Guns n Khuks - "trail guns" ???

Discussion in 'Himalayan Imports' started by Rusty, Jan 25, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thomas Linton

    Thomas Linton

    Jun 16, 2003
    Well, Southwest KY anyhow. :p
     
  2. 45-70

    45-70

    Jul 10, 2003
    North Central isn't bad either. Louisville is pretty nice.
     
  3. Thomas Linton

    Thomas Linton

    Jun 16, 2003
    That would be "Loovul" (or "Kukri" according to Yvsa :p ).
     
  4. ibear

    ibear

    478
    Apr 15, 2002
    But the days of both khuk and gun seem numbered. Trouble with just a khuk is when you really need a gun nothing else will do. -- Munk
    *********************************************
    My brother in Oregon, prefers his .44 mag, to stop bear. My good friend Munk, prefers his Khuk and not much else.... I'm told! Yes, when you really need a gun, Davy Crockett, just won't do! My personal preference is the .32 Magnum, but that is another story entiirely. With a bear, I'd be in trouble for sure, aim for the eyes I guess and run like heck.... but I probably would just piss him off with the .32 magnum. Like Munk, I don't prefer all that weight and still carry water and food. Dragging tired children back to the truck can wreck your whole day!
     
  5. Yvsa

    Yvsa

    May 18, 1999
    You almost got it right. It be Looyvul.:rolleyes: :p
     
  6. Thomas Linton

    Thomas Linton

    Jun 16, 2003
    Not in E'town it's not. Nor in Russelvul neither. You musta' run with the aristo's. :p

    Y'all come back now. :D

    Tom (Kentucky Colonel at birth)
     
  7. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    Ibear, it's mostly khuks these days, but if I were going camping or in certain densely pop cougar areas I'd take the 41. Mostly we just barely go off the fireroad when I'm with the kids anyway.

    I'm aware that a cougar could grab a kid and be halfway up the slope before I could do anything. Then, even if I have the 41, I'd better be damned sure I have it dialed in before I take a shot. Little carbine does make sense.

    munk
     
  8. ibear

    ibear

    478
    Apr 15, 2002
    California the more people you have somewhere the more stringent laws you have to have to curb their behavior. I don't see it so much as a liberal/conservative issue as a popluation issue.
    *****************************************************
    Not exactly! Passing more gun laws for criminals to ignore, has become something of a disease that has infected Boxer, Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein. To the degree that the population increases is to that same degree that good people need to protect themselves from criminals. Passing more laws to restrict the rights of the people that did no crime, is hardly helpful in curbing criminal behavior! On the other hand, arming people with the right to carry does that very well.
    Just my opinion!
    Thanks,
    iBear
     
  9. ibear

    ibear

    478
    Apr 15, 2002
    So I still think that a majority, or at least a voting majority of Californians seem to agree with their positons.
    *****************************************************
    This is the apparency anyway! On the issue of guns and self defense it is much harder to say! This mis-information farce is created by media ignoring the truth and lying politicians! GeeeeZ, I sound like one of those Elmer Fuddd kooooks I hate to listen to for vewy, vewy long. Back to my point: How many times has the media reported that if guns are outlawed, there is no proposal to replace guns with a solution that will provide for your self defense? What should we use against an armed criminal... pepper spray? Has the media ever informed us that by law.... we are each legally responsible for our own self defense and that the police are not legally responsible for any citizens safety? Has any politicians ever championed the rights of the individual citizen to be safe and secure in his home? Sure, Dianne Feinstein says she wants people to feel safe, but votes to take away guns from the people that didn't do the crime, even though keeping her hand on her own pistol, in her purse! By her own actions, because she carries a gun, she proves that she has no other solution for self defense..... except a gun!

    "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, November 18, 1993 (psst--Dianne feels safe enough to carry a concealed handgun)

    "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" -- Senator Charles Schumer, NBC Nightly News, November 30,1993 (since guns can't be beaten into "submission" I think he must be talking about gun owners)

    QUOTE: "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."-- U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

    ”If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.'' – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995.

    It is not only Dianne Feinstein with this anti-gun hypocritical attitude!

    There is no reason for anyone in this country- anyone except a police officer or military person- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. -- President Bill Clinton

    Gun Control is the answer to what? It sure does NOT make Dianne Feinstein any safer.... WHY else would she carry a gun? Of course Barbara Boxer also carries a gun and the same logic follows her..... Gun Control is the answer for what?
     
  10. ibear

    ibear

    478
    Apr 15, 2002
    "That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - GEORGE ORWELL

    Today, the right to own a gun is under assault as never before. Every time a firearm is used in a high-profile crime, calls for stricter gun regulation – even outright prohibition – are pounded into us by a press that has taken sides. In fact, when it comes to guns, journalists have clearly made up their minds. Everytime a crime is committed with a gun, even though there are already hundreds of laws against using a gun in a crime, the politicians propose legislation to take guns away from the people that didn't do the crime!

    According to a recent study, television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered newscasts opposing such laws by a ratio of ten to one. In other words, we are hearing only one side of the story.

    The other side of this issue is worth finding out about. It is a truth worth telling. It is the side of human rights and individuals struggling for the right to defend themselves. It is a truth we all need to learn and appreciate. Without this truth and without these rights we will no longer have freedom.

    "I wish it to be known that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle." ~ Tatanka Yotanka, "The Sitting Bull", Chief of the Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux - July 19, 1881

    One example is gun deaths involving children. My guess is that if you go out and ask people, how many gun deaths involve children under age 5, or under age 10, in the United States, they're going to say thousands. When you tell them that in 1996 there were 17 gun deaths for children under age 5 in the United States and 44 for children under age 10, they're just astounded.

    There's a reason why they believe these deaths occur much more frequently: If you have a gun death in the home involving a child under age 5, you're going to get national news coverage. Five times more children drown in bathtubs; more than twice as many drown in five-gallon water buckets around the home. But those deaths do not get national news coverage.

    Certainly I favor gun safety for children! However, this type of news coverage has consequences, because it affects people's perceptions of the benefits and costs of having guns around. Concentrating on gun deaths in the home, exaggerating the risks of that, creates a false impression. People are going to die because of that false impression. Some people will be swayed and they're not going to have guns in the home, even though that's by far the safest course of action for them to take when they're confronted by a criminal.

    YEAH, the media is prejudice against our right to provide for our own self defense, even though in this country, it is the law of the land!
     
    Thomas Linton likes this.
  11. depusm12

    depusm12

    357
    Jan 17, 2005
    DIJ Where are you from in the states I know a nice gunstore that has quite a few Detonics or at least they did the last time i was there. Side note I actually owned a bluesteel CombatMaster that shot fantasic till it was stolen
    Springfiela Armory makes a 45 slightly bigger than the Detonics (3.5 inch barrel versus a 3 inch for the Detonics) but much cheaper between 700 to 975 bucks depending on the options you want they call it the Ultra Compact. They make one smaller called the Micro Compact (it about the size of the Detonics) but its 1,000 + bucks. Here's their webbsite give it a gander(www.springfield-armory.com). PS if you shop around alot of times you can find them somewhat cheaper. PPS Detonics has a website don't know if there making firearms again but there is a contact number.(www.detonicsusa.com)

    James
    __________________________________
    Badges, we don't need no stinkin badges​
     
  12. arty

    arty

    Oct 18, 2003
    When I lived in NC, I had a CC permit. I liked a 3" Ruger sp101 in 38 sp., or a 2" Taurus 38.
    Comfort won out over size and effectiveness.
    I don't believe in very small autos. I had a very bad experience with my single action Beretta 70s in 380. It looked cool, but was unreliable and the small parts were not hardened properly. It is too easy to grab a small auto the wrong way if you need one in a hurry. I really like "simple" when it comes to carry.
    Here in Illinois, you can't carry firearms. It is a nonissue here.

    Munk - An auto with no round in the chamber makes sense around kids, but I like a simplex lockbox at home even better. A secure retention holster might make sense around kids.

