Do atheists not favor firearms?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2012, 04:12 PM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
My .22 is a Remington 552 Speedmaster, which I love and is certainly a tackdriver, but it is a pain in the ass to clean properly. I would really like to get a .22 pistol as well, specifically Kel-Tec's PMR-30. 30 rounds of .22 WMR (22 Magnum) per mag (no extended type mag, all within the grip) light trigger pull as well. Perfect for plinking or killing small nasty animals and pests (if you live in a rural area). Wouldn't trust it to take down anything more than a coyote, but still a great side-arm to have if your up in the mountains.

For personal protection I rely on my .40 S&W Baby Eagle (aka Jericho). It is a bit large and heavy though, a lot of folks wouldn't CCW it but I do. Anyhow .40 is a hell of a lot cheaper to shoot than a .45, and still has all of the knock-down power you will likely ever need. That's my 2 cents.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 07:52 PM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
(25-10-2012 10:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Huh, I'm sure the Tula TOZ-78 is a fine rifle. But I don't see what advantage it offers over a Ruger 10/22 for semi-auto, or a CZ 455 or Savage Mk. II for a bolt action? All these guns are reliable as hell and definitely tack drivers.


Actually, I shoot much older - the TOZ 17-01 for long range (for a .22), though I recently acquired a pair of TOZ 17s and a TOZ 8M. I just enjoy the solid - hells, heavy - build that the TOZs are. I also scored a TOZ 34-ER; an over/under 12 gauge. Rather classy shotgun, IMHO. But, before the Interwebs not so easy to get a hold of. I havent tried the other two you list specifically; but I have owned a few older Savages and was not overly impressed despite their Canadian roots.

Im also something of a Pre-64 Winchester fan; but then I suspect many are. Past that, I am shortly acquiring a Tikka T3 Lite 30.06 in left hand bolt - Yes, evil left handers. Go fig. Anyway; itching to get my hands on that sweetheart. I dont care if I have to wait till spring to get a scope, I just want it in my safe. LOL
Quote:My .22 is a Remington 552 Speedmaster, which I love and is certainly a tackdriver, but it is a pain in the ass to clean properly. I would really like to get a .22 pistol as well, specifically Kel-Tec's PMR-30. 30 rounds of .22 WMR (22 Magnum) per mag (no extended type mag, all within the grip) light trigger pull as well. Perfect for plinking or killing small nasty animals and pests (if you live in a rural area). Wouldn't trust it to take down anything more than a coyote, but still a great side-arm to have if your up in the mountains.

For personal protection I rely on my .40 S&W Baby Eagle (aka Jericho). It is a bit large and heavy though, a lot of folks wouldn't CCW it but I do. Anyhow .40 is a hell of a lot cheaper to shoot than a .45, and still has all of the knock-down power you will likely ever need. That's my 2 cents.

Unfortunately, Canadians generally are not allowed CCW - quite stupid really. Handguns are pretty tightly limited - from home to a range and back really. Still, I intend to get myself a classic - a WW2 era M1911 .45. But, up here, even a .45, I would be a bit leery about dealing with our biggest predators. Id like to get myself a 45/70 Lever; either the Marlin (because they are available) or the new Henry if at all possible; henry is soooo far behind in getting their product UP here.


Aaaannnnyyyway, back on topic - I think the biggest thing for many is the lack of experience with firearms; lack of education on the topic. They are loud, and in the wrong or uneducated hands, of course they are dangerous - but in trained, educated hands; no real danger at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 08:55 PM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
CZ is the most popular maker of .22 competition rifles in America (there are foreign competitors too of course) and they're top quality, ranging from $400 to $1000+. Very nice rifles.

Savage has some good guns and some mediocre guns, just like most companies. Their rifles, in the last few years, have seen a big step up in quality since they introduced the Accutrigger, or as most people would call it, "A trigger that doesn't feel like dragging a lead weight over gravel." The Mark II series, I generally consider to be a cheap alternative to the CZ competition models. It's almost as accurate, and about half the price. And price is important; a gun in your hand is infinitely better than a gun at the gun store.

The Ruger 10/22 is extremely popular and ubiquitous in the US, one of the most popular rimfire rifles period. It's cheap, reliable, has tens of thousands of available parts and accessories, there are factory 25rd magazines, it'll eat any ammo you put through it, and it's just a fun gun to shoot. Not as accurate as a bolt action, but inside 50 yards you aren't going to notice, and it's still accurate enough for most people at 100 yards. Fine rifle.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 09:53 PM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
As I said, I havent much experience with the savage - though I did own a semi .22 for a while, and found it loved to fowl up - and none at all with the Ruger. Eventually; I will however.

