vernsimpson
New member
Perhaps he does have one point. My truck empties the gas tank when I turn the key in the ignition! So perhaps I should get rid of it!!!! :haha:
Why Do You Carry Concealed?
- Thread starter lukem
- Start date
Perhaps he does have one point. My truck empties the gas tank when I turn the key in the ignition! So perhaps I should get rid of it!!!! :haha:
mojo risin
Banned
Since It fired full auto without a single action of the trigger, it failed to meet your definition.
When you were able to chamber a cartridge without it firing on it's own, it functioned normally.
I chose to dispose of it because it was unsafe - not illegal.
Anything else I can help you with?
Since you are the one who fears public places without being armed - it would appear you are once again confused about just who's afraid of people with guns.
No real surprise there.
Not that having to strap on your courage before you leave home makes you less of a man or anything - I just don't personally feel the need.
Cool! So, according to you, a legal fully automatic firearm can be made so long as the hammer/striker follows the slide and the trigger is never pulled! Wow, that is so awesome, I'm goin' to make me one of those to carry and shoot at the range! Instead of pulling the trigger you just rack the slide and let it rip through all the rounds in the magazine and it's not a machine gun because the trigger is never pulled! Yeah, try that in front of your local ATF agent and see what happens, moron.
Once again you are putting your incredible stupidity on display for all to see. You know what NavyLCDR means, right? Navy + Lieutenant Commander. So where do you suppose a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy would work? Hmmmm.....maybe on a Navy base or Naval Air Station? And what items are prohibited on Navy bases and Naval Air Stations.....let's see.....one item would be FIREARMS. So, it seems to me like every day when I go to work I do so unarmed. If I go off base to eat lunch, I do so unarmed. If I go shopping between work and home, I do so unarmed. And I don't fear doing it. But if I can carry my firearm there is no reason not to. If I do go out away from home when not going to work the cell phone goes in my pocket and the paddle holster goes on my belt, it's as easy as that.
You see, many years ago I left my house at 5 am to go to work. At about 5:10 am one or more unknown persons jumped my fence into my back yard and started approaching my house. My three dogs ran out the doggy into the back yard and chased the one or more persons out of the yard. They must have thought the dogs were locked in the back yard because they came to the front of my house and kicked my front door in. My wife (at the time) who was sitting in the living room which was in a direct line with the front door screamed and the dogs came back inside through the doggy door and chased the bad guy(s) out of the house. At the time we did not own any firearms and who knows what would have happened if we didn't have the three dogs. That instance predicated us buying our first handgun and practicing at the range with it at least weekly because it was just a lot of fun to shoot at the range.
Now since a violent crime can happen anywhere and since I can't take dogs with me everywhere I go, there simply is no down side to just slipping the holster with the gun onto my belt when leaving the house.
I just can't bring myself to ignore you, Mojo Risin (aka Jim Morrison wannabe) because it is just too damn entertaining to read some of the crap you manage to come up with. I'm just curious - is your material all original, or do you have writers that write your comedy for you?
mojo risin
Banned
YOU posted the definition, dip-shlit.
It's almost as if you can't post without making an ass of yourself.
"SEEE.... I found this definition which clearly states that if you can fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull - it's a machine gun!"
I didn't pull the trigger?
"Uhhh, .... yeah, well..... they probably meant that too!"
You crack me up!
Let me help you again, nimrod.
The word of the day is intent.
The wording is such because pulling the trigger indicates an intent to fire.
It's against the law to intentionally drive 100mph on the freeway.
An exception would be doing so because of a mechanical failure beyond your control.
You're making a fool of yourself, Lt.
I've gotten stronger semantical arguments from children.
Why is that?
And more importantly, why aren't you advocating the right to do so?
I know, LT........ I know.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I knew where you were going with that, but decided to wait and see if the anti-gunner would take the bait. For being as big a troll as he/she is, he/she sure bit hard on the first piece of bait offered to him/her.
Well done Navy.
Blues
mojo risin
Banned
Let me help you there Blues....
From the actual court filing:
Olofson loaned Kiernicki an AR-15 and hundreds of rounds of ammunition on four separate occasions. The selector switch on the borrowed AR-15 had three positions: one marked "fire," one marked "safety," and one that was unmarked. Olofson and Kiernicki discussed the unmarked setting on July 13, 2006, which was the fourth time that Olofson loaned Kiernicki the weapon. Olofson told Kiernicki that putting the selector switch in the unmarked position would enable the AR-15 to fire a three-round burst with a single pull of the trigger, but the gun would then jam.
Link Removed
I trust you understand that by telling Kiernicki in advance that the third setting would fire 3 shot bursts - Olofson was indeed guilty of knowingly transferring an unregistered machine gun - something that has no parallel what so ever to my situation - and something he rightfully did time for.
But you know them gun nuts - no sense letting the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant.
As long as it makes gun laws look bad, who cares if it's true or not.
From the actual court filing:
Olofson loaned Kiernicki an AR-15 and hundreds of rounds of ammunition on four separate occasions. The selector switch on the borrowed AR-15 had three positions: one marked "fire," one marked "safety," and one that was unmarked. Olofson and Kiernicki discussed the unmarked setting on July 13, 2006, which was the fourth time that Olofson loaned Kiernicki the weapon. Olofson told Kiernicki that putting the selector switch in the unmarked position would enable the AR-15 to fire a three-round burst with a single pull of the trigger, but the gun would then jam.
