APOD Firearms

Ginsburg’s operation for two cancerous lung nodules

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • tros6t

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages
    849
    Points
    93
    Interesting discussion. Truth is we all are going to die. Most of us probably won't live as long as she has but as the saying goes, "Her days are surely numbered"! But the Demorats are going to fight, cheat, lie, steal, and whatever else they can do to stop Trump from electing her replacement or really doing much else for the next two years. Merry Christmas!
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    RBGs grasp of weapons/firearms history is shallow to the point of being self serving of her views and fails a simple English grammar test. Everyone should know that the foundations of OUR Laws lay outside the U.S. Our Forefathers didn't just adapt the good Laws, they Protected against the bad ones like the English law that restricted arms to only those persons of Status and of specific religion!

    Under gun control you can read a long list of Laws and Cases (predominately in the South) specifically designed to repress non whites. Why: to control populations. Same reason for the GCA of 68, whites were fine with the Laws until black activists started carrying guns in the streets.

    Old Cases and Opinions mean nothing when trumped by a SCOTUS decision. Its just wasted space occupied by currently irrelevant material. They were wrong and RBG WAS WRONG! Even those in her Cult following are caught in the Ginsberg Catch 22: They praise her political activism on and off the Bench but then have no creditability when decrying the same perceived actions of other Justices at all levels.

    Being blunt and civil are not mutually exclusive. However, frail sensibilities may necessitate some time in a Safe Room while the remainder of the Forum marches on. I state this because numerical minority opinions may perceive he/she/they are being bullied or ganged up on; simply because there is a vocal majority in opposition. Political correctness and calls for civility are desired as a cushion against reality in order to soften or deflect the message. We must be respectful to our fellow Members but say whats on your mind regarding the Topic.
     
    Last edited:

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    RBGs grasp of weapons/firearms history is shallow to the point of being self serving of her views and fails a simple English grammar test. Everyone should know that the foundations of OUR Laws lay outside the U.S. Our Forefathers didn't just adapt the good Laws, they Protected against the bad ones like the English law that restricted arms to only those persons of Status and of specific religion!

    Under gun control you can read a long list of Laws and Cases (predominately in the South) specifically designed to repress non whites. Why: to control populations. Same reason for the GCA of 68, whites were fine with the Laws until black activists started carrying guns in the streets.

    Old Cases and Opinions mean nothing when trumped by a SCOTUS decision. Its just wasted space occupied by currently irrelevant material. They were wrong and RBG WAS WRONG! Even those in her Cult following are caught in the Ginsberg Catch 22: They praise her political activism on and off the Bench but then have no creditability when decrying the same perceived actions of other Justices at all levels.

    Being blunt and civil are not mutually exclusive. However, frail sensibilities may necessitate some time in a Safe Room while the remainder of the Forum marches on. I state this because numerical minority opinions may perceive he/she/they are being bullied or ganged up on; simply because there is a vocal majority in opposition. Political correctness and calls for civility are desired as a cushion against reality in order to soften or deflect the message. We must be respectful to our fellow Members but say whats on your mind regarding the Topic.
    There is definitely a racial issue in gun control. Violent crime, particularly shootings, occur in drug dealing neighborhoods that in most of the USA are predominantly black, even when many of the customers are white. The local politicians from these areas are all for gun control and demands for better policing. The police come and often have violent confrontations that result in death. The answer that is given is more gun control and police control. A very frequent charge against black people are weapons violations. And the cops are extremely frightened of being shot when ever they confront a black male sometimes resulting in shootings due to fear by the LEO.
    Basically I do not have any answers for this except to say that gun control by itself does not seem to lower the drug related homicides. Last time I was in Chicago on a weekend last summer around 60 people were shot. Many neighborhoods in those areas have super bright street lights now and many have cameras.
    Recently two Chicago PD LEOs were killed by a train when trying to trace the source of gun fire. It seems they have a GPS acoustic system to localize guns shots
    Chicago police use "ShotSpotter" technology, or sensors that monitor for the sound of gunfire and alert police. Johnson said the two officers went to the scene Monday after a "ShotSpotter" alert went out.