    I am not going to get into the politics side of things....but...
    It is not a liberal versus conservative conflict. There are no liberals or conservatives in our govt. I see some moderates, a few conservatives, and lots of radicals.

    The political center is gone.

    Our government is becoming increasingly polarized, and there are no real liberals in sight.
    The Democrats blew it with anti-firearms comments. Kerry was really dumb on this. He made anti gun comments after the fact. There was no point in this, and all he did was alienate potential voters.
    The Republicans in charge now believe that we should take from the old and poor to give to the rich. The medical industry owns the government, and we can expect that our kids will have a real hard time down the road. Guess what Frist does for a living...
    We are s......d!

    Most of us will lose, given the direction our gov't has gone.
    I am not arguing here, but I think that the writing is on the wall. The middle class will become fewer and fewer, as we become more and more like a third world country.

    I am first generation, and come from a family of immigrants from Europe. I am not opposed to immigration, but open borders make no sense when we have security concerns. You can't have it both ways here. Cheap labor is not good for security, but it is good for business -- unless you happen to be one of those people looking for a job....all of those people who used to work in American manufacturing.
     
  13. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    I know Ibear- you might was well believe in a phrase like Sporting Usefulness as to believe the more populated a state is the more neccesarily strigent gun and land use laws should become.

    It is the heavily populated areas that are in need of the least gun laws.
    And it wasn't reasonable land protection laws that allowed the heavily pop SoCa forests to burn down. It was bad law, bad science, and bad culture.

    Still, the author of that idea has one point- and that as pop densities swell across Earth, Keeping the first amendment will become all the more difficult.

    What do you carry in the Ca. Woods, Ibear; a Buck Knife, I beleive, right?


    munk
     
  14. hollowdweller

    hollowdweller

    Sep 22, 2003
    You think so?

    I mean you have to understand I love guns and would fight any gun control legislation, but I don't really feel like my right to own a gun is more threatned than ever before.

    In the 80's my state adoped a freedom to bear arms amendment where now if you want to you can carry openly without a permit. Also we changed the concealed carry law from having to go before a judge and have a reason for having one all you have to do is go to one safety class and go to the courthouse and pay 25 bucks and get a permit.

    In th 90's we had Brady and Assault weapons ban. But now in my state we have instant check so there's no waiting period for gun purchases and the congress let the Assault weapons ban expire. So really as far as I know the only net effect of Brady and AWB was the background check. To be honest I don't have a problem with the background check as long as there's no waiting period.

    Also in the 80's and early 90's we had a congress that was more prone to pass gun control when the news cycle made people say there oughta be a law. Now we have a congress that there's no way in hell will pass gun control, and an administration that argued before the Supreme Court that the Second amendment DID apply to individuals.

    So while I agree that some legislators and and the media in general are anti gun. I think actually with the exception of the background check at the state level in my state and at the federal level the right to own a gun is actually SAFER than ever before.

    And to all you guys who live in states where it's getting harder on gun owners: Hey vote the folks out or move! It's a democracy, at least for a little while longer ;)
     
  15. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    Ibear,
    I just wrote you a caution in this post but decided to withdraw it. You'll find those who believe in the Second and those who do not here.

    Maybe your powers of persausion will fare better than my own.

    munk
     
  16. hollowdweller

    hollowdweller

    Sep 22, 2003
    Munk,

    What do you think? I mean you are our kind of gun law expert here. You mentioned to me that during the Clinton years they tightened up on who could have an FFL and I didn't know about that. But what besides the gun control act of 1968, the now defunct AWB, and the Brady, and the FFL thing you mentioned have been passed at the federal level in the last 30 years? I remember something about armor peircing ammo. Did that pass?

    I know several times they have talked about closing the so called gun show loophole, but it has never passed, can you post a link to a listing of the stuff that has been passed?
     
  17. ibear

    ibear

    478
    Apr 15, 2002
    What do you carry in the Ca. Woods, Ibear; a Buck Knife, I beleive, right? - Munk

    My full tang fixed blade buck knife is my favorite! I have quite a few. It is not as good as a khuk for some things, but will do everything asked of it and never break or fail you! Truthfully I prefer not to fight wolves, cougar or bear with a knife anyway! That is what ya call "rough going" ..... unless of course you are Davy Crockett! I'm not even close!

