Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)



Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1144849466.444116.220170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
James F. Mayer wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144845944.496716.235030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0:-> wrote:
Homespun Inc. wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
.............snip.......................

(And I hope nobody is going to try to dance around about how pistols
are just as deadly as high-caliber long guns and submachine guns.
The
fact is that certain long-guns and submachine guns are more deadly in
the hands of a trained user than a handgun.
How much more deadly does it get than lethal?

That's why SWAT teams
don't use pistols-- despite their high level of training.)
Actually they do use pistols.
Not only do they use pistols, there is a preference for my all time
favorite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911
"In the meantime, the M1911A1 design is also favored by a large number
of police SWAT teams throughout the United States. A large number of
military and law enforcement organizations in the United States continue
to use (often modified) M1911A1 pistols because they favor the stopping
power of the .45 cartridge and the superior handling of the weapon in
close fighting. Marine Force Recon, Los Angeles Police Department
Special Weapons and Tactics and Special Forces Operational Detachment
Delta (Delta Force) are among some of them. "

Funny now even the US Military Tactical squads like them too. I would
have sworn someone said they weren't carried.
That is NOT what was said. Nice try, weasel. (Must you lie?)
You are either a sloppy liar, or unbelievable stupid about guns.

Why must you lie? You have been caught too many times to have much
credibility left. Why don't you just admit that you are a gun controller
posing as a gun rights advocate?
I am NOT one of you. I'm me. I DO advocate certain limitations on the
right to keep and bear arms.

Sure, we've seen them, and rejected them as unacceptable.

They are no more restrictive than those
that exist now.

And since we already consider the current restrictions to be way to restrictive, guess where that puts your limitations?

They are largely much less restrictive.

How is a prohibition on machine guns less restrictive than the current paperwork requirements?

How is prohibiting the carrying of long arms less restricting that the current legality?

How is the prohibition of ownership of ammunition for urban dwellers less restrictive than it's current legality?

Indeed, exactly what is less restrictive? The nominal carrying of a handgun? Sorry, but I already have that and can do so in many states. The few additions wouldn't be worth the restrictions you wish to impose.


I also
advocate broader protections on the right to keep and bear arms.

ROFL...first you tell us you want nothing more restrictive than we currently have, then you tell us you want to eliminate the very restrictions you state you advocate. You need to make up your mind, either you are advocating limitations as restrictive as those we have now, or you're not.


I
don't care what you call me. I am what I am.

A gun grabber trying to appear as a moderate gun owner?

We've seen your like before.


For example, I don't want you carrying automatic weapons in the street.

So much for your claim that what you advocate is no more restrictive than what we have now.

So tell us, when you told us that were you confused about your position, or lying about it?

Because I don't trust you not to do something stupid with it.

A typical gun grabber attitude. Tell me, why should I trust you with a computer?


A
concealed handgun-- when I'm carrying my own-- puts me on equal footing
with you.

You're free to carry your own automatic weapon if you like.

I'm not going to be outgunned then.

So what sort of handgun are you going to carry? A 454? after all if you're not careful you might be outgunned by someone with a bigger, more powerful, with greater capacity than your whimpy little handgun.

Why is it that gun grabbers feel that you can't defend yourself unless you carry the biggest baddest gun out there. Is it projection or ignorance?

And I suspect my level
of training and experience will beat your nutiness if you do go wack.

Well, speaking of suspecting your level of training and experience, let me just say I do. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the stupid ass comments about SWAT and tried to assert you were correct in your claims because of your involvement with military tactical teams, who also have and use handguns contrary to your initial assertion.

You may also note that Home Spun has claimed that he'd rather not be outgunned by someone who carries an H&K MP-9 - yet he carries (or claims to) a Baby Eagle. Now if he'd bought the .45 ACP version, he'd have no reason to feel, well, inadequate on the streets! =8P

Actually, if he feels threatened by an MP-9, all he has to do is to outrun the man who is carrying five pounds of gun, plus ammo.

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.