|
Post by moose1am on Sept 8, 2020 7:40:43 GMT -5
I have a question. If the safety was on, and the finger was off of the trigger, how did the gun discharge and injure 3 people? Someone said in a different thread, they recommended "any" gun but a Glock, because of the risk of a negligent discharge...I didn`t want to say anything there, but, no mechanical safety is 100%. The only real safety is between the ears of the operator. Regardless of any mechanical safety, you just do NOT put your finger inside the trigger guard unless and until your sights are aligned, and you have a sight picture on what you intend to destroy. My Walthers have internal safeties. They prevent a discharge from an accidental dropping of the gun. And as you say if you keep your fingers out of the trigger guard then it won't discharge until you pull the trigger. My Walthers PPQ has a trigger safety as well as an internal type safety to prevent a discharge when the pistol is dropped on the floor. But there is no other manual type safety other than keeping the trigger finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot the gun.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 8, 2020 7:41:57 GMT -5
Someone said in a different thread, they recommended "any" gun but a Glock, because of the risk of a negligent discharge...I didn`t want to say anything there, but, no mechanical safety is 100%. The only real safety is between the ears of the operator. Regardless of any mechanical safety, you just do NOT put your finger inside the trigger guard unless and until your sights are aligned, and you have a sight picture on what you intend to destroy. My Walthers have internal safeties. They prevent a discharge from an accidental dropping of the gun. And as you say if you keep your fingers out of the trigger guard then it won't discharge until you pull the trigger. My Walthers PPQ has a trigger safety as well as an internal type safety to prevent a discharge when the pistol is dropped on the floor. But there is no other manual type safety other than keeping the trigger finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot the gun. My Walthers have internal safeties. They prevent a discharge from an accidental dropping of the gun. And as you say if you keep your fingers out of the trigger guard then it won't discharge until you pull the trigger. My Walthers PPQ has a trigger safety as well as an internal type safety to prevent a discharge when the pistol is dropped on the floor. But there is no other manual type safety other than keeping the trigger finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot the gun.
|
|
|
Post by beermaker on Sept 9, 2020 4:39:08 GMT -5
Mayor Fisher appointed a black lady as “interim” police chief yesterday. The current “interim” chief is retiring soon. I have a good idea who will be standing next to the AG when the Breonna Taylor investigation results are announced.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 10, 2020 11:32:44 GMT -5
I have a question. If the safety was on, and the finger was off of the trigger, how did the gun discharge and injure 3 people? I think it was a shotgun. And if the trigger is adjusted to a very light pull weight and there is no internal trigger safety mechanism built into the trigger or gun then if you drop the gun and it hits the ground it can discharge. I have a Remington Model 660 rifle. I got it back around 1973. It had a faulty trigger from the factory. The manual safety didn't work right. And at times if I worked the bolt with the safety things didn't work right. Remington had to recall the rifles and they paid for a gun smith to install a new trigger and safety in my rifle. I took my rifle to Gander Mountain and had them install a new safer trigger. Now I can work the bolt action without the gun accidently firing. The firing pin would fire at times on the old trigger even though I didn't pull the trigger. I've read where people adjusted their triggers for a lighter pull and if they adjusted it too light the gun would accidently fire if it were bumped. I'm not sure if you can adjust the trigger pull on a shotgun or if the guy did that to his trigger or not. I know it's possible to adjust a trigger to where it's not safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 17:53:27 GMT -5
I have a question. If the safety was on, and the finger was off of the trigger, how did the gun discharge and injure 3 people? I think it was a shotgun. And if the trigger is adjusted to a very light pull weight and there is no internal trigger safety mechanism built into the trigger or gun then if you drop the gun and it hits the ground it can discharge. I have a Remington Model 660 rifle. I got it back around 1973. It had a faulty trigger from the factory. The manual safety didn't work right. And at times if I worked the bolt with the safety things didn't work right. Remington had to recall the rifles and they paid for a gun smith to install a new trigger and safety in my rifle. I took my rifle to Gander Mountain and had them install a new safer trigger. Now I can work the bolt action without the gun accidently firing. The firing pin would fire at times on the old trigger even though I didn't pull the trigger. I've read where people adjusted their triggers for a lighter pull and if they adjusted it too light the gun would accidently fire if it were bumped. I'm not sure if you can adjust the trigger pull on a shotgun or if the guy did that to his trigger or not. I know it's possible to adjust a trigger to where it's not safe. It wasn`t a shotgun, it was a "semi-automatic weapon". It was a negligent discharge because someone had their finger inside the trigger guard of a weapon. Period.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Sept 10, 2020 21:06:36 GMT -5
