Concealed carry firearms

[applepansy]

Hold on, you are correct in that aspect that the Roman Empire killed more. It had about 700 years to kill people. Machine guns are only about 150 years old.

Thats beside the point. Defend all you wish, but the fact remains, a child can kill 60 people within minutes, which is not possible without the gun.

I am for control because I don't trust people, unless they are properly trained and 99% of the gun owners are not. Arguing with Americans about control is like trying to take a blankey from a child.

As much as I hate guns I hate loss of freedom more. The only reason America is still free (well sort of free) is because we have the right to keep and bear arms...against our government if necessary.

[Sunnysprite]

I think it is cute that those who seem most willing to advocate war and violence, have never participated in either. I feel better off to get it done without.

[MarginOfError]

I think it is cute that those who seem most willing to advocate war and violence, have never participated in either. I feel better off to get it done without.

Even if you feel it is better to resolve conflicts without the use of force, the "speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy still requires having the stick.

[Blackmarch]

...against our government if necessary.

that might've worked at one time...however unless we want to to have significantly reduced restrictions legislating on the obtaining of Armored vehicles, military grade weapons (both long and short range, anti-vehicle and anti-personnel, and area of effect/suppression), we are seriously undergunned, underpowered, and underarmored if there ever is a civil war, and the gov has access to its current military resources.

That would not be the pro-gun argument i would use to keep guns around.

[Sunnysprite]

Even if you feel it is better to resolve conflicts without the use of force, the "speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy still requires having the stick.

I would not say that killing is the best part of my day.

[NeuroTypical]

I think it is cute that those who seem most willing to advocate war and violence, have never participated in either.

Sorry Sunny, could you point out someone who has "advocated war and violence" in this thread? I have missed the post(s)...

[mrmarklin]

Your telling me the Roman Empire killed more people with pointy iron implements than the machine gun?

Did I miss the part in my infantry training where I was told not to use my gun to shoot people?

Calling me naive with your statements is...out of touch with reality.

Not sure the RE killed more people or that that was a misinterpretation by you.

But I WILL correct all your historical inaccuracies.

THE US Civil War had more combat casualties than all wars that preceded it COMBINED. Up to 1861 it was the biggest war ever fought in history, with millions of combatants.

Most ancient battles or even Napoleonic battles didn't even get to the high 5 figures as far as combatants were concerned. Also, most battles were battles of manuever, not attrition (nephites and Jaredites excepted) and more people died from disease, exposure etc than combat. In fact, WWI was the first war in history that more people died from combat than other causes.

RE: Americans and guns: We like our guns. It's dangerous here!!!

Don't you watch American TV????

Edited September 26, 2012 by mrmarklin

[Vort]

Sorry Sunny, could you point out someone who has "advocated war and violence" in this thread? I have missed the post(s)...

That would be me.

[Sunnysprite]

that might've worked at one time...however unless we want to to have significantly reduced restrictions legislating on the obtaining of Armored vehicles, military grade weapons (both long and short range, anti-vehicle and anti-personnel, and area of effect/suppression), we are seriously undergunned, underpowered, and underarmored if there ever is a civil war, and the gov has access to its current military resources.

That would not be the pro-gun argument i would use to keep guns around.

Some people who are or want to be in government, are prepared to use federal troops on US citizens. There is precident for it. Federal troops were used against US citizens in several instances in our past history. I expected to see them used against the Occupy movement.

Knowing some of the tactical weaponry, I agree that conflicts would be one sided if all the troops followed orders.

The answers are not clear to me. I just do my job. Listening to the rhetoric of some around me, the use of Federal troops against Muslims here would not surprise me.

This discussion is getting a bit dark for me, so I am wit0hdrawing.

[NeuroTypical]

unless we want to to have significantly reduced restrictions legislating on the obtaining of Armored vehicles, military grade weapons (both long and short range, anti-vehicle and anti-personnel, and area of effect/suppression), we are seriously undergunned, underpowered, and underarmored if there ever is a civil war, and the gov has access to its current military resources.

That would not be the pro-gun argument i would use to keep guns around.

I would refer you to the copious historical accounts of insurgencies, up to and including any non-Afghani who has ever put on a uniform and gone to Afghanistan. Heck, go watch that horrible movie Red Dawn.

Disarming citizenry makes life easier for despots or tyrants. (I don't know anyone who is either, I'm just speaking in broad generalizations here.)

[BrendaM]

As a Canadian, let me say that I am in absolute agreement with the American constitution to bear arms. I get in trouble alot from family and friends for that, but so be it. The right to bear arms to me goes beyond just the right to have a gun.

I think if I could own a gun, I would want a Glock, I don't want to go to hell!

[mirkwood]

Cool! With the page 2 entry of the Canadian telling us we're all crazy, this gun thread now has reached all the milestones of a standard gun thread.

I now prophecy a slow descent into chaotic name-calling until finally locked by a mod. Here's your chance to prove I'm not a prophet.

Going to hell if you don't carry Glocks.

Going to hell if you choose beans over rice in your food storage.

[mirkwood]

I think it is cute that those who seem most willing to advocate war and violence, have never participated in either. I feel better off to get it done without.

And you know this to be the case how?

[ClickyClack]

Going to hell if you don't carry Glocks.

.

Nobody ever asked to know the Riddle Of Plastic.

[bytor2112]

Okay...so I have narrowed my choices down a bit more for a pocket carry gun.

Either a Ruger LCP .380 or Ruger LC9...9m round. Any thoughts? I think both can be purchased with grip laser sights....the LCP is a titch larger and the ammo is a bit cheaper.

[bytor2112]

Going to hell if you don't carry Glocks.

Going to hell if you choose beans over rice in your food storage.

I looked at a 26.... too big for a pocket gun.

[ClickyClack]

Okay...so I have narrowed my choices down a bit more for a pocket carry gun.

Either a Ruger LCP .380 or Ruger LC9...9m round. Any thoughts? I think both can be purchased with grip laser sights....the LCP is a titch larger and the ammo is a bit cheaper.

I've shot an LCP and an LC9, I liked the LC9 more. Longer sight radius makes it easier to aim, it actually seemed somewhat softer-recoiling than the LCP, and you're firing a much more effective round than the LCP.

Edited October 22, 2012 by ClickyClack

[mirkwood]

9mm hits harder then .380, though you can compensate with +P ammo.

You are correct, a G26 is not a pocket gun.

[RMGuy]

I'd go with 9 over 380. LCP is ok. If you like the LCP you might want to look at the Kel-Tec's as well. I have a P32 for when I need a mouse gun, nice, functional, cheap, without being cheaply made.

-RM