The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I've always liked guns, when I was in Jr. High and worked at K-Mart I got a co-worker to sell me my first pellet gun without my parents present because I was not old enough. Anyway, I target shot pellet guns with my friends all through high school, and really had a nice little collection.

Well, my girlfriends family is from the country, a real rural town in SW Colorado and her dad has a very impressive gun collection. We used to go shooting on occasion when I would visit their house, and it's a pretty good time. Since I've always been interested in firearms I decided I would buy myself one with my tax refund check (I got it back already because I sent my taxes out so early.)

About a week ago I bought a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber semi automatic. I figured it'd be a nice balance between the 9mm and the .45, and it is. I really like the feel of it, and have a blast (pun intended) shooting it.

What's funny though is... all my "country" friends think it is a cool gun and a wise purchase, all my "city" friends think I wasted my money and can't immagine what on earth I would want to have a gun for. Who's right? lol.

Anyway, do any of you guys or gals out there own guns? What for? Practice? Defense? Hunting?

.357 magnum. i like the balance and "feel" in my hance. been a fan for over 15 years.

My father has a decent collection going. Mostly hand-me-downs and collector's pieces. I'm in the process of getting my firearm ID and permits. First purchas I'm going to make is a WWII german mauser k98. Mostly for collector's purposes and maybe to shoot once or twice a year. I'll build a historical collection from there.

Skinsfan55 wrote:What's funny though is... all my "country" friends think it is a cool gun and a wise purchase, all my "city" friends think I wasted my money and can't immagine what on earth I would want to have a gun for. Who's right? lol.

Your freinds are looking at it from their point of veiw. The freinds in the "country" have guns for the same reasons you seem to enjoy them. In the "country" you'll find time to go out back and put up some cans or even hit the range, time permitting you might even go hunting. But back in the city, guns (hand guns in particular) have a totally different meaning, for most people in the city they don't buy them for personal enjoyment, if they do it's normally a rifle.

You have a right to own a gun but it's better to have a good reason. You sound like you have both bases covered

I love to target shoot both handguns and rifles. I own a .357 magnum, it's great because you can shoot .38 cal. ammo and save some money when practicing. I also own an M-1 Garand. It was the rifle that US troops used in WW 2 and Korea. I don't shoot that one very often, it's more of a collector gun.
My favorite is my Ruger 10/22 rifle with a scope and bull barrel. You can shoot all day long and not get a sore shoulder or overheated gun. It's very accurate, with the scope you can put your second shot through the same hole as your first with no problem.

I have a 12 gauge shotgun and a .40 Springfield XD w/ a tactical light mounted underneath the barrel. I love shooting both of them. I think your country friends are right BTW. Anyways, I find that .40 caliber is a nice fit. I got mine for a couple of reasons. Self-defense and for shooting enjoyment. I am not going to worry if someone breaks into my house while I'm at home. I have more than a golf club or a bat that he has to worry about!

Now, I don't want to shoot anyone. I know if it wasn't for the clack clacking of a gun, something bad could have happened to my mom and my aunt on seperate occasions. They didn't have to shoot because the unmistakable sound of a gun is enough to scare most people away.

I have a gun and use it all the time. It's a blue sqirt gun my daughter got me for my birthday. Does that count?

I guess I'll have to put myself on the side of your city friends. Needless to say, there's a big difference between our countries' attitude to gun control.

There's no way that I want to open up the whole dreaded gun control debate again, but I'd be interested to know from you guys exactly why guns are so important in the US? I'm not sure if there's another country in the world (outside various parts of Africa and the Middle East), where guns have such a hold on the population?

I kinda fall into the guns don't kill people, people kill people argument. I personally do not own a gun but i see nothing wrong with it. If someone wants to kill you they could still hit you with an arrow or a poison dart, stab you, light you on fire, run you over, choke
you, throw you off a cliff, beat you senseless, hit you with a bomb, gas you, or drug you and throw you in the river with bricks attached. At least if we all can have guns we can protect ourselves a little better.

