November/December's ConcealCarryChat.com Contest

[Bman505]

Our November's contest is actually a two month long contest. The prize is well worth it too! The contest is going to be,

The Great Gun Debate of 2009!
The topic is, you choose. There can be as many topics, debates or issues as you choose. Who ever puts up and contends the best in this two month long contest will be the winner of a new vault from one of our newest sponsors, Console Vault (https://consolevault.com/)!

https://consolevault.com/Resources/NewLayout/images/CV_Head.gif

The Console Vault (https://consolevault.com/) is the best way to secure your valuables in your vehicle. The last thing you want is for your vehicle to get broken into and your firearm ending up in the hands of a criminal! The Console Vault (https://consolevault.com/) is the answer to those concerns. They offer a wide variety of console vaults and portable vaults to help you protect your valuables and firearms while stored in your vehicle.
https://consolevault.com/images/FordF150vault.jpg

Here is a complete review of the Console Vault. (http://www.concealcarrychat.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3792#post3792)

[jlsalc]

How's this for starters... I love my Glock (23). I think it's the best weapon I've ever owned. Comfortable in my hand and I am always sure it will fire when I pull the trigger. What else could you ask for.

[Jizzle]

how much do you know about the .40 s&w as a caliber?

[Colt 45]

I've learned enough to the point I am thinking of putting my Glock 27 up for sale. I have tons of ammo though that I would have to use up first of course...

Max

how much do you know about the .40 s&w as a caliber?

[Bman505]

I've learned enough to the point I am thinking of putting my Glock 27 up for sale. I have tons of ammo though that I would have to use up first of course...

Max

I can help you use it up!!!:)

[Colt 45]

Great idea! We may be coming to Alamo next weekend, I'll let you know and maybe we can meet up at the range...

Max

I can help you use it up!!!:)

[Jizzle]

what did you learn colt?

[Colt 45]

I learned that the .40 S&W was not designed well, and in fact can be dangerous, especially if reloaded. I've never had a problem with my Glock 27, but decided quite a while ago not to reload that cartridge. What I am thinking now is that I would like a 10 mm. I just with that ammo was more readily available for it.

Max

what did you learn colt?

[deadeyedago]

Here's something to think about the Gov. of Calf. just signed a bill into law where if you buy ammo you have to be finger printed, which is kept on record. Does he think the criminals are going to buy ammo and get finger printed so they can get caught easyer and make the police's job easy. I think not. The sliz bags will just steal what they need or go across state line and get it.

[Colt 45]

Yeah just like criminals will submit to a background check to buy a firearm, or that they will honor "gun-free" zones. They don't and never will.

Max

Here's something to think about the Gov. of Calf. just signed a bill into law where if you buy ammo you have to be finger printed, which is kept on record. Does he think the criminals are going to buy ammo and get finger printed so they can get caught easyer and make the police's job easy. I think not. The sliz bags will just steal what they need or go across state line and get it.

[Jizzle]

the .40 is a shortened version of the 10mm. so you like the caliber colt? just not the short case design? is there a flaw in it?

[Colt 45]

The .40? Yeah I do like it. But the 10 mm is a better caliber right?

Max

the .40 is a shortened version of the 10mm. so you like the caliber colt? just not the short case design? is there a flaw in it?

[Jizzle]

Forgive me I was playing the devil's advocate.

The 10mm is the father cartridge for the .40 S&M. It was designed to have higher stopping power than the .45 ACP and have a greater range and accuracy than the 9mm Parabellum with ammo capacity similar to the 9mm. It achieved those goals. Sounds sweet huh?

The FBI chose the round for their feild trials and found the recoil of full power loads to stiff for their female agents and dropped the cartridge. They then adopted a 10mm FBI round which essentially was a 10mm with less powder in it. There where reliability issues with weapons not cycleing correctly. The .40 S&W was designed to "fix" and entirely functional cartridge. However, with the .40 S&W is thought to have a flaw concerning case pressures and head spacing.
The cases are rated to roughly 35,000 PSI and with certain powders the case pressures spike above that unpredictably causeing weapon damage and have also been known to cause injuries. Sinclair can probably go into more detail if he's so inclined to. He is after all the resident engineer.

Here's the thing. Why reverse engineer a cartridge because it kicks too much ass? That makes no sense to me. Take a cartridge that puts a 200+ grain bullet down range at well above super sonic speeds with 15 in the magazine not to mention absolutely dead on accurate and then complain that it's not comfortable in the hands of women and men with smaller hands. Are you serious? That's like asking for a corvette Z06 then realizing that you don't want to look cool or go faster than 30 miles per hour and then asking for a V6 version that gets worse gas milage, has worse emissions and has a higher possibility to blow up on you if you refuel it yourself.... Doesn't make sense to me.

[Luvs2Play]

I don't know, I have been reloading 40 for quite a while and shooting it in my Glock 23. It has not blown up yet, and I don't expect it too either. I am also very confident that it will stop any threat I could possibly come up against. The only change I have made is going to a Lone Wolf barrel that has a supported chamber. The accuracy is plenty good too.

[Jizzle]

honestly most guns are going to be more accurate than the shooter. the accuracy of the .40 isn't the issue. The issue is, people don't chose a self defense caliber because it's comfortable to shoot. If they did they would all shoot .22 shorts out of heavy guns.

For what reason did you chose .40 s&w as your cartridge?

[Luvs2Play]

I never owned one, bought it because the price was right. Shot it and really enjoyed it. Have now carried it for a year, have put a lot of rounds through it with zero failures. There was really no reason for choosing it, I have other calibers from .380 to 44 mag. I guess .40 s&w was just one I never had. As far as the 10mm, I may consider it later, but I just don't feel the need to go there right now. I don't know anyone that has one, so I can't get a feel from anyone on it. I also like to keep things where the wife can handle them without any problems. I am going to guess that the 10mm is going to be more than she is going to want to shoot a lot of. She carries 9mm all the time, and doesn't care for the .40. As far as SD, if the .40 isn't enough, I'm not sure anything short of a morter shell is going to do the job. I would think that 20 to 25 feet is close enough for anything over a .32. I guess the other plus is that I was able to get brass for a .40 this year, and if I wanted to buy factory ammo, there has been plenty of it too.

[Bman505]

I have owned .25 cal, 9mm, .40. , .45 and my weapon of choice is going to be my XD Sub 40. It is the right size for carrying, great accuracy, and smooth firing. I enjoyed my .45 but not paying the hefty price for ammunition. I can usually walk into Walmart or a sporting goods place and pick up a couple boxes of .40 ammo any day. Jizzle, I do believe you said it is hard to find right? I know you reload, but many don't. So if you are considering buying a 10mm, keep this in mind.

[Jizzle]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/10/08/17733841.php

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/10/08/17733841.php

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/lom/0412/the_peter_soulis_incident.html

There is some reading for the .40 S&W advocates.

10mm is a SD round. If you would like to shoot it often I would reccomend reloading. My wife, 5ft 1in 110 pounds can handle my G20 well enough that I would reccomend not walking into my house at night without a lot of life insurance.

What were the thought process's that you followed when purchasing your .40s?

[jlsalc]

I've learned enough to the point I am thinking of putting my Glock 27 up for sale. I have tons of ammo though that I would have to use up first of course...

Max


When you are ready to sell keep me in mind. My Glock fund is growing and I have a Glock 27 next on my list of weapons I have to own. ha ha.. I may be ready to purchase about the time you are out of ammo... Or sooner. Thanks.

[Bman505]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/10/08/17733841.php

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/10/08/17733841.php

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/lom/0412/the_peter_soulis_incident.html

There is some reading for the .40 S&W advocates.

10mm is a SD round. If you would like to shoot it often I would recommend reloading. My wife, 5ft 1in 110 pounds can handle my G20 well enough that I would recommend not walking into my house at night without a lot of life insurance.

What were the thought process's that you followed when purchasing your .40s?

Jizzle, I have read similar stories with other calibers. Are you saying that a .40 cal does not have sufficient knock down power?

[Luvs2Play]

While these stories are probably true, I see where there were only 5 out of 47 shots to vital areas. To me, this says more about the abilities of the officers to perform under pressure than the ballistics of the .40s&w. I do agree, it is not the most powerful round out there, but I am willing to take my chances. Since last night, I have not found a volunteer to stand in front of it and prove it wrong.:( As far as knowing for sure that I am going to only get one shot, I will carry my 44 mag!

At any rate, taking 47 shots to drop a BG would really be scarry, no matter what you are shooting. But you have to remember, 47 shots with a 40 is only $13.00, and it's always a lot of fun to shoot!

I'm just not convinced that I should cut up my Glock 23 just yet.

[Jizzle]

Jizzle, I have read similar stories with other calibers. Are you saying that a .40 cal does not have sufficient knock down power?

It has problems penetrating at short ranges that other calibers do not. Knock-Down power isn't quantifiable.

The closest thing we can get to quantifiable knock down power is muzzel energy which is measured in joules. Here's the break down.


1. 9mm 115gr +p+ (normal self defense load)

750+ Joules
1250-1350 FPS

2. 10mm Auto 200gr (normal SD load)

1000+ Joules
1400-1450 FPS

3. .40 S&W 180gr (normal sd load)

500+ Joules
900-1000 FPS

The speed of sound at sea level is right over 1000 FPS which puts normal .40 round either right over the speed of sound at the muzzle or right under and the 10mm and 9mm +P+ well above at the muzzle. When a round goes from supersonic to subsonic in flight the sound wave catching up with it can push the round off target as much as 6in within 50 yards. Which puts the .40 at an accuracy disadvantage on the loadings that put it right over the speed of sound. And the normal loads for .40 have case pressures of 32,000 with a max of 35,000 which doesn't give you a lot of room to play with. So, no +p or +p+ loadings for the .40's case design as it is currently.

And yes being able to place your shot in the correct place is very very important. 5 shots in vital areas out of 27 is very low. However, as I stated before, the penetration needed to reach those areas if you succeed in placing the shots correctly is very important. Also with rounds like the 10mm and 9mm +p+ hydrostatic shock has been known to cause brains to hemmorage from receiving shots to center mass. Just something to think about.

[sinclair]

Here's something to think about the Gov. of Calf. just signed a bill into law where if you buy ammo you have to be finger printed

How does the bill apply to reloaders ? Do you have to be fingerprinted when you buy any reloading equipment ? After all, it seems to me that more ammo is manufactured in this country by reloaders than all the ammo manufacturers combined. Proving that would be fun but it is a reasonable guess given sales of components.

I learned that the .40 S&W was not designed well, and in fact can be dangerous, especially if reloaded.

That would be fun to look into. While there are many instances of 40 reloads being a problem, there are also cases where factory 40's cause problems as well. I suspect a combination of problems which together make the 40 marginal for safety. And gun design is a contributor to this problem without doubt.

The only change I have made is going to a Lone Wolf barrel that has a supported chamber.

Interesting change to the original gun design. Why did you do that, just for the purpose of debate ?

Jizzle, I have read similar stories with other calibers. Are you saying that a .40 cal does not have sufficient knock down power?

When the 40 fails, it almost always has sufficient knock down power to take the gun out of your hand and render it useless. That is not a good potential
in a self defense firearm. It is the one caliber I do not reload or experiment with until more failure data is in on the caliber. Nor do I feel comfortable
shooting that caliber, even though most failures have not resulted in personal inhury to the shooter.

Knock-Down power isn't quantifiable.

Great way to state a challenge ! That simply means it should be done using Heuristics, which brings me to this :

My own nomination for debate is related to a link in the Self Defense guide. I prefer this version:

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/index.php?pageid=self-defense-guide

since all the tables are intact, and from the seventh internet reference in Appendix C, The Great Bullet debate has all manner of interesting points. While I cannot fault the conclusions, they dodge the basic debate very nicely.

http://personal.palouse.net/joeh/pages/BulletDebate.htm

Instead of dodging the issue, is there any good method or combination of methods to yield a reasonable predictor for generic bullet performance on a target ? I think it can be done better than it has been so far.

[Luvs2Play]

Interesting change to the original gun design. Why did you do that, just for the purpose of debate ?





Looking back, you will see that I reload .40s&w, the Polygonal rifling is not acceptable to lead deposits, thus raising the chamber pressure causing real problems. Also, the Glock 23 barrel is not supported, with too high of pressure, they have been known to explode. The Lone Wolf barrel is a supported barrel with standard groove and land rifling, making it okay to shoot lead bullets with less dangerous chamber pressure. Just for debate!

[Jizzle]

The reason in my opinion that stopping power isn't quantifiable is that simple fact that every person is composed of different density bone/muscle/tissues. A bullet that hits me will not effect me the same as the same bullet that hits a professional football player in the same place.

So, it will take a lot more to stop him than it would me.

Other factors would be, pain tolerance, anatomical differences, motivation and adrenaline levels. which vary hugely person to person.

[sinclair]

Also, the Glock 23 barrel is not supported, with too high of pressure, they have been known to explode.

There has been a trend with MANY gun manufacturers for a long time to machine a feed ramp into the chamber to aid in magazine feeding. This is a problem for reloaders to insure that you never use an overcharge. What is also happening I think, is that some manufacturers push the envelope in terms of how far they go into the chamber. While it happens for cartridges other than the 40, I see a combination of high case pressure and too much chamber intrusion to be more prevalent with the 40. I also sense a difference between the 40 and other cases that I have not yet been able to quantify.

Here is an example of 9mm feed ramp chamber intrusion:

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/9mmchamberedrounds.jpg

The 40 tends to be the main case I see on the range that usually shows some form of bulge at the base. But that was some years back. These days, I see it in other calibers. Here is a sample of why 380 Autos and 9mm bulge from the Ruger LCP barrels and the P3AT.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/compare.jpg

By comparison, here is the 40 chambers.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/40SWchmbr.jpg

[Luvs2Play]

I haven't had the bulge in my Glock since I changed the barrel. It was very noticeable before. I never shot reloads at all. There is quite a difference with the Wolf barrel, I am going to go check some LCP brass in a little while, I have never noticed it, but will look. At any rate, I don't seem to be as concerned about it as maybe I should, but I have put several thousand rounds through it and never had a problem.

I NEVER run a hot load, there is no reason to when putting holes in paper is the only purpose.

[Colt 45]

Here is some more information on the "kaboom" problem.


Glock kb FAQ (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html)

Max

[Colt 45]

I'll do that. I'll see if I can burn up some of that ammo this weekend... ;-)

Max

When you are ready to sell keep me in mind. My Glock fund is growing and I have a Glock 27 next on my list of weapons I have to own. ha ha.. I may be ready to purchase about the time you are out of ammo... Or sooner. Thanks.

[jlsalc]

I'll do that. I'll see if I can burn up some of that ammo this weekend... ;-)

Max

Great. I sent you a PM, no need to reply. Just let me know what you want so I can work on putting the money together. I travel to Las Cruces often so we can make the trade face to face.

