An Old Timer just told me

[cluznar]

An older guy that shoots at the range told me that people now get to carried away with nonsense about owning guns.
He said that we make it to be a big thing and go on and on. He says what we really need is learn what owning guns is all about.
Here is what he told me:
There are hunting guns, rifles and pistols used for hunting small and big game. That is their purpose.
Then there are people who collect guns. They may shoot a few but most of their guns are collectables.
Then there are the people who like to plink and shoot at ranges. They just really want to have fun.
Then there are the people who own guns for home defense and CCW. Now here he says is where the problem is.
He says too many people go for all the hype about certain guns. They think some guns are cool and the supreme answer for the perfect gun. He says a certain percentage of these people do not take classes to learn enough about safety and shooting. That they believe the gun is the great equalizer against all enemies. That the gun can make them into Wyatt Earp. They do not realize a gun is a tool that you have to know well for it to work well. He believes people over-complicate things when it comes to home/self defense. What every person needs are a couple guns that they shoot accurately and are comfortable with. It does not matter if it is a .22lr or .357 mag. He says when he was growing up he lived in several bad neighborhoods and this was how he handled it. He kept a .38 special snubby on his night stand, loaded and ready. He also had a .32 acp pistol which he carried both at home and when he went out. These he says were more than enough to defend himself and home because he was a very good shot with both weapons. He never worried about people with rifles breaking into his home; he believes people who worry about that now are most likely selling or hoarding drugs. He also thinks people get carried away with accessories such as belts and holsters. Just get a good gun belt and maybe a pocket, hip, or shoulder holster; whichever you feel comfortable with. Practice drawing from that holster safely, and you are good to go. Stop over-complicating things.
:triniti:

 

[BC1]

MAAAAA! Pops is rambling again.
.
Oh darn, he forgot to take his Aricept.

 

[telpinaro]

I'm thinking he somehow only owns stock in .32 caliber ammunition somewhere.

It is true, though... very important to be comfortable and accurate with whatever you have. Caliber is less important than trusting yourself and your gun.

 

[Banjarmon]

I like the way the OLD TIMER thinks...Be Very good with what your have, even if it is from your DAD!

 

[CharlesMorrison]

An older guy that shoots at the range told me that people now get to carried away with nonsense about owning guns.
He said that we make it to be a big thing and go on and on. He says what we really need is learn what owning guns is all about.
Here is what he told me:
There are hunting guns, rifles and pistols used for hunting small and big game. That is their purpose.
Then there are people who collect guns. They may shoot a few but most of their guns are collectables.
Then there are the people who like to plink and shoot at ranges. They just really want to have fun.
Then there are the people who own guns for home defense and CCW. Now here he says is where the problem is.
He says too many people go for all the hype about certain guns. They think some guns are cool and the supreme answer for the perfect gun. He says a certain percentage of these people do not take classes to learn enough about safety and shooting. That they believe the gun is the great equalizer against all enemies. That the gun can make them into Wyatt Earp. They do not realize a gun is a tool that you have to know well for it to work well. He believes people over-complicate things when it comes to home/self defense. What every person needs are a couple guns that they shoot accurately and are comfortable with. It does not matter if it is a .22lr or .357 mag. He says when he was growing up he lived in several bad neighborhoods and this was how he handled it. He kept a .38 special snubby on his night stand, loaded and ready. He also had a .32 acp pistol which he carried both at home and when he went out. These he says were more than enough to defend himself and home because he was a very good shot with both weapons. He never worried about people with rifles breaking into his home; he believes people who worry about that now are most likely selling or hoarding drugs. He also thinks people get carried away with accessories such as belts and holsters. Just get a good gun belt and maybe a pocket, hip, or shoulder holster; whichever you feel comfortable with. Practice drawing from that holster safely, and you are good to go. Stop over-complicating things.
:triniti:

The above "Story from an old timer" is nothing more than cluznars own words, re posted to sound less nauseating than when HE originally posted them.
This man(?) is a charlatan and a gun banner of the first order and has already been proven to be a liar in another (oh, say 100%) thread.
The only people who fall for his steaming pile of bat guano are the new people to this site.
Clunz! Do us all a favor and stop posting your drivel or at least own up to your gun grabbin ways for once and for all...


