For the gun folks....

Shop Knives and stones on ebay
Japanese Knives - by Tokushu Knife
Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I owned a Springfield 1911 .45cal and a Springfield XD 9mm, for concealed I carried the XD that I had well over 6500 rounds through. As I'm sure you've guessed I carried the XD because it was like an extension of my hand when I was holding it. I feel that whatever you do finally decide to carry, make sure you are extremely comfortable and familiar with it.
 
Really? What were the quarterly profits of some of the big isurance companies in communist China? :biggrin:
mhlee said:
I have to disagree. If New York were a Communist State, JP Morgan would not have had a 4th quarter profit of $5.7 BILLION.
Click to expand...
 
******* said:
Really? What were the quarterly profits of some of the big isurance companies in communist China? :biggrin:
Click to expand...

From what I read, not a single Chinese insurance company had a recent quarterly profit of 5.7 billion dollars (don't forget the exchange rate).

You still consider China to be a "Communist" country?
 
mhlee said:
From what I read, not a single Chinese insurance company had a recent quarterly profit of 5.7 billion dollars (don't forget the exchange rate).

You still consider China to be a "Communist" country?
Click to expand...
THEY consider it to be a communist country, so I will take them at their word. ;-)
 
I own a shotgun (though not for self defense) I just don't understand the need for people to own an AR-15. As to the constitution, I feel that it's purpose (2nd amendment) is outdated for this argument. That said, I am fine with people owning guns for hunting/personal defense.

Sorry, just my 2 cents and I know I am probably in the minority here, no offense intended...just sick of the violence. And yes, I'm just an old hippy...so maybe that helps explain my position.
 
God help us all if the Constitution becomes "out dated". I sincerely hope our forefathers didn't fight and die for a concept with an expiration date. If this keeps up before long I'll have to register my EDC and surrender any knives over 240mm because any thing longer cound be an assault weapon. :no:
 
Duckfat said:
If this keeps up before long I'll have to register my EDC and surrender any knives over 240mm because any thing longer cound be an assault weapon. :no:
Click to expand...

how is that an even vaguely sensical statement?
 
Ah. Glad to know that you have been able to confirm with the majority of the over 1.3 billion people in China that they consider China to be a communist country.
 
EdipisReks said:
how is that an even vaguely sensical statement?
Click to expand...

How is this even vaguely a coherent sentence?

Although not true, NY is setting the stage to remove 2A rights for the future. Dictatorship may be a better way to put it. What if NY legislature were to limit your 1A rights, with plans to have an all-freedom of speech ban in the future? Would you be so forgiving?
 
I am a US citizen, but I have since chosen not to vote as I am currently living in Canada, I don't feel right choosing people to put into seats of power to govern over a county I don't live in.
Here's the problem, as a Nation the American's have voted for the people who are tampering with the constitution. The Americans asked for this to happen by choosing to put the people they did into power.

quantumcloud509 said:
Og ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!sorry. Im seriously getting fired up about the constitution getting tampered with. I am so mad. And its not good or ok. Anger problems are bad. GRRRAAAAWWWWRRRRRRR You no touchy my freedom mr sir. I push back hard.
Click to expand...
 
AFKitchenknivesguy said:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Based on FBI stats knives kill more people than rifles.
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with it being a non-sensical statement: there is no wide spread social movement to ban knives in the united states, and there have been no highly publicized kitchen knife massacres, so the simple "if A then B" statement does not follow. the frantic hyperbole does nothing to support the implied position.
 
Dusty said:
Since Australia made similar bans on assault weapons and machine guns, and implemented a gun buyback, there have been no more mass shootings - we used to average one every year.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...

US and Australia are different countries with different histories and culture, or are you in the mindset of making the world homogenous? And using the term "just sayin'" is hugely condescending, as if you are all knowing and we are idiots. This is a hugely complicated issue that can't be solved by spouting off random opinions without documented stats.
 
Actually I guess you could say its my fault as well for abstaining my vote, instead of using my vote to try to counter the people that want to take rights away.....through this revelation I apologize for not voting.

