![]() |
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
North of the border ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 2,307 Joined: 4-February 04 From: Montreal, CANADA Member No.: 177 ![]() |
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)
and especially this model: http://www.cx4storm.com/ for those that wounder why: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...ting/index.html my wife works 1 street corner away, and sometimes goes for lunch there... that day, she didn't... Thank God ! |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Experienced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Advanced Members Posts: 1,947 Joined: 23-December 03 From: Everett, WA Member No.: 16 ![]() |
Mark, without even touching the deeper more fundamental issues, would you clarify this as a "non-hunting, designed for killing people" machine?
(IMG:http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/catalog/images/534103m.jpg) I got my first couple of deer with one. As have millions of others, since long before I was born. That particular model has been taking deer, elk, antelope, bear and everything else in this country in three different centuries now. I don't know of any that hold three rounds or less--depending up the round it's chambered for, some hold over 10+ in the tube. But you'd outlaw and confiscate that? The vast majority of all bolt action hunting rifles hold at least four in the magazine--usually only the big magnums that don't. So I'm wondering what your emotions would allow us to own? Ruger No. 1's and Contenders OK? The fat magnum bolt guns that only hold three? But you'd take away the vast majority of all hunting guns out there, which have been there since the 1800's, because you decided we can no longer be trusted with them? Of course all handguns are out? Even revolvers? Even if I weld shut three holes in the cylinder? As somebody who claims to like guns and hunting, you just really don't sound like you do. Under your rules the only one I'd be allowed to keep is my biggest and most powerful one--with which I am pretty deadly at over 1000 yds. Doesn't seem too logical. So what sort of handguns (if any) and rifles would King Mark A allow his subjects to own? EDIT: Attachment added by trackbird (same photo Jon posted a link to).
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Experienced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Advanced Members Posts: 1,936 Joined: 26-September 05 From: Youngstown, OH Member No.: 896 ![]() |
Howdy,
Mark, without even touching the deeper more fundamental issues, would you clarify this as a "non-hunting, designed for killing people" machine? (IMG:http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/catalog/images/534103m.jpg) Ironically, work proxy servers block that site as it deals with weapons. :-) I can't see the image here. QUOTE I got my first couple of deer with one. As have millions of others, since long before I was born. That particular model has been taking deer, elk, antelope, bear and everything else in this country in three different centuries now. I don't know of any that hold three rounds or less--depending up the round it's chambered for, some hold over 10+ in the tube. But you'd outlaw and confiscate that? The vast majority of all bolt action hunting rifles hold at least four in the magazine--usually only the big magnums that don't. So I'm wondering what your emotions would allow us to own? Ruger No. 1's and Contenders OK? The fat magnum bolt guns that only hold three? But you'd take away the vast majority of all hunting guns out there, which have been there since the 1800's, because you decided we can no longer be trusted with them? I'm reminded of my Ithica 20ga pump. Holds five normally, but you're required to install a plug to limit capacity to three for some types of bird hunting (or, at least, you were when I grew up with it in Maine). Magazine / tube capacity can be changed. QUOTE Of course all handguns are out? Even revolvers? Even if I weld shut three holes in the cylinder? In my hypothetical world, yes. Or do you hunt with revolvers? QUOTE As somebody who claims to like guns and hunting, you just really don't sound like you do. Under your rules the only one I'd be allowed to keep is my biggest and most powerful one--with which I am pretty deadly at over 1000 yds. Doesn't seem too logical. So what sort of handguns (if any) and rifles would King Mark A allow his subjects to own? Dude, its my opinion. You don't need to share it. I'm under no illusions as to whether or not it would successfully be adopted. I'm also under no illusions as to the types of gun violence it would slow down / stop. You're 100% correct that a trained person with a good hunting rifle will be an effective sniper if they choose their place of fire carefully. I'm more interested limiting access to the carjackers, crack head, and mentally disturbed folks. You may well not agree with me. I very easily could be wrong. But so is just blithely spouting off "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Mark |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
FRRAX Owner/Admin ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 15,432 Joined: 13-February 04 From: Ohio Member No.: 196 ![]() |
Or do you hunt with revolvers? Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
Experienced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Advanced Members Posts: 1,936 Joined: 26-September 05 From: Youngstown, OH Member No.: 896 ![]() |
Howdy,
Or do you hunt with revolvers? Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game. Many people hunt with a spear too. Mark |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th June 2025 - 10:01 PM |