UK Skins Fan wrote:I guess I'll have to put myself on the side of your city friends. Needless to say, there's a big difference between our countries' attitude to gun control.

There's no way that I want to open up the whole dreaded gun control debate again, but I'd be interested to know from you guys exactly why guns are so important in the US? I'm not sure if there's another country in the world (outside various parts of Africa and the Middle East), where guns have such a hold on the population?

It depends on what era you are addressing. When the colonies first pushed for independence, ownership of guns was important for two reasons. First, and most importantly, it was an extension of liberty and property rights, in being able to own whatever you wanted. Second, it was the practical defense first to rise up against Britain and second to defend oneself against domestic enemies (whether criminals or, in the worst case, the government).

Over time the view has shifted from the idea that gun ownership is a subset of ownership rights themselves to the idea that the 2nd Amendment in our constitution gives people the right to own and bear arms (among many rights granted by the constitution). It's an expression of one's freedom in the same way that saying whatever you want whenever you want to is -- hence, if you think guns are cool, who's to stop you from owning them?

It's more of a "why not?" question than a "why?", if that makes sense.

What do people want to use them for? We have a pretty big country full of game and other animals; people still maintain the right to defend themselves rather than rely on police; to display in the house; they are a lot of fun to use in shooting targets. . .and to continue asserting that we have the right to own them.

Call it part of the deeply ingrained sense of independence in most Americans, and our unwillingness to admit that we really depend on others for our own security and freedoms.

Anyway, this is all one man's perspective. I thought that I'd bite.

For the record, here's the actual amendment in our constitution that talks about gun ownership rights:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thanks. I'm not wanting to cause trouble here - I know a gun debate could end up in Smack far quicker than I could pull out a pistol.

I've never really got the protection argument though - surely, a gun will only protect you if the other guy hasn't got one? Sure, I suppose a "rational" criminal might be made to think twice, but the crackhead just looking to feed his habit isn't really in much of a position to make that kind of judgement, is he?

I think it's the "well regulated" portion of that amendment that is too often glossed over

Fios wrote:I think it's the "well regulated" portion of that amendment that is too often glossed over

What do you think they meant by "well regulated" in the second amendment?

Keep in mind what the bill of rights is.

- The Constitution was a document enumerating the powers the people ceded to the Federal government. They meant the Federal government could only do those specific things directly authorized by the people and enumerated in the Constitution.

- The Bill of Rights said, and you specifically cannot ever violate these rights.

- That is where the second amendment appears, as the first 10 Amendments are specifically the "Bill of Rights."

My interpretation of what you meant by your comment, and I could well be wrong which is why I'm asking, is you are suggesting GOVERNMENT can regulate guns. If that is so, why would the founding fathers have put a provision in a list of amendments saying government cannot violate citizens right to own guns, and yet say government can regulate guns? That would make it a meaningless amendment. These were considered rights so sacred they were called out as saying "Government, keep out."

My answer, is that regulated does not mean by government but by the people. Which means there is no regulation in the government sense of the word. BTW, the word "regulated" means controlled, not just regulation in the government sense. So again I think "well regulated" refers to the people have a responsibility to control their use of guns. But again that's not a power of government.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Thanks. I'm not wanting to cause trouble here - I know a gun debate could end up in Smack far quicker than I could pull out a pistol.

I've never really got the protection argument though - surely, a gun will only protect you if the other guy hasn't got one? Sure, I suppose a "rational" criminal might be made to think twice, but the crackhead just looking to feed his habit isn't really in much of a position to make that kind of judgement, is he?

I've several years experience working in Europe, including London, and get this question all the time. They never get American attitudes to guns. And basically, there is no American attitude, there are a lot. Basically there are two groups though.

- Big City dwellers. Their attitudes are a lot more European, believing we should ban or at least severely restrict guns.