Link Removed
I trust you understand that by telling Kiernicki in advance that the third setting would fire 3 shot bursts - Olofson was indeed guilty of knowingly transferring an unregistered machine gun - something that has no parallel what so ever to my situation - and something he rightfully did time for.
But you know them gun nuts - no sense letting the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant.
As long as it makes gun laws look bad, who cares if it's true or not.
In response to your post #1128 there mojo risin, I did not know about that little piece of information regarding that court case. That doesn't mean you are a genius by any stretch of the imagination, it just means that people can learn from the mentally challenged too. And I am man enough to admit that I did learn something from you.
Now you or someone else takes your little defective pea shooter to the gun range and the cops confiscate it because someone pulled the trigger and it fired more than one round and they discover that it went full auto before and you knew it, whether or not the trigger was pulled the first time it happened, I guarantee you would be doing your time for illegal possession and/or transfer of a machine gun.
Now you or someone else takes your little defective pea shooter to the gun range and the cops confiscate it because someone pulled the trigger and it fired more than one round and they discover that it went full auto before and you knew it, whether or not the trigger was pulled the first time it happened, I guarantee you would be doing your time for illegal possession and/or transfer of a machine gun.
mojo risin
Banned
Thanks, but you shouldn't have had to.
The old adage works both ways..... if something sounds too bad to be true - it probably isn't.
I call it the Murdoch syndrome.
Nah.
You got to remember, Kiernicki fired it auto again and again - until authorities were called.
Why he told them he knew it was auto when in the third position is beyond me?
All I can figure is that he didn't know it was against the law, and if that's the case - he shouldn't have had it to begin with.
Look, Olofson was just another anti-government radical who got what he deserved.
He was building and selling these AR's - using parts from M-16's to make them auto.
While there may well be examples to rag on the ATF over,..... this isn't one of them.
The only lesson to be learned from this story is just how incredibly dishonest gun rights activists are.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
mojo risin
Banned
"And if the government ever says you can't have a gun, that's when you'll need a gun"
...... Cried Vernon Wayne Howell, as he poured gasoline on his followers.
...... Cried Vernon Wayne Howell, as he poured gasoline on his followers.
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
...... Mao Tse Tung, Problems of War and Strategy, Nov. 6, 1938
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”
..... Diane Feinstein, Feb. 5, 1995
"The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake."
..... US Senator Malcom Wallup, March 8, 1997
...... Mao Tse Tung, Problems of War and Strategy, Nov. 6, 1938
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”
..... Diane Feinstein, Feb. 5, 1995
"The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake."
..... US Senator Malcom Wallup, March 8, 1997
Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes
Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.
On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.
On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
mojo risin
Banned
I don't know how to break this to you LT, but in this country that's how it's supposed to work.
If the people believe that a law needs to change, their elected Congress votes on it.
In some cases they even amend the constitution - I'm sure you're familiar with this concept.
I realize you have convinced yourself that the 2nd amendment came from the burning bush, but it didn't.
It was simply the will of the people at the time.
And if at some point the people will otherwise,... well, I guess we'll see a lot of cold dead empty hands.
You know the drill - love it or leave it.
mojo risin
Banned
Oh, and just a heads up....
Your Forbes article?
Another steaming load.
Those numbers attributed to Newsweek are actually from John Lott's 2003 "study".
If you ever bother actually looking into it, you'll see that he was shredded as a joke years ago.
That study is also the source of the NRA's 2.5 million annual DGU number - which was nominated as the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official.
Your Forbes article?
Another steaming load.
Those numbers attributed to Newsweek are actually from John Lott's 2003 "study".
If you ever bother actually looking into it, you'll see that he was shredded as a joke years ago.
That study is also the source of the NRA's 2.5 million annual DGU number - which was nominated as the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official.
mojo risin
Banned
No need.
As I already pointed out, guns are only allowed where the property owners allow them, so we have plenty of places to go - with more on the way.
Great country, isn't it?
CharlesMorrison
Banned
You do realize that we do not live in a Democracy.....?
Please tell me that you are not that stupid.....
Votes don't overrule a Constitutional Amendment....
Please tell me that you are not that stupid.....
(You might very well BE that stupid but... Who knows?)
I'm sure MDA appreciates your support.
mojo risin
Banned
Hey Chuckles... I realize you are a blathering idiot and all, but how about you get someone to read the 21st amendment to you.
It's a short one, I'll crack open an ice cold beer and wait.
The only support I offer is my patronage to businesses who agree that intentionally mixing guns and alcohol is an incredibly stupid idea.
And whilst they may not be idiot proof, they are at least idiot resistant - and I'm OK with that.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Well......
It's apparent that you ARE that stupid.
You can't come to a gun forum talking sh!t when you are already too stupid to know what form of Government we actually have...
Deflect, deflect, deflect.....it appears to be the only real skill you have.... Dumb ass..
Link Removed
(Apply as needed)