I should note my idea of accuracy is a head shot on a grouse at 100 yards. I can make good kill shots with open sights at that range; but I prefer the scope that far out for such a small (smaller than your average chicken) target. Wink The TOZ's, Ive found, are highly consistent in doing so; even with relatively cheap ammo (Blazer primarily). They are also highly dirt tolerant; it takes a LOT to get them to not work. I was given the 17-01 as a young teen for xmess; and Ive easily put ten thousand plus rounds through it - with maybe ONE cleaning in the last oh, 20 years? Rarely ever a jam (usually by the arse loading it), never an actual malfunction on the gun's part. I did put a Tasco 3-9 scope on it; strictly for going past 75 yards.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2012, 12:07 AM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
Here’s my throw down.

I currently live in a country that has very restrictive gun laws, and no constitutional right for individual citizens to bear arms. The only way to gain access to firearms are to be part of a sports shooting club, be a farmer, or be a licensed and qualified collector (which pretty much means having a degree in military history). Assault weapons and semi auto shotguns and rifles are only available to police and the military, and the military only give access to a complete weapon (no bolt group) during shoots, operations and memorial events.

I currently do not own a firearm, but I used to own an old Winchester 22 for target shooting and getting rid of small vermin on a mate’s farm. I had to sell the thing due to moving interstate suddenly, and the residence I moved to did not feel comfortable with guns in the house. I have had experience with high powered rifles, pistols and thanks to my career, a few assault weapons. I like guns. I enjoy shooting them, I enjoy maintaining them and if I could ever bloody afford it I am sure I would enjoy collecting them. So the answer to ‘Do I favour firearms?’ is, yes.

But, do I support gun laws? O’ sweet merciful Jesus yes, but I also support vigorous and comprehensive education, which permits easy access of firearms to law abiding citizens.

Gun ownership for sports and hunting purposes seems pretty simple to me. It’s a quantifiable sport/recreation with training, regulation and standards.

I support gun ownership for home protection, although in my home country I wouldn’t really bother. It’s easier for potential burglars to just go on the dole. But if a person wants to keep a shotgun in the cupboard to make them selves feel safe then what right do I have to say no. On the flip side I cannot see any rational reason why that shotgun should be fully automatic with a 30 round drum mag and fletch rounds.

I am quite dubious of the argument that citizens need firearms to protect themselves from a rouge government; this seems like something out of an entertaining but ludicrous piece of fiction. Firstly, if a modern military set out to oppress an armed populace the citizens would get steam rolled anyway. M1 Abrams are a bit of a step up from your M4. Secondly soldiers go through weeks to months of dedicated training when it comes to handling assault weapons and they have the potential to lose that access as soon as an instructor sees that they are unfit to handle it. Finally can anyone seriously picture a situation where a modern military would turn its guns on its own citizens at the behest of some pencil pushing pin-dick in the government………oh, wait. Let me get back you on that one.Consider

Let me break it down like this, Gun ownership is like sex. The more education, the better, and like abstinence only education it’s not something that can be solved by telling people they cant do it. Eventually people will get access to what they want and when they do its better that they be highly educated in the matter so they can make educated decisions on the risk associated and take appropriate steps to mitigate that risk. It’s some thing that should be talked about rationally instead of through the lenses of fear, ignorance and preconception, and no matter what way you try to spin it there is always some extreme shit you just can’t do.
(I am not a fan of metaphor and rarely employ it, so please feel free to pick the one I just used apart. I only spent about 10 minutes on firming it up so there is bound to be a counter argument in there somewhere)

"Gary, it's burning, what we gonna do"
-Bill Bailey
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2012, 01:55 AM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
(27-10-2012 12:07 AM)Dunhill808 Wrote:  Here’s my throw down.

I currently live in a country that has very restrictive gun laws, and no constitutional right for individual citizens to bear arms. The only way to gain access to firearms are to be part of a sports shooting club, be a farmer, or be a licensed and qualified collector (which pretty much means having a degree in military history). Assault weapons and semi auto shotguns and rifles are only available to police and the military, and the military only give access to a complete weapon (no bolt group) during shoots, operations and memorial events.

