This is what I did with my afternoon.

[Mark_T]

Easy there, Timmy, already said I'm not offended and have owned many firearms in my time (Another American tendency - get your panties in a twist at the slightest perceived criticism of your gun obsession. I'll bet you're a big Ted Nugent fan)

I'm also betting my cred as a sport shooter tops yours by a long shot - 1990 Canadian champion, standard pistol; 1990 Western Canada Summer Games provincial pistol team; 1988 provincial champion, free pistol; Manitoba provincial pistol team, 88 - 91. Further, I spent 3 years working for the RCMP in the capacity of Assistant Chief Firearms Officer. I hold a master instructor designation for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and I am an approved firearms verifier. It's just possible that I might know a thing or two about firearms.

My only bone of contention here is, as stated above, is I don't see any good reason for military-style assault weaponry to be in private hands. It's my opinion, which last time I checked I am entitled to, that the risk outweighs any possible benefit. How many more high school slaughters have to happen before you people get this?

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

Easy there, Timmy, already said I'm not offended and have owned many firearms in my time (Another American tendency - get your panties in a twist at the slightest perceived criticism of your gun obsession. I'll bet you're a big Ted Nugent fan)

I'm also betting my cred as a sport shooter tops yours by a long shot - 1990 Canadian champion, standard pistol; 1990 Western Canada Summer Games provincial pistol team; 1988 provincial champion, free pistol; Manitoba provincial pistol team, 88 - 91. Further, I spent 3 years working for the RCMP in the capacity of Assistant Chief Firearms Officer. I hold a master instructor designation for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and I am an approved firearms verifier. It's just possible that I might know a thing or two about firearms.

My only bone of contention here is, as stated above, is I don't see any good reason for military-style assault weaponry to be in private hands. It's my opinion, which last time I checked I am entitled to, that the risk outweighs any possible benefit. How many more high school slaughters have to happen before you people get this?

Wow. You really lay it on thick.....

Timmy?
Obsession?
Panties?
Ted Nugent is a POS draft dodger, for the record and makes all gun owners look bad.

I never attempted to deny any of your creds, just wanted to defend the size of my penis vs gun ownership. You throw out a lot of insults in a very nice way...

I load every bullet I shoot, (almost) and load match grade ammo and repro USGI rounds for antique rifles. I am a gunsmith here in UT but only do mine and friends at no charge. I built my ARs and my AKs. Never won any awards, though..(who is obsessed with diminishing the other guy's penis and bragging about who has more shooting honors?)

Some pictures got posted. Topic is guns. Deal with it....

Oh no!!! Lock this thread!!! Fascinations! Obsessions! Compensating!!!! Not on topic (but I am reading it and responding to it)!!! I'm offended by the sight of an AR15!!!

I have not heard this much butt-hurt over a thread since Essex Pete posted a topless woman driving a Porsche. Just to clarify, THAT, my friends, is porn. Not a picture of a gun.

[Lobo1186]

Top Gear Drive by Shooting Test

Hammond did his with a GT3, is there anyone with some land that could test this out with the Boxster? clearly top down it would hand it to a Cayman. or any other Porsche Coupe!

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

Top Gear Drive by Shooting Test

Hammond did his with a GT3, is there anyone with some land that could test this out with the Boxster? clearly top down it would hand it to a Cayman. or any other Porsche Coupe!

Pretty sure it's a felony to shot from a moving vehicle, maybe not on private land but I am not clear on that. Those stunts are obvious pokes at those who legally own them and do not shoot from a moving vehicle. Again, that's the perceived use of every AR-15 and makes us look bad.

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Timco

Pretty sure it's a felony to shot from a moving vehicle, maybe not on private land but I am not clear on that. Those stunts are obvious pokes at those who legally own them and do not shoot from a moving vehicle. Again, that's the perceived use of every AR-15 and makes us look bad.

I feel on a forum dealing with cars that easily break the law, we can assume that with such things that could be illegal you know the law before you try. States laws vary so if someone is going to do this follow all laws. I feel like this needs not be said.