- Rural areas. I grew up in a small town in Michigan and went hunting after school with my friends. It was just a common thing to do. I'm vegetarian now (except fish/seafood) so it's less interesting. Some people hunt, some don't but away from big cities guns and hunting are just common. We are well aware they can kill people, but that it's the way we think of them in our lives we think of them as sport. Government restricting them is considered sacrilege.

The other big difference is we have more violent crime here and there already are more guns. Though it's coming more to you. But when we ban them that basically assures criminals victims will not have guns.

And one fact generally ignored is that most gun protection does not involve firing a shot. And BTW, crack heads are generally guilty of petty crimes, not armed robbery.

I can't totally answer your question, but just giving some perspective. There isn't a clear, clean answer.

I own an SKS (rifle), a Ruger 9mm pistol and a 12-gauge Remington 870 shotgun. I have a great time target-shooting with all three of these guns but each serve a functional purpose as well. The SKS is mainly used for deer hunting (food). The shotgun is used for duck/turkey hunting (again, food). The pistol is used for home defense. It's a small enough caliber so the wife can use it and is very accurate. I realize that simply having a gun in the house doesn't make me immune from a home invasion, but I feel that my chances are far better with a gun than without.

Kentucky Fried Hog wrote:I own an SKS (rifle), a Ruger 9mm pistol and a 12-gauge Remington 870 shotgun. I have a great time target-shooting with all three of these guns but each serve a functional purpose as well. The SKS is mainly used for deer hunting (food). The shotgun is used for duck/turkey hunting (again, food). The pistol is used for home defense. It's a small enough caliber so the wife can use it and is very accurate. I realize that simply having a gun in the house doesn't make me immune from a home invasion, but I feel that my chances are far better with a gun than without.

I have a collection too. As the oldest on both sides I inherited all the family guns on both sides, which go back to the civil war. It includes a civil war gun, shotguns, rifles and handguns.

I can't shoot the shootguns though, they were designed for lead pellets and now they are steel and would shred the barrels.

Actually I keep the guns and and ammunition locked up separately. I am too afraid I would kill the wrong person to use them for defense. I heard about someone who killed their daughter who was at a sleepover and came home unexpectedly. Yes, you can train them and you, but I just have come to the conclusion I'm not going to take the most minute chance and would rather get killed then destroy my life. I live in a very safe area now anyway. I realize you never know, but we all have to make choices.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Thanks. I'm not wanting to cause trouble here - I know a gun debate could end up in Smack far quicker than I could pull out a pistol.

I've never really got the protection argument though - surely, a gun will only protect you if the other guy hasn't got one? Sure, I suppose a "rational" criminal might be made to think twice, but the crackhead just looking to feed his habit isn't really in much of a position to make that kind of judgement, is he?

Have you ever heard the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"? You have a better chance with a gun on gun situation instead of nothing vs gun. If you are like me, you also have a tactical light so you have both hands on the gun and hollow points in the clip to put a quick end to any crackheads intentions.

I hope I am never put into that situation but if I am, I will be ready stop anyone who may be treading on my territory. People who try and rely on the police, IMO, are making a mistake. The police can show up and do one of two things. One is investigate your murder or investigate who you killed defending your home. Two, you leave in a body bag or the robber/rapist/serial killer leaves in a body bag.

Something to think about

Warmother wrote: My favorite is my Ruger 10/22 rifle with a scope and bull barrel. You can shoot all day long and not get a sore shoulder or overheated gun. It's very accurate, with the scope you can put your second shot through the same hole as your first with no problem.

My gf's dad owns one of those 10/22's and they are so much fun to shoot. He has a couple banana clips (they stocked up once they went illegal, but I guess they are legal again) and you can fire off 50 shots in just a few seconds.

It's a good point about differing points of view. With several outdoor and indoor ranges nearby to choose from and gun shops on just about every major street shooting hobbies make a lot more sense out here. In a big city I guess you're less likely to participate in these things.

Another thing that factors in though, is education. If someone thinks that guns are only for killing people or animals because they were never around them, and aren't educated about firearms then your decision to own one might seem pretty silly. If you've been around guns your whole life and know something about them, and how they work, etc. then its a different story.