[Colt 45]

I chose the .40 for the simple reason that I was in Sportsman's Warehouse here in Cruces last December (before they closed) and they had a Glock 27 with night sites. Being that .40 S&W is one of the few calibers that I had no experience with, and I am prone to "impulse" buys it came home with me.

I have put a few rounds through it and I have no complaints, except that I think this size gun is a little small for me. It does conceal well though.

Max

honestly most guns are going to be more accurate than the shooter. the accuracy of the .40 isn't the issue. The issue is, people don't chose a self defense caliber because it's comfortable to shoot. If they did they would all shoot .22 shorts out of heavy guns.

For what reason did you chose .40 s&w as your cartridge?

[Jizzle]

sinclair here's something to consider as far as the .40's possible weakness.

doesn't it seem very fat for the short length of the case? there isn't much space to distribute the pressure which could be a problem.

[sinclair]

doesn't it seem very fat for the short length of the case? there isn't much space to distribute the pressure which could be a problem.

Yes, that is what I meant by sensing a difference with the 40. My instinct tells me that what needs to be looked at is what happens in a high pressure case (like the 40, but the 9mm is also in that pressure range) when the base of the bullet is seated such that the distance from the bullet base to the case base is about the same as the bullet diameter. That high pressure then begins to be expended equally against all sides, as well as the bullet base. I have not yet figured how to calculate this to prove that reasoning makes sense compared to cases where this is not likely to occur. That is a very poor description of what I believe is the theory of why the 40 is problematic. Combine such a pressure situation with an unsupported chamber and a weak case or a slight overcharge becomes a disaster. If I could have written this paragraph better, I suspect it could be the outline for a good research paper, but of course the research would be painful, as would the math proof.

Where things get confusing is that there are "kabooms" in almost all firearms with unsupported chambers, regardless of caliber, but mostly with reloads which are probably on the "hot" side pressure wise. So the issues involved are unsupported chambers, hot loads, and a possible bad pressure combo when the 40 bullets are long enough to seat deep in the case. (That's different from seating a bullet too deep in any caliber, which is also an immediate pressure problem. That's another big safety issue while I am thinking of it. How many out there have jammed a bullet in an auto, and thought nothing about extracting and recycling it through the gun again ? Potential disaster there too for almost the same reason.)

[Jizzle]

.45s normal pressures are in the 20,000 range right? they are another short fat case and we all know what happens when you take that pressure much higher than the reccomended ranges on 45s.

and for the sake of argument. why buy something that does the job marginally vs something that gets it done point blank period dot. I don't trust myself or my family with: "it will probably work". The reason I shoot Glocks and the reason I chose the 10mm is because I know for a fact point blank period dot that if I hit center mass and he's wearing anything less than a 1inch thick peice of plate steel on his chest he's out of the fight even if he is, a pro football player. :D

[Colt 45]

Well Jizzle thanks a lot you got me wanting a 10 mm now! I had a chance when I got my 27 they had a 10 mm but I didn't know anything about them. Of course, that didn't stop me from getting the 27...

Max

[sinclair]

.45s normal pressures are in the 20,000 range right?

In a debate, it helps to tie things down a bit. Here is the quick reference I use:

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/saami_pressures.htm

45 ACP 21,000
45 ACP +P 23,000

As I read the chart, these measurements should be in PSIA rather than CUP.

There is a conversion from CUP to PSI but it don't work well for pistol calibers. My quick rule of thumb is that the PSIA measure will be slightly greater than the equivalent CUP measurement in pistols.

Both the 40 and the 9mm run 35,000, just 1000 less than the 41 Mag, 44 Mag and equal to the 357 mag pressure. The 10mm runs even higher at 37,500. Why no "kabooms" in the 10mm do you suppose ?

[Jizzle]

much longer case compared to it's width is my theory even with my HOT HOT HOT loads i don't get a glock buldge with my stock barrel. And those loads are putting a 200 grainer down range at roughly 1400 fps which according to the load data i have is almost max case pressure. BTW when you shoot those off at the range people from the next pistol pit come over and ask what in the heck you are shooting. it's a blast.

[sinclair]

much longer case compared to it's width is my theory

That is more or less a description of "Load Density". Which in turn is the means for controlling where the peak pressure occurs in the barrel. The closer to the end of the barrel, the more the muzzle flash and worse the accuracy. The closer the peak occurs to the chamber, the greater the accuracy. Its more than theory, but less than a law of nature. Here is how it can be calculated:

http://www.shootingsoftware.com/loadens.htm

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VIIE11.html

Or using the rare, hard to find Powley slide computer

http://www.wetinkpro.com/john/site/handload.php

Or use the programs specially developed for it:

Silhouette Ballistics Version – 19.0

http://home.comcast.net/~jesse99/interior.html

QuickLoad is an internal ballistics predictor computer program for fire arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickLOAD

Source for the QuickLoad program and other great goodies

http://www.neconos.com/

QuickLoad review and users guide

http://www.6mmbr.com/Quickload.html

[Bman505]

Jizzle, I hear what you are saying and some what agree. I still love my XD 40 Sub Compact and until it blows up on me you will not be able to change that.

I have a topic for you though. I would like to know why you prefer to OC vs CC? I believe it is so much easier and less attention drawing to CC vs OC. Not trying to pick on you or call you out, It is just a good discussion for all. Do you think if you were carrying concealed at the movie theater the events that happened would have never reached that point. Believe me, I am glad, to a point, that they did happen for the sake of the turn out and DPS admitting that their officers need to pay more attention. The point I am making is that carrying concealed draws so much less attention because they don't know. So you give them nothing to talk about. If a BG walks into a store and sees you OCing, they either leave or take you out first because you are the threat, correct? It only makes sense that carrying CC keeps you out of the spot light. Your thoughts?

[Jizzle]

Are you ready for this? Here is your answer. It was written by a HCP (in Tenn you are required to have a permit to carry, either open or concealed. The permit covers both) holder who resides in Tenn. This article can be copied as long as the original author was cited as the source. The editing was done by those of us at OpenCarry.org and others.

OPEN CARRY VS. CONCEALED CARRY

Revision 1.24

Written By: Garry E. Harvey
Contributing Editors: OpenCarry.org Members


The purpose of this essay is to examine the two competing points of view within the handgun carry community and consider each one for its merits, both good and bad, from a common sense and logical point of view.

INTRODUCTION

"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"

Weapons and firearms in particular have been personified by many in recent decades as being evil and able to impart that evil into anyone who chooses to wield the weapon. In the anti-gun community, the only ones who appear to be immune from the gun's evil are those acting under the authority of government. It has been engrained into the minds of millions that ordinary citizens cannot and should not be trusted with the ability to use firearms for protection much less carry them into the public. Anyone who advocates such action is labeled evil, dangerous, or a vigilante. This line of thinking appears to be slowing eroding away as evidenced by the fall of the once prominent and powerful anti-gun lobby. The number of people choosing to carry a weapon for self protection has been growing steadily since the first laws were enacted. The cry of anarchy and blood running in the streets by the anti-gun lobby has proven false. As this has become more and more apparent, no thinks to the main stream media, the average citizen is beginning to change their minds over the issue. Criminals in an armed society know that their actions may garner them instant peril of death should they choose the wrong victim. That old saying still proves to be as true as it ever was, "An armed society is a polite society."
Carrying a pistol has been a part of my daily routine for going on four years. During that time I've taken almost every opportunity to speak with people from each end of the spectrum regarding the issue. Before I ever received my permit I remember part of a conversation I had with a party advocate for the Al Gore campaign in early 2000. Among the issues I posed to her during our conversation was that of Mr. Gore's support of gun control measures. She scoffed at me and snobbishly remarked that we didn't live in the Wild West. At the time I was not as well versed in the issue as I am now and really had no response although with her status I would have had more luck convincing a fence post otherwise. Over the next seven years I made it a point to broach the topic every chance I had with whomever I thought might have an interesting opinion on the matter. I researched the writing of the founding fathers and their predecessors with fervor. I studied the history of gun-control in America from the civil war forward, the rise of anti-gun organizations and those pro-gun organizations who rose in opposition to defend the Constitution. Having made my decision as to which side I was on I was surprised at the sometimes hateful opposition to carrying a firearm openly by members of the pro-gun rights community. It is for this reason I have undertaken to write this for everyone within that community. Before I delve into specifics let me state firstly that how one chooses to carry their weapon is their own choice and should not be subjected to harassment from others who disagree with that choice. My purpose is not to hold one method above the other but rather detail the benefits of both and leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself which they prefer.


CONCEALED CARRY

THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE

The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.
What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victim’s favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.
Another reason given for favoring concealed carry is the fear or perceived risk of the weapon being taken by the CRIMINAL. In one of two versions the CRIMINAL takes the weapon after it has been drawn from the holster and pointed at him. This is commonly shown in movies where the CRIMINAL takes the gun as the ARMED CITIZEN is too afraid to shoot. Unless the attacker is suicidal or the firearm is incapable of firing for some reason, expect to see this situation stay in the movies. The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.
Another less logical reason for not carrying openly is that one does not want to appear to be "looking for trouble." This line of thought seems to have evolved from the anti-gun accusation that everyone who carries a weapon is looking for a fight. The illogical hypothetical given for example tends to go as follows. The CRIMINAL sees the ARMED CITIZEN carrying a weapon and for no logical reason chooses to confront the ARMED CITIZEN and instigate a fight which inevitably ends with the CRIMINAL winning. Upon close scrutiny the reason and the hypothetical posed do not match up. First, why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one "looking for trouble" when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL "looking for trouble" by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.
Although there are other reasons I've been given for carrying concealed, the ones discussed have been some of the most prevalent; of the three only two hold some historical basis for concern but the last one falls apart upon a logical evaluation. The real reason for concealment has less to do with a tactical advantage, I think, and more to do with a social advantage. If the ARMED CITIZEN thinks he would be better served in a temporary social environment to have his weapon concealed then by all means do so. An example might be that you're shopping at a local mall owned and operated by big city politically correct hacks that are obviously anti-gun. If you know they'll ask you to leave their property should they become aware of you exercising your rights, it would be understandable to conceal it from their view; that is if you have to shop there. Maybe you're going to church and you don't want to draw attention from the preacher and his sermon. Bottom line, you should conceal when you think it is reasonable and serves a nobler purpose, not because someone pressured you.


THE CASE FOR OPEN CARRY

BEWARE OF DOG/GUN

A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.
The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.
With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.


CONCLUSION

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY

What is the real reason some shy from open carry? I believe it to be fear; the anxiety of having to confront someone hostile to their choice to carry a weapon for personal defense. As a pro-carry activist I welcome it but I can understand where a large section of armed citizens do not. Are there times when it is expedient to conceal your sidearm, definitely! Should you feel ashamed to carry it openly, NO! Hundreds of thousands of people have fought state after state to pass legislation to restore that right which was once only granted at the behest of local law enforcement.
Anti-gun hacks claim to have a right to "feel safe." This non-existent right has been twisted from the right to "be secure in one's person and effects" a right I exercise whenever I carry my weapon. The anti-gun crowd has the twisted perception that the weapon and not the criminal is the threat. They will and have called the police to harass the ARMED CITIZEN; I advise you show your permit and carry on. They may card you as many times as they wish as I long as you know you are legal nothing they do should stop you from carrying openly.
We, the pro-carry citizens, have to stop criticizing each other. We have to stop playing footsy with the politically correct crowd and stick together. Public opinion can be swayed in our favor if we as law abiding citizens can show through open carry that we are safe, caring individuals whose only want is to be able to defend our family and ourselves from needless victimization. Ben Franklin said it best when he explained that "the very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for tis a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________


Any questions?

[Bman505]

It is a very good article. I like it. In the article under concealed carry, it talks about the BG taking the gun away from you but fails to say this can happen when you OC. In fact I would think this would or could happen in more instances than if you were concealing. When you are concealing you can choose, like it says, when to draw your weapon. Same with OC, but the BG knows obviously that you are armed and are a threat. So most of his attention will be drawn toward you. Do you get were I am going with this or am I rambling again?

[Colt 45]

I'm not sure that I buy into the argument that carrying openly makes you a target. In rare cases maybe, but I also think that the bad guys for the most part are cowards who wouldn't face someone if the odds were equal, or close to equal. Like most predators, they would rather watch for the small or weak to attack. Someone who is openly carrying, or someone who even looks tough and able to put up a good fight would not be so much of a "tempting" victim in my ever so humble opinion. Your mileage may of course vary.

Max

[Jizzle]

Here's a question for you all.

Why are there height and weight requirements to be bouncer at a bar?

[Bman505]

Here's a question for you all.

Why are there height and weight requirements to be bouncer at a bar?

Didn't know there was. I have seen them all shapes and sizes. I talked to one of my friends who used to work at a bar and he said the requirement at the bar he worked at was 200 lbs. He did say though that the bigger the better, the objective was for them to break up a fight before it ever starts by intimidation. Is this what you wanted to hear Jizzle?

[Grampa]

I'm 5'9 and used to be 185lb or thereabouts. I've put on a few pounds since I quit working construction, however since construction is always a feast or famine type of work, I used to work in the bars for a second job. Bouncing is largely a matter of attitude and common sense. You have to know the customer and what the problems are. Most fights are over women and many are started by exgirlfriends and new boyfriends. A few fights are old feuds coming back up. Almost all fights after a few blows degrade into a wrestling match. You simply put your head down, put your shoulder into it and push the whole wad out of the door. It's only a problem if the door is blocked in which case you may have to push harder. :cool: Be that as it may, isn't this thread getting a little off topic? A lock box for the family wheels might be a good thing to have.

[Bman505]

I do believe what Jizzle is getting to is that if you see someone carrying a firearm and you had planned on committing a crime, that person becomes a threat and will cause you to think twice about committing the crime. As per if you were in a bar and you start a fight, the bouncer is the real threat and stops the fight before it happens. Am I correct?

[Jizzle]

sorry was at work then coaching a kids soccer game.

yes, it's the same thing with picking big bouncers as it is with carrying a gun at your side. Clubs rely on the presence of big bouncers to stop fights before they start just by being there. I've had friends that had no idea what to do in a physical altercation but they where 6-4 300lbs and that was enough to keep most things civil just by him walking up to something and asking if everything is ok or telling someone to leave et.

The only person that should be intimidated by the open carry of a weapon is those that are guilty of something, either ill will toward me et or someone looking for a victim.
If you don't mean me any harm and you are intimidated then you are hypersensitive and or have low self esteem/confidence. The same as if you are in a bar and you are intimidated by a big bouncer walking by.


it's a show of force to those that would act inappropriatley.