I currently do not own a firearm, but I used to own an old Winchester 22 for target shooting and getting rid of small vermin on a mate’s farm. I had to sell the thing due to moving interstate suddenly, and the residence I moved to did not feel comfortable with guns in the house. I have had experience with high powered rifles, pistols and thanks to my career, a few assault weapons. I like guns. I enjoy shooting them, I enjoy maintaining them and if I could ever bloody afford it I am sure I would enjoy collecting them. So the answer to ‘Do I favour firearms?’ is, yes.

But, do I support gun laws? O’ sweet merciful Jesus yes, but I also support vigorous and comprehensive education, which permits easy access of firearms to law abiding citizens.

Gun ownership for sports and hunting purposes seems pretty simple to me. It’s a quantifiable sport/recreation with training, regulation and standards.

I support gun ownership for home protection, although in my home country I wouldn’t really bother. It’s easier for potential burglars to just go on the dole. But if a person wants to keep a shotgun in the cupboard to make them selves feel safe then what right do I have to say no. On the flip side I cannot see any rational reason why that shotgun should be fully automatic with a 30 round drum mag and fletch rounds.

I am quite dubious of the argument that citizens need firearms to protect themselves from a rouge government; this seems like something out of an entertaining but ludicrous piece of fiction. Firstly, if a modern military set out to oppress an armed populace the citizens would get steam rolled anyway. M1 Abrams are a bit of a step up from your M4. Secondly soldiers go through weeks to months of dedicated training when it comes to handling assault weapons and they have the potential to lose that access as soon as an instructor sees that they are unfit to handle it. Finally can anyone seriously picture a situation where a modern military would turn its guns on its own citizens at the behest of some pencil pushing pin-dick in the government………oh, wait. Let me get back you on that one.Consider

Let me break it down like this, Gun ownership is like sex. The more education, the better, and like abstinence only education it’s not something that can be solved by telling people they cant do it. Eventually people will get access to what they want and when they do its better that they be highly educated in the matter so they can make educated decisions on the risk associated and take appropriate steps to mitigate that risk. It’s some thing that should be talked about rationally instead of through the lenses of fear, ignorance and preconception, and no matter what way you try to spin it there is always some extreme shit you just can’t do.
(I am not a fan of metaphor and rarely employ it, so please feel free to pick the one I just used apart. I only spent about 10 minutes on firming it up so there is bound to be a counter argument in there somewhere)

Just to give you my background real quick...I am an American, I am in the military, and support gun ownership. I also support having some limitations on what is available for citizens, though I would probably allow for a lot more than what most would. I agree with nearly everything that you have said. The only thing I would disagree with is the whole government thing. I spent several years in the most powerful military that the world has ever known, and I have confidence that if they government ever overstepped its bounds so much as to incite a civil war in which a police state combated its citizens the citizens would be victorious. In any case it is a good reason for the supposed police state to think twice. As our first, and beloved first president George Washington said "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." I tend to agree. Governments have historically grown to oppress their people of over time. It is more often than not a question of when rather than if it will happen. I do not foresee this happening mind you, but time will tell, and perhaps can be delayed because of the right which we hold. I know this may seem paranoid, but I am not thinking it terms of decades, I am thinking in terms of centuries. Look back just three centuries and see how often this has occurred. It is important to keep our rights which were only recognized as being natural rights after so many men before me died in defense of that freedom, and it is not something that should just be tossed aside. There is my response, now I fully expect to be called a nutter. Anyhow thanks for sharing your views. I always appreciate hearing different peoples perspective, so long as they make sense. Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
27-10-2012, 03:51 AM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
(27-10-2012 01:55 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(27-10-2012 12:07 AM)Dunhill808 Wrote:  Here’s my throw down.

I currently live in a country that has very restrictive gun laws, and no constitutional right for individual citizens to bear arms. The only way to gain access to firearms are to be part of a sports shooting club, be a farmer, or be a licensed and qualified collector (which pretty much means having a degree in military history). Assault weapons and semi auto shotguns and rifles are only available to police and the military, and the military only give access to a complete weapon (no bolt group) during shoots, operations and memorial events.

I currently do not own a firearm, but I used to own an old Winchester 22 for target shooting and getting rid of small vermin on a mate’s farm. I had to sell the thing due to moving interstate suddenly, and the residence I moved to did not feel comfortable with guns in the house. I have had experience with high powered rifles, pistols and thanks to my career, a few assault weapons. I like guns. I enjoy shooting them, I enjoy maintaining them and if I could ever bloody afford it I am sure I would enjoy collecting them. So the answer to ‘Do I favour firearms?’ is, yes.