    "It just highlights again how dangerous this job can be. I often say that the most dangerous thing a police officer can do is take a weapon off of an armed individual," Johnson said.

    Instead of gun control the Black community needs to take a good look at itself and instead of just asking for the government to do it all, they need to do on their own what needs to be done. The drug dealers need to be run out of the cities, kids not in school need to be dealt with and a lot of self policing of their neighborhoods on their own, including armed patrols.
    None of this is likely to be happening soon.
     
    Last edited:

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    RBGs grasp of weapons/firearms history is shallow to the point of being self serving of her views and fails a simple English grammar test. Everyone should know that the foundations of OUR Laws lay outside the U.S. Our Forefathers didn't just adapt the good Laws, they Protected against the bad ones like the English law that restricted arms to only those persons of Status and of specific religion!

    Under gun control you can read a long list of Laws and Cases (predominately in the South) specifically designed to repress non whites. Why: to control populations. Same reason for the GCA of 68, whites were fine with the Laws until black activists started carrying guns in the streets.

    Old Cases and Opinions mean nothing when trumped by a SCOTUS decision. Its just wasted space occupied by currently irrelevant material. They were wrong and RBG WAS WRONG! Even those in her Cult following are caught in the Ginsberg Catch 22: They praise her political activism on and off the Bench but then have no creditability when decrying the same perceived actions of other Justices at all levels.

    Being blunt and civil are not mutually exclusive. However, frail sensibilities may necessitate some time in a Safe Room while the remainder of the Forum marches on. I state this because numerical minority opinions may perceive he/she/they are being bullied or ganged up on; simply because there is a vocal majority in opposition. Political correctness and calls for civility are desired as a cushion against reality in order to soften or deflect the message. We must be respectful to our fellow Members but say whats on your mind regarding the Topic.
    You make a very good point in that the founding fathers of the USA when writing the constitution were strongly influenced by events of the 17th and 18th century that occurred in England. They drew conclusions from these events such as the English civil wars and more recent 18th century events likely of warfare and expropriation of the commons in scotland that forced large numbers of scots to immigrate to 18th century americas.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    This is part of what Scalia used and certainly is not judicial activism, but one of honesty and learning the lessons of history.
    What you are doing is parroting the line of the antigunners. I do not like saying things like this. But why are you pretending to be pro-gun and yet cite the arguments and machinations of our enemies.
    I will maintain Ginsberg is my enemy. She would put me and other good citizens in jail or have us killed to take our weapons away. If one has intelligence which Ginsberg has, I can not excuse her actions.

    What Scalia did was to distinguish four prior US Supreme Court decisions on the 2a in favor of some state court cases. A very rare approach by a US supreme court justice who is interpreting the US Constitution. He did it because the four prior US Supreme Court cases were in opposition to gun rights. Normally, a justice will feel constrained by the prior decisions of his own Court.

    As for my being anti-gun, nothing could be farther from the truth. I have already shared what I do with and for the gun community. Right now in fact, I am representing pro-bono (for free) a 67 year old man who had to defend himself from his neighbor, and yet for some reason got arrested and charged with a felony by the LEOs.

    I am sorry though if my sharing of all sides of the debate regarding Heller has upset you. We as a gun community need to understand that gun rights were not as vigorously protected as they are today. For most of our history, the federal courts have allowed states to regulate guns as they see fit. What we are experiencing since Heller is a new level of federal protection for gun rights. We cannot and should not re-write history to fit our current ideology. The belief that guns have always been seen as fundamental to Americans and to America is simply not true. While guns may have been favored in certain parts of certain states, they were not favored in just as many if not more places in the USA.

    We also need to remember that some of the most draconian anti-gun legislation has come from the feds and the US Supreme Court has for the most part turned a blind eye to any challenges to these regulations on 2a grounds.

    Like I said before, don't shoot the messenger (because I will fucking shoot back :) )
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    I am sorry though if my sharing of all sides of the debate regarding Heller has upset you. We as a gun community need to understand that gun rights were not as vigorously protected as they are today. For most of our history, the federal courts have allowed states to regulate guns as they see fit. What we are experiencing since Heller is a new level of federal protection for gun rights. We cannot and should not re-write history to fit our current ideology. The belief that guns have always been seen as fundamental to Americans and to America is simply not true. While guns may have been favored in certain parts of certain states, they were not favored in just as many if not more places in the USA.