Anyway, I've been thinking of what kind of gun I would want to own next. I haven't got very much money, so I can't probably spend more than 400 dollars for a gun... still, I've seen some older military style rifles at sporting goods stores for cheap. I might want to buy a 10/22 or a M-14 Ranch Rifle (a ton of fun to shoot) but I also really enjoy pistol shooting. I might want a .38 revolver. Hmmmm

Skinsfan55 wrote:It's a good point about differing points of view. With several outdoor and indoor ranges nearby to choose from and gun shops on just about every major street shooting hobbies make a lot more sense out here. In a big city I guess you're less likely to participate in these things.

Another thing that factors in though, is education. If someone thinks that guns are only for killing people or animals because they were never around them, and aren't educated about firearms then your decision to own one might seem pretty silly. If you've been around guns your whole life and know something about them, and how they work, etc. then its a different story.

Anyway, I've been thinking of what kind of gun I would want to own next. I haven't got very much money, so I can't probably spend more than 400 dollars for a gun... still, I've seen some older military style rifles at sporting goods stores for cheap. I might want to buy a 10/22 or a M-14 Ranch Rifle (a ton of fun to shoot) but I also really enjoy pistol shooting. I might want a .38 revolver. Hmmmm

If you just want something fun to shoot, get a .22 . Ammo is cheap so you can shoot a lot of rounds.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Thanks. I'm not wanting to cause trouble here - I know a gun debate could end up in Smack far quicker than I could pull out a pistol.

I've never really got the protection argument though - surely, a gun will only protect you if the other guy hasn't got one? Sure, I suppose a "rational" criminal might be made to think twice, but the crackhead just looking to feed his habit isn't really in much of a position to make that kind of judgement, is he?

Where I live, in Colorado, there is a law called the "Make My Day" law. It states that since you have the right to expect absolute security inside your home that you will be immune from prosecution for shooting (and killing) on site any intruder who enters your house.

That law lets you assume that everyone who is coming into your house is there to do physical harm to you, which doesn't seem to be the case in terms of robbers, etc. Still, you're protected if you kill an intruder.

I agree with the sentiment in this law, that you have the right to expect security in your home, but like a friend of mine says "I'd feel terrible if I killed someone over a VCR, they can keep the (explitive deleted) thing."

As far as security outside your home goes, I suppose you're right in saying that in a gun vs. gun situation where they already have their gun drawn... you don't have an excellent chance in that fight. You're always taught though, that if someone has a gun on you, and wants your wallet... give it to them. Even if you have a gun on you, why mess around with someone who is prepared to kill you for your money? That is, unless you're 100% certain you can win.

Like I said though, I don't have my gun for protection... hell, if I ever needed it in a hurry I would have to run to my bedroom, unlock the door, run to the closet, unlock my gun case, unlock my gun lock, get my gun and a clip, run to the other side of the room and get my bullets, load a handfull of bullets into the clip and pull the slide back. No sweat. lol

Cappster wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:It's a good point about differing points of view. With several outdoor and indoor ranges nearby to choose from and gun shops on just about every major street shooting hobbies make a lot more sense out here. In a big city I guess you're less likely to participate in these things.

Another thing that factors in though, is education. If someone thinks that guns are only for killing people or animals because they were never around them, and aren't educated about firearms then your decision to own one might seem pretty silly. If you've been around guns your whole life and know something about them, and how they work, etc. then its a different story.

Anyway, I've been thinking of what kind of gun I would want to own next. I haven't got very much money, so I can't probably spend more than 400 dollars for a gun... still, I've seen some older military style rifles at sporting goods stores for cheap. I might want to buy a 10/22 or a M-14 Ranch Rifle (a ton of fun to shoot) but I also really enjoy pistol shooting. I might want a .38 revolver. Hmmmm

If you just want something fun to shoot, get a .22 . Ammo is cheap so you can shoot a lot of rounds.

