The term "Modern Sporting Rifle"
- Thread starter IdahoG36
- Start date
Actually, I think "Freedom Sticks" is a bit too juvenile sounding to work as an effective slogan.
Perhaps it is because I am getting older, and chronically grumpy, but I have reached the point where I don't feel the need to apologize for my choices to ANYONE.
Least of all those who are too gutless to defend themselves, yet find something wrong with me because I believe in a natural right.
Ohh,its scary, its bad, its DANGEROUS!! Yep, and its supposed to be! Sorry if you get your knickers in a twist over what it looks like. Not my problem.
These folks probably have their cats de-clawed, too.
Perhaps it is because I am getting older, and chronically grumpy, but I have reached the point where I don't feel the need to apologize for my choices to ANYONE.
Least of all those who are too gutless to defend themselves, yet find something wrong with me because I believe in a natural right.
Ohh,its scary, its bad, its DANGEROUS!! Yep, and its supposed to be! Sorry if you get your knickers in a twist over what it looks like. Not my problem.
These folks probably have their cats de-clawed, too.
I remember so many Senior Members of the Ontario Handgun Association OHA
in Canada, when I first started Pistol Competition, in 1968, being mortified, if the terminology WEAPON, crept into a conversation. "They are firearms?" Yes.
So now we sit and pontificate on the terms used to describe a gun! Mostly so we do not offend someone, who has none of these items?
They can PXXX off! I am an old Guy, used to be quite a scrapper, could defend me and mine against more than one person at a time, have done so on a few occasions.
But the guns I own have various jobs, the one I carry, my Glock 19 Gen 4, with it's 16 round capacity, has two jobs, one is as an IDPA Match gun, the other being for defence, if ever called into that mode.
The one description of armed self-protection I first heard in the USA, has stuck with me, ever since, it was, and is still, perfect.
The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun, is a good one, with a gun.
Our Poser in Chief must believe that he is surrounded by them!
How can he be more important to protect, than me, or mine? He can not, and is not, so any argument to keep me un armed, works just as validly, for him.
So as I believe implicitly in the second amendment, I will utilise my God Given right of self-defence, if I ever am required to do so.
Off post? Not by much.
in Canada, when I first started Pistol Competition, in 1968, being mortified, if the terminology WEAPON, crept into a conversation. "They are firearms?" Yes.
So now we sit and pontificate on the terms used to describe a gun! Mostly so we do not offend someone, who has none of these items?
They can PXXX off! I am an old Guy, used to be quite a scrapper, could defend me and mine against more than one person at a time, have done so on a few occasions.
But the guns I own have various jobs, the one I carry, my Glock 19 Gen 4, with it's 16 round capacity, has two jobs, one is as an IDPA Match gun, the other being for defence, if ever called into that mode.
The one description of armed self-protection I first heard in the USA, has stuck with me, ever since, it was, and is still, perfect.
The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun, is a good one, with a gun.
Our Poser in Chief must believe that he is surrounded by them!
How can he be more important to protect, than me, or mine? He can not, and is not, so any argument to keep me un armed, works just as validly, for him.
So as I believe implicitly in the second amendment, I will utilise my God Given right of self-defence, if I ever am required to do so.
Off post? Not by much.
The NRA President said this very thing, after the NewTown killings, and the press went into hyperdrive doing all they possibly could to make him look like a fool, out of touch with reality, and with the personal warmth, charm and compassion of the Bubonic Plague. And, those were the nicest things they said!
But it is true. It has ALWAYS BEEN TRUE. It was true when mankind's advanced weapon tech was a rock and jagged piece of bone, and its still just as true today.
Who shows up when you call the cops? A good guy with a gun.
44AMP said:
That was an interesting chapter. LaPierre and those who made similar observations were taken to task for their putatively tone deaf response to calls from the senate to enact draconian limits on firearms ownership, yet few observed how grotesque it was for US Senators to cynically employ the deaths of children for their own political ends.
44AMP said:
But that's someone directly answering to the state for his acts, so it's completely different, or so goes the argument.
That touches on the conversation with Glenn about utilitarian arguments. It is beyond reasonable dispute that a good citizen with a gun can employ it in ways that represent a social good. The problem from the prospective of the restriction advocate is that the good citizen is not under state control; he is free to carry or not, act properly or not. There is a chance that he will act improperly; the freedom carries a potential cost.
A restriction advocate isn't comfortable with and likely doesn't believe in this facet of individual freedom; he regards the costs as evidence of the lack of general utility in the state's generosity in allowing arms to individuals.
Although americans largely endorse a strong line on free speech rights, there is a similar mindset amongst restriction advocates in matters of speech in other places. Even in western europe, people can be prosecuted for writing and speech alone. Their view is not one of men who have a range of rights simply because they are free men.
As a mild analogy:
A few decades back (as you old timers will remember), it was highly fashionable to refer to cops as "pigs." (It still prevails to this day to some.)
Anyway, in my area at least, billboards began to pop up advertising the message that "PIGS" stood for "Pride, Integrity, Guts." This was an attempt at countering the bad connotation of "pigs" as referring to cops.
The campaign was a massive failure and now only remains as a memory in (now) old geezers' minds.
I think this also applies to this "MSR" business.
A few decades back (as you old timers will remember), it was highly fashionable to refer to cops as "pigs." (It still prevails to this day to some.)
Anyway, in my area at least, billboards began to pop up advertising the message that "PIGS" stood for "Pride, Integrity, Guts." This was an attempt at countering the bad connotation of "pigs" as referring to cops.
The campaign was a massive failure and now only remains as a memory in (now) old geezers' minds.
I think this also applies to this "MSR" business.
gyvel said:
Of course "pig" wasn't an acronym for a set of virtues, but a pejorative well entrenched in the language. MSR on the other hand is routinely an accurate description.
If you and I knew what terms would take off and which wouldn't, we would have extraordinary foresight. We do know that water closet, bathroom, restroom, disabled, gay, life partner, native american, french pox, affirmative action, adult entertainment, and underprivileged have all made their way into accepted language.
Pond James Pond
New member
That is a bit misleading.
I believe you are referring to laws against inciting violence and hate speech, slander, libel etc.
Freedom to express political, religious or personal opinion is well-protected in the countries I am familiar with as well as being part of European Union law.
Mine was not a reference to civil liability for libel and slander, or for prosecution for inciting violence.
Austria has imprisoned an author for his writing alone. Expression of some odious ideas are also subject to criminal prosecution in Germany.
You may protest that this is "hate speech". Please note that "hate speech" is "speech". Prosecution for "hate speech" is prosecution for speech.
The dominant american attitude is to allow odious speech into the market place of ideas for appropriate identification and ridicule. It arises from a sense that a free man can express his views simply by virtue of being a free man. Other free men who hear him are also free to respond.
To continue the parallel with 2d Am. rights and utility arguments, making expression of an idea criminal appears to fail on utilitarian grounds. It can lend that idea a cache it couldn't retain if it were freely discussed, so it doesn't seem to have the effect that a prohibition would seek.
Last edited:
Pond James Pond
New member
Perhaps you can provide some more details. PM if you prefer.
jimbob86 said:
It isn't just subjective definition. In some places expression of specific positions is criminalised. The problem I see is that if saying "X" is prohibited, if it is forbidden fruit, people will be more fascinated by "X" than if it is just another poor idea to be recognised and dismissed.
At some level prohibition of specific expression is incompatible with american identity.
Last edited: