Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Never fired one, though I doubt it's any worse than my uncle's Super Redhawk in .454 Casull or his .500 S&W.
I've fired the casull and the S&W. .50. The Casull is definitely a more powerful cartridge, but the gun is about 4 pounds plus so the recoil is similar, maybe a bit stronger. The .50 is maybe 2/3 the recoil of the .44 with its compensating vents and gas operated action.
Err...the S&W .500 is just shy of 50% MORE powerful than the Casull.
I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is unethical... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.
Regarding the end of the conversation, I really wish you would stop. You don't dictate when the conversation begins, what it's about, or when it ends. You and podo have consistently posted garbage and lies, and have done your very best to make the case that although it's not illegal, it's just plain WRONG for people to protest against gun grabbers while armed.
We get it. You find guns terrifying, which is why you dismantle yours at home. But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms, then you are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to protest...and they will probably be armed. Because we have that right.
No -
When you have to put words in other people's mouths, you specifically and emphatically DON'T get it.
What's incredible is that you're actually willing to look this silly.
Especially Jizzbag there, who's so wacked out he's makiing you look almost halfway reasonable.
A group turned up with their openly exposed weapons for the purpose of focussing on these women.
That's intimidation.
It isn't the same as walking past a random person in the street carrying a gun.
I know you know this.
Yet you also said, "I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses (sic) rights."
Mind boggling, isn't it?
Gosh, try reading for comprehension.
How on earth does one statement contradict the other?
They only turned up because those mothers were there.
They turned up in an openly armed group with their focus on those unarmed women.
That is intimidation.
Why didn't they just carry signs?
Why do the patriot riders show up in black leather on motorcycles when those nuts demonstrate at a servicman's funeral? Is that a form of intimidation?
But I'd bet you aren't against that, so it all depends on who's being "intimidated", right?.
In any case, the men showed up WITH guns because they were going there in support of their GUN rights, much like baseball players show up at the park with baseball bats. That's what they do.
I never knew you could shoot people with black leather. Let alone baseball bats.
Hm - baseball just got a lot more interesting.
I don't believe what?
I agree that the gun-owners had a right to be there...I disagree that it wasn't for the purpose of intimidation.
You said:
Now you are saying that they were intimidating, even though they were exercising their constitutional right to keep, and bear, arms.I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.
You are lying about something. If you can't figure it out I will be forced to conclude that you are simply crazy.
OK, I'll spell it out for you.
Intimidating someone, and threatening someone's rights are two different things entirely.
They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary. And putting words in others' mouths.
"Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of is is".
Pathetic.
Talking about banning guns is so stupid.
Nobody's been talking about "banning guns".
Nothing like post-bombing in a thread you haven't bothered to read.
I get it. You said the men were there for the express purpose of intimidation. Case closed. Thank you God for clearing that up for us.When did I say it was wrong, illegal, unethical to own guns or assemble lawfully as a protest with guns?
You must have me confused with someone else.
Regarding the end of the conversation - it only takes one person in a two-person conversation to end it.
Our conversation about whether there was intimidation in this instance has ended.Furthermore, I don't lobby against gun ownership, again you must have me confused with someone else.
I'm not American - I have no right to, nor direct interest in lobbying against guns.
Then what the fuck are you doing here arguing with American citizens about our (US) Constitutional rights and our methods of protecting them? Isn't there an NZMessage board or some board where ever you are where your opinion would be fucking relevant?
WTF??? I swear! I grow weary of Libs from Australia, New Zealand and Canada injecting themselves into the Constitutional debates among US Citizens.
He wasn't.
He was arguing the topic. Which is, once again, intimidation. The verb in the title.
They only turned up because those mothers were there.
They turned up in an openly armed group with their focus on those unarmed women.
That is intimidation.
Why didn't they just carry signs?
Why do the patriot riders show up in black leather on motorcycles when those nuts demonstrate at a servicman's funeral? Is that a form of intimidation?
But I'd bet you aren't against that, so it all depends on who's being "intimidated", right?.
In any case, the men showed up WITH guns because they were going there in support of their GUN rights, much like baseball players show up at the park with baseball bats. That's what they do.
I never knew you could shoot people with black leather. Let alone baseball bats.
Hm - baseball just got a lot more interesting.
I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....
I get it. You said the men were there for the express purpose of intimidation. Case closed. Thank you God for clearing that up for us.When did I say it was wrong, illegal, unethical to own guns or assemble lawfully as a protest with guns?
You must have me confused with someone else.
Regarding the end of the conversation - it only takes one person in a two-person conversation to end it.
Our conversation about whether there was intimidation in this instance has ended.Then what the fuck are you doing here arguing with American citizens about our (US) Constitutional rights and our methods of protecting them? Isn't there an NZMessage board or some board where ever you are where your opinion would be fucking relevant?Furthermore, I don't lobby against gun ownership, again you must have me confused with someone else.
