JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
well, you have to look at how things are now. the anti gun side has a complicit public school system that is indoctrinating the children, rather then teaching them. you have a pay for play media which is owned by the same billionaires who are funding most of the anti gun actions.

I will always say this. people in power want to remain in power and an armed population will always be a threat to that. No matter how many billions you have, a bum with a gun can turn all you have into nothing.
 
Ideally, yes. But what's the reality? Those loudest and well-funded seem to direct our Country more than ever before.

What surprises me that anti-gun folks have more pull than pro. It's one of the reasons I think the NRA has become so neutered compared to "influencers" on the web. We're just too busy playing at the range than we are creating million-plus followers on YouTube. :(

I'm just as guilty. I'd rather have more "hits" on a target than on a webcast.


Not exactly true. There are/were some good personalities on youtube, pulling in the "gun views." Until youtube went full leftist anti-gun activist and demonetized gun channels, started banning them if they showed things they did not want the peasants to be shown,,,

The NRA neutered themselves, sad to say,,,
 
well, you have to look at how things are now.

And therein lies the problem. What it "USED" to be, and intended... VS what it IS today... is very different. We really can't use the perceived intent of our forefathers to apply today.

That's part of the wisdom of our Forefathers.... at lot is left up to interpretation. NO ONE today knows what they REALLY meant. None of us were there to ask the questions we have today. We've evolved in so many ways.

It's become so much an "US vs THEM", there ends up being zero progress.

I have nothing against comprehensive gun-control. I don't think someone who's eager to shoot up a school or church should have a firearm. Yet so many of us "gun nuts" would ever even consider such a compromise. Thinking our Rights outweigh the benefit of the innocent.

When you get the gun "nuts" saying there's zero compromise, and anti-gun folks saying a magazine limit somehow stops the bad guy, all you end up with is who has the most bucks and influence deciding what's "best" for us.

Dunno about you, but the masses and I have very little in common. :/
 
I have nothing against comprehensive gun-control.

com·pre·hen·sive
Dictionary result for comprehensive
/ˌkämprəˈhensiv/
adjective
  1. 1.
    complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.
    "a comprehensive list of sources"
    ...but the masses and I have very little in common.

    Don't sell yourself, short, it would appear you have a great deal in common with the "masses", at least as far as the topic at hand is considered.
 
Don't sell yourself, short, it would appear you have a great deal in common with the "masses", at least as far as the topic at hand is considered.

Perhaps. If so, it's entirely a coincidence. But I think it unlikely, at least based upon what I hear from the talking heads on either the left or right TV. I find myself more "moderate" than most. For instance, I'd be just fine without bump-stocks, but leave magazine capacity alone. And likely a dozen other similar comparisons.

The lack of "compromise" is why both sides are fighting so much. The "it's my way or the highway" attitude that's killing our benefits.
 
Until youtube went full leftist anti-gun activist and demonetized gun channels...

I so agree with that. But it's our own fault. If more people (a Democracy) vote that guns are "evil", those who profit from it's members will likely go with the masses.

The only solution is for us "gun-nuts" to be louder and smarter than the haters.
 
If kids are going to be the new face of politics...here's one. DC3B20EB-8FF3-4BE2-A6A8-32C69DA83EC1.png
 
I so agree with that. But it's our own fault. If more people (a Democracy) vote that guns are "evil", those who profit from it's members will likely go with the masses.
The only solution is for us "gun-nuts" to be louder and smarter than the haters.


I agree 100% but we need to have leaders that will take that to task.
There has only been a whimper at best from our side.

Opposition has Protests, we have hand holding rallies. And yes there is a difference.
In our nation most times a Rally was created in support of and idea, a Protest was
to say no something we did not support, or did not like imposed on us.

Until we understand what "oppose antis" means we will continue to lose ground.
 
I getcha. BBs can put out an eye too. Pellet gun competitions are limited to somewhere around 500fps and use "wadcutters" (flat-nose). They can barely penetrate an empty soda can at 50 feet.

View attachment 542211

But yeah, BBs would be a fine start too. Although not at all as accurate as most pellet guns.


I use BB and pellet guns as "blue guns" for training. All the action, weight and feel of a real firearm, without being as deadly.
View attachment 542213

This page looks (at first) like it isn't loading, but scroll down a bit to get to the text.
Lewis and Clark's Girandoni Air Rifle
 
Serious question. Why are you shooting at human silhouettes, particularly with air guns? There's a little bell that goes off in my head when I see muzzles pointed at people, and non le/military shooting at targets representing people. If it's true that the enemy is observing us and probing for our mistakes and weak spots,( which they are), suppose what they gather from this. When I shoot, it's always for accuracy, and a bullseye target works just fine. The only "people" targets I ever shot at were in the army.
For handgun practice I use the FBI Qualification test - which uses silhouettes. Yes, the purpose of that practice is to become automatic at defending myself or others against a human aggressor.
 
