Even regular readers of The Shooter’s Log can’t read or respond to all of the comments, so we have started a new weekly feature that will recap a sampling of the most active, interesting, or on occasion, randomly selected comments from the previous weeks. Feel free to respond with your two cents at the bottom of this article or by clicking the story link and adding it directly to the discussion.
Reader Comments From Previous Weeks
The only people wearing the tin foil hats, as you state, are people such as yourself, to be blunt. People such as yourself, the gun conspiracy theorists, are the greatest threat to the 2nd Amendment.
People such as yourself, in their blind hatred of anything not 2A will be it’s undoing. Folks like me, the unassuming shooters, who don’t need to walk around with a weapon strapped to my hip to feel safe aren’t a danger to gun ownership, rabid people, such as yourself, who feel they have to display their manhood on their hip will prove to be your own undoing. And moderate folks such as myself will suffer right along with you.
Your long view doesn’t extend beyond your own nose …. I am all for gun ownership, bought my first weapon after retiring from the military, so your strawman bullspit is just that bullspit…..
And with that being said, this argument is over, people such as yourself won’t see reason, unless it agrees with their arguments …..
What an interesting…..and even entertaining…..thread of discussion! From where I sit, at my age and station in life, I am supremely glad that Hillary did not ascend to the Oval Office. While I will concede that the 2016 election was truly a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, had Hillary been elected, she would most certainly have been an Obama third termer. Hillary, however, made no secrets of her disdain for the Second Amendment and those who support it, and THAT was likely the third rail that cost her the election.
Donald Trump may not be the best choice to have arisen from the Republican ranks to capture the nomination…..and subsequently the White House, but he is a damned sight better than Hillary…..and the American people are certainly better off…..than what we would be facing with another Clinton in the White House.
Fine article. But the revolver spring comment is a common misconception. Springs DO NOT lose strength through prolonged compression. They lose it through use (compression/reset.
I used to shoot PPC and some pin & plate matches at a club in Boston. There was a guy in his late 70s there who used a Glock 17. He’d been running a couple hundred rounds a week through it for more than a decade. Some quick math said he was somewhere over 100K rounds.
I asked him what kind of maintenance he’d done over the years, and he said he was sure to clean it every time he’d been out shooting. He said that as soon as he got home from the range, he’d field strip it down to the 4 major parts and drop them in the dishwasher.
We all had a chuckle over that, but he said he was serious. When asked about lubrication, he said he simply shook any excess water out and spritzed a little WD40 in the upper before reassembly.
I have been using Frog Lube for over a year now on all my hand guns and rifles, it seems to work great. Residue does not stick to the metal as much as with oil. Gun is easier to clean and I brush on a small amount of frog lube as a solvent which also retreats the metal. I do not see any adverse wear on the guns and don’t have to worry about getting oil on my clothing with my carry guns. The frog lube soaks into the pores of the metal and then comes back out with heat, you can actually feel it.
I once felt as you do now Robert until the government told me I couldn’t buy an AR type weapon, until the government tried to limit the type of magazine and ammunition I was allowed to buy. At that point I realized that any God given right that requires permission from anyone, ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. A privilege that can be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat. Therefore, no more compromise.
Thank goodness somebody is challenging this crap bill and all like it around the country. Who decided 10 rounds? Why not 12 or 8? How can the be high capacity when the gun was designed to hold 17? Wouldn’t that be standard capacity? There are extended magazines- maybe the law should cover only them? Better yet, no law on any of them. SCOTUS is going to be busy now that they have a full bench.
Recently on the University of Texas at Austin campus, there was a deranged person who attacked several people with a knife, killing one of them, a freshman student. What the media refused to mention was a student with a license to carry was the one who stopped the attacks. When the student pulled his gun, the deranged person took off running and when he went around the corner, the police caught him. If that brave student with a license to carry had not been carrying his pistol and intervened, there would’ve been a lot more students injured or killed. I guess Professor Dorman doesn’t live in the world of facts, only his fictional notion that people who go through all the training and documentation to have a license to carry a handgun somehow make it unsafe.
I agree with your position on the 2nd Amendment. I would only add that when any of us who in fact use common sense, logic and obey the law as written start to question the common sense, logic or failure to agree with the laws of the land of those who don’t a couple of things need to be kept in mind. Those folks don’t really care about common sense, logic or what the law says, period. They don’t care what you or I think whether we can substantiate our positions with facts or not. In my opinion, it is a total waste of time to even bother engaging them in any kind of intellectual discussion and we would be better off simply addressing one another than trying to engage them in an honest debate. I no longer waste my time trying to convince them of anything.
After reading other comments I’d like to address the couple of dissenters and fence riders to challenge you folks to think this all the way through to its logical conclusion.
First let me just get two things out of the way to set the platform: 1.) There is no way we will ever be free of the evil men do; and 2.) There is no question that the Constitution protects every single eligible and law abiding U.S. citizen’s right to carry a firearm.
Those certain dissenters that disagree completely that there should be a Second Amendment don’t even qualify to engage in this conversation.
So those that remain must be the half-measured dissenters which partially agree with the Second Amendment and for unknown reasons somehow think they make the world safer by placing limitations on the protections it was intended to offer. So let us examine the lack of rational behind such infringements…
Imagine for a moment that there was a constitutional amendment which guaranteed your right to wear protective equipment and goggles every time you used a woodchipper or band saw. But then I came along and infringed on your right by instituting my own subordinate laws which placed limitations on exactly how, when and where you could exercise your constitutional right to use your goggles for such protection.
Or how about I said you can only have one protective lens over one eye but not the other (synonymous with magazine limitations). Well just as we non-dissenters feel about infringements upon the Second Amendment, I would think you all would pitch a fit and simply not stand for such ludicrousness where your eyesight, safety and a woodchipper are all concerned.
So now that I’ve got you dissenting folks oriented properly against the adverse effects and undefended half-measures caused by your infringements, let us now move on to the causation behind your unwarranted fears to begin with:
The safety offered by the Second Amendment applies anywhere in our country, for example: malls, parks, buildings, transit hubs and roadways just to name a few. There is no place that is any more or less subject to the evil people can bring into these places. Therefore there is absolutely no logic behind singling schools out as exclusively exempt from the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
So let’s ponder for a moment just how illogical it is to reduce one’s right to defend their self in one place, over that of another. A reasonable person would have to agree the entire concept looks absolutely preposterous; especially when your bans don’t even attempt to offer me additional security to replace that which you’ve stripped me of providing myself.
So that just leaves one final point for examination, which is – the types of people that are actually in possession of the instrument you fear. Well, there are only 2 types of concealed carriers: those that want to kill you, and those that don’t want to be killed.
So out of the sum of all those you fear carrying on campus, it turns out you only ever have to worry about the type that wants you dead. The problem is – your bans only remove guns from the law abiding half that never wanted to kill you in the first place. But that second half will ignore your laws and find their target anyway. There is no ban you could ever implement that would diminish that fact.
The resounding flaw in your logic to ban concealed carry is the assumption that everyone will honor the mere words you’ve scribed on paper. Time and again you dissenters have been tragically proven wrong. No one actually believes a disturbed student hell-bent on blowing his class away has ever changed his mind simply because there is a ban on carrying the gun to do it with.
And let me remind all you dissenters, there is a ban on murder too… yet we all see how that’s been working out.