Igasho said:
I am a US citizen, but I have since chosen not to vote as I am currently living in Canada, I don't feel right choosing people to put into seats of power to govern over a county I don't live in.
Here's the problem, as a Nation the American's have voted for the people who are tampering with the constitution. The Americans asked for this to happen by choosing to put the people they did into power.
Click to expand...
 
EdipisReks said:
that has nothing to do with it being a non-sensical statement: there is no wide spread social movement to ban knives in the united states, and there have been no highly publicized kitchen knife massacres, so the simple "if A then B" statement does not follow. the frantic hyperbole does nothing to support the implied position.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the widespread social movement to remove semi-automatic weapons is based on isolated mental health issue killers? And just because it is not highly publicized does not make the families of those killed by knives any less important? The media machine is about making headlines and money, why would they make a knife killing national news?
 
chinacats said:
I own a shotgun (though not for self defense) I just don't understand the need for people to own an AR-15. As to the constitution, I feel that it's purpose (2nd amendment) is outdated for this argument. That said, I am fine with people owning guns for hunting/personal defense.

Sorry, just my 2 cents and I know I am probably in the minority here, no offense intended...just sick of the violence. And yes, I'm just an old hippy...so maybe that helps explain my position.
Click to expand...

Outdated? I don't even know where to start. Maybe this country isn't for you. The violence today is no different than the past, we just have 24 hour non-stop news coverage. Actually murder rates have cut in half in the last 30 years in the US. Put the smart phone away, turn off the tv, and live life.

My need to own an AR-15 is for practice when I deploy, though I support a civilians desire to own one for defense against tyranny. Don't think that would ever happen? I am sure the Japanese American citizens during WW2 would disagree. Just as the 1A way of free speech has changed since the inception of the Consititution, and we have moved from quills/parchment paper to computers and such, the same applies for the 2A. Technology changes, but our founding documents are timeless.
 
AFKitchenknivesguy said:
So you are saying that the widespread social movement to remove semi-automatic weapons is based on isolated mental health issue killers?
Click to expand...

"there is no widespread social movement to ban knives in the united states" and "there have been no highly publicized kitchen knife massacres" are contained within a single sentence, but are two clauses.

And just because it is not highly publicized does not make the families of those killed by knives any less important?
Click to expand...

non-sequitor.

this thread is silly, and would appear to be against the rules of the forum. i personally like and own guns. i don't like histrionics.
 
AFKitchenknivesguy said:
My need to own an AR-15 is for practice when I deploy, though I support a civilians desire to own one for defense against tyranny. Don't think that would ever happen? I am sure the Japanese American citizens during WW2 would disagree. Just as the 1A way of free speech has changed since the inception of the Consititution, and we have moved from quills/parchment paper to computers and such, the same applies for the 2A. Technology changes, but our founding documents are timeless.
Click to expand...

Your comment about Japanese American citizens is downright offensive and appalling. You honestly believe that had the Japanese Americans used weapons to fight against their internment that they would have prevailed or that they would have been able to defend "against tyranny"? Most Japanese Americans were herded in large groups and transported under threat of use of military force.

Had a single Japanese American responded to their internment by using a rifle or similar weapon, there may have been a massacre in the thousands. And based on prevailing racist sentiment against Japanese at that time, bloodshed would have been inevitable.
 
Offensive and appalling? Over state much? Send me your address and I'll send you a handwritten apology. My point was that the US government is not so swell when times are tough, and we need the ability to fight back. We can go back and forth all day, but I sense that it would amount to nothing.

As a US military member, I swore to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and domestic. I see a lot of domestic enemies these days.
 
AFKitchenknivesguy said:
US and Australia are different countries with different histories and culture, or are you in the mindset of making the world homogenous? And using the term "just sayin'" is hugely condescending, as if you are all knowing and we are idiots. This is a hugely complicated issue that can't be solved by spouting off random opinions without documented stats.
Click to expand...

No it's not condescending, I was trying to be polite whilst espousing what I thought would be an unpopular belief.

It would be hugely naive to suggest that the Australian situation and the American are identical, as there are for more guns in America and our attitudes to guns are different.