But, do I support gun laws? O’ sweet merciful Jesus yes, but I also support vigorous and comprehensive education, which permits easy access of firearms to law abiding citizens.

Gun ownership for sports and hunting purposes seems pretty simple to me. It’s a quantifiable sport/recreation with training, regulation and standards.

I support gun ownership for home protection, although in my home country I wouldn’t really bother. It’s easier for potential burglars to just go on the dole. But if a person wants to keep a shotgun in the cupboard to make them selves feel safe then what right do I have to say no. On the flip side I cannot see any rational reason why that shotgun should be fully automatic with a 30 round drum mag and fletch rounds.

I am quite dubious of the argument that citizens need firearms to protect themselves from a rouge government; this seems like something out of an entertaining but ludicrous piece of fiction. Firstly, if a modern military set out to oppress an armed populace the citizens would get steam rolled anyway. M1 Abrams are a bit of a step up from your M4. Secondly soldiers go through weeks to months of dedicated training when it comes to handling assault weapons and they have the potential to lose that access as soon as an instructor sees that they are unfit to handle it. Finally can anyone seriously picture a situation where a modern military would turn its guns on its own citizens at the behest of some pencil pushing pin-dick in the government………oh, wait. Let me get back you on that one.Consider

Let me break it down like this, Gun ownership is like sex. The more education, the better, and like abstinence only education it’s not something that can be solved by telling people they cant do it. Eventually people will get access to what they want and when they do its better that they be highly educated in the matter so they can make educated decisions on the risk associated and take appropriate steps to mitigate that risk. It’s some thing that should be talked about rationally instead of through the lenses of fear, ignorance and preconception, and no matter what way you try to spin it there is always some extreme shit you just can’t do.
(I am not a fan of metaphor and rarely employ it, so please feel free to pick the one I just used apart. I only spent about 10 minutes on firming it up so there is bound to be a counter argument in there somewhere)

Just to give you my background real quick...I am an American, I am in the military, and support gun ownership. I also support having some limitations on what is available for citizens, though I would probably allow for a lot more than what most would. I agree with nearly everything that you have said. The only thing I would disagree with is the whole government thing. I spent several years in the most powerful military that the world has ever known, and I have confidence that if they government ever overstepped its bounds so much as to incite a civil war in which a police state combated its citizens the citizens would be victorious. In any case it is a good reason for the supposed police state to think twice. As our first, and beloved first president George Washington said "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." I tend to agree. Governments have historically grown to oppress their people of over time. It is more often than not a question of when rather than if it will happen. I do not foresee this happening mind you, but time will tell, and perhaps can be delayed because of the right which we hold. I know this may seem paranoid, but I am not thinking it terms of decades, I am thinking in terms of centuries. Look back just three centuries and see how often this has occurred. It is important to keep our rights which were only recognized as being natural rights after so many men before me died in defense of that freedom, and it is not something that should just be tossed aside. There is my response, now I fully expect to be called a nutter. Anyhow thanks for sharing your views. I always appreciate hearing different peoples perspective, so long as they make sense. Wink

You deserve to be called a nutter because you are using a completely BS quote. Nothing about that felt right when I read that quote, sounded similar to those fake Jefferson quotes that I get in libertarian emails. I'm curious where you were told of the quote.

I just did a quick Google check on it: http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_fran...eth-g.html

Yep, it's part of a larger quote that is attributed to Washington out of thin air. I don't have real problem with what you are saying in total.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2012, 08:49 AM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
Can I just say that the argument of "we have a right to guns because if the government oppresses us we can just kill them" is such a piss poor argument that is extremely flawed and is really only said by complete idiots as to how the real world operates.

Just my 2c
As you were.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2012, 08:51 AM
Do atheists not favor firearms?
(27-10-2012 08:49 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Can I just say that the argument of "we have a right to guns because if the government oppresses us we can just kill them" is such a piss poor argument that is extremely flawed and is really only said by complete idiots as to how the real world operates.

Just my 2c
As you were.

No you can't.

Fucking Earmuffs.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2012, 08:55 AM
RE: Do atheists not favor firearms?
(27-10-2012 08:51 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(27-10-2012 08:49 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Can I just say that the argument of "we have a right to guns because if the government oppresses us we can just kill them" is such a piss poor argument that is extremely flawed and is really only said by complete idiots as to how the real world operates.

Just my 2c
As you were.

No you can't.

Fucking Earmuffs.

WELL TO BAD! I WILL NOT BE OPPRESSED!

*fires gun into air*

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: