Trucker Forum - Trucking & Driving Forums - Class A Drivers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orangetxguy

That portion of your statement? That right there negates any argument for allowing the sale of weapons such as the AK47, Mac-10 or M16. The simple statement, that the weapons themselves waste ammuntion more than they help a situation, speaks volumes.

But the AK47, M16, and MAC10 were effectively banned before they were ever designed, when, in 1934, the sale of automatic weapons to the general public was outlawed, and the Class III licensing system was implemented. If someone wants to go through the motions of obtaining a Class III license, paying the hefty costs to purchase a weapon which can legally be transferred, and so forth, I really don't see much problem with it. How many instances of legally owned Class III weapons being used in a crime are there? Offhand, I can only recount the one instance, where it was used by the police officer to whom it was issued. In semi automatic form, how are they really different from any other rifle? I had a similar discussion.. maybe two years ago? I brought an AR15 clone to the firing range (I say clone, because it's not manufactured by or under license from Colt, so, it can't be a true AR15). One of the firers there derided me for owning it, yet, he was there with a Mini 14. Now, interestingly, the AR15 was included in the 1994 ban by name, whereas the Mini 14 was exempted by name. What's the difference between the two rifles? They're both gas operated semi automatics which fire the same cartridge and are fed from a magazine. Aside from the Mini 14 having a more robust gas system, the only real difference is cosmetics, and perhaps the AR having tighter tolerances (I use it for IPSC competition).

Quote:

As for the all to infamous "North Hollywood" fire fight...yes...the thugs made themselves famous, by wearing the body armor in the manor in which they did. As to the LAPD...well..I thought they were pretty damn silly in the manner in which they themselves responded to the "thugs". I sure as heck would not have waited as long as LAPD did, to take head shots, and negate the body armor. But..that is me.

Yeah, there was a lot of foolishness involved in that episode, but bear in mind that typical patrol cars weren't loaded with sniping weapons, rifles, and the like. It took time for SWAT to get there.

Quote:

If the entire purpose for possession of a firearm, is "self protection", what is the purpose of "intimidation"?? If "I" am going to protect myself...I am not interested in intimidating anyone. If I need to fire a weapon in self defense, I am not going to be firing a warning shot into the ground, the air, or a wall...I am firing that first shot, at whomever I am defending myself against. I do not need a weapon such as an AK47 to "intimidate".

Namely, to avoid the situation from escalating to the point where you have to use it. I would shoot someone if necessary for my defence, but would I really want to? If they think they're overwhelmed from the start, and run out with their tails between their legs, that's just fine with me.

Quote:

Actually...I have very limited experience at a "firing range". Our target practice took place behind the barn, on the place back home. When I have fired a gun, I was shooting at an animal. Usually a Blacktail deer or an Elk for table meat, or "plinking" gophers in the hay fields.

Your posts are always so colourful. I'm getting quite envious here.
You make me think back to my childhood days, when my grandfather would take me shooting with him. He had an old Mosin Nagant and an AVS36 that he had personally captured during the Winter War, and kept as souvenirs. Dammit, now you're making me get sentimental.

Quote:

I have never fired at a human being. Would I get nervous, when it comes to needing to shoot a firearm at another person? No..not if the other person is firing or attempting to fire, a weapon at me. I am not a guy whom gets overly excited. I have seen men get their hands and forearms ripped off by pto's on farm equipment, and did not gag..run and hide, or faint. I stepped right in and began attempting to stop the loose of blood. The same was true when I worked in the oilfields. I'm not the nervous type. Maybe that is why I handle HazMat so well.

Can you really say that with any degree of certainty, though? Seeing someone mangled and having someone actually try to take your life are two very different things. Dealing with blood isn't a problem for me, having both an inner city paramedic and a combat medic. But I still got nervous all the same whenever my unit got involved in firefights. Mind you, I still did my job, but it was a lot more difficult to do under stress.
On the subject of oil fields, did you catch that documentary series on... TruTV (formerly Court TV).. I think it was?.. about the Texas oil field workers?