[Grampa]

Oh, so you're counting on a preemptive show of force to deter the ambitions of a miscreant. That's cool. That's what the Cold War was all about. It usually works. And you're correct in the assumption that thieves, thugs and bully's are looking for soft targets. They want things to go their way without working for it. That is the path in life they have chosen. With that being said, if you're going to OC anyway, I vote with Luvs2play. You might as well carry a 44 mag. unless you've got one of those Taurus Judges in 45/410. Talk about intimidation value.

[Jizzle]

It's not about the size of the gun. It's just that you carry period.

[Grampa]

:D So 40 S&W is OK then? Ha Ha, gotcha! Sorry Jizzle, I couldn't resist.

[Jizzle]

it may be ok for you lol. I'd rather carry a 9mm. Or a .38sp

[Grampa]

As long as you carry. Ballistic theory and personal preferences don't make a dime's worth of difference if you leave it at home.

[Grampa]

By the way, why is it called a 40 S&W, why not 10mm short?

[Colt 45]

Maybe this is why (from Wiki):

"Initial acceptance of the .40 S&W was slow, since the round was considerably less powerful than the 10 mm Auto it was based on. This led to derogatory names such as ".40 Short and Wimpy" or ".40 Slow and Weak.""

Max

By the way, why is it called a 40 S&W, why not 10mm short?

[Jizzle]

i'm not sure why it wasn't call the 10mm short. I theorize that it's because they veiwed the 10mm as a failure and didn't want their new and "improved" round to be associated with it negatively.

that's just my theory. uneducated as it might be.

[Grampa]

While the Bren 10 didn't sell too well, I've never heard of the round itself being a failure. Wasn't it adopted by the Coast Guard among others? I thought it was just too much power for general issue in the eyes of the FBI.

[Bman505]

New debate needed!:D

[Jizzle]

it was designed to be the perfect SD round to stop medium sized targets ie people for the FBI and the recoil was to stiff for women and men with smaller hands.

[Bman505]

What do you guys think the best overall firearm manufacturer is and is there a particular model that they make you are referring to?

[Colt 45]

We will probably get a lot of different answers for this one, but it will be interesting!

Right now I am very enamored with my Dan Wesson CBOB, but I don't think you can beat Glocks for their reliability. With revolvers, I have always been a Smith & Wesson and Colt fan. But there are a lot of manufacturers that I don't have any experience with, so what I like is just based on my own experience.

When I was in my twenties, I had a shooting buddy who would always buy the "cheap" brands, or at least cheap at that time. I remember him having some Iver Johnsons, and Harrington and Richardsons that were pure junk. I always told him if he bought fewer and bought better, he would be happier. i hope I don't get in trouble for calling them junk, but these were.

Max

What do you guys think the best overall firearm manufacturer is and is there a particular model that they make you are referring to?

[Jizzle]

glock 20 in 10mm.

i've shot lots and lots of different guns.

the glock 20 in 10mm was the first 10mm in my opinion that was a viable everyday carry for that caliber.

you've shot it bman, it's a natural pointer the recoil is not stiff and because it's a glock it will go bang every time you pull the trigger.

[Colt 45]

I'm surprised you would pick that one Jizzle! Seriously, I would love to give it a try sometime.

Max

glock 20 in 10mm.

i've shot lots and lots of different guns.

the glock 20 in 10mm was the first 10mm in my opinion that was a viable everyday carry for that caliber.

you've shot it bman, it's a natural pointer the recoil is not stiff and because it's a glock it will go bang every time you pull the trigger.

[Bman505]

I am surprised no one has mentioned Kimber? I am very happy with the XD line up. I hae owned 2 of them so far and have absolutely no complaints.

[Jizzle]

not many people here can afford kimber lol. well you could say that about dan wesson too but colt just got one.. lucky dog.

[Bman505]

I have only fired a Kimber one time. It was nice. Not quite sure I would pay a $1000 for one.
Do you know if there has ever been a good review ever written up on Glock vs XD? In my opinion, these two are the best.

[Jizzle]

just google them. it's been fought over since xds came out.

[Packing247]

Do you know if there has ever been a good review ever written up on Glock vs XD? In my opinion, these two are the best.

They are both excellent pistols. Although funny enough, the proponents of each pistol hate one another. Each side say they ripped off the other. I hand it to Glock being the first to produce the "plastic" pistol. After all, Glock has been in business since the 1960's manufacturing plastic shovels and coat wire.

XD was introduced in 2002(?) and had great reviews for all its ergo's etc. It look nothing like the flat "Tupperware" look of the Glock of the same time period.

Glock has been stamping out the same pistol since 1980 and hasn't changed any until the XD came out. Now you have the 3rd Gen glock that looks a lot like an XD in its ergo's.

I have owned both, a G19 and a XD45acp. The G19 was great in weight but was finicky with ammo. The XD weighed a ton and its high bore axis IMO made recoil feel a lot more then it should for a 45.

Today I own neither. For that type of design in service pistols, I settled for the Hk USP compact .45. Its everything I want in a service pistol and also satisfies my psychological need for a exposed hammer.

[XDSUBCOMPACT9]

hi im Dede..i found out about the site from one of my truck forums so i decided to join.. i have a 2008 toyota tundra crewmax (www.tundrageeks.com)..its a site im a super mod. on.. we are celebrating our first year of being open and currently doing a X-mas raffle..HID lights for any vehicle, a stubby antenna & webite hoodie.
i would love to have myself a console vault one day..
well as far as my gun ownership goes i started out w/ a used kahr p9, i loved the size of it & it fit very well in my small hand and at my local gun range i was told by the owner to hear cops surprised a female handle the gun as well as i did.. well i started having issues w/ the gun and wasnt satisfied w/ it and got NO support from the manufacture so i gave it to a gun smith and he had no luck fixing the issues so until i found something else i loved next, i sold my kahr p9 for a walther P22.. i still have the P22 that and got myself and bought the springfield xd9 sc over getting the glock 26.. the xd fit me better than the glock.. i have a Agrip by http://www.brookstactical.com/Pages/whtsagrp.html installed on my grip and i love having it. i also had it on the kahr...

i love my springfield xd9 sc.. i can easily forget about it on my side its so comfortable..

thanks for all the warm welcomes.. i have a CCP & im just another female ready to defend herself..

[Jizzle]

xd's do tend to fit those with smaller hands better even when you compare glocks sc's to xd's sc's.

[Packing247]

OC vs. CC
Is OC'ing creating a "negative" image to the public who, in turn, go to the voting poll's and vote on gun issues?

Do you have a "tactical" advantage when OC'ing

In order to receive a CHL (CC) in Ohio, a person must submit to a background check + show satisfactory minimal training. A person who OC's does not have to show/prove anything and is perfectly legal OC'ing regardless of their background or training.

In order to OC as well as CC, should minimal requirements be established and a license be required for both?

<clearing out a space for my new vault>

[Colt 45]

In order to OC as well as CC, should minimal requirements be established and a license be required for both?

I don't think you should have to get licensed to exercise a right.

Max

[Luvs2Play]

This is what I don't understand myself.

It is our right to carry a gun. The only two reasons I can see for the government getting involved are:

They are so crooked that they are afraid of us.

It's a way they can make criminals of otherwise good people.

There is an amendment that guarantees us the right to protect ourselves, no matter what we are doing or where we are at. Why are so many gun owners so happy to bow down to the government in order to exercise a right? Obviously our elected officials don't care about us as long as we "behave"!

[Jizzle]

A lisence should be required for neither of them. it should be treated as it is in alaska and vermont. You can't lay down a baseline requirement for a right other than "are u human" ok... check I am human.. therefore you have the right to defend yourself.

[Packing247]

This is what I don't understand myself.

It is our right to carry a gun. The only two reasons I can see for the government getting involved are:

They are so crooked that they are afraid of us.

It's a way they can make criminals of otherwise good people.

There is an amendment that guarantees us the right to protect ourselves, no matter what we are doing or where we are at. Why are so many gun owners so happy to bow down to the government in order to exercise a right? Obviously our elected officials don't care about us as long as we "behave"!

(understand that I am playing devil's advocate. I'm gonna argue this as my Dem friends do.)

"Why does a CC holder have to submit to a background check, and have to go through training, but a OC doesn't? The only difference is "shirt over vs. shirt under!" If a person is OC'ing, how does anyone know that this person isn't a criminal and has no firearm training at all...let alone know the laws?

Constitutional right, or no right, carrying a firearm in public bears responsibility. At least CC has some sort of guildlines...OC has no restraint and "who knows" what that person's background and training is? Feel free to own guns and protect your family etc in your home, but your second amendment right stops at your front door."

This is what I hear. I address it as it comes, BUT, what say you?

[Jizzle]

(understand that I am playing devil's advocate. I'm gonna argue this as my Dem friends do.)

"Why does a CC holder have to submit to a background check, and have to go through training, but a OC doesn't? The only difference is "shirt over vs. shirt under!" If a person is OC'ing, how does anyone know that this person isn't a criminal and has no firearm training at all...let alone know the laws?

Constitutional right, or no right, carrying a firearm in public bears responsibility. At least CC has some sort of guildlines...OC has no restraint and "who knows" what that person's background and training is? Feel free to own guns and protect your family etc in your home, but your second amendment right stops at your front door."

This is what I hear. I address it as it comes, BUT, what say you?

It sounds like your friend answered his own question. And I have questions about his answers.

1. What responsibility does a person who bears a firearm in public bear?

2. What guidlines does CC have?

3. How do you define home?

4. What is your definition of a right?

5. Do you have a "right" to feel safe?

[Luvs2Play]

Surely you jest!

OC and CC have the same responsibility. The only difference is that it may or may not be visible. That should be an individual choice, not an extra regulation. The only reason a person has to submit to a background check is because it is a do-gooder thing making them feel good about how they are protecting the world of crazy people. It is also just another way for Big Brother to keep an eye on law abiding citizens. Committing a crime against another living being is the only reason you should not have a right to carry a gun.

The 2nd stops at my door? Only when my family stops at my front door. The second is a big umbrella that covers all 50 states, or 57 if I listen to obomma.

I really get upset when I hear that the constitution and all the amendments don't apply to me. That is the reason we had them put in, so we could protect ourselves from a runaway government. What side are you going to be on?

[Packing247]

They "jest'...not me!

I'm just posting the argument that is always put in front of me here in Ohio. The "anti's" have a firm belief that your 2A stops at your front door, and that you have no right to defend yourself with a firearm outside of that. That is what "the police are for". Lol!

[Luvs2Play]

Sorry, I misread. Sometimes I see something right away and jump all over it.

I guess I'm fortunate here in that we don't have the anti's here where I live. They are stuck on the east side where the population is. I actually don't know anyone here that does not have a gun. I don't know what it's like to not have that in common with people. You would have to be tougher than me to put up with that kind of thinking, some people just can't be reasoned with at all. What I have read is the anti's don't think the 2nd applies to anyone but the police and the military. You have a hard job, how do you handle it?

[Packing247]

You have a hard job, how do you handle it?

Well, it starts with convincing them that just because they are dems, doesn't necessarily mean they have to follow "rank-n-file" with Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstien. There were 39 blue dog, moderate, Reagan Dem's that didn't vote for the house bill on Obamacare....If I was there, I would be #40, and they could/should be #41 and so on if that is what they believe.

Also, I need to convince them that this is still the party of 20-30 years ago, and we have been hijacked by the ultra left. Our core belief is the rights of every American. Either it be a womans right to choose, or a citizen's right to keep and bear arms...its the same thing.

I, myself am not ready to abandon my party. There was a time when most Dem's were hunter's, shooter's, and outdoorsman. I come from a long family line of Dem's. Its almost part of my biology, but I have voted against my party numerous times recently and never once lost a second of sleep!

I believe that this fight is within!

The more people that will listen to my reason and ideas, the better chance I can remind people of how it "should be", rather then what "it has become". With that, I can only hope that we will produce better candidate's that will better represent the people...rather then a left ideology!

I don't advocate the far left, neither the far right.....my goal is the "all inclusive middle."

This is how I handle it.

[Jizzle]

That's why I want to know what thier definition of the words home and rights are.

[Colt 45]

But convincing them is the hard part. I wish it were that easy.

Max

Well, it starts with convincing them that just because they are dems, doesn't necessarily mean they have to follow "rank-n-file" with Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstien. There were 39 blue dog, moderate, Reagan Dem's that didn't vote for the house bill on Obamacare....If I was there, I would be #40, and they could/should be #41 and so on if that is what they believe.

Also, I need to convince them that this is still the party of 20-30 years ago, and we have been hijacked by the ultra left. Our core belief is the rights of every American. Either it be a womans right to choose, or a citizen's right to keep and bear arms...its the same thing.

I, myself am not ready to abandon my party. There was a time when most Dem's were hunter's, shooter's, and outdoorsman. I come from a long family line of Dem's. Its almost part of my biology, but I have voted against my party numerous times recently and never once lost a second of sleep!

I believe that this fight is within!

The more people that will listen to my reason and ideas, the better chance I can remind people of how it "should be", rather then what "it has become". With that, I can only hope that we will produce better candidate's that will better represent the people...rather then a left ideology!

I don't advocate the far left, neither the far right.....my goal is the "all inclusive middle."

This is how I handle it.

[Packing247]

That's why I want to know what thier definition of the words home and rights are.

This is the question I always get.

"You have the "right" to walk around naked in your house (as long as no one see's you), but you dont have the right to walk around naked in public."

Looking at it in that context.....I would assume a OC would be offensive to some people?

My answer;
"But I can show you 100 t-shirts with wording that would be concidered offensive.....but thats the individuals right under the 1A??? Why is this different?"

[Packing247]

But convincing them is the hard part. I wish it were that easy.

Max

Even plain, simple, concrete, flat out logic just doesn't seem to sink in! Its like they are F****ing sheep! It sooo pisses me off! But most are all willing to fondle my gun....go figure!

[Jizzle]

Well people that talk on cell phones while driving are offensive to me...


Neither are rights...

(sarcasm).

But, those people are very dangerous. Especially to those of us that ride motorcycles..

[Jizzle]

Those are people that use the phrase "I think" when they mean "I feel". Because they have no logic to back up their position. Everything is emotion based and what happens when you base decisions on emotion? Nothing good that's for sure.

[Colt 45]

But there isn't a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing your right to walk around anywhere naked.

Max

This is the question I always get.

"You have the "right" to walk around naked in your house (as long as no one see's you), but you dont have the right to walk around naked in public."

Looking at it in that context.....I would assume a OC would be offensive to some people?

My answer;
"But I can show you 100 t-shirts with wording that would be concidered offensive.....but thats the individuals right under the 1A??? Why is this different?"

[Jizzle]

you don't have a right to not be offended.

no one can control if or how or when you are offended.

if they say that they have a right to not be offended they are so full of crap that their eyes are brown.

just the same as no one has a right to feel safe.

as i have said before many many times. you have the right to ensure your own safety and if you don't think/feel you are safe then leave/remove yourself from that situation. don't just whine about how you feel threatened and why doesn't someone do something..

take some damn personal responsibility.