    I hope you do a good job for the 67 yr old and get him fair justice.

    What are sharing with us is what the liberal parts of the legal profession is saying. I am not surprised that you are a lawyer because you are quite knowledgeable about legal matters. Certainly more than I am. The previous anti-2nd amendment decisions were just plain wrong and yes it is unusual for the court to disregard them. But Scalia may have proposed what you do not like, but remember enough of the justices agreed with him. Your discussion reminds of an old quote that I am likely taking out context.
    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".[1] It is among Shakespeare's most famous lines,[2] as well as one of his most controversial,[3] and has been used as the title of movies[4] and books.[5] Shakespeare may be making a joke when character "Dick The Butcher" suggests one of the ways the band of pretenders to the throne can improve the country is to kill all the lawyers. Dick is a rough character, a killer as evil as his name implies,[1] like the other henchmen, and this is his rough solution to his perceived societal problem.[6] There is some disagreement with the interpretation that one of Shakespeare's sympathetic characters would make a joke suggesting that killing lawyers would make the world better.[7]
    There several professions that have taken strong stances against the 2nd amendment. The legal profession is just one of them.

    I have seen people try to prove that:
    The belief that guns have always been seen as fundamental to Americans and to America is simply not true.
    That is certainly not true.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    I don't dislike what Scalia did. He protected gun rights better than any of his predecessors, but to accomplish this goal he utilized the very tactics that some have accused RBG of using. When in fact, she was being a original intent or strict constructionist, and Scalia was being an activist.

    I don' t know if the legal profession as a whole has taken a stance against guns. Many of the governments have taken anti gun stances in the past, and many are taking these anti gun stances currently.
     

    MAXman

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages
    2,559
    Points
    83
    Location
    Milton fl
    Granted I personally know twice the law enforcement officers than lawyers, but every one of the latter(including Clinton loving democrats) owns firearms, and would gladly give sound advice about carrying a weapon(for free). I can not say the same for law enforcement.

    HOWEVER, I actually agree with the some here: JEB obviously is a mole who hates guns. So I will issue a standing offer to our resident lawyer: I will give 100$ a piece for your berettas and 200$ a piece for your stainless revolvers, and relieve you of the burden of ownership. Further, rest easy, for I will not sell these off. No, I will keep them in my private collection, securely locked in a safe(when not carried), effectively removing them from circulation. I cannot in good conscience take over your instruction classes due to lack of skill.

    My offer stands Jeb, no rush, no hurry. When the thought of owning such reprehensible objects is just too much, let me know. I give a better return than a buy back, and zero chance of them ending up in a botched drug cartel setup scheme.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    LOL! I am having a hard time rationalizing the fact that you value revolvers much more than you value Berettas.

    Just recently, someone told me that with new 15 round MecGar magazines, a Browning is equal to 3 j-frames. Hmm who said that I wonder? At my age, memory fails me often.

    Also you said stainless revolvers, without specifying the revolver brand. So Rugers :)
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    LOL! I am having a hard time rationalizing the fact that you value revolvers much more than you value Berettas.

    Just recently, someone told me that with new 15 round MecGar magazines, a Browning is equal to 3 j-frames. Hmm who said that I wonder? At my age, memory fails me often.

    Also you said stainless revolvers, without specifying the revolver brand. So Rugers :)
    That is comparing apples to oranges. For deep concealment the J-frame has the advantage and can be fired from a pocket repeatedly, especially if the hammer is bobbed. As a belt holster gun the browning is way better. I use a J-frame with a 3 inch barrel for shooting snakes. It fires shot cartridges and fits in a holster that I keep in my pocket when working outside. There are 9x19 shot loads, but there can be problems with them.
     
    Last edited:

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    I have not had much success with shotshells for 38 specials. I fired a shot at cardboard target at 10ft to pattern the round and discovered that the majority of the pellets did not penetrate the cardboard. Now with a 45 colt shot shell all is well.
     