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[stewie-Y]

While it's good to respect the opinion of your elders, does this gentleman have any law-enforcement, military, or ANY other training or experience to backup his claims? Or, is this just the opinion of some old guy that has never been involved in any real self-defensive situation where he had to fire his gun?(Or does he even exist at all?)

Plus, your last paragraph has a valid point about training, and practice but doesn't really make much sense. First, you start it off by talking about "certain guns"(what I'm assuming you and the media would refer to "assault rifles") and your following statements are obviously meant to try to make the owners of such guns appear to be incompetent, ignorant fools. What would you say to someone that shoots accurately and are comfortable with an AR15, that they instead get a double barreled shotgun and shoot two blasts off the balcony?

 

[Firefighterchen]

According to cluznar:

...Hunters, plinkers, and collectors get more than enough training or don't need it. But ccw'ers are a bunch of untrained Wyatt Earp wannabes...

...Those who worry about criminals breaking into their homes are all ready drug dealers...

...Gun belts and holsters aren't a big deal...use whatever...

...Anyone who wants to be more than the minimum, is just over complicating the issue...

.32 and .38 are more than enough...so just stop there or you are over complicating it...

I ate a potato that gave better advice than that.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[mappow]

Damm it Chen, get some ruffage in your diet. Ya seemed to be a bit distressed.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Damm it Chen, get some ruffage in your diet. Ya seemed to be a bit distressed.

No distress for me, just like to point out that vegetables hold more capacity in the firearms world than cluznar.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[tcox4freedom]

The old guy is off base with SD & CCW being a problem. The gooberment and even most anti's take no issue with SD or CC. What they really fear is "We the People" having the ability to stop their overreaching & tyrannical plan for the destruction of our rights.

The COMPLETELY overlook the fact that our 2nd Amendment is has nothing to do with hunting, plinking or even personal self-defense. We have the 2am for one purpose and that purpose is for the protection from people who would take our freedoms away. (That is the problem our gooberment and the antis have with the rest of us owning firearms.)

-

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

What, no shotgun filled with rocksalt?

 

[Bikenut]

An old timer (my Dad) once told me that folks who constantly talk about how something is so wonderful, so great, so much the end all/be all, aren't trying to convince me to make the same choice/decision they did but are trying to convince themselves they made the best choice/decision.

 

[wolf_fire]

An older guy that shoots at the range told me that people now get to carried away with nonsense about owning guns.

Amazing...yet another "some guy at the range told me...." post from cluznar.

He said that we make it to be a big thing and go on and on. He says what we really need is learn what owning guns is all about.
Here is what he told me:
There are hunting guns, rifles and pistols used for hunting small and big game. That is their purpose.
Then there are people who collect guns. They may shoot a few but most of their guns are collectables.
Then there are the people who like to plink and shoot at ranges. They just really want to have fun.
Then there are the people who own guns for home defense and CCW. Now here he says is where the problem is.

So people who want to protect themselves ARE the PROBLEM???? And you decided this was such good advice from an old man at the range that you decided to share it with all of us in a forum for people who carry their weapons.

He says too many people go for all the hype about certain guns. They think some guns are cool and the supreme answer for the perfect gun. He says a certain percentage of these people do not take classes to learn enough about safety and shooting. That they believe the gun is the great equalizer against all enemies. That the gun can make them into Wyatt Earp. They do not realize a gun is a tool that you have to know well for it to work well. He believes people over-complicate things when it comes to home/self defense.

Let me reiterate. TOO many people... that means how many? "Certain guns"... which ones? "Certain percentage"... no kidding sherlock... so a "certain percentage" have not taken classes... well shiver me timbers... I bet the reverse is true that a certain percentage DID take classes. And the point is what? That if I learned to shoot from my father instead of from an instructor, I'm somehow inferior by this "old guy's" logic. How many classes did old guy take and which ones. I'd want to be as safe and un-complicated as he is.

What every person needs are a couple guns that they shoot accurately and are comfortable with. It does not matter if it is a .22lr or .357 mag. He says when he was growing up he lived in several bad neighborhoods and this was how he handled it. He kept a .38 special snubby on his night stand, loaded and ready. He also had a .32 acp pistol which he carried both at home and when he went out. These he says were more than enough to defend himself and home because he was a very good shot with both weapons. He never worried about people with rifles breaking into his home; he believes people who worry about that now are most likely selling or hoarding drugs. He also thinks people get carried away with accessories such as belts and holsters. Just get a good gun belt and maybe a pocket, hip, or shoulder holster; whichever you feel comfortable with. Practice drawing from that holster safely, and you are good to go. Stop over-complicating things.
:triniti:

Don't dare tell me what I need and what I don't need. What I choose to get and keep is my business and not a single other entity's business. What someone needs is based upon what that someone has assessed and determined by him/herself. Why is it also, you bring up the "amazing" qualities of the .32 ACP in just about every post. Is that the magical caliber everyone needs?? Also, the last I checked, the 2nd Amendment was about our rights, not our needs.

