes off. If I were in law enforcement, I'd have danged well LEARNED!

When I see someone with a holstered weapon, as you described your carrying, I notice it but I don't make an issue of it. I figure that they have a reason to have it such as their employment.

PEACE!

Listen for a few more years back when the controllers/MSM were calling for wholesale bans while Obama was spearing fish in Hawaii.

The phenomenon of people walking around witth long guns won' t grow and will probably fade. It only looks big because MSM likes to stir the pot. Funny, most everyone I've talked to have seen the dozen or so with rifles at one time or another. But it's always a surprise when I show them a picture of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. They haven't seen it before, even when the Club does their thing in Dallas & Houston, 200 miles away. The reason being that it doesn't fit the GunzNarrative™ of crazy RW white (usually) men brandishing guns. Try the experiment yourself.

...that Wayne LaPierre's ravnigs are the media's fault...and implying that President Obama takes too many vacations/

Please!

What I said is there. Another way:

The NRA is a creature of its times: When well-placed elitist gun controllers -- most esp. MSM -- went after the Second, it became the Really Big Shoe! of today.

As to speculations on the utterances of the dehyrated Frenchman, I don't bother with them. Do you?

...when a madman is screaming in my ear on the news so consistently it's kinda hard to not hear.

Unless one chooses to be deaf.

...when a madman is on the news screaming in our ears every 4 1/2 seconds it's kinda hard not to hear it.

I don't remember specifically but I'm sure we've had differences.

He's to some common ground.

agree the nra wields to much power.


sorry going off topic. i believe i read somewhere that you have a C&R licences.

im interested in starting a mosin collection, and i heard that obtaining a C&R licences will allow me to buy them cheaper. opposed to buying them individually from stores/online.

how difficult is it to obtain a C&R? does it vary by state?

thank you in advance for any info. you provide.

But will enable you to buy them without a background check every time.

You might find this useful:

http://www.garandgear.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=39:howtos&id=94:car-ffl

And here is a PDF of the application form for a FFL 03 License (C&R):

https://www.atf.gov/file/61516/download

Good luck with the Mosins. A lot of the lower priced 1891's have already been snapped up.

agree, i entered the game too late, the majority of mosins are already taken. i have an m44, but want a scoped m91/30.

like this

Having one makes it possible to buy across state lines from other FFLs w/o BG checks because you'll be checked by everybody from DOJ to local animal control. You have to keep detailed records and turn them in to the ATF when it lapses. Most of the "good" (russian) MNs are gone and all the 7.5 swiss. If all ya' want is a shooter it's not worth it. I got one so I could buy one for each of my 5 grand kids and me as well. When they turn 18 I'll transfer a rifle to each of them if they're interested. Not the highest quality piece of gear but historic. You'll save about $30 each in taxes and markup.

"Not the highest quality piece of gear"

agree, but they are almost indestructible, and idiot proof. that's why i bought one.

if i had the money i would have bought an M1.

if the license lapses without renewal. That requirement is for licensees who maintain a business.

Found this reference on the ATF website:

Q: Are licensed collectors required to turn in their acquisition/disposition records to ATF if their collector’s license is not renewed or they discontinue their collecting activity?
No. The GCA requires the delivery of required records to the Government within 30 days after a firearm “business” is discontinued. A license as a collector of curios or relics does not authorize any business with respect to firearms. This is in contrast to firearm importers, manufacturers, and dealers who are licensed to engage in a firearms business. Therefore, the records required to be kept by licensed collectors under the law and regulations are not business records and are not required to be turned in to ATF when collectors’ licenses are not renewed or collecting activity under such licenses is discontinued.
[18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4), 18 U.S.C 27 CFR18 U.S.C 478.127]

bow to you on this one.

They're so understaffed and overworked it's not surprising a phone staffer would make a mistake. Still, I'll send them a copy just in case one turns up in the wrong place.

Always better safe than sorry.

and when I did it was a bit expensive.

This sub thread is getting way off SOP.

hand picked, very sweet rifle. Shoots beautifully.

Haven't shot it yet. Life has been getting in the way of my recreation lately.

No, the title isn't my opinion but something an 'acquaintance' tried to explain to me the other day. At first I thought he was trolling but he turned out to be completely serious.

Him: Background checks should be illegal
Me: Huh?
Him: They're anti-liberty
Me: They're meant to keep weapons out of the hands of felons and crazies
Him: Felons and crazies have just as much a right to bear arms as everyone else
Me: Felons and crazies have a much higher chance of hurting innocent people with those arms
Him: Yeah, but are they hurting anyone just by possessing firearms?
Me: No, it's the greater likelihood that they'll hurt someone that's the issue
Him: Then they're just being punished for crimes they haven't committed yet. Only commies believe in that
Me: What if they then do go and shoot up a school or movie theater eventually?
Him: Then you treat them just like any other murders. Besides, if every single person carried concealed then the felons and crazies would get shot and killed before they ever had a chance to hurt someone

Maybe I shouldn't have been so surprised as he also likes to talk about concealed carry in terms of 'mutually assured destruction.' In other words, if 100% of the population were armed and ready to 'draw down,' then the sane among us wouldn't dare to commit a crime and the insane would be killed the instant they tried to hurt someone.

Background checks are based on someone being duly adjudicated as a felon or dangerously mentally ill. Prisons are anti-liberty but they're predicated on the idea that those being deprived of their liberties surrendered those liberties after due process found them guilty of a crime.