[Packing247]

Those are people that use the phrase "I think" when they mean "I feel". Because they have no logic to back up their position. Everything is emotion based and what happens when you base decisions on emotion? Nothing good that's for sure.

EXACTLY...but you you cant say "well, thats just what you feel" because they will shut down and you'll lose them.

I tried that many times with my wife...trust me, IT DOESN'T WORK! LOL!

[Jizzle]

my wife doesn't say i feel anymore lol. we had that fight a couple months ago and it was a dousy.

[Packing247]

But there isn't a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing your right to walk around anywhere naked.

Max

But there isnt a Constitutional Amendment that says you can walk around anywhere armed either?

(keep in mind ppl...im just playing devils advocate....dont beat up the messenger):eek:

[Colt 45]

No, I'm not going to beat up the messenger, or anyone else for that matter. I do love the debate and have had this one many times. Not only is there a Constitutional Amendment, but but the writings of the Founding Fathers and notes from the ratification process says this is so. And it was understood as the law of the land until just after the Civil War.

Max

But there isnt a Constitutional Amendment that says you can walk around anywhere armed either?

(keep in mind ppl...im just playing devils advocate....dont beat up the messenger):eek:

[Packing247]

No, I'm not going to beat up the messenger, or anyone else for that matter. I do love the debate and have had this one many times. Not only is there a Constitutional Amendment, but but the writings of the Founding Fathers and notes from the ratification process says this is so. And it was understood as the law of the land until just after the Civil War.

Max

Agreed! But this is the Anti's argument....

"yeah, you have the right to keep and bear arms...but under what venue? The constitution is not clear on that issue. It is very ambiguous. The states have allowed the carrying of a concealed firearm once certain criteria has been satisfied, but there is absolutely no criteria for the practice of a unconcealed carrying of the same firearm. Shouldn't it be fair to say that since the state has regulated the use of a concealed firearm, that any unregulated (un-concealed without a license) firearm be subject to the boundaries of the persons residence and not be permitted in such matter within the public domain?"

[Luvs2Play]

A weapon is a weapon, the important thing is that if you have the desire to carry one, you are protected by the 2nd. I don't care if it's worn as a hat or stuck in your underwear. The only thing regulated is the fact that we all have a right to carry a gun, I don't think the 2nd says anything about how you do it.

[Packing247]

I don't care if it's worn as a hat or stuck in your underwear. The only thing regulated is the fact that we all have a right to carry a gun, I don't think the 2nd says anything about how you do it.

Not "wear" like on your person....."where" like in public.

[Jizzle]

does the bill of rights specify that you can only have the freedom of speech in your own home?

what about freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.. does that only apply to your home? I have a federal ruling in my favor that states otherwise.

It's unfortunate that only the rights that someone has an issue with are under their scrutiny.

I'm still waiting for your democrat families/friends response to the definition of the word "home".

[Packing247]

does the bill of rights specify that you can only have the freedom of speech in your own home?

No doubt. If have seen, heard, and read about more people being harmed with "words" then with any gun.

what about freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.. does that only apply to your home? I have a federal ruling in my favor that states otherwise.

It's unfortunate that only the rights that someone has an issue with are under their scrutiny.

I cant reasonably argue that on their behalf. Its just plain stupid to pick and choose which rights are good...and which they think are bad.:confused:

I'm still waiting for your democrat families/friends response to the definition of the word "home".


Home= a place of residence where a person resides. This can also be extended to a vehicle, camper, tent etc.

They say "your 2A right stops at your front door." I say "No, It begin's there"

[Colt 45]

It is exceedingly difficult to persuade someone to change their view of the Constitution and rights, when it has taken them a lifetime with a lifetime of misinformation to form it. To read the Constitution today, without a knowledge of the background and meaning in the day it was written it is easy to pervert its meaning. James Madison warned:

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government”.

There are no restrictions on "venue" because that was the intent. Like I said, there wasn't a problem until the years leading up to the Civil War and the effort to keep guns out of the hands of slaves. Take a look at the Dred Scott case.

In the years after the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in large part to guarantee the newly-freed slaves had Constitutional rights and especially the Right To Keep And Bear Arms to protect themselves from the ensuing persecution.

The first modern gun control laws in the United States came with the "Sullivan" laws and were largely aimed at controlling the waves of immigrants coming in at the time. It has always and still is about control.

It is sad that American history and the Constitution really isn't taught anymore. People need to do the research, and think!

Max

Agreed! But this is the Anti's argument....

"yeah, you have the right to keep and bear arms...but under what venue? The constitution is not clear on that issue. It is very ambiguous. The states have allowed the carrying of a concealed firearm once certain criteria has been satisfied, but there is absolutely no criteria for the practice of a unconcealed carrying of the same firearm. Shouldn't it be fair to say that since the state has regulated the use of a concealed firearm, that any unregulated (un-concealed without a license) firearm be subject to the boundaries of the persons residence and not be permitted in such matter within the public domain?"

[Colt 45]

No doubt. If have seen, heard, and read about more people being harmed with "words" then with any gun.



I cant reasonably argue that on their behalf. Its just plain stupid to pick and choose which rights are good...and which they think are bad.:confused:




Home= a place of residence where a person resides. This can also be extended to a vehicle, camper, tent etc.

They say "your 2A right stops at your front door." I say "No, It begin's there"

I would extend the definition of "home" to include where ever you are. Why would you only need the right of self-defense only in your house?

The right to keep and bear arms and self-defense didn't originate with the Constitution. It traces its roots to the Magna Carta and before.

Max

[Colt 45]

They "jest'...not me!

I'm just posting the argument that is always put in front of me here in Ohio. The "anti's" have a firm belief that your 2A stops at your front door, and that you have no right to defend yourself with a firearm outside of that. That is what "the police are for". Lol!

Yeah that's what the police are for, but in reality the courts have ruled several times that the police are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.

Max

[Packing247]

It is exceedingly difficult to persuade someone to change their view of the Constitution and rights, when it has taken them a lifetime with a lifetime of misinformation to form it. To read the Constitution today, without a knowledge of the background and meaning in the day it was written it is easy to pervert its meaning. James Madison warned:

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government”.

There are no restrictions on "venue" because that was the intent. Like I said, there wasn't a problem until the years leading up to the Civil War and the effort to keep guns out of the hands of slaves. Take a look at the Dred Scott case.

In the years after the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in large part to guarantee the newly-freed slaves had Constitutional rights and especially the Right To Keep And Bear Arms to protect themselves from the ensuing persecution.

The first modern gun control laws in the United States came with the "Sullivan" laws and were largely aimed at controlling the waves of immigrants coming in at the time. It has always and still is about control.

It is sad that American history and the Constitution really isn't taught anymore. People need to do the research, and think!

Max

Very nicely written Max. May I post this in a email and send it to a couple of people?

[Colt 45]

Absolutely!

Max

Very nicely written Max. May I post this in a email and send it to a couple of people?

[Packing247]

I would extend the definition of "home" to include where ever you are. Why would you only need the right of self-defense only in your house?

Max

Their definition of home dosent include "where ever you are". Its a far enough stretch for them to concead to allowing self defense in your own house.

[Colt 45]

Yeah I know they wouldn't accept my definition!

Good luck with the quest. I remember in high school I had (still have actually) a good friend who was very anti-gun. We had quite a few "discussions" about guns and the Second Amendment. He was one of those who was hung up on the word "militia" and believed that only government officials (armed forces, police, etc.) should have guns. Once we graduated, and I was old enough to start buying guns, I finally convinced him to go shooting with me. He was hooked. He has since accumulated a fine collection of vintage and "modern" firearms. About 10 years ago, he got married and guess what? His wife is anti-gun. He now has to keep all his guns and ammunition locked up out in the shed in back of his house. I hope someday that will change. She would like nothing more than to see him sell everything.

The framers of the Constitution believed in our basic right to self-defense. It is among the rights that are "unalienable", that come from God if you believe in a Creator. But we are born with these rights, and they precede any government.

But more than that they knew what could happen to the blessings of liberty should the government with large standing armies get too powerful. Militias, made up by the People, with officers appointed by the People, were to be a check on the army. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 48 in 1788 that:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

And George Washington who said:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

It's not easy to convince those who would have our guns taken away, but we owe it to our country and those who came before us, and our children to try. The Founders risked everything in the struggle for Independence with these words:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Max

Their definition of home dosent include "where ever you are". Its a far enough stretch for them to concead to allowing self defense in your own house.

[Jizzle]

No doubt. If have seen, heard, and read about more people being harmed with "words" then with any gun.



I cant reasonably argue that on their behalf. Its just plain stupid to pick and choose which rights are good...and which they think are bad.:confused:




Home= a place of residence where a person resides. This can also be extended to a vehicle, camper, tent etc.

They say "your 2A right stops at your front door." I say "No, It begin's there"

Could "home" be defined as the boundaries of a persons property?

And your dem friends will probably concede that point. And then you ask them. Well everyone owns public property correct so essentially the majority of america coule be defined as your home or my home, right?

Words do harm people. How many people each year commit suicide because of what someone said or has said repeatedly. In fact there was a woman charged with harassment and other felonys regarding a teenage girl that committed suicide because of what the woman said. So yes, words do cause death.

How many times have you gotten into a fight in your life? If you are a dem, not many... at least not physical ones lol (sorry, just an observation), anyway, What preceeds a fight in almost 100% of cases? Words. An argument or a verbal altercation almost always preceeds a fight. So, we should outlaw conversation and disagreement and then we wouldn't have anything to fight about. Or, how about this? We all agree to have the same views on every subject so that we can have no difference of opinion and therefore never have a fight or need to talk ever because we already now what the other is going to say.

Just call us the Borgocrats... Has a nice ring to it.

[Bman505]

So, should the Five-Seven be banned?

[sinclair]

So, should the Five-Seven be banned?

I will argue that the question as stated is a direct violation of the second amendment. No debate, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

What I think you should ask, and is debatable; is there any probable cause to ban this weapon for any reason outside of the constitutional amendment ?

If I were a true anti-gun, tyranny supporting, commie pinko, then I would do my best to try to argue that this weapon is somehow classifiable as an AOW under the NFA of 1934. The gangster era allowed the populace to buy off on that unconstitutional restriction of firearms, and it does not totally restrict, but imposes a special tax on NFA class firearms. Then, as soon as it is classed as AOW, I would impose the same criteria on any weapon capable of firing AP rounds. That would just about cover everything. Finally, disallow the tax provision and you got a complete ban.

[Colt 45]

I would say no, but the perpetrators SHOULD be banned!

Max

So, should the Five-Seven be banned?

[Jizzle]

So, should the Five-Seven be banned?

No! Banning weapons is what got us into this cluster f**k in the first place.

Lets make it easier to carry and or buy firearms.

They say that it will be the old west.. I doubt that.. I think they watch way to many movies..

[Bman505]

No! Banning weapons is what got us into this cluster f**k in the first place..

Can you explain which weapons you are referring to and what cluster @#%$ you are talking about?

[Packing247]

......and you got a complete ban.

Yup! Thats how it works! Every handgun, shotgun, and rifle is "capable" of firing a AP round. There is nothing special about the 5.7 other then its carrying capacity and the speed in which the round travels.

Just remember, the "the 5.7 is a joke. It has little to offer" and its just another "20 shot 22 pistol".

[Jizzle]

The 5.7 is a pistol round I'm not super familiar with. I have held this pistol and found it to be heavy and rather large for the size of ammo used. I still don't see what we are asking if this needs to be banned. Wasn't there a thread last week or so that it was unanimously decided that every weapon can penetrate body armor depending on the round used and the type or armor used.

Banning weapons is bad juju. A weapon is only as dangerous as it's user. I was just checking out the brady campaign website and see that the people that want the guns banned still call magazines "clips".. It's on the front page of their site.. Awesome. It'd be nice that if they where so worried about something that they'd actually know the correct terminology for it, instead of just showing off their ignorance. And this is only one example.

[Bman505]

But explain this supposedly cluster F@%$? I really am not aware we are in one.

[Jizzle]

are open carry and conceal carry treated the same? why do i need a license? why do you need one? Why do you need a tax stamp to own silencers et? What about fully automatic weapons.

what about states that don't even allow you to carry period or even own? how is this not a cluster? ever single state treats firearms totally different and a felony in one state is completely legal in another.. There is no consistency. we are the government. we make the laws. we got screwed or we screwed ourselves. one of the two.. and i would be more willing to believe the latter of the two..

[Colt 45]

Too many movies indeed! The "wild west" wasn't really that wild:

The Wild West of Myth and Reality (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-wild-west-of-myth-and-reality.html)

I have also read, but can't find the article right now, that there were actually FEWER murders per ca-pita in the "wild west" when just about everyone carried a gun.

Max

They say that it will be the old west.. I doubt that.. I think they watch way to many movies..

[Colt 45]

I agree with Jizzle, we are deep in one!

Max

But explain this supposedly cluster F@%$? I really am not aware we are in one.

[Bman505]

I was just wanting him to elaborate on what he was referring to. I do believe that we should have a permit and go through a back ground check to get a CCW, Jizzle. I do not want just any Joe shmo out there carrying concealed. Are you saying these things you are talking bout shouldn't be regulated?

[Jizzle]

yes that's what I'm saying.

ccw holders are not some elitist group that is somehow better than someone without one. Any joe schmoe should be able to carry as he deems fit.

[Scooter]

yes that's what I'm saying.

ccw holders are not some elitist group that is somehow better than someone without one. Any joe schmoe should be able to carry as he deems fit.

Any Joe Schmoe? Even those convicted of felonies for violent crimes with guns? They're any Joe Schmoe. And without and oversight as to who can carry legally, they would be able to. LEO's wouldn't be able to question who's carrying because it would be a violation of their 2nd and 10th Amendment rights wouldn't it? It was after all a violation of your 10th Amendment right when the LEO's detained you without cause.

Are these the Joe Schmoes you want to protect to carry as they see fit. At least with permits, LEO's can identify if an individual is legally carrying concealled and thus cleared a background check. I don't think it is entirely a way for the gov't to control our rights, but restrict the rights of those who have forefitted theirs by commiting crimes(ie felonies)

Just my 2 cents, which usually gets me change back:D

[Sam]

Background check is pretty much a joke, just like the check on that wacky doc at Ft Hood.

Even those convicted of felonies for violent crimes with guns? They're any Joe Schmoe. And without and oversight as to who can carry legally, they would be able to. LEO's wouldn't be able to question who's carrying because it would be a violation of their 2nd and 10th Amendment rights wouldn't it? It was after all a violation of your 10th Amendment right when the LEO's detained you without cause.