To those who say "I will not comply", history will judge you as being right. But I hope you will not give up trying to change the minds of your brother's and sister's of today. The support for our just cause would be better won by the end of a pen rather then the end of a barrel. The power of the pen is mighty these days extending to a nearly endless source of media platforms and communication techniques. We should expand our use of this pen to convince as many of our brother's and sister's as possible that the subjugation of our right to bear arms is as unjust now as it was then. I ask that no matter how futile it may seem at times, that you continue to use the power of the pen until the very day you have to raise the end of the barrel. I hope and pray that day doesn't come.

Unfortunately I am rapidly coming to the realization that the "gun Safety [?]" supporters are suffering from:
Psychology's Treacherous Trio: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning
When we only look for what confirms our beliefs (confirmation bias), only side with what is most comfortable (cognitive dissonance) and don't scrutinize contrary ideas (motivated reasoning).
 
Last Edited:
I don't understand why the gun banners assume that lives not lost by gunfire will result in less dead people?

Killers kill a percentage of the population, do they really care if they can't use a gun to kill their victims?

The sad fact that Britain has tried outlawing other possible weapons of murder proves that I am right
 
A lot of people who talk about the 2d amendment go right to the 1st Amendment (Which is also under fire), but no one mentions the 3rd Amendment, no one care about housing troops! You should! All the Bill of rights were developed as THE PEOPLE were unhappy with the Constitution as written. It did not include rights and protections they thought they were due after British onerous occupation. The third Amendment is little thought of these days but it was a right near and dear to the hearts of our forefathers who had just endured many injustices at the whim of a British solder or official.
The whole "Bill of Rights" was developed to keep the people happy that includes 4&5 and 6&7 , 8, 9, and 10. There was a solid reason for all of them. Still is.
 
Personally, I don't see an issue with the target selection, especially for someone who carries daily. Attack's and threats are mostly carried out by two legged animals. Never in my nearly 60 years have I ever heard of a bullseye attacking someone. :eek:

I've shot thousands of silhouettes over the years, all the major non-Bullseye competitions use silhouette targets, just don't understand the big deal, but that's me, I'm a bit thick in the skull region. ;)

^^^

This and thank you!

For a person (Me as an example!) who got or gets INTO firearms for self defense issues, in or out of their house, AND for the basic RKBA - I always thought that they should use something realistic when it comes to their paper targets.

I started out using silhouette targets too. (I was in my late 40's when I started to buy and shoot my own guns. I am 68 years old now. Introduction thread. I only shoot rifles now. I no longer own, carry or shoot handguns due to my arthritis.)

I called them my 'perp paper targets'. I still call them perp paper targets.

I Never used a bullseye target in any shape or color or a target with a rabbit or other animal on it (I do not hunt and I have NO objections to hunting.) until I moved out west.

Wait! I take that back. I did USE some bullseye targets at a high power rifle shoot at my former outdoor range back east. (Sportsman's Club.) The guys wanted me to try it out and they lent me a rifle to shoot with full explanations and a big/tall man behind me when we did the various relays. Paper, soda cans filled with water hung up, etc.

Cate
 
2A is one particular Right I've never been all that gung-ho about.

Sure, it's not a favored viewpoint, particularly on a firearms site! But I managed to go most of my life without. I didn't get into guns until about 4 years ago, and I'm 52. I went from being borderline anti-NRA, to a life member and certified NRA rifle/pistol instructor and coach. I've given a few classes for the Oregon CHL and helped at least a couple dozen become responsible armed citizens.

I'm sure I could go the rest of my life without a gun too. I've bought and sold at least a dozen in my short tenure, but now only have one, which I every-day-carry. Although I regularly write my reps to defy any type of gun control, I'm neither a collector nor consider myself an activist. But I support those who are.

Just a POV from someone who doesn't think the sky is falling.

View attachment 542159

Hello,

I am still reading this thread. I do have a polite question for you.

Why do you carry a gun on your body (Open or conceal carry.) if the issue is not that important to you as you stated? EDC gun? That you could take it or leave it when it comes to gun ownership even though you stated that you support the RKBA issue.

You stated that you only own one firearm now. So why don't you leave it at home for a 'house gun' if you do not think that the sky is falling with crime outside in the real world and/or if you do not think that gun ownership is under attack as some of us believe it to be?

Why not keep your handgun at home and practice with it to keep up your skills on a regular basis at a range where you can shoot it safely?

I do think that BB guns are good to own. (I used to own 2 Red Ryder 1938 Replica rifles myself. I bought them in my late 40's AFTER I bought some of my other now former firearms back east.) I used to watch some very GOOD and TALENTED teens and adults practice for tournaments and so forth at one range closer to the lake in my former state. I did not belong to that one range but they wanted me to join it. Some of those air guns and bb guns were a sight to behold too!

Good shooting to you.

Cate
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top