    I have never had to fight any animal up to this time.
     
  18. ibear

    ibear

    478
    Apr 15, 2002
    Originally Posted by ibear
    Today, the right to own a gun is under assault as never before.

    You think so?

    I mean you have to understand I love guns and would fight any gun control legislation, but I don't really feel like my right to own a gun is more threatned than ever before.

    In the 80's my state adoped a freedom to bear arms amendment where now if you want to you can carry openly without a permit. Also we changed the concealed carry law from having to go before a judge and have a reason for having one all you have to do is go to one safety class and go to the courthouse and pay 25 bucks and get a permit.
    *************************************************** :) :) :) :)
    YES! As you state, it depends on where ya live doesn't it! I live in Kalifornia, where they do not apply the Federal Standard at the State level. To some degree I am probably prejudiced by the prism of my own legislative environment! This is Dianne Feinsten Kountry here! However, many Federal restrictions already exist that you are probably unaware of.

    If you see no effects on your rights it would be logical to assume that none exist. This is the trap of deception that will spring shut without warning! Call it paranoia if you want.

    HERE is an example! Why do you have the right to shoot a shotgun in this Country? Each and every model of shotgun in the United States is legal only because the BATF has given that model an exemption. You can find the list at the BATF web site.
    HUH, what about our Second Amendment? EXACTLY... What about it?

    If my weapons of choice weren't there and I could not enjoy their availability, I certainly would feel a certain consternation and probable dismay, that might hinder my usual objectiveness.

    This heartfelt apprehension, or more correctly, my aversion to eventual dismay, implies that I am disconcerted or even at a loss as to how to deal with no availability of my weapons of choice. This potential eventuality would definitely perturb my sensibilities and likely create in me a reaction of revulsion and severe distaste, at this very real possibility.

    Thanks,
    iBear
     
  19. Thomas Linton

    Thomas Linton

    Jun 16, 2003
    You are not paranoid if someone is after you.

    Your right to possess and carry arms of all kinds does not come from the Second Amendment or from the Constitution al all. It is your inherent right as a free person. The Second Amendment merely prohibits any govenment from putting "unreasonable" restrictions on your inherent right because the a majority of the drafters of the Consitutiton did not trust the government (having recently fought a revolutionary war against the lawful government).

    The BATF regs are legally irrelevant to the extent that they purport to give you rights that are already inherent.

    Do not accept the premise of the anti-gun types. They do not get to define the issues.

    T.
     
  20. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    Actually Hollow, Ibear is up on Law- he has single handedly held off the liberal side of the Civil Liberties forum on About for some time.

    Clinton eliminated 50% of FFL holders during his regime by administrative fiat- the BATF regulated and fee'd them out of existence. To the shame of big business- I know you'll get a kick of that- many major firearms industry players went along with this wanting to eliminate competition. Sneaky, eh? Doesn't surprise either one of us, does it, human nature being what it is?

    We have won on the Concealed carry front. We've also won Most of the lawsuits claiming firearm manufacturer's are liable because they provide an inherently unsafe product. We've lost on storage laws- many states are enacting them, because it is on of those ideas on their face that looks good. Unfortunately, the number of 'children' dying from accidental deaths because of unsecured arms is very small, the number of people who will die because they will not be able to reach their arms in time is looking quite high- see John lott's statisitical break down of this.

    As for Links, watch Ibear hit this one out of the Park- He is Mr. Firearms resource book. He actually corresponds with many lawmakers and Mr Lott himself.

    Have him tell you of a exchange he and I once had with Gary Kleck. Very funny. I'm afraid I had no more tact with Mr Kleck than I've had with many of you here- at least I'm true to myself!!! LOL. I'm surprised Ibear didn't write me off. Mr Kleck was not happy with me.

    Ibear is a libertarian. He voted for Bush relunctantly.

    munk
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page