The police wouldn't know anyway. Do convicted felons carry a flashing neon sign over their heads advertising the fact? Hardly. They carry without permits and laugh at those of us who obey the laws. LEO's can't just go around questioning people anyway. Personally I have no grief with them being extended the same rights as anyone else, so long as society has no grief If I need to whack one. They are generally so stupid that it's no harder than baby seals, they wouldn't last long.

Work hard for proper interpretation of existing laws allowing the law abiding to shoot the law breaking, not for more restriction on people. You'll find a safer society that way.


As far as I'm concerned, your CCW was signed just below your footprints by the doc about 45 minutes after you were born
Sam

[Jizzle]

Any Joe Schmoe? Even those convicted of felonies for violent crimes with guns? They're any Joe Schmoe. And without and oversight as to who can carry legally, they would be able to. LEO's wouldn't be able to question who's carrying because it would be a violation of their 2nd and 10th Amendment rights wouldn't it? It was after all a violation of your 10th Amendment right when the LEO's detained you without cause.

Are these the Joe Schmoes you want to protect to carry as they see fit. At least with permits, LEO's can identify if an individual is legally carrying concealled and thus cleared a background check. I don't think it is entirely a way for the gov't to control our rights, but restrict the rights of those who have forefitted theirs by commiting crimes(ie felonies)

Just my 2 cents, which usually gets me change back:D


You terry stop someone right now and ask for a ccw. It's illegal. So police still won't know who's legal or not without some probably cause to stop you and question you. The CCW is not a fix for this issue. It just creates revenue for the state. That's it. The only thing it does is keep the law abiding citizen law abiding and it makes some people feel like they are part of a special club of wanna be spec ops/secret service. Which is retarded. There should be no restrictions on carry. And if someone is "carrying illegally", they will sooner or later identify themselves through actions or otherwise and guess what? Everyone else will be carrying so it probably won't be a big deal.

[Bman505]

Any Joe Schmoe? Even those convicted of felonies for violent crimes with guns? They're any Joe Schmoe. And without and oversight as to who can carry legally, they would be able to. LEO's wouldn't be able to question who's carrying because it would be a violation of their 2nd and 10th Amendment rights wouldn't it? It was after all a violation of your 10th Amendment right when the LEO's detained you without cause.

Are these the Joe Schmoes you want to protect to carry as they see fit. At least with permits, LEO's can identify if an individual is legally carrying concealled and thus cleared a background check. I don't think it is entirely a way for the gov't to control our rights, but restrict the rights of those who have forefitted theirs by commiting crimes(ie felonies)

Just my 2 cents, which usually gets me change back:D

I am with Scooter on this one. This is how I feel as well.

[Jizzle]

I am with Scooter on this one. This is how I feel as well.

It's funny you used the word "feel". That denotes a decision based on emotion rather than logic.

Criminals do not carry legally. They won't apply for a CCW. If you are stopped and questioned as to why you are carrying et. They will do much more than check your CCW especially if it's an out of state CCW. No matter what your name will get run through dispatch. And they'll figure out if you are good to go or not. So, Why again do we need CCWs?

How is a CCW oversight on who is able to carry leagally? The CCW does not restrict a criminals ability to carry. It merely regulates law abiding citizens ability carry legally. It's something that just keeps the honest honest. And like I said before it promotes an exclusive club mentality (if that's offensive sorry), the thought that anyone could be a card carrying member without paying the money or doing your 8 hours of required training and still carry is rephrehensible to some CCW holders..

[Luvs2Play]

Every person that carries a gun is just a Joe Schmoe. Just because you may not be a criminal makes no difference. Just because someone goes and gives up their freedom to get a CCW permit does not make them any better of a person, just one with more government control over them. That permit does not make you a better citizen, that comes from within.

[Jizzle]

The only reason I own a CCW is because there are some places that I have to go that I cannot legally OC and at this point in my life I'm not ready to commit to that level yet. Maybe once I'm out of the military.

And I have a virginia ccw. It's only 50 bucks and all you have to do is supply a va address and your name and proof of some kind of training, in this case my military service. Super easy to get. I had it in less than a month.

[Bman505]

So you think it is ok for every wanna be gang banger to conceal a firearm and the police can't question them about it because it is legal? Some of them still carry illegally, but if caught it gets taken away from them. I am a responsible gun owner and I believe in laws that try to keep the guns away from the irresponsible ones.

[Luvs2Play]

I'm sorry that you are a supporter of gun control. A gangbanger with no criminal record should be allowed to carry a gun legally, why shouldn't they if they are American citizens? Giving cops the right to just walk up to anybody and demand anything is against the law. If you are not doing anything illegal, they need to keep their distance. We should not have to have ANY kind of permit to carry a gun, this is government control to the max. It is ONLY because we have polititians scared to death for the decisions they make to control the masses. As far as criminals, they could care less about the laws, they will carry anyway, why should all Americans not have the right to protect themselves? Next you will want to stop skateboarders and BMX bikers from carrying guns. What about people that ride Harleys, some have been members of motorcycle gangs. What about pregnant women, they can get a little cranky once in a while. Next it will be ugly people, they should not have the right to protect themselves either, we all know why!

I'm just saying that as Americans we should be able to continue our journey to be the best and most free country in the world. Our crime rate has been one of the lowest in the world because it was always okay for us to protect ourselves, from bad guys and government, which is now one in the same.

Let's not pounce on peoples rights because of personal fears. Let's promote peoples rights for fear of a runaway government.

Now, as far as my personal feelings, there are a lot of people that by looking at them should not carry guns, but that is not right either. Until I know someone, I shouldn't judge them, especially just by looks.

I should also state that I don't promote an extreme movement against the government like one on here, but action is needed now to keep our freedom, and it is more than just the 2nd.

[Jizzle]

You can't justify a stop or search based on appearance. If they are commiting a crime, stop them take their gun, but if not the gun is not something that should arouse suspicion in and of itself. And if someone is carrying concealed how would an officer know that anyway? Isn't that the point of carrying concealed? So that no one knows?

OC and CC should bear no difference in the way that they are treated. They should be identical. Because there is no actual difference in them. CC is just the "politically correct" way to carry.

How do you define irresponsible carry?

[Bman505]

I guess my issue is allowing everyone to conceal carry. Open carry, you can see that they have a gun and you know its there. If a gang banger, skater, BMX rider or who ever wants to OC, I feel that is ok to me. I like knowing that the people selected by the State of New Mexico went through a back ground check, a firearm training class, and range qualified in order to receive the permit. Unlike states like Washington, were you can walk up to the State offices, pay your $30 and walk out with your CCP. We are aware of the laws in our State, we have qualified that we know how to operate and shoot a firearm and that I passed a background check that I am not a terrorist, or on a watch list.

[Packing247]

Why do I have to have get a permit/license to exercise my constitutional right? Should I pay a fee and get a permit to voice my opinion under the 1A? Should I have to pay a fee and get a permit so no one can search and seize property from me under the 4A? What about my right to vote...should I be subject to a background check etc for that?

Here in Ohio, you can legally OC as long as you are over 18 yo. No background, no license, no fees, no nothing. This is the way it should be. The only difference between the two people (oc'r v. cc'r) is "shirt over v. shirt under".

Just keep in mind, laws only are for "law abiding" people. Criminals will ALWAYS do whatever they want.

[Jizzle]

Do you understand what I was saying about the club mentality now Bman?

[Packing247]

I want you guys to take a look at this. The link is to a thread located at ofcc.org (Ohioans for concealed carry). It has a video of one of our members being harassed, detained, questioned, handcuffed etc by the Cleveland Heights pd for simply oc'ing.

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=36887&hilit=cleveland+heights

This is not what the framers of the Constitution envisioned for its citizens.

[Colt 45]

This looks very familiar. I hope the plaintiff is successful here and the police are held accountable.

Max

I want you guys to take a look at this. The link is to a thread located at ofcc.org (Ohioans for concealed carry). It has a video of one of our members being harassed, detained, questioned, handcuffed etc by the Cleveland Heights pd for simply oc'ing.

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=36887&hilit=cleveland+heights

This is not what the framers of the Constitution envisioned for its citizens.

[Colt 45]

People who have a basic disregard for the law simply will not comply with a regulation that forbids the carrying of any weapon, concealed or otherwise. Why would they? These laws only affect the ones who already are responsible.

If you look at the history of gun control it has always been used as a means to control the people, and usually racially motivated. Keep guns out of the hands of former slaves, immigrants and the general masses. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany, Russia and China.

If laws could make irresponsible people responsible we wouldn't have any need for gun control.

Max

So you think it is ok for every wanna be gang banger to conceal a firearm and the police can't question them about it because it is legal? Some of them still carry illegally, but if caught it gets taken away from them. I am a responsible gun owner and I believe in laws that try to keep the guns away from the irresponsible ones.

[Luvs2Play]

I guess my issue is allowing everyone to conceal carry. Open carry, you can see that they have a gun and you know its there. If a gang banger, skater, BMX rider or who ever wants to OC, I feel that is ok to me. I like knowing that the people selected by the State of New Mexico went through a back ground check, a firearm training class, and range qualified in order to receive the permit. Unlike states like Washington, were you can walk up to the State offices, pay your $30 and walk out with your CCP. We are aware of the laws in our State, we have qualified that we know how to operate and shoot a firearm and that I passed a background check that I am not a terrorist, or on a watch list.

The people of NM went through the background check if and when they were born in the US. You just put people in different classes by prejudice. I don't care if you carry in or out, it is a God given right, not a government given one. While it would be nice to know that only good people carried guns, it will never happen. And what about the good people that go to do it your way and are turned down because the government you are so fond of has a name close to yours on a terrorist list? Did you know that there is no way to ever get it off in one lifetime? Just because that guy has a skateboard does not make him a lower form of life. What about the couple that had an argument and the neighbor heard them and called the cops. That happens, disagreements are a part of being together for a while. Now, neither one of them can carry a gun, even though there was never a threat made by them. They are probably good people, but now they are put into a lower class. It seems that once the government gets in to something, guns, banks, auto industry, and now health care, they ruin it for everybody. They also know by you having that permit where you live, what you have, and a freeway to take it from you. I would bet there are a number of cops that can't pass a background check, yet they carry guns all the time.

Sorry Bman, I just can't seem to grasp your thought process here. I guess we just plain don't see this the same way.

[Bman505]

Why do I have to have get a permit/license to exercise my constitutional right? Should I pay a fee and get a permit to voice my opinion under the 1A? Should I have to pay a fee and get a permit so no one can search and seize property from me under the 4A? What about my right to vote...should I be subject to a background check etc for that?

Here in Ohio, you can legally OC as long as you are over 18 yo. No background, no license, no fees, no nothing. This is the way it should be. The only difference between the two people (oc'r v. cc'r) is "shirt over v. shirt under".

Just keep in mind, laws only are for "law abiding" people. Criminals will ALWAYS do whatever they want.

Do you pay for your drivers license and why? Should you not need one of those as well?

[Colt 45]

Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. The right to keep and bear arms is a right protected by The Constitution, but is not a right granted to us by government. The Founding Fathers called these rights "unalienable". That they are from God that we are born with and no government can take take them away.

Max

Do you pay for your drivers license and why? Should you not need one of those as well?

[Jizzle]

And even with passing the drivers test and paying for your license there are still more than twice the deaths from cars than guns in the U.S. each year according to the CDC.

And those stats include everything from DUI to felony homicide to accidents on the car side. They include everything from rightious shoots by police officers to homicide to suicides to accidents on the gun side.

You are more than 2 times more likely to die from a car accident/getting run over by a car than anything firearm related in your lifetime.

[Bman505]

And even with passing the drivers test and paying for your license there are still more than twice the deaths from cars than guns in the U.S. each year according to the CDC.

And those stats include everything from DUI to felony homicide to accidents on the car side. They include everything from righteous shoots by police officers to homicide to suicides to accidents on the gun side.

You are more than 2 times more likely to die from a car accident/getting run over by a car than anything firearm related in your lifetime.

Could you imagine what the death toll would be if it wasn't required to have a license to drive! It didn't matter how many DWI or DUI's you had you can just get in a car and drive. 10 years old, 14 years old, just get right in that car and drive! This makes sense doesn't it. We try and regulate who gets to drive and we should regulate who carries concealed.

[Garcia]

This debate has raised some interesting points. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we are ever going to resolve this particular question.

When I see someone carrying openly, I have no idea of their level of skill, or their knowledge of the law regarding the use of deadly force or the liability issues that can arise with the use of their weapon in a self defense situation. That sometimes causes me a bit of a concern. Also, people carrying openly tend to attract attention which may or may not be positive.

In exercising any right you must also bear the responsibility that comes with it...something we generally don’t hear a lot about. Generally, it is easy to exercise a right…the hard part comes when we look at the responsibility.

Exercising the right to carry a handgun, whether openly or concealed, is extremely foolish unless the individual carrying can use the handgun proficiently, knows how to avoid situations in which they may need to use their weapon and understands the legal issues and potential liability of using their handgun in self defense. The training required to obtain a concealed carry license, at least the way we do it at Riclin Firearms Training LLC, attempts to assure that the individual has adequate training so that they are able to carry responsibly.

As NM Concealed Carry Instructor, frankly I like the idea that an individual must go through a class, attain a certain level of knowledge and skill, and then pass a background check to receive a concealed carry license. While we can argue about whether that level of knowledge and skill is adequate, at least they have some knowledge and skill. And this process in no way infringes on the right of the individual to own a firearm or to carry one.

[Luvs2Play]

Wow, so many people on a ccw forum that are for gun control!!! I guess I have come to the wrong place!

[Jizzle]

Could you imagine what the death toll would be if it wasn't required to have a license to drive! It didn't matter how many DWI or DUI's you had you can just get in a car and drive. 10 years old, 14 years old, just get right in that car and drive! This makes sense doesn't it. We try and regulate who gets to drive and we should regulate who carries concealed.

You totally missed my point.

[Scooter]

Wow, so many people on a ccw forum that are for gun control!!! I guess I have come to the wrong place!

Control and oversight can be seperate. Read Garcia's post above yours, it says a lot. Responsibility plays a large role in this debate, and Garcia is the first one to truely adress this

[Jizzle]

This debate has raised some interesting points. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we are ever going to resolve this particular question.

When I see someone carrying openly, I have no idea of their level of skill, or their knowledge of the law regarding the use of deadly force or the liability issues that can arise with the use of their weapon in a self defense situation. That sometimes causes me a bit of a concern. Also, people carrying openly tend to attract attention which may or may not be positive.

In exercising any right you must also bear the responsibility that comes with it...something we generally don’t hear a lot about. Generally, it is easy to exercise a right…the hard part comes when we look at the responsibility.