It seems it has pretty much been done already.

It is Top Gear, they poke fun at everyone all the time. While perception is often the uneducated person's reality, sometimes I like to have a good time regardless of what others may think.

[RawleyD]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

I don't see any good reason for military-style assault weaponry to be in private hands. It's my opinion, which last time I checked I am entitled to, that the risk outweighs any possible benefit.

I'm not an avid shooter myself, but know how to handle firearms well.

But I just wanted to make one remark about your above quote, no harm intended..

You might not be aware that when the United States of America was founded, our forefathers wrote into our Constitution that citizens shall always have the right to bear arms, and this was NOT for hunting, shooting sport, etc. It was so we would always have the means to resist our government if/when they try to take away our rights and freedoms as citizens.

Most non US citizens might not understand, but this is the basis of why we are very fond of our guns. They form the core of our freedom and we are very proud, not ashamed, of that fact.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by RawleyD

I'm not an avid shooter myself, but know how to handle firearms well.

But I just wanted to make one remark about your above quote, no harm intended..

You might not be aware that when the United States of America was founded, our forefathers wrote into our Constitution that citizens shall always have the right to bear arms, and this was NOT for hunting, shooting sport, etc. It was so we would always have the means to resist our government if/when they try to take away our rights and freedoms as citizens.

Most non US citizens might not understand, but this is the basis of why we are very fond of our guns. They form the core of our freedom and we are very proud, not ashamed, of that fact.

Military-style assault weaponry.....lol, it's a semi-automatic rifle. Like 'banana clips' or 'high-speed ammo' or 'the folding thing that goes up'?

I guess our constitution isn't a "good reason" to some. Why others care that I go to a range and discharge that rifle (slowly, no rapid fire allowed) is beyond me.....

Why own or have available to the public a car that can exceed any speed limit in this nation?? I don't see any good reason. Sounds like we need a(nother) law....

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by RawleyD

You might not be aware that when the United States of America was founded, our forefathers wrote into our Constitution that citizens shall always have the right to bear arms, and this was NOT for hunting, shooting sport, etc. It was so we would always have the means to resist our government if/when they try to take away our rights and freedoms as citizens.

Mmm... I'm no proponent of tinkering with the Constitution but from my own studies, it's not that simple. The 2nd Am is the only one that is predicated with a condition.
We mirrored the English Bill of Rights after the King tried to pick and choose who could bear arms on the basis of religion, so as a response to this their Bill of Rights gave that freedom it to all its citizenry, with the intent of arming insurgency against tyranny, not as an indvidual liberty to fight provincial crime in the absence of a full-time police force.
If you will note, all other Constitutional freedoms here in America, are written absolutely, without condition. At the time we did not have a standing army so in lieu of this we were given the right to form our militias with muskets. If the founding fathers (a very shrewd bunch) intended for you to have a musket for any purpose you wished, be it militia forming, or turkey shooting or 4th of July celebrations, they would have stated it simply, without condition, exactly as they stated all our other Constitutional rights. In other words, in my view, had the founding fathers wanted the 2nd Am to be an absolute indiviual liberty, they would have simply stated "you have right to bear arms. period." And there would be absolutely no debate. If a tyranical govt were to take hold, your unconditioned right to bear arms could readily be used for decapitating the unlawful despot. But the founding fathers didn't do that... They gave that right an express purpose, in a singular context. Just like the 3rd and 4th Am's are each written within a very explicit context.
And the Courts, including conservative ones appointed by Republican Presidents, saw it this way for a very, very long time before lobbying became a big business.

I'm not arguing that guns should be banned, but I don't see how someone can argue that we have an absolute and unlimited right to buy arms for whatever purpose or desires we wish when it wasn't written that way by the founding fathers.

[RawleyD]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

I don't see how someone can argue that we have an absolute and unlimited right to buy arms for whatever purpose or desires we wish.

OK. I'm not seeing where anybody is arguing that?
Nobody here said it is fine and dandy to buy a gun and go shoot up a school.