So this old man is a good shot? That's fine and dandy. And he has determined his NEED is a smaller caliber firearm. Fine and dandy. However, cluznar, you have been exposed that you are a gun grabber at heart and feel "certain guns" should be eliminated because no one NEEDS them.

And how dare you make sweeping generalities to the firearms owners on this site saying that people who wish to defend themselves against someone with a rifle are nothing more than selling and hoarding drugs. Say that to Nancy Lanza and the other victims of the Newtown shootings. I'd love for those teachers to have been armed to the teeth to stop Adam Lanza.

 

[Paul_of_TX]

I do agree with cluznar but only to a certain extent. When I was looking for a HD shotgun I went into a shop where I buy the majority of my guns at and asked to see their Remington 870's. They had some new and used. What I really wanted was a used 870 without all the fancy gadgets attached to it. The salesman showed me what they had and all the 870's they had were all tricked out along with a tricked out price tag. I asked if they had a used basic simple Remington 870 preferably with a 18 inch barrel. He went into the back and brought out exactly what I was looking for. He seemed a bit puzzled that I would want that instead of the other 870s that were more than double the price. It could just be that this guy would rather sell me the more expensive item. Personally I can't fathom when or where a door breacher muzzle would be useful on a HD shotgun. If there is a door between me and the home invader then I can simply wait for the cops to arrive while I remain safely armed with a barrier between me and the BG. Although I find some options to be a bit silly and some others a total waste of time and money I would tell someone to get whatever they deem necessary for their own protection.

 

[ezkl2230]

Why is it also, you bring up the "amazing" qualities of the .32 ACP in just about every post. Is that the magical caliber everyone needs?? Also, the last I checked, the 2nd Amendment was about our rights, not our needs.

Hey, the .32 was good enough for 007...“delivery like a brick through a plate glass window,” Major Boothroy, Dr. No. :sarcastic:

And an observation: the Second Amendment, like all the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, is both about rights AND needs. We have the inherent right to defend ourselves from the government and each other because we have the inherent need to defend ourselves. We have the inherent to right to free speech because we have the inherent need to express ourselves. We have the inherent right to freedom of religion because we have the inherent need to worship God. And it goes on. Our rights and the accompanying needs go hand in hand. Just a thought.

 

[r1derbike]

According to cluznar:

...Hunters, plinkers, and collectors get more than enough training or don't need it. But ccw'ers are a bunch of untrained Wyatt Earp wannabes...

...Those who worry about criminals breaking into their homes are all ready drug dealers...

...Gun belts and holsters aren't a big deal...use whatever...

...Anyone who wants to be more than the minimum, is just over complicating the issue...

.32 and .38 are more than enough...so just stop there or you are over complicating it...

I ate a potato that gave better advice than that.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Sounds an awful lot like a nocluznar one-off no?:biggrin:

 

[r1derbike]

Damm it Chen, get some ruffage in your diet. Ya seemed to be a bit distressed.

He's fine. He ate the peel too.

 

[BluesStringer]

Here's what the *real* dementia-addled "old man" thinks:

Expanded background checks can do no harm so why would people be against it? What is the sense in having most people take a background check but not all? This is all so silly to me. Like having expanded background checks is gonna hurt gun owners or something. It is no big deal, extend background checks already. Sometimes I feel that many gun owners believe the only important thing in the world are the guns they own. Human life is important, food is important, money is important, a place to live is important, etc.

A couple of sites I found say that he fancies himself a "writer." He seems to have tossed around the idea of becoming a screenwriter, though I found no credits to his name.

What I did find that was off-site of any of the gun forums was places like this little gem of an essay. Apparently he's just trying to keep his writing chops up though, because no real 2nd Amendment supporter would write stuff like this:

Link Removed

....When someone who owns handguns and talks illogically about their guns, it could be a sign they need help.....

Doctor, heal thyself!