Exercising the right to carry a handgun, whether openly or concealed, is extremely foolish unless the individual carrying can use the handgun proficiently, knows how to avoid situations in which they may need to use their weapon and understands the legal issues and potential liability of using their handgun in self defense. The training required to obtain a concealed carry license, at least the way we do it at Riclin Firearms Training LLC, attempts to assure that the individual has adequate training so that they are able to carry responsibly.

As NM Concealed Carry Instructor, frankly I like the idea that an individual must go through a class, attain a certain level of knowledge and skill, and then pass a background check to receive a concealed carry license. While we can argue about whether that level of knowledge and skill is adequate, at least they have some knowledge and skill. And this process in no way infringes on the right of the individual to own a firearm or to carry one.

Is the license and class free of cost and stipulation? No it's not. Then it does infringe.

Infringe: To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing.

You feeling better about someone that conceals because they've had the class is an unfounded sense of security. The same goes for the backround check et. There is no way you can predict anything about a person you don't know. I've been to the range with people that have taken CCW classes and handle their weapons like they have no idea what they are doing.

You cannot infringe on someone elses right because you "feel" uncomfortable.

This is one of the objectives of the A2ATF. To educate as much as possible on weapons use/application/safety et. We plan on having range days and classes once we are a little bit more established with certified instructors.

Knowledge is power. And I want to spread it around as much as possible.

[Bman505]

Wow, so many people on a ccw forum that are for gun control!!! I guess I have come to the wrong place!

So must you go to a forum where everybody agrees with everything you say? I thought this is what forums are all about.

[Bman505]

Please remember the section we are in. This is a DEBATE!!

[Luvs2Play]

You're right. I apologize. Will try to not get upset in the future.

I know that in a perfect world, only perfect people would conceal guns. But then in that world there would be no need to carry a gun either.

I also understand being responsible. Maybe there should be a class and qualification in order to buy a gun, to be renewed just the same as a drivers license. I just can't imagine a BG worrying too much about any of it. Why shouldn't Joe be prepared to protect himself or his family without the approval of Big Brother?

I also understand the CCW class instructors backing the program, there is a lot of money to be made there. I'll bet that a good percentage of people taking the class passes without a problem, most all of them have been safely shooting for quite some time before they ever got to the classroom.

I've said the same thing over and over now. It is funny though, we are all bull headed and not open to changing our minds. But the constitution just didn't stereotype or say anything about having to allow the government to stick their nose into this.

Hope you all have a good and safe Thanksgiving.

[Bman505]

Luvs2Play, One thing that I am sure we can both agree on is that we should be greatfull we live in a country that allows us to agree or disagree, the ability to own firearms, and one that gives and insures the rights to every individual. I am glad you see the responsible part. That is my most concern. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

[Packing247]

Do you pay for your drivers license and why? Should you not need one of those as well?

Happy Thanksgiving Bman + all board members! I really enjoy being here!

Bman; Simple. My privilege to drive isn't written in the constitution. If driving was a RIGHT guaranteed as such...then your argument would apply.

edit: oops, I see Colt already answered for me. I was just getting caught up on the discussion.

[Packing247]

I think the key point here is ".....shall not be infringed". If there are people that are advocates for training (which I am), then training should offered without cost and without restriction in a matter that wont infringe on the people. Currently, the way the "system" is today is were the problem is.

[Jizzle]

Packing did you read my post? This is what it said..

This is one of the objectives of the A2ATF. To educate as much as possible on weapons use/application/safety et. We plan on having range days and classes once we are a little bit more established with certified instructors.

We won't be charging for the classes/instruction. I'm sure that if someone wants to donate fine. But overall it will be free. We just need to get our member base up and establish ourselves.

One step at a time.

[Sam]

There is nothing in the Constitution that limits rights to those enumerated within it.
The sole purpose of the Constitution of the United States is to limit Government.
It imposes no limits on the people, only on government.
The people may establish or discover such other rights as they wish. That is that is the difference between a Constitution such as ours and those of other nations, which assume rights to be granted by government.

Enjoy a fine Thanksgiving holiday with your friends and family, enjoy the fruits of liberty


Sam

[Grampa]

Sam got it exactly right, and did it with only 75 words. Way to go Sam.
And Happy Thanksgiving everyone. :D

[Packing247]

Packing did you read my post? This is what it said..

This is one of the objectives of the A2ATF. To educate as much as possible on weapons use/application/safety et. We plan on having range days and classes once we are a little bit more established with certified instructors.

We won't be charging for the classes/instruction. I'm sure that if someone wants to donate fine. But overall it will be free. We just need to get our member base up and establish ourselves.

One step at a time.

Yea Jiz...I read it. I think you and your group are providing a valuable service. I may even fly into NM one of these days and attend one. I can make it a short stop on my way to visit friends/family in San Diego.

The point that I was trying to make is: If "government requires" all of these "things" to exercise your right to carry a firearm.....then the "government" should provide these "things" free of charge and without restriction as to no one could be infringed upon. That would include (but not limited to) training, licensing, background checking, etc., and the entire country becoming "shall issue"

I think that would be a good start...allthough I would still be very skeptical merely because government is involved. I personally think government should get out of this business and let us police our own.

[XDSUBCOMPACT9]

alot of things have been discussed here..
when i go out and i carry i CC not OC i know it makes more people comfortable who dont like firearms and you dont get stared at while you are in public.. to many people judge others who carry to defend themselves and there loved ones.. alot has changed since all of the shootings that have happened all over.. i love carrying my xdsc its nice compact and fits my small hand great.. i honestly love my second amendment right!!!

[Jizzle]

Are we the government? We the people?

[Scooter]

Alright, we've discussed what our favorite gun make and model is, and we have a debate of revolver vs semi auto in another thread, so here is my question.

If you could only have ONE firearm, what make, model, and caliber would it be and why? When I ask this, my thought goes beyond just self defense and carry. I'm thinking along the lines of this is the only firearm you will ever have and must serve whatever purpose you need.

There are a whole host of uses for a firearm, and I know that no one can serve every purpose as well as multiple weapons could, so what would be your one selection. There is likely to be as many choices as there are reasons for each selection. So what have you got?

I'm actually drawn between two choices in my mind right now so I am going to do a little more reading before I settle on my one.

[Jizzle]

So everything from self defense to hunting hmm.. That's interesting. You'd need something versitile. Lets see..

12ga? Shotguns are pretty versitile. You have multiple loads to chose from. But, you don't have much range wtih a shotgun even with slugs. Not everybody has the ability to reload shells.

A carbine of some kind? Like a lever gun chambered in .357 mag or .44 mag? You get good accuracy out to decent ranges. Recoil isn't bad. You get close to rifle velocities out of them and can hunt up to medium sized game as well as smaller game without destroying your target (depending on the load). It'll shoot lead bullets no problem, so reloading is decently easy as long as you can find the raw ingredients. You could reload the brass over and over without excessive trimming as long as you don't load them too hot. Super dependable. Short weapon, easy to carry. Not very heavy. Good rate of fire if it was needed in a self defense situation.

.308 bolt action? Ammo would be easy to get and or reload. Also wouldn't have much in the way of reloading issues. Super dependable. Not many moving parts. Good for medium/large game. Can be heavy depending on the model. Can be long depending on the model. Long range weapon. With practice you can attain a pretty decent rate of accurate fire. Jeff Cooper was a proponent of this kind of rifle for a all purpose or "scout" rifle. His concept had a few key ingredients.

It's a very good question. I would be suprised to see how many people pick a pistol if any. To be honest the only person that I see picking a pistol would be Sinclair. He's a proponent of the single shot hunting pistols. I can see him possibly going with his 30-30 single shot or something along those lines as his one gun of choice. It's something to think about.

[Bman505]

I think I would choose the 12ga shot gun. It can be used for hunting or self defense. You also don't have to be a good shot either.

[Packing247]

I will go with the 12ga too. If I had to pick one gun forever...It would have to be something that I have the best flexibility to survive with. Being that I can hunt small birds all the way up to medium size game...this would be the one I would pull from the collection!

My close second would be 4-way toss up between my 30-06, 22-250, AR .223 or 30-30.

What would be "your" first choice and close second?

[Sam]

So many choices,
I'll take my M1 Rifle

Don't need to shoot birds but I've killed a lot of them with the M1. You don't need to be sporting, just eat and much as I love shotguns, I need a rifle.

[Jizzle]

I'm going to go with that also. The 308 Savage scout. Rifle makes most sense to me. Self defense is going to be hard with a shotgun if they have a rifle. And you can do everything you need to with a rifle. And in my opinion they are easier to reload.. A rifle for me.

[Scooter]

I think I would choose the 12ga shot gun. It can be used for hunting or self defense. You also don't have to be a good shot either.

I have to agree but disagree. The 12 ga is good for both hunting and self defense. but what's this about you don't have to be a good shot? Hell if you think that's true I'd love to take you bird hunting or deer hunting with slugs just once. Then you'll learn that it's just as difficult if not more so than shooting a rifle.

[Scooter]

Everyone has missed one aspect of this question. Not only what caliber/gauge but also what make and model and why. There have been a few who have said 12 gauge, but which one. Are you thinking a pump action, semi auto, Remington, Beretta, Benelli? There are a lot of differences out there so which one

[Scooter]

And I too am going to have to go with the 12 gauge shotgun. More specifically, my Ithica Model 37 with a Nikon BDC 200. It has both a slug barrel, which is great for hunting medium size game, and a bird barrel that is suitable for non lead shot as well as lead.

Jizzle made the statement earlier that the 12 gauge doesn't have much range, but I disagree. And for proof I offer up the specs of the Nikon Slughunter BDC 200. It has recticle markings for a slug gun out to 200 yards. This is more than sufficent range for medium sized game; as a bow hunter all my shots are inside 70 yards and I have been successful on many occasions. Additionally, a shotgun is ideal for birds, rabbits, squirrel, etc.

As for defense, even the Army Green Berets use a pump action 12 gauge (Remington 870). With bird shot at defensive ranges inside a home the pattern is typically within a few inches. For more stopping power, if that's what you're after, in an offensive situation you can utilize 00 buck. There are also countless of those crazy rounds you see at gun shows that shoot blades, chains, shoot flames, and all sorts of other crazy crap if that's what floats your boat.

I selected the Ithica because as a lefty, the bottom ejection of the model 37 is a lot nicer than catching the occasional shell in the face during ejection. Additionally, I went with a pump action for reliability. Clearing a misfeed, or jammed shell on extraction is much simplier than with a semi. Take down and cleaning is fairly simple and can be accomplished with basic tools and can be accomplished in the field when needed. And the all steel construction (unlike some manufacturers who use aluminum for the receiver) ensures years of reliable use.

As for reloading, it's quite affordable and rather easy to learn. Reguardless of what the factory load was in the shell, it can be reloaded to suit your needs at the time. I don't care if everyone has the ability, so long as I still do.

I won't be able to do any long range sniper shots like with the M1 or 308 Savage Scout; but if I know you're coming, a 200 yard impact from a slug is effective. And If I don't know, I'd rather have a shotgun in close quarters than a rifle.

The other firearm I was considering was a Winchester Model 94 Ranger in 30/30. So 247, I guess this would have been my second choice, but I felt it was too limiting. My first thought was ability to hunt and then defense. But I don't see as much defense as I do offense with a rifle, so the trusty 12 ga won for me.

[Sam]

200 yards is not "range"
3-5 is my playground, that is beginning to be "range". I spent the first half of October
at Ft. Stewart explaining range to some fellows from the Army.
Their lives changed significantly when they learned they could effectively engage to 600 with an M4, even burdened with the CCO, I suspect your outlook might too.

I have use shotguns all my life, in most every imaginable situation, have healthy respect for their ability, but no matter what combo you have, they ain't got no "range".

Sam

[Jizzle]

shotguns no matter how fancy or how many barrels cannot compete with a rifle.

With a decent amout of practice you can use it short range as well as long range. You can also use a rifle for small game. Like someone said earlier in this thread. No need to be sporting or humane about it. You gotta eat.

I don't understand how a rifle is limiting. Please explain. Maybe you are just not proficient enough with one to be comfortable in it's multitude of uses? And I don't say that to be an ass. It's just a question.

[Bman505]

What I mean is that it is easier to shoot a bird with a shotgun than a riffle. I have never gone deer hunting before using a slug, so I could not tell you the difficult level there. I have hunted deer with a riffle before and assumed using a slug would be more difficult because of the range factor. If you are able to hit your target at 200 yards with a slug, that is amazing.

[Jizzle]

with a slug barrel not a normal barrel. and to be honest. if i have to change barrels to do different things you might as well change guns. which isn't the point. At that point I'll just say I chose an AR lower and have uppers for any conceivable round of ammunition that i might run across so that I never have to worry about ammunition. Same difference.

[Scooter]

200 yards is not "range"
3-5 is my playground, that is beginning to be "range". I spent the first half of October
at Ft. Stewart explaining range to some fellows from the Army.
Their lives changed significantly when they learned they could effectively engage to 600 with an M4, even burdened with the CCO, I suspect your outlook might too.

I have use shotguns all my life, in most every imaginable situation, have healthy respect for their ability, but no matter what combo you have, they ain't got no "range".

Sam

So anything inside of 300 yards isn't range? I guess you can just throw a rock that far and kill what ever it might be. I guess no skill is needed for shots less than 300. Remember that reguardless of the "range", hunting takes skill. If it were easy or guarenteed, they would call it killing.

shotguns no matter how fancy or how many barrels cannot compete with a rifle.

With a decent amout of practice you can use it short range as well as long range. You can also use a rifle for small game. Like someone said earlier in this thread. No need to be sporting or humane about it. You gotta eat.

I don't understand how a rifle is limiting. Please explain. Maybe you are just not proficient enough with one to be comfortable in it's multitude of uses? And I don't say that to be an ass. It's just a question.

I am quite proficient with a rifle, and am comfortable with my 7mm Rem Mag out to 500. Never had a need to try for ranges beyond that though it is more than capable. The limitation is in the defensive factor. You're not always going to see the BG at a distance. What happens when he is already inside you home? Do you really believe a rifle is as effective, let alone more so, than a shotgun in this situation?

with a slug barrel not a normal barrel. and to be honest. if i have to change barrels to do different things you might as well change guns. which isn't the point. At that point I'll just say I chose an AR lower and have uppers for any conceivable round of ammunition that i might run across so that I never have to worry about ammunition. Same difference.

Never claimed it was anything other than a slug barrel, that's what it is intended for after all. And you had the choice of an AR with the countless uppers if thats what works for you. I want to know what YOU would choose and why. Not what is wrong with everybody elses choice.

This wasn't meant to insight argument over choices, just wanted to know what people thought. You don't have to like my choice, and I don't have to like yours. After this, I don't see a need to justify my choice any further. Hopefully now, I have clarified to the extent of my abilities, my choice.