Quote:

I have defended myself, several times. Again..my brother taught me a bit of the self defense manuevers that he was taught in the Marines. My father, being a merchant seaman, taught all of us that there was only one way to fight..."To win". There was no.."give em a chance". So...by the time I was 14..I knew how to break a mans nose...with an open palm. I also know that the fastest way to end a "Mano-A-Mano" conflict is to strike tender areas..that have nothing to do with the groin.

Yes, I've never understood these people who consider fights to be a showboating event. If you're going to fight someone, fight them. Don't get yourself caught up in trying to show off. The groin is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. I'd try to hit them in the groin itself, mind you, rather than going for the jewels. But, all that aside, you know what firsthand how it feels when you go into "fight or flight" mode.

Quote:

Now...Jeff..you come across as a very intelligent guy. You make great arguments, without being snide. However...that statement right there, took you out of this particular fight. Yes..you have every right to express your opinion..and you do that quite well. But..you really don't have a dog in the fight. Go take the test...swear the Oath...then go get yourself elected. You can go as high up as US Senator, as a "naturalized" citizen, if you so choose.

Out of the main event, perhaps, but not necessarily out of the discussion. As for why I haven't done it, you have to understand that I am at a bit of a dilemma here. On one hand, I am here. I have been here for a fairly decent amount of time, have become Americanised in many ways, and have more or less settled into life here. I've shed blood for this country. On the other hand, my family is not here. My relatives here are so distantly related to me, I couldn't even describe to you what the exact relation is to me. And I know it may seem a bit ridiculous, but I'm stuck at a point of indecision in my life at the moment.

Quote:

Now...if you Jeff...have served a full term of duty, as a serviceman, in any one of the United States Armed Forces, and have the paperwork to show proof...speak up...you have earned the right to full citizenship...and more than a few people should be willing to help get you there! I know I am willing to...for any man or woman whom is a foreign national, that has served in our services. It is my belief that anyone whom serves, has earned the right of Citizenship.

I have almost eight years of service - four on active duty, and almost four in the Reserve (13 months of which were spent being reassigned to the Regular Army as an active member). It would be ten, but I had a two year break in service. I've done a tour in Afghanistan, and a tour in Iraq, leaving the latter with a Purple Heart pinned to me, and a slight bit of weight loss. There's actually a doctor at the VA who seems to have made it his mission to convince me just to go ahead and go for it, but, like I said already, there are other factors which come into play, and I just need more time to weigh everything out.

Quote:

While I see nothing wrong with the "fuel effcient" concept...I have a big problem with the "bio-fuel" concept. I am weel aware of what it takes to manufacture "Bio-fuel" and the largest section of the population, which is jumping up and down over such fuels, are failing to mention what effect producing "Bio-fuel" has on not only the economy...but the ecological system as well. Bio-fuel is just one more farce, that consumes massive amounts of food grade products, petroleum products, and electricity, to produce. But "Johnny Do-good" does want that brought up. Johnny is not willing to admit the economic cost of the production of the fuel. By using farmlands for raising soybeans, corn, sugar beets, sugar can, rice, peanuts, and the various other plants that are used in "Bio" production, acrage for food productuion is lost..there by driving up the shelf price of food...while the farm reaps "Zero" in reward. There are a handful of petroleum based products that go into bio-diesel, as well as into ethanol, to boost them up to "burnable" octane levels...just so they can be used in gasoline or diesel engines....but "Johnny" doesn't want to talk about all that.

I agree about the bio-fuels being a load of crap. I'm really surprised that the hype has been allowed to continue for as long as it has, considering how people always seem to be looking for faults. I figured they hype would've been smashed a long time ago, considering how apparent the faults of these fuels are. But, some people need so desperately to believe in something, they'll just latch onto anything which conveniently passes by, I suppose.