Thread: Gun guys!

Originally Posted by Killermonkey

What is it?

.475 Wildey magnum. If you've ever seen the Charles Bronson movie Death Wish 3, it plays a starring role.

I miss that guy, those movies were corny but they bring me back. Ya know?

My wife bought me a gun while I am away and she won't tell me what it is. Three more weeks till I find out. I'm dying over here

Originally Posted by Killermonkey

I will open another thread for the battle of murders abroad

My little family of 1911's, from the top-

Kimber set up for off-hand bullseye
Springfield set up for steel plate competition
Colt 1911A1 carried by my grandpa in WWII
Colt Commander 4"
Colt Defender 3" alloy frame, My carry pistol

Originally Posted by bigmoe65

Last one I bought is a Colt AR-15 hbar competition with flat top receiver and a ACOG scope.

Nice, went for the rockra ar, first ar and didn't want to shell out colt price am broke too. Man they are sweet!

Originally Posted by bccs

Sweet 1911 collection!

I never carry 1911' s because for me, they are too heavy and I can't jam a fresh mag as fast as a regular combat pistol.

Originally Posted by Killermonkey

I never carry 1911' s because for me, they are too heavy and I can't jam a fresh mag as fast as a regular combat pistol.

That just tells me you need to practice tactical reloading.

No sir, not the case at all. I can jam a mag in a glock guaranteed faster than anyone in this forum and I say that with no hesitation. Even faster than all of my coworkers at my blackwater.

1911 were combat pistols for earlier wars like Vietnam and ww2, they are no longer practical as new and innovative pistols hit the market. I will put on me jamming amag in a glock to anyone with a 1911. High stakes or low stakes, I will win every time

Originally Posted by Killermonkey

No sir, not the case at all. I can jam a mag in a glock guaranteed faster than anyone in this forum and I say that with no hesitation. Even faster than all of my coworkers at my blackwater.

1911 were combat pistols for earlier wars like Vietnam and ww2, they are no longer practical as new and innovative pistols hit the market. I will put on me jamming amag in a glock to anyone with a 1911. High stakes or low stakes, I will win every time

Now hold on, you're talking a Glock reload vs. a single stack 1911 reload. Yeah, my money would be on the Glock but, that's like racing a Top fuel dragster against a '77 Pinto. Definitely apples to oranges comparison.

On the other hand, I carry either a double stack Para-Ordnance or STI 1911. I'm not too shabby when it comes to reloads. Not taking you up on your bet, just comparing apples to apples.

I don't plan on having to reload

Originally Posted by bccs

I don't plan on having to reload

And statistics support that plan BUT, plans don't always work out like planned. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Originally Posted by BillHicksFan

Would you guys rather keep your guns and accept the staggering amount of annual shootings or can you see the day when your gun laws become so regulated that it makes owning a weapon extremely difficult in the hope for less annual shootings?

This is a terrible view point and just wrong.. statistcs on a couple different cities in the US showed that there is was less crime in cities where not requiring a liscense to carry a gun was the law than in cities that have had out lawed guns all together. I believe it was chicago that just had its gun laws straighten out to legalize gun ownership. And as far as stalking a dude and shooting him for being on my property... any day of the week.

sorry for the late reply but i hate that stand point that cause guns are more prevalent that more people are getting shot as if criminals are going around waiting 2 weeeks for there 1500 dollar pistol and then going to kill someone with it...


Ps i love guns ..my kimber gold combat is my baby i sleep with it!!!! really

Originally Posted by Killermonkey

No sir, not the case at all. I can jam a mag in a glock guaranteed faster than anyone in this forum and I say that with no hesitation. Even faster than all of my coworkers at my blackwater.

1911 were combat pistols for earlier wars like Vietnam and ww2, they are no longer practical as new and innovative pistols hit the market. I will put on me jamming amag in a glock to anyone with a 1911. High stakes or low stakes, I will win every time

That ain't a glock. Mag changes are about repetition. My father competed in IPSC shooting and he was never hindered by the 1911 design. His wasn't a tricked out race gun either. It was carry able. a beveled magwell lots of practice and you are good to go. I'd love someone to tell Will Brink that he is at a disadvantage to a Glock when he is using his 1911. LOL

Originally Posted by skinnyguy180

This is a terrible view point and just wrong.. statistcs on a couple different cities in the US showed that there is was less crime in cities where not requiring a liscense to carry a gun was the law than in cities that have had out lawed guns all together. I believe it was chicago that just had its gun laws straighten out to legalize gun ownership. And as far as stalking a dude and shooting him for being on my property... any day of the week.

I wasn't talking in relation to political morality and ethics. I was asking a hypothetical question that if, on the assumption that all handguns could be somehow removed from the country would the American public still choose to keep their handguns at the cost of the annual population that are murdered or would you surrender them. Nevermind, I already have my answer

I'm not going to argue about the stats and laws. Its a no brainer when you take the emotion out of the argument. As long as there are a fuckload of guns everywhere you are going to experience a fuckload of shootings. The fact that they are criminals doing the shootings is beside the point.

Shitload of guns = Shitloads of shootings
No access to guns = No shootings

Originally Posted by BillHicksFan

I wasn't talking in relation to political morality and ethics. I was asking a hypothetical question that if, on the assumption that all handguns could be somehow removed from the country would the American public still choose to keep their handguns at the cost of the annual population that are murdered or would you surrender them. Nevermind, I already have my answer

I'm not going to argue about the stats and laws. Its a no brainer when you take the emotion out of the argument. As long as there are a fuckload of guns everywhere you are going to experience a fuckload of shootings. The fact that they are criminals doing the shootings is beside the point.

Shitload of guns = Shitloads of shootings
No access to guns = No shootings

And by doing this, even if it was possible you are completely missing the point of why the founders felt it necessary to give us the 2nd amendment. a reason i still find absolutely still viable today as it was then. The purpose of having an armed populace is so that the civilian population can protect itself from it's own government.

The bill of rights is a blue print for keeping people free from a dictator. If you want to control your populace you start by limiting their access to information, control the views they are allowed to publish, disarm them, limit their ability to congregate......

the 23,000 gun deaths we experience each year, while tragic, are not worth loosing the ability to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government

If it meant that it would save lives would you give up free speech, or allow the government to quarter troops in your home whenever they felt like it?

anyone here watch topshot?

Originally Posted by bigmoe65

anyone here watch topshot?

Yep, love it. I wish that Morelli bitch had gone home last night.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Yep, love it. I wish that Morelli bitch had gone home last night.

yup.

Originally Posted by BillHicksFan

No access to guns = No shootings

Obviously but gun control doesn't necessarily equal no access to guns. Without a total ban on guns you have a similar problem that the French had in WWII. After WWI the French built a line of defenses called the Maginot Line to guard against a German offensive. The problem was that these defenses only extended so far and the Germans simply went around the Maginot Line which effectively wasted resources. In the US with so many guns available criminals have no need to legally buy weapons. Waiting periods, limited magazine capacity, gun free zones and many other gun control measures are Maginot Lines.

After the UK banned handguns in '97, gun crime went up. At one point it was nearly double.

The more important point is the 2nd amendment isn't for the assurance of your safety it is to secure our free state.