So, anyone else out there have a different firearm they would choose, or reason they would choose one of those already identified?

[Jizzle]

but an AR with countless uppers like your shotgun with multiple barrels isn't one gun. You didn't even follow your own rules to the question.

[Sam]

So anything inside of 300 yards isn't range? I guess you can just throw a rock that far and kill what ever it might be. I guess no skill is needed for shots less than 300. Remember that reguardless of the "range", hunting takes skill. If it were easy or guarenteed, they would call it killing.

Those are your words, but for the record, few have the skill to use a rifle even at 300.
A little more than half cannot hit within 10 MOA of their intended target at 100 without a rest. I see it demonstrated every month, with all kinds of rifles.

The only advantage I see to a shotgun is in shooting flying birds. I don't hunt birds any more. There are some places where I prefer a shotgun, but we are talking versatility and being down to 1 gun. If I were limiting myself to the 200 yard range you mentioned, I still would not take a shotgun, might even go for a handgun since it is handier for defense purposes. As for hunting I'll just say that I haven't shot a deer or elk out here at more than 35 yards in a long time, I like close, but we were talking versatility and only 1 gun remember?
If you are satisfied with a shotgun, good for you. I'm not and I'll take a rifle.

Sam

[Scooter]

but an AR with countless uppers like your shotgun with multiple barrels isn't one gun. You didn't even follow your own rules to the question.


This wasn't meant to insight argument over choices, just wanted to know what people thought. You don't have to like my choice, and I don't have to like yours. After this, I don't see a need to justify my choice any further. Hopefully now, I have clarified to the extent of my abilities, my choice.

So, anyone else out there have a different firearm they would choose, or reason they would choose one of those already identified?

see above.

[Jizzle]

So this is a debate and you don't want to debate? Wow... Why bother.. Good job killing the thread scooter.

[Jizzle]

So here's a question for you guys.

What's the best direction in your opinion that a local group like the A2ATF should take? Objectives et and how to complete them. Be descriptive.

[Bman505]

I would take it slow and easy in a town like Alamo. But, I would not limit the group to just Alamo either. I would try and expand the group to other communities as well.

[Jizzle]

so start slow but not just in alamo.

how about centering it in alamo to start with?

[Sam]

Since your primary players are in Alamo, you need to base here, plus NM is easy to get your legal organization set up. Did you get that link I sent you?

Get your goals setup, along with your proposed mode of operation, clean and simple with no ambiguity then get your filing done.
Since you already have a website setup, you probably ought to base your operation there to avoid confusion and duplication.

Sam

[Bman505]

Anyone a fan of Ruger? I have only handled a few models, but they seem really cheap to me. I have also read on other forums that they have had lots of issues. Just wanted to see the response here.

[Jizzle]

only in .22 pistols. they seemed fine to me.. not sure though.

[XDSUBCOMPACT9]

my husband has a ruger p95dao which is just like what he uses at work... he likes them but the state plans on going to a more reliable gun that will last a lifetime GLOCK... i just dont recall which model it will be.. i personaly hate the ruger i tried looking into the sr9 but again small hands held me back from many wepons..

[Jizzle]

Hey guys, I'm out to Ecuador for 6 months. Good luck to all. I'm out the door manana. Be good and keep your eye on the prize.

[Colt 45]

Have a great time and stay safe -- if it's possible to do both! I didn't realize you were going to be gone for so long...

Max

Hey guys, I'm out to Ecuador for 6 months. Good luck to all. I'm out the door manana. Be good and keep your eye on the prize.

[Colt 45]

You should handle some Redhawks, or Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks. They are very well built. Years ago I had a Ruger Single Six, the one with 2 cylinders -- a .22 long rifle and a .22 magnum. I really wish I would have kept it. I've never had the other "hawks" but have shot many and always planned on getting some.

Max

Anyone a fan of Ruger? I have only handled a few models, but they seem really cheap to me. I have also read on other forums that they have had lots of issues. Just wanted to see the response here.

[Colt 45]

I'll be the oddball here and pick a handgun. I've never been much of a rifle or shotgun shooter, and I'm not a hunter, so handgun for me.

The one I would choose may be no surprise either. It would be the Colt Single Action Army, in .45 Colt caliber. It is reliable, reasonably powerful, and in a 4 3/4 inch barrel reasonably concealable. It can also be used for hunting, although success is debatable. Ammo is usually fairly common and it is easy to reload. And it's fun to shoot!

So, the Peacemaker is my choice. Your mileage may vary.

Max

Alright, we've discussed what our favorite gun make and model is, and we have a debate of revolver vs semi auto in another thread, so here is my question.

If you could only have ONE firearm, what make, model, and caliber would it be and why? When I ask this, my thought goes beyond just self defense and carry. I'm thinking along the lines of this is the only firearm you will ever have and must serve whatever purpose you need.

There are a whole host of uses for a firearm, and I know that no one can serve every purpose as well as multiple weapons could, so what would be your one selection. There is likely to be as many choices as there are reasons for each selection. So what have you got?

I'm actually drawn between two choices in my mind right now so I am going to do a little more reading before I settle on my one.

[Bman505]

A buddy of mine has a Ruger and he really likes it. I have shot it once before and it felt knida cheap to me. I like the Ruger LCP. It looks like a nice little pocket gun.

[Colt 45]

Which model Ruger was it, do you remember?

Max

A buddy of mine has a Ruger and he really likes it. I have shot it once before and it felt knida cheap to me. I like the Ruger LCP. It looks like a nice little pocket gun.

[Jizzle]

Sup guys I´ve been in ecuador a couple days now.. got the swine flu yesterday, so now i´m quarantined in my mother inlaws guest house. doh. oh well. what happened to the great debate? am i the only one that enjoys arguing?

[Bman505]

Glad to hear you made it alright Jizzle. Sorry to hear though you have the swine flu. That bites. There are only 15 more days left to debate for the best prize of the year! People on here better start getting their final debates in before the 31st!

[Jizzle]

ya or is everyone here to politically correct to disagree with someone elses point of veiw?

[XDSUBCOMPACT9]

i have nothing to argue but i love guns and my second amend. right

[Colt 45]

Welcome back Jizzle, I'm glad you are able to check in...or is the only reason why because you are quarantined and have nothing else to do? Just kidding. I hope you get past the flu soon and go back to enjoying your vacation! We'll have to get an argument going in your honor!

Max

Sup guys I´ve been in ecuador a couple days now.. got the swine flu yesterday, so now i´m quarantined in my mother inlaws guest house. doh. oh well. what happened to the great debate? am i the only one that enjoys arguing?

[Colt 45]

Maybe everyone is just in the Christmas spirit, you know full of peace and joy! I'm sure we can disagree on something...can we all agree on that? ;)

Max

ya or is everyone here to politically correct to disagree with someone elses point of veiw?

[XDSUBCOMPACT9]

Maybe everyone is just in the Christmas spirit, you know full of peace and joy! I'm sure we can disagree on something...can we all agree on that? ;)

Max

im sure we can all agree to disagree..LOL :p

[Bman505]

Come on guys, you are making it tough on me here to pick a winner!

[Scooter]

Come on guys, you are making it tough on me here to pick a winner!

Then allow me to make things easier on you...pick me:D

See how easy that was. Now there's no more problem:cool:

[Deacon Jim]

Then allow me to make things easier on you...pick me:D

See how easy that was. Now there's no more problem:cool:

Scooter, behave yourself. You know that safe would look much better in my Chevy Silverado than it would in your jeep.:p

[Scooter]

Scooter, behave yourself. You know that safe would look much better in my Chevy Silverado than it would in your jeep.:p

Says you!!:) Haven't you read the stickers? It's a Jeep thing, YOU wouldn't understand:p

You're just upset that you didn't get to respond first. HAHAHA Best of luck to all

[Packing247]

Those safes were initially designed for Jeep owners anyway! :D

I think I should be awarded it!

[Scooter]

Those safes were initially designed for Jeep owners anyway! :D

I think I should be awarded it!

I started the Jeep wars on this site, I think I'm more deserving...but a Jeep owner is still better than a Toy owner:D

[Bman505]

Watch it Scooter!!

[Scooter]

All in good fun there Bman

[Scooter]

Does poking fun at Toyotas lower my odds of winning? I may have to take back all those things I said....unless it doesn't help my odds. HAHA

[Bman505]

I hear ya Scooter. You know deep down inside you really want a new Toyota!

[Scooter]

Like I want another hole in my head maybe!

[Scooter]

I think we may have just resurrected the Jeep v. Toyota debate...which means all these posts are eligible for the contest. See how well that worked out. We still need to take my Jeep and your FJ (company?) out and put them to the test. Just don't forget to bring a strap/rope/chain so that I can pull you out when you get stuck.......

[Bman505]

We will be having a scouting trip in the next few months to find some trails for next years rally. You should come along! You might learn a thing or two!;):D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Scooter]

Packing 247, we're way out numbered by Toy owners here so I will likely need some support. Of course, the Jeep mostly speaks for itself, so I may not need to terribly much....but you're welcome to join in the fun

[Jizzle]

I'm gonna reressurect an argument due to recent experiences. This should help Bman with his decisions.

The saturday that I arrived to Ecuador I went out with my wife, her to brothers and one of their girl friends. We stopped a a liqour store to buy a bottle to pregame with up to this point none of us have had anything to drink. While outside the store someone bumped my brother in-laws car. And proceeded to try to drive away. The other brother in law saw it as did I and stopped the car from leaving the guys in the car (probably around 20ish years old, 2 of them and a girl) proceeded to cuss him and I out for stopping them from leaving the scene. I looked at the cars and saw that there was very little to no damage and told Pancho (the brother in law number 2) that he should let them go and it wasn't worth the trouble. He did. After a few colorful words to their discredit and they left.

5 minutes later the 2 guys had pulled into a parking spot across the street and exited the vehicle to talk to us and to seek some kind of retribution I guess for us holding them up from leaving along with their pride being hurt from the words exchanged. I told Pancho to get into the car, and by this time my wife and her brother and his girlfriend had exited the liqour store and I told them to get into the cars we where leaving. All of them did except carlos, the brother who's car had been scuffed. He was trying to get the other guys to leave.. Pancho had his window down and one of the individuals was inching his way closer and closer to the open window while just generally talking all kinds of crap to pancho. I put myself inbetween the two. Meanwhile Carlos was trying to talk to the other guy and get them to leave as peacefully as possible. That guy kicked the car hard enough to ding it and Carlos snapped. He hit the guy 3 times in the face before I could blink. The guy didn't know what had happened. The guy who was next to me just stood there doing nothing. I pulled the two apart and tried to keep myself between them. That didn't work out so well. My wife had exited the vehicle and put herself in between them also and ended up getting punched in the face (by accident) from her brother because she pushed the other guy out of the way just in time to eat the punch intended for him. She just wanted the fight to stop.. unfortunatly she's 5-1 and 110.. Even in a country where the guys average 5-6/5-7 shes in no position to be pulling guys apart. Longer story short I grabbed Carlos in a choke and turned him away from the other guy who was pretty damn stunned and put my body between the two. And told him he had just hit his sister, while putting him close to the point of blacking out. He went a limp, and I let him go. He hadn't realized he had hit her apparently. He ran to her.

The other guy still wasn't sure what had happend his face was really busted up but he was still standing. The second guy was also not sure what to do. I told them to get a move on and the girl that was with them grabbed one of them and pulled him back to the car and they got in. The busted up face guy just stood there. We got into our cars and left.

This whole time I'm praying that none of them pulled out a weapon. I conceal a knife under my shirt while I'm here because 1. There was no way that I could figure out how to get my gun down here with me and 2. If I was caught with it here I would be in a WORLD of hurt. The knife was next best option. I have recieved extensive training in up close defensive tactics both armed and unarmed at my own expense. Here's a couple questions for debate.

1. In this situation what would the better carry option be? CC or OC?(You know I had to ask, and I mean OC/CC of a knife and or gun, either way)

2. Given the previous story. What should I have done better/different? Given that I speak very poor spanish and they speak no english.

Btw, my wife was fine, just a shiner the next day. Nothing life threatening or serious.

2nd story.

We are out again. Different part of town. Different night. We enter a bar and I look for the restroom. I haven't had anything to drink. I go to the restroom and do my business, the restrooms are very small and cramped. As I'm leaving the restroom a guy tries to walk through the door and he walks right into me. He's about 5-6 which is about average for them here but puts his face right about the level of my chest. He looks up at me and cusses at me and pushes me into the back wall of the restroom (about 4 feet away, like i said small restrooms). Anyway the bathroom door swings closed behind him and it's just him and me in the restroom. I pop him one and he goes limp and hits his head on the urinal on the way down. Sleepy time and time for me to leave the bar, ASAP. Questions.

1. What should I have done different or what would you have done differently?

[Bman505]

Wow, My first thought is, due, you're going to be there for 6 months. I hope your still alive then! Second, i would not go out any more. Stay home. ha.

As for your questions,
1. What would be better, oc/cc. It sounds like OC would maybe have deterred them from coming back. But, on the other hand, once they saw you had a weapon, they could have returned with their own. If you were CCing, then the results would probably have been the same until or if, one of them drew a firearm. Then you would draw on them.
The third scenario I think you were right on, but I would not show back up at that bar. He is probably waiting for you with several of his buddies.

Have fun Jizzle and be safe.

[Sam]

Used to be based in a place called Puerto Putamayo and then for a year in Montepa.
You would see things like this all the time.

Lets just say that if you are up in Quito or on the coast you might get away with it but I wouldn't try it in El Oriente. These things generally ended with a machete in an alley.
It isn't terribly hard for an American to obtain permission for a handgun in Ecuador, a little "grasa" discretely placed with the alcalde will help in that regard. Don't try it yourself, ask your father in law or an uncle to assist you. They will know who to speak to, and how to go about it without rubbing the wrong way.

[Jizzle]

no only 6 weeks bman I'll be in town on the 17th of jan.

what would you guys have done differently if anything? this is a debate thread.

[Bman505]

Cool, I thought you said 6 months. I don't think I would have done anything differently. Trying to defuse any situation before violence erupts is always the best resort.

[Bman505]

Here is a topic I want to discuss. Why Glock? What is so special about them? I have fired them but never owned one. They seem over priced to me compared to like an XD. I like the safety features of an XD compared to almost nothing on the Glock. I have read that Glocks reliability is really good, it can with stand weather and will fire in almost any condition. But I would think my XD could do the same. Anyone want to take this on?

[Packing247]

Just don't forget to bring a strap/rope/chain so that I can pull you out when you get stuck.......

I don't think you will need all that....The first big rock or small ditch the Toy hits...something will break (like an axle or something). Better have a tow truck standing by instead.

Toy's have too many plastic parts to be trail worthy! Just remember...FJ's are for yuppies, just like Hummer's.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Bman505]

I don't think you will need all that....The first big rock or small ditch the Toy hits...something will break (like an axle or something). Better have a tow truck standing by instead.