    MAXman

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages
    2,559
    Points
    83
    Location
    Milton fl
    *only if you tape the magazine into the weapon*

    Brother, you need to see what people want for fair finished Blue service 6’s,
    I’ll take all of your stainless rugers at 2 a pop.


    ETA: and again, the question is if a diamond backs scales are tougher than cardboard.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    I have not had much success with shotshells for 38 specials. I fired a shot at cardboard target at 10ft to pattern the round and discovered that the majority of the pellets did not penetrate the cardboard. Now with a 45 colt shot shell all is well.
    I killed every water moccasin that I have tried to kill with .38 spl commercial shot cartridges and in past years with those that I loaded myself. I usually fire twice at the head with the last one very close to be sure and handle the 'dead' with a lot of caution. Dead snakes sometimes do not know they are supposed to be dead lol.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    They will certainly kill snakes.
    DSCF0811.jpg

    DSCF0839.jpg
    This last was shot at close range just as it was about to crawl through a fence with some puppies. It was a yearling, small but still very dangerous. Shot charge decapitated itand I disposed of a very alert and active head elsewhere.
    DSCF0810.jpg
     

    Attachments

    • DSCF0811.jpg
      DSCF0811.jpg
      377.9 KB · Views: 100
    • DSCF0839.jpg
      DSCF0839.jpg
      604.3 KB · Views: 104
    • DSCF0810.jpg
      DSCF0810.jpg
      902.2 KB · Views: 107

    tros6t

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages
    849
    Points
    93
    This went from politics to snakes. They probably have much in common!-:)
     

    kidsoncoffee

    Wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 8, 2013
    Messages
    1,523
    Points
    113
    Location
    Gulf Breeze
    But the Demorats are going to fight, cheat, lie, steal, and whatever else they can do to stop Trump from electing her replacement or really doing much else for the next two years. Merry Christmas!

    Oh you mean like what the Republicans did when Obama was trying to appoint Scalia's successor for a year and couldn't because he was blocked by the right's bullshit crying and pandering? Funny that ya'll don't seem to remember when you perform the same shitty tricks and claim innocence.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Oh you mean like what the Republicans did when Obama was trying to appoint Scalia's successor for a year and couldn't because he was blocked by the right's bullshit crying and pandering? Funny that ya'll don't seem to remember when you perform the same shitty tricks and claim innocence.

    Feinstein really topped that with last minute 'leaked' accusations against Brett Kavanaugh along with a dog and pony show that did not go as planned. It was also televised and most people that could watched it. Those tactics were highly publicized and they failed. For sure politicians on both sides are just that and are subject to human failings about what they are capable.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    This went from politics to snakes. They probably have much in common!-:)
    It really went to firearms and knowledge of such while jeb was showing his bonafides as a gun owner. Gun Owners include a vast spectum of people including Feinstein that for sure is not our friend.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) no longer has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    Feinstein, who has taken the lead on efforts to renew a federal assault weapons ban, acknowledged during a hearing in 1995 of previously having a concealed weapon permit.

    At the time, she said she needed it for security, but she has since dropped the permit. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...in-doesnt-have-concealed-carry-permit-anymore
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,176
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    Oh you mean like what the Republicans did when Obama was trying to appoint Scalia's successor for a year and couldn't because he was blocked by the right's bullshit crying and pandering? Funny that ya'll don't seem to remember when you perform the same shitty tricks and claim innocence.

    mitch mcconnell, for once , showed he had a little bit of spine when he would not let Obama to advance his leftist pick.. as the custom was, not to appoint a justice with a lame duck potus in the last year..

    the repubs did not personally attack the nominee like Feinstein went after brett


    the stakes are high. in 25 years, will you be happy with the results of dem policies or republican policies?

    the time to fight them Is now, with everything we can use...
     

    Ric-san

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages
    2,864
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton FL
    Oh you mean like what the Republicans did when Obama was trying to appoint Scalia's successor for a year and couldn't because he was blocked by the right's bullshit crying and pandering? Funny that ya'll don't seem to remember when you perform the same shitty tricks and claim innocence.

    Good point that you brought up the “Biden Rule”....seems that the left thought of this quite a bit before the right and Sen McConnel. To quote President Obama; “elections have consequences...”
     
    Top Bottom