Yes you can adjust a trigger in a shotgun, but if you make it that light then you are negligent for doing so. And all the shotguns that I know of that are semi-auto have external safeties. Even my O/U shotguns have safeties, and I know some shotguns have a safety that automatically is engaged after you load it.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 11, 2020 7:22:50 GMT -5
A well regulated Militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Is your issue with militias in general or this one in particular? IMHO the massing of a militia is for a revolution. That is what we did when the British became oppressive. So if we were to form a militia today it would be similar to what happened during the succession of the South where the Southern States formed Militias and attacked the North. A 4 year war was fought. The North drafted people and then trained them as a Federal Army. The South basically did the same thing. The North won that war. Now if we were to form a militia today like we did back in 1861 the US Federal Government's Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy would kick their A&&. Today our US Military has assess to weapons that no militia could compete with. Now then there are State National Guard today. They are similar to the State Militias that we formed in the 13 different colonies to fight the British. But back then we all had similar rifles, pistols and canons. The British had an advantage in the Sea as they had a more powerful navy than the colonist had. But we got the French Navy to help us win our revolutionary war. Now I have argued in the past on other forums that the 2nd amendment should allow all of us to have access to the same arms. That is how I read the Shall not infringe part of the 2nd amendment. But I recognize that I don't get to determine what the 2nd amendment means. That's the job of our judges. So we the regular citizens can't even have a sawed of shotgun barrel or a fully automatic rifle without a permit. We have to register our guns when we buy them. The British would have loved that. If the British had a list of every one with powder for their canons then the British Army would have rounded up all those canons and we would not have won our freedom. I do think that the founding fathers realized that they needed to preserve the state's rights to form militias to put down the newly formed federal government in case of a rogue Federal Government that became too oppressive. And that happened when we had the Federal Government impose new taxes on our Whiskey Production here in the newly Formed USA. But Washington raised a federal army and put down the farmer militias and the Federal Government has been getting it's way ever since. So to answer your question. These days a militia is too weak to do any real harm to our republic. And I do have a problem with armed men marching in our streets unless they are well regulated by either the Governor of that State (National Guard) or the US Military who is controlled by our elected commander in chief. BTW the Governors are elected too. If we don't like what the President or the Governor does then we can vote them out of office. I don't like seeing black panther type militias or right wing radical militias marching in formation down our public streets carrying AR15, shotguns or any other type of long rifle. That is scary because they are not elected by the people have don't have to answer to the public.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 12:05:14 GMT -5
Is your issue with militias in general or this one in particular? IMHO the massing of a militia is for a revolution. That is what we did when the British became oppressive. So if we were to form a militia today it would be similar to what happened during the succession of the South where the Southern States formed Militias and attacked the North. A 4 year war was fought. The North drafted people and then trained them as a Federal Army. The South basically did the same thing. The North won that war. Now if we were to form a militia today like we did back in 1861 the US Federal Government's Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy would kick their A&&. Today our US Military has assess to weapons that no militia could compete with. Now then there are State National Guard today. They are similar to the State Militias that we formed in the 13 different colonies to fight the British. But back then we all had similar rifles, pistols and canons. The British had an advantage in the Sea as they had a more powerful navy than the colonist had. But we got the French Navy to help us win our revolutionary war. Now I have argued in the past on other forums that the 2nd amendment should allow all of us to have access to the same arms. That is how I read the Shall not infringe part of the 2nd amendment. But I recognize that I don't get to determine what the 2nd amendment means. That's the job of our judges. So we the regular citizens can't even have a sawed of shotgun barrel or a fully automatic rifle without a permit. We have to register our guns when we buy them. The British would have loved that. If the British had a list of every one with powder for their canons then the British Army would have rounded up all those canons and we would not have won our freedom. I do think that the founding fathers realized that they needed to preserve the state's rights to form militias to put down the newly formed federal government in case of a rogue Federal Government that became too oppressive. And that happened when we had the Federal Government impose new taxes on our Whiskey Production here in the newly Formed USA. But Washington raised a federal army and put down the farmer militias and the Federal Government has been getting it's way ever since. So to answer your question. These days a militia is too weak to do any real harm to our republic. And I do have a problem with armed men marching in our streets unless they are well regulated by either the Governor of that State (National Guard) or the US Military who is controlled by our elected commander in chief. BTW the Governors are elected too. If we don't like what the President or the Governor does then we can vote them out of office. I don't like seeing black panther type militias or right wing radical militias marching in formation down our public streets carrying AR15, shotguns or any other type of long rifle. That is scary because they are not elected by the people have don't have to answer to the public. I`m going to be respectful, and please don`t read this reply any other way, because it`s not intended to be confrontational, but, concerning your post above where I italicized, boldened and underlined: It really doesn`t matter if you have a problem with armed people, because so long as they are exercising their Second Amendment rights in a lawful and responsible manner, you have nothing to say about it and nothing to do with that. And once more, the Second Amendment, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is intended to restrain government, NOT We the People, so, the whole point of the Second Amendment is that we keep and bear arms without being "regulated by government". Our rights are exactly that, rights. The Constitution is designed to prevent any mob majority from usurping individual rights and liberties, which is the genius of being a constitutional republic instead of a democracy . No one gets to strip people of their rights, or, restrict those rights because they "don`t like that" . Not people, or government. Period.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Sept 11, 2020 13:11:47 GMT -5
Well regulated does not mean controlled. At the time it meant well prepared, well supplied. Only the more modern liberals have tried to twist the meaning into something along the lines of the National Guard. Here’s a good explanation
What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 11, 2020 13:45:28 GMT -5
So to answer your question. These days a militia is too weak to do any real harm to our republic. And I do have a problem with armed men marching in our streets unless they are well regulated by either the Governor of that State (National Guard) or the US Military who is controlled by our elected commander in chief. BTW the Governors are elected too. If we don't like what the President or the Governor does then we can vote them out of office. I`m going to be respectful, and please don`t read this reply any other way, because it`s not intended to be confrontational, but, concerning your post above where I italicized, boldened and underlined: It really doesn`t matter if you have a problem with armed people, because so long as they are exercising their Second Amendment rights in a lawful and responsible manner, you have nothing to say about it and nothing to do with that. And once more, the Second Amendment, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is intended to restrain government, NOT We the People, so, the whole point of the Second Amendment is that we keep and bear arms without being "regulated by government". Our rights are exactly that, rights. The Constitution is designed to prevent any mob majority from usurping individual rights and liberties, which is the genius of being a constitutional republic instead of a democracy . No one gets to strip people of their rights, or, restrict those rights because they "don`t like that" . Not people, or government. Period. I hear what you are saying. I was wondering what the Courts say about this these days. I too think that the 2nd amendment was for the people to use to overthrow a bad government if needed. But realistically that would be nearly impossible unless the entire US military fought for the people not the Government. The US military could not be defeated by the people these days. Now back in the time the US Constitution was passed they could have fought the new government and won. But it was not an easy thing to do even back then. I hope you see what I'm saying. I wish things were different. But many laws that were passed have restricted our access to weapons. I personally think those laws were/are unconstitutional but my opinion and $3.00 may just buy me a cup of plain coffee at Starbucks. What matters today is what the judges say. And I have no idea how to change that fact. We would have to all raise up and fight a revolution to change the government and that not going to happen. We are stuck with the one we have. And it's not all that bad. After all it's been here for over 200 years. It's not perfect but it sure beats living in Communist dictatorship China or Russia IMHO. Again I do respect what you said. I just wish we could actually get the anti gun crowd to stop complaining about arms and such.
|
|
|
Post by beermaker on Sept 22, 2020 6:41:16 GMT -5
Stay tuned folks! The Louisville Police department has declared a "state of emergency" in anticipation of the results of the investigation being released. Also, all federal buildings, including the courthouse, are closed this week.
I have a hunch that this is being carefully planned in an effort to minimize the damage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 15:25:29 GMT -5
Stay tuned folks! The Louisville Police department has declared a "state of emergency" in anticipation of the results of the investigation being released. Also, all federal buildings, including the courthouse, are closed this week. I have a hunch that this is being carefully planned in an effort to minimize the damage. Yes, I saw that news piece on online news. What I find the most troubling is not only that lawlessness would be tolerated at all, but especially how quickly certain politicians allowed rioting and looting to occur under the misnomer of "protesting".
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Sept 23, 2020 11:05:17 GMT -5
The announcement is supposed to be made today @ 1:15/1:30.
|
|