Toy's have too many plastic parts to be trail worthy! Just remember...FJ's are for yuppies, just like Hummer's.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Ouch!! That hurt. I am not going to slam all Jeeps. I think the Wrangler is a fine off road vehicle. Now the rest of the Jeep line up is crap in my opinion. As far as the FJ's are for yuppies comment, I would have to most definitely disagree with that statement. I know lots of FJ owners who use the FJ for what it was designed for. Other than the Jeep having a shorter wheel base, I would bet that an FJ will go anywhere that the Jeep would go. Here is a little reading material for you from previous Jeep owners who now drive FJ's.
http://www.fjcruiserforums.com/forums/general-discussion/38497-how-many-fjers-own-have-owned-jeeps.html

[Packing247]

Ouch!! That hurt. I am not going to slam all Jeeps. I think the Wrangler is a fine off road vehicle. Now the rest of the Jeep line up is crap in my opinion. As far as the FJ's are for yuppies comment, I would have to most definitely disagree with that statement. I know lots of FJ owners who use the FJ for what it was designed for. Other than the Jeep having a shorter wheel base, I would bet that an FJ will go anywhere that the Jeep would go. Here is a little reading material for you from previous Jeep owners who now drive FJ's.
http://www.fjcruiserforums.com/forums/general-discussion/38497-how-many-fjers-own-have-owned-jeeps.html

I totaly agree. The wrangler line is the ultimate in ORV. Prior to that was the CJ's, Keiser's and Willey's (although I take exception to that 4 door piece of sht that has the "wrangler" name on it).

Anything else jeep makes is just a FJ with a jeep logo!

[Deacon Jim]

I am not much of a debater but, I have been following all of the posts from this November/December's Conceal Carry Chat.com Contest about what gun is best/worst for carry. I couldn't hold off any longer without feeling a need to respond to this question.

Since the Holloman BX has started selling firearms I have been working there as one of the salesman and this same questions comes up many times a day, especially from folks that know little to nothing about firearms.

Those customers who are familiar with handguns usually have strong opinions about what they like and don't like. For instance, I have sold a number of Hi-Point weapons which are fairly inexpensive. I had never heard of this brand before I started selling handguns. One customer told me that he was familiar with that brand and they were OK for the first 1K rounds and then they fell apart. The very next customer told me that he thought that Hi-Points were the best thing since peanut butter and they worked well forever as long as you keep them clean.

My generic pat answer to that question has been "the gun that feels best to you, that you like best, and fits your budget best is probably the best gun for you to buy".

I realize that this answer has to be tempered by a number of variables:

:)How familiar are you with handguns?
:)How long have you been shooting?
:)What is your major plan for using the gun?
:confused:Home Defense
:confused:Conceal Carry
:confused:Target Practice
:confused:Open Carry
:confused:A combination of uses
:)Do you have other handguns that you will also be using?
:)Etc, etc, etc.

I do ask these and other similar questions of the customer before I recommend a gun or guns for them to buy. I do tell them that I am partial to S&W .357 Magnum for a wheeled gun and Taurus .45 for a semi-auto, but everyone that I talk to has their own opinions.

[Bman505]

Deacon Jim,

I agree with your answer. The best gun to buy is the one that fits you, your budget, and your needs. There is a gun out there for everyone. As for Hi-Point, I have one seen one once or twice and they feel extremely cheap to me. A guy that works with me, his son shot himself in the hand with a Hi-Point. He said they were getting ready to clean it when it slipped out of his lap and some how fired hitting him in his hand. It was carelessness in my opinion not the gun. He brought the gun to me and asked if I wanted to buy it from him. After looking at it and handling it, I don't think I would ever own one myself. It did not feel like a solid firearm. Just my thoughts.

[Jizzle]

Glock vs XD.... Bman do you really want me to start in on this? :D

I'm going to go over the finer points of your baby Bman the XD40 and the Glock 27 and compare the differences for you. Are you ready?

First the Glock 27.

Capacity: 9+1 (11+1 with mag extension)
Barrel: 3.46in
Weight: 21.87oz (normal empty mag)
Overall Length: 6.29in
Height including mag (no extension): 4.17in
Width: 1.18in
Length betwee sights: 5.67in
Trigger Pull: 5.5lbs
Safety Featurs: 3. Trigger/Fireing pin block/drop safety
Total Parts: 35
Price: $500-$600

XD40 Subcompact:

Capacity: 9+1 (12+1 with extension)
Barrel: 3.00in
Trigger pull: 5.5-7.7
Length: 6.25in
Height (normal mag): 4.75in
Weight: 26oz (empty normal mag)
Length betwee sights: 4.10in
Width: 1.14in
Safety Features: 4. Grip/Trigger/Firing pin block/Drop
Total Parts: ?
Price: $450-$550

So we have a few specs listed. As you can see reliability is a huge factor when chosing a SD handgun. I couldn't for the life of me find a parts list for the xd 40. But on average the Glock has half of the moving parts of an average auto loader. Less parts you have the less parts that have a chance to fail. But, like I said I couldn't find out how many parts the XD has, maybe someone can help me out with this.

Overall size wise the Glock and XD are similar. The Glock has almost a half an inch longer barrel without compromising it's overall length vs the XD (its only 4hundreths of an inch longer overall). Glock wins.

Weight wise the Glock is 4oz lighter with an empty mag. Not really all that noticable once you load up. This is a personal preference toss up.. We'll call it a tie. Some people like slightly heavier guns some people like lighter for carry purposes.

Height wise the XD is about .6in taller with a standard mag, which for carry puposes does make a difference, but both are relatively small weapons. Glock wins.

Width wise you are talking .04in which isn't even noticable. So not a huge difference carrywise there. The XD wins this one.

Here is something that really caught my eye. Length betwee sights. The Glock has an incredible 1.57in advantage in this department. Accuracy wise this is a huge deal especially with subcompacts. The shorter the sight radius the harder it is to hit what you are aiming at. So in this department the Glock gets the nod, a huge nod.

Price is comparable. $500 average for the XD and $550 for the Glock. XD wins.

Safety features: Also a personal preference thing. XD has 4 main safety features. 3 of with are identical to the glocks. The only difference is the backstrap safety which won't allow the trigger to be pulled unless it is depressed. Safety wise XD wins. But, extra parts means extra parts to fail. Just keep this in mind.

Both pistols metal parts are coated with each brands type of corrosion resistant material. Glocks are statistically unrustable in normal use. Springfield XDs have had issues with their coating living up to expectations in harsh environments/extremely humid environments due to rust. But according to their websight they have fixed the issue and are not 100% rust proof for the life of the weapon. Glock wins as they have proven to have no rust issues.

XDs fit people with smaller hands and glocks with larger... personal preference...Tie.

Capacity wise the xd and glock are identical unless you go with the mag extenders which increase the overall height of the guns the XD more so than the glock.. but you get an extra round with the XD.. XD edges out the glock in this respect.

Aftermarket support is also a huge factor. Glock has so many aftermarket options available it's just truely rediculous. XD is catching up but, they are pretty far behind. Also, if your XD has a problem you have to send it back to the factory while Glocks are so simple that almost any gunsmith will be able to get you back to carrying in no time at all. Glock wins this one.

So overall I hope I've helped out at least someone by putting a few things in perspective with XD vs Glock in the .40 cal Subcompact class.

Final Score:

XD: 4 (the XD won a few rounds by the hair on it's chinny chin chin)
Glock: 5

And I'm sure you could come up with more things to judge each pistol on. I was merely going over the most basic. Glocks are tried and proven performers. XDs are the new kid on the block and will always have that resistance to change. To each their own.


References:

http://www.glockfaq.com/

http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php?version=63

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory_XD

http://glock.com

[Bman505]

Very good write up Jizzle. Does the Glock have a chambered round indicator like the XD? I do not believe it does. I do like the fact that the Glock has a longer barrel than the XD. I wonder how that is on such a small firearm? It looks like both are very good firearms and is going to be a Chevy vs Ford or Jeep vs FJ thing. You like what works for you until proven otherwise!

[Bman505]

One thing I do like about Glock is that they offer a 10mm sub-compact. The G29.


http://www.shooting-ua.com/dop_arhiv/dop_2/arm-books/image_shooting/Image/g29.jpg
10mm AUTO
SYSTEM
Safe Action
WEIGHT
700 g / 24.69 oz.
LOADED (~)
935 g / 32.98 oz.

LENGTH
172 mm / 6.77 in.
HEIGHT
113 mm / 4.45 in. MAG. CAPACITY
Standard: 10
OPTIONAL
15

WIDTH
32.5 mm / 1.27 in.
BARREL HEIGHT
32 mm / 1.26 in. TRIGGER PULL
2.5 kg / 5.5 lbs.
TRIGGER TRAVEL
12.5 mm / 0.5 in.

LINE OF SIGHT
151 mm / 5.95 in.
BARREL LENGTH
96 mm / 3.78 in. BARREL RIFLING
right hand, hexagonal
LENGTH OF TWIST
250 mm / 9.84 in.


Here is one on Gunbroker for $525. (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=151635916)

[Jizzle]

Very good write up Jizzle. Does the Glock have a chambered round indicator like the XD? I do not believe it does. I do like the fact that the Glock has a longer barrel than the XD. I wonder how that is on such a small firearm? It looks like both are very good firearms and is going to be a Chevy vs Ford or Jeep vs FJ thing. You like what works for you until proven otherwise!

Yes they do have a chambered round indicator. It's right behind the chamber itself. It's a detent that is pushed out when a round is chambered, you can also feel it if you can't see it, say you where in low light et.

[Jizzle]

Oh, and I would love a G29 at some point. But, I gotta find a good weapon for mama first. Then I can do what I wish.

[Colt 45]

Wow, you learn something new everyday! I didn't know they had that.

Max

Yes they do have a chambered round indicator. It's right behind the chamber itself. It's a detent that is pushed out when a round is chambered, you can also feel it if you can't see it, say you where in low light et.

[Colt 45]

Jizzle, when you get back lets get together and have your wife try my Glock 26 if she hasn't already done so. She can try my wife's M&P also, and any others we have.

Max

Oh, and I would love a G29 at some point. But, I gotta find a good weapon for mama first. Then I can do what I wish.

[Jizzle]

did you look at your glock to see what i was talking about?

[Jizzle]

One thing I do like about Glock is that they offer a 10mm sub-compact. The G29.


http://www.shooting-ua.com/dop_arhiv/dop_2/arm-books/image_shooting/Image/g29.jpg
10mm AUTO
SYSTEM
Safe Action
WEIGHT
700 g / 24.69 oz.
LOADED (~)
935 g / 32.98 oz.

LENGTH
172 mm / 6.77 in.
HEIGHT
113 mm / 4.45 in. MAG. CAPACITY
Standard: 10
OPTIONAL
15

WIDTH
32.5 mm / 1.27 in.
BARREL HEIGHT
32 mm / 1.26 in. TRIGGER PULL
2.5 kg / 5.5 lbs.
TRIGGER TRAVEL
12.5 mm / 0.5 in.

LINE OF SIGHT
151 mm / 5.95 in.
BARREL LENGTH
96 mm / 3.78 in. BARREL RIFLING
right hand, hexagonal
LENGTH OF TWIST
250 mm / 9.84 in.


Here is one on Gunbroker for $525. (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=151635916)



hey bman when am i gonna make a convert out of you to the 10mm? hmmmm? hmmmmm?

[Bman505]

I would like to see XD come out with a 10mm. I really wouldn't mind owning a 10mm.

[Colt 45]

Not yet but I am going to.

Max

did you look at your glock to see what i was talking about?

[Sam]

When is either of them going to learn how to work with steel?

[Colt 45]

Probably not anytime soon Sam. One person's traditional is anther's newfangled.

Max

When is either of them going to learn how to work with steel?

[Jizzle]

glock and xd?


why ruin a good thing...

[Sam]

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f3/dental-fillings-2086-new/

If I thought it were a good thing I wouldn't suggest it.

[Jizzle]

im confused. are we talking about plastic pistols or tooth fillings.

[Sam]

why ruin a good thing...

Thanks for the catch but for teh record i feel about plastic tooth fillings much as I do about plastic pistols.

If I thought it were a good thing, I wouldn't suggest it.

Sam

[Jizzle]

Noted. And for the record for the last 6-7k rounds I've put through my glock with little more than wiping off and no malfunction that wasn't caused by the ammo I will respectfully suggest that plastic pistols are much much better than plastic fillings..

although, I don't have any data on plastic tooth fillings.. anyone wanna help me out with that one?

[Jizzle]

any last words from anyone? we have roughly 12 hours. :D

[Sam]

Sure,

What is most distressing about plastic fantastics is that they have no soul, and by extension, no class.

They are like a woman with a cold heart. She may perform fantastically on a number of levels but she makes a poor mother, a worse lover and I'll not have her near me.

Sam

[Bman505]

I think I have the winner picked out. Anyone want to try and convince me that I don't??? hehehe

[Jizzle]

so what are to be said of those that have soul but no class?

[Bman505]

What are you implying?

[Jizzle]

a weapon is a tool, I am one that prefers the right tool for the job. IE a hammer for nails a wrench for taking off a bolt.

what the tool is made from is not of paramount interest to me provided it does it's job well and dependably over and over and over without malfunction.

now that being said, if plastic has no soul, then I logically speaking the devil wouldn't want my gun.. so why then does obama and his party seem so interested in it, seeing it has no etheral value?

[Jizzle]

What are you implying?

if you have no soul you have no class.

so those with souls automatically have class or no?

and if having a soul denotes class, what is the definition of class?

Having a soul?

it's one big circle.

[Jizzle]

There are two things that my mother taught me that where impolite to argue about at the dinner table, religion and politics.. the latter of those topics I fail to restrain myself on a constant basis. The former.. Lets just say, I don't know enough to form an educated opinion on the subject hence that subject gets left untouched quite dependably.

[Colt 45]

I think that class, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder to an extent. And as I have said before, one person's traditional is another person's newfangled. When metallic cartridge handguns came out, there were those who stubbornly stuck to their old cap & ball revolvers and to a lesser extent, muzzle loading pistols.

There was a time when I would not have a semi-automatic pistol, except for the 1911. I have changed on that to an extent.

The cars of today in my opinion do not have any style for the most part. I think they started losing it during the 70s and completely lost it by the 80s. My parents would say that the cars of the 30s and 40s had style, but lost it by the 60s. I guess it is partly what you are raised with.

I don't know why it is to our generation that despises plastic so. I play acoustic guitar. The first thing I do when I buy a guitar is to start replacing the plastic parts with bone, fossil ivory etc. The goal is to get it to the way they were built in the 30s. I've done this with all of my Martins.