I'm not American - I have no right to, nor direct interest in lobbying against guns.
WTF??? I swear! I grow weary of Libs from Australia, New Zealand and Canada injecting themselves into the Constitutional debates among US Citizens.
He wasn't.
He was arguing the topic. Which is, once again, intimidation. The verb in the title.
They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary. And putting words in others' mouths.
"Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of is is".
Pathetic.
Aren't you the one who decided I abandoned this discussion? Glass houses/rocks?
Ernie, that's in no way a reference to you. Earlier I told Spoonman how this thread isn't about a question of laws but about ethics, which Koshergrrrrrr morphed into "unethical". Then even after I post the definitions for both, she continues to pretend they're the same thing. Windbag tried that too, but then that's Windbag.
That's when I needed you here, Ernie -- to tell them both they're full of shit.
Actually it's not too late...
Lemme show you what went down at the same time elsewhere...
I didn't insert any words into your mouth, moron. You keep saying stuff, then denying you said it, or claiming that I said it.
you're a nitwit.
Word fascist...HAHAHAHAH...Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often, and I'll continue to make you look like an idiot when I do.
"I didn't insert any words into your mouth" followed immediately by "Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often"
:
No please, go ahead... spin that one.
I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....
Why do the patriot riders show up in black leather on motorcycles when those nuts demonstrate at a servicman's funeral? Is that a form of intimidation?
But I'd bet you aren't against that, so it all depends on who's being "intimidated", right?.
In any case, the men showed up WITH guns because they were going there in support of their GUN rights, much like baseball players show up at the park with baseball bats. That's what they do.
I never knew you could shoot people with black leather. Let alone baseball bats.
Hm - baseball just got a lot more interesting.
I'm a biker. You probably wouldn't understand the looks you get from people when a couple guys in leather pull up next to a car on the road. Doors get locked, eyes straight ahead. The kids turn to look and dad tells them to look away... I know about unfair perceptions. These guys showed up with guns. BFD Guns and motorcycles are no more than pieces of metal. If they intimidate you, you really should seek help. Perhaps anti-anxiety medication would work for you.
I get it. You said the men were there for the express purpose of intimidation. Case closed. Thank you God for clearing that up for us.
Then what the fuck are you doing here arguing with American citizens about our (US) Constitutional rights and our methods of protecting them? Isn't there an NZMessage board or some board where ever you are where your opinion would be fucking relevant?
WTF??? I swear! I grow weary of Libs from Australia, New Zealand and Canada injecting themselves into the Constitutional debates among US Citizens.
He wasn't.
He was arguing the topic. Which is, once again, intimidation. The verb in the title.
I wasn't talking to you. Stop putting words in his mouth.
Aren't you the one who decided I abandoned this discussion? Glass houses/rocks?
Ernie, that's in no way a reference to you. Earlier I told Spoonman how this thread isn't about a question of laws but about ethics, which Koshergrrrrrr morphed into "unethical". Then even after I post the definitions for both, she continues to pretend they're the same thing. Windbag tried that too, but then that's Windbag.
That's when I needed you here, Ernie -- to tell them both they're full of shit.
Actually it's not too late...
Lemme show you what went down at the same time elsewhere...
"I didn't insert any words into your mouth" followed immediately by "Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often"
:
No please, go ahead... spin that one.
She said she didn't. And then she said she would. No hypocrisy there, that I see. You on the other hand, have been writing for others for the last 3 days and aren't near as honest about it.
Ernie, that's in no way a reference to you. Earlier I told Spoonman how this thread isn't about a question of laws but about ethics, which Koshergrrrrrr morphed into "unethical". Then even after I post the definitions for both, she continues to pretend they're the same thing. Windbag tried that too, but then that's Windbag.
That's when I needed you here, Ernie -- to tell them both they're full of shit.
Actually it's not too late...
Lemme show you what went down at the same time elsewhere...
No please, go ahead... spin that one.
She said she didn't. And then she said she would. No hypocrisy there, that I see. You on the other hand, have been writing for others for the last 3 days and aren't near as honest about it.
Amazing. When I said "go ahead, spin that" it was rhetorical snark. I didn't mean for you to actually try it.
I don't want to alarm you but you're getting into Windbag territory now...
I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....
ah yes, a liberal douchebag would hope for something like that
She said she didn't. And then she said she would. No hypocrisy there, that I see. You on the other hand, have been writing for others for the last 3 days and aren't near as honest about it.
Amazing. When I said "go ahead, spin that" it was rhetorical snark. I didn't mean for you to actually try it.
I don't want to alarm you but you're getting into Windbag territory now...
Be careful or you'll intimate mothers somewhere...
Nobody said it was "ethical" or "unethical". Again you're inserting the argument you wish you had rather than what's on the page.
I said it was a discussion of ethics. That's not a value judgement.
You'll just have to accept that.
Please cite the law that says gun owners cannot gather in the manner they did.
We just did this. Please see 955.
Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.
This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.
Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.