True, bullets for my .40 caliber handgun are so dang expensive. Not only is .22 ammo cheap though, but clangers, targets and other stuff aren't too pricey either, if I tried to shoot one of my gf's dad's clangers I'd punch a hole through it (assuming I could actually hit one of the targets, which is a pretty big assumption.)

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Fios wrote:I think it's the "well regulated" portion of that amendment that is too often glossed over

What do you think they meant by "well regulated" in the second amendment?

Keep in mind what the bill of rights is.

- The Constitution was a document enumerating the powers the people ceded to the Federal government. They meant the Federal government could only do those specific things directly authorized by the people and enumerated in the Constitution.

- The Bill of Rights said, and you specifically cannot ever violate these rights.

- That is where the second amendment appears, as the first 10 Amendments are specifically the "Bill of Rights."

My interpretation of what you meant by your comment, and I could well be wrong which is why I'm asking, is you are suggesting GOVERNMENT can regulate guns. If that is so, why would the founding fathers have put a provision in a list of amendments saying government cannot violate citizens right to own guns, and yet say government can regulate guns? That would make it a meaningless amendment. These were considered rights so sacred they were called out as saying "Government, keep out."

My answer, is that regulated does not mean by government but by the people. Which means there is no regulation in the government sense of the word. BTW, the word "regulated" means controlled, not just regulation in the government sense. So again I think "well regulated" refers to the people have a responsibility to control their use of guns. But again that's not a power of government.

First, I think American citizens of a certain age should be able to own firearms, no question about it. I am decidedly uncomfortable with the notion of a society in which only the government has weapons. That being said, when the right to bear arms was granted, it was done in a time when you had to return spent casings in order to get more ammunition. Firearms were rare and expensive. It was granted under a time of existing restrictions. The words "well regulated" and "militia" are not simply amorphous, anachronistic footnotes. There are some historians who feel the phrase "bear arms" has a martial connotation. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that the amendment doesn't provide for unfettered access to firearms. We can, and should, expect the government to exercise some control over access to firearms. Waiting periods and licensing are not draconian, they are reasonable

Fios wrote:First, I think American citizens of a certain age should be able to own firearms, no question about it. I am decidedly uncomfortable with the notion of a society in which only the government has weapons. That being said, when the right to bear arms was granted, it was done in a time when you had to return spent casings in order to get more ammunition. Firearms were rare and expensive. It was granted under a time of existing restrictions. The words "well regulated" and "militia" are not simply amorphous, anachronistic footnotes. There are some historians who feel the phrase "bear arms" has a martial connotation. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that the amendment doesn't provide for unfettered access to firearms. We can, and should, expect the government to exercise some control over access to firearms. Waiting periods and licensing are not draconian, they are reasonable

From a personal standpoint, I agree with everything you're saying. From a legal standpoint I have two problems.

- The second amendment says "shall not be infringed." It doesn't contain any text referring to "until further notice." Do we just ignore the Constitution or change it? While the Courts interpret the law they are not granted (though they have taken) the role of saying "things have changed so the 9 of us will just change the Constitution." The founding fathers gave us a process to change it. That means 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the legislature. While I am also afraid of and see no need for cop killer bullets or semi-automatic weapons in peoples hands, I am MORE afraid of 9 people simply voting to change the Constitution.

- So, I am open to changing but not ignoring the Constitution. But what I can't do is write text amending the second amendment I would support. I have tried to do so out of curiosity. No matter how I try, I see it as either ineffective or cancelling the Amendment, neither of which I would support.

That being said, when the right to bear arms was granted, it was done in a time when you had to return spent casings in order to get more ammunition.

Three things, my man (err... my cup). First, at the time the "right to bear arms" was granted, there were no "casings", spent or otherwise. Second, people generally made their own ammo. All they needed was the limited necessary equipment, and gunpowder. Third, they were neither rare, nor terribly expensive. Who's weapons do you think were used by the colonists? They were virtually all privately owned, by very common folk!