The second amendment right to bare arms is based on the idea that a well armed citizenry won't be oppressed. What. I don't understand is if this amendment guarantees you the right to an assault rifle why does it not guarantee you the right to a rocket launcher, anti-personnel land mines and ballistic missiles? After all, your government has all of these weapons and the well regulated militia needs to assure the security of a free state.

I'm not trying to be patronizing or condescending, I just don't understand the distinction.
 
What bothers me most about this sort of thing is that the government takes no action for extended periods of time, whether it be enforcement of existing laws or creation of new laws, and then when a crisis occurs, action is based on a knee-jerk response. Whether it be gun control, fiscal cliffs, debt ceilings, fertilizer bombs--something bad happens, and only then is action taken. And instead of a well thought out, negotiated approach, we have to do something RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW. Then in 6 months the American people will lose interest and it will be another crisis that needs action RIGHT NOW!!!!!

As far as the constitutionality of things, those of us in the US are fortunate enough to live in a country with separation of powers. I'm sure that any changes to gun laws will appear before the Supreme Court at some point.

Of course, what do I know? According to the Constitution as originally written, I'm just an uppity woman who shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
 
Lucretia said:
What bothers me most about this sort of thing is that the government takes no action for extended periods of time, whether it be enforcement of existing laws or creation of new laws, and then when a crisis occurs, action is based on a knee-jerk response. Whether it be gun control, fiscal cliffs, debt ceilings, fertilizer bombs--something bad happens, and only then is action taken. And instead of a well thought out, negotiated approach, we have to do something RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW. Then in 6 months the American people will lose interest and it will be another crisis that needs action RIGHT NOW!!!!!

As far as the constitutionality of things, those of us in the US are fortunate enough to live in a country with separation of powers. I'm sure that any changes to gun laws will appear before the Supreme Court at some point.

Of course, what do I know? According to the Constitution as originally written, I'm just an uppity woman who shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

This is probably the most objective post here. I am passionate, no doubt, and I respect everyones right to free speech (1A) on the matter but Lucretia pretty much hit it on the nose. Everything we do thse days is knee jerk. Thousands of laws, and very few are enforced, which is why we are in the position we are today.
 
Lucretia said:
What bothers me most about this sort of thing is that the government takes no action for extended periods of time, whether it be enforcement of existing laws or creation of new laws, and then when a crisis occurs, action is based on a knee-jerk response. Whether it be gun control, fiscal cliffs, debt ceilings, fertilizer bombs--something bad happens, and only then is action taken. And instead of a well thought out, negotiated approach, we have to do something RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW. Then in 6 months the American people will lose interest and it will be another crisis that needs action RIGHT NOW!!!!!
Click to expand...

Congress is highly balkanized, and in many ways artificially so, which prevents almost anything from being accomplished or reformed, unless there is a sudden and sufficient public interest to push an issue into motion. the result is exactly what you describe.
 
Dusty said:
No it's not condescending, I was trying to be polite whilst espousing what I thought would be an unpopular belief.

It would be hugely naive to suggest that the Australian situation and the American are identical, as there are for more guns in America and our attitudes to guns are different.

The second amendment right to bare arms is based on the idea that a well armed citizenry won't be oppressed. What. I don't understand is if this amendment guarantees you the right to an assault rifle why does it not guarantee you the right to a rocket launcher, anti-personnel land mines and ballistic missiles? After all, your government has all of these weapons and the well regulated militia needs to assure the security of a free state.

I'm not trying to be patronizing or condescending, I just don't understand the distinction.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you explaining that a bit. In a real civil war, where small arms combat is likely (look at the current wars and the populations weapons of choice), the AR15 is the most likely weapon to be effective against a military. I've been in the military 17 years and am very familiar with these scenarios. I think arguments about weapons that are already illegal and hugely over the top are not worth mentioning. Not to downplay your argument, but many military and LEO's would abandon post before they would be turned on citizens. I know I would. Most of the legal AR15 owners have it because of potential oppression, as you stated, but also for pleasure shooting, hunting, and home defense. BTW, the AR15 is the civilian version of the military M4, not the same weapon but would hold up well in a civil war. I hope we never have to find out.
 
why would anybody think that new laws forbidding high capacity ammo magazines, and banning certain assault rifles, and new background check regulations would lead to an eventual complete disarmament?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top