One Nation, Under Gun...

[Ferocious]

I thought this was nicely done. A nice cross section of America photographed and with short audio comments about why they choose to own guns.

I used to own two handguns when I was into target shooting. But I lost interest in that. I still have a shotgun (870) mostly for self defense.

Photo gallery with audio

 

[nick1985]

Cool link.

Im all for the right to bear arms. :thumbsup:

 

[Kwaipie]

I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

 

[Nebor]

Very cool. :thumbsup:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet.

This coming from someone that doesnt own a gun. Handguns can be great home-defense weapons, if you have a quality one and know how to use it.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

That about sums up my position as well

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet.

This coming from someone that doesnt own a gun. Handguns can be great home-defense weapons, if you have a quality one and know how to use it.

Hence the phrase 'most people'.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet.

This coming from someone that doesnt own a gun. Handguns can be great home-defense weapons, if you have a quality one and know how to use it.

Hence the phrase 'most people'.

Id like to see some sort of proof most couldnt hit a moving target at 25 feet. I would claim that MOST people properly trained with a handgun could hit a moving target at 25 feet (granted they couldnt hit a fly, or something moving stupidly fast). 25 feet is not far at all, hell there are people that can jump that far.

That statistic sounds like it was pulled out of his you-know-what.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.

then do you think with the modern army that normal citizens have a chance?

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet.

This coming from someone that doesnt own a gun. Handguns can be great home-defense weapons, if you have a quality one and know how to use it.

Hence the phrase 'most people'.

Id like to see some sort of proof most couldnt hit a moving target at 25 feet. I would claim that MOST people properly trained with a handgun could hit a moving target at 25 feet (granted they couldnt hit a fly, or something moving stupidly fast). 25 feet is not far at all, hell there are people that can jump that far.

That statistic sounds like it was pulled out of his you-know-what.

Much as I don't own my own Piper Cub airplane, I know they are no good for flying across the Pacific. I spent 10 yrs in the military and have fired 10s of thousands of rounds from every manner of firearm. Don't let my non-participation in gun ownership let you think that I've never touched one.

You are adjusting my statement to meet your criteria, that's hardly fair. Most people are not properly trained with a handgun. PoliceOne.com says officers average 1:6 hit ratio WRT moving targets. Of course, police officers probably aren't properly trained.

 

[Gaard]

'properly trained' = most people?

Damn, this is silly. I think I'll head over to that other thread and join the other 20 members asking why Dave hasn't corrected his mistake.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.

then do you think with the modern army that normal citizens have a chance?

About as much of a chance as a bunch of farmers had against one of the superpowers of their time.

Of course we do have a chance. If the government has gotten to the point of causing a mass uprising then a good portion of the military would be on the side of the uprising.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.

then do you think with the modern army that normal citizens have a chance?

How has the policing of Iraq and Afghanistan been going? Modern militaries can destroy quickly, but occupation is far more difficult. Unless the intention of that army was to obliterate major portions of the US and all it's infrastructure, then yes, 100 million citizens with guns would stand up nicely against a modern army.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Gaard
'properly trained' = most people?

No, not what I said Gaard. What I said was I would like to see proof of it. Then I made my own seperate claim that most properly trained people could hit a moving target at 25 feet. Granted not 100% of the time, but most trained people would be able to land at least 1/2 rounds per clip.

Just need to read carefully what I said.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of 2d Amendment rights, in essence stating that protected arms are those that have a recognized military use, i.e. AR-15s and other semi-automatic or even automatic rifles.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)

As for the handgun vs. shotgun argument, while shotguns are superior for self defense in the home, they are somewhat awkward for concealed carry, negating their self defense use away from home.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.

then do you think with the modern army that normal citizens have a chance?

Sure. Nearly 100 million gun owners, armed with fully automatic, and semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Supressors, armor piercing ammunition, body armor. Hell I know people that have field artillery, bazookas and RPGs.

So yes, a modern military would get absolutely wrecked in open war with the American people.

It's a travesty that fully automatic weapons and supressors are as restricted as they are.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.

then do you think with the modern army that normal citizens have a chance?

How has the policing of Iraq and Afghanistan been going? Modern militaries can destroy quickly, but occupation is far more difficult. Unless the intention of that army was to obliterate major portions of the US and all it's infrastructure, then yes, 100 million citizens with guns would stand up nicely against a modern army.

good point 🙂

 

[Dissipate]

I'd love to go back to the days when you could buy a machine gun in a hardware store.

 

[Siddhartha]

I support the US Constitution.

But I hope I am not one of the unlucky group who gets shot when someone with a gun decides to use it against people.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

The Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.

then do you think with the modern army that normal citizens have a chance?

Do insurgents in Iraq have a chance? It isnt about beating the US army on the field of battle, it would be about making if painful for the oppressive regime to survive.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
I personally don't own a gun and never will. While I support a homeowner's right to protect their homes, I think a shotgun should be sufficient. Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet. Rifles are fine for hunters/target shooters. AR15s and other semi-automatic weapons have no business in the hands of a private citizen. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been grossly re-interpreted from the Founder's intentions. And for God's sake, lock up these things. Too many kids are dying because their moron parents don't lock up the guns.

I think it is you who have grossly re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment from the original intentions of it. Please read pretty much anything from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, etc.

 

[SilthDraeth]

I grew up shooting, I own guns, I was in the military, and I have not yet ever had the displeasure of shooting someone let alone having to aim my firearm at anyone. My father has had to though, and its not a pleasant experience, but it was a necessity.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

True enough, but the point is that permanent occupation would be damn near impossible (look at Iraq). It would be a guerrilla war anyways, not a mass standoff. And if the American people did decide to take out the current regime, the politicians would be lucky to escape with their lives in the face of 100 million armed citizens.