...Another good way to help gun control is by having college classes which focus on people who have problems and may own guns. College students should be aware of other students who seem to have a bad attitude and also own guns. Students should be encouraged to tell college officials if they know another student who owns guns and may be having social or mental problems. It could be done anonymously and might save other peoples lives.

Umm....yeah, either that or it could cost the life of the deviants who run around asking their fellow students about their gun-owner status, only to then run to the Administration Bldg. immediately after finding one dumb enough to answer their questions and snitch on them because they like those eeeeeevil black rifles!

And the passage you all knew was coming, cluznar's standard proof that he is instead, cluezlessnar.

As for gun bans, without a doubt assault rifles must be banned, citizens have no need for assault rifles in an educated society.

For the newer guys (and ladies) around here, cluznar has been posting this kind of drivel for over two years now. At the root of everything he writes is a truly demented belief that he's contributing to changing gun owners' minds, to "soften us up" for the inevitability of what is coming, which is more gun control being imposed on America, whether it's through limiting the power of "legal" weapons to .32 ACP or .380, or through outright bans on what he deems none of us "needs."

Dude's a gun grabber people. There is no logic which legitimately argues otherwise. He is the "old timer" and he thinks he's qualified to tell you what you need, what is best for you, what you should be denied access to and on and on just like Bloomie, the Brady Bunch, the CT State Legislature and Governor, ditto NY, he's literally a bird of a feather with tyrants, except since he has no power, he's nothing more than a useful idiot for them.

In case anyone is not aware, it is possible on this forum to "Unlike" a post after you've reconsidered an errant "Like."

Blues

 

[wolf_fire]

Hey, the .32 was good enough for 007...“delivery like a brick through a plate glass window,” Major Boothroy, Dr. No. :sarcastic:

And an observation: the Second Amendment, like all the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, is both about rights AND needs. We have the inherent right to defend ourselves from the government and each other because we have the inherent need to defend ourselves. We have the inherent to right to free speech because we have the inherent need to express ourselves. We have the inherent right to freedom of religion because we have the inherent need to worship God. And it goes on. Our rights and the accompanying needs go hand in hand. Just a thought.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the position cluznar has taken in many of his other posts. Cluznar doesn't feel people in general have the need for a semi-automatic rifle and feels they should be banned based on his assessment that we don't NEED them.

 

[ezkl2230]

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the position cluznar has taken in many of his other posts. Cluznar doesn't feel people in general have the need for a semi-automatic rifle and feels they should be banned based on his assessment that we don't NEED them.

I understand - which is one of the reasons he went on my ignore list long ago.

And like so many others of the gun grabber mindset, he ignores the objective data. I have posted this statistic many times before: despite the vaunted edge enjoyed by law enforcement officers because of their superior training, and despite the fact that civilians kill three times more criminals than do the police each year, you are 5 1/2 times more likely to be shot and killed as an innocent person by police than by your fellow "Wyatt Earp wannabe," 11% (police) v 2% ("Wyatt Earp wannabes"), Gun Control: Myths and Realities | David Lampo | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary. Translation - despite the assumed edge held by police because of their training, civilians tend to have better situational awareness and do a better job discriminating between innocent people who only APPEAR to be committing a crime and criminals who truly are.

Why?

There are three likely explanations.

First, despite what cluznar believes, the average lawfully carrying civilian has a better grasp on the responsibilities and ramifications of carrying a firearm and using it in a defensive situation than he gives them credit for.

Second, despite what cluznar believes, the average lawfully carrying civilian spends more time at the range honing his skills than does the average law enforcement officer, who may only get enough range time time to qualify.

Third, the average lawfully carrying civilian goes into a defensive situation with the knowledge that every move he makes will be under the microscope of prosecutors who will assume he had other options than squeezing the trigger; the average officer goes into a defensive situation knowing that everyone will assume he had no other choice, until the totality of circumstances proves otherwise - and even then might not be found guilty. Despite the theory "innocent until PROVEN guilty," there is no such presumption for civilians, while officers are fully shielded by this presumption.

Finally, it appears that cluznar has an inability to read reports that disprove his theory regarding civilians and modern sporting rifles such as these:

Link Removed
Link Removed
N.Y. student with AR-15 scares off home intruder - Washington Times
Link Removed

This is just a tiny fraction of such available accounts, and they would be informative if cluznar ever took the time to read them.

Like I said, he is on my ignore list where he belongs.