P-64 as a carry weapon.
-
- Global moderator
- Posts: 3575
- Joined: February 26th, 2006, 6:59 am
- Location: LAKELAND FL.
-
- Junior member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:46 pm
- Location: Southeast MO
P-64 as a carry weapon.
+3 (except for the seatbelt part). Sorry, I don't mean to offend but as a police officer for 11 years, I'm a big supporter of the seatbelt law. I don't see this as a "rights infringement", because it does not hamper anyone's lifestyle (as far as I can see). It simply saves lives. I've seen tooooo many fatal motor vehicle accidents that would have been prevented with a seatbelt. It also saves everyone money. Lives saved by wearing a seatbelt during a crash means less money paid out by insurance companies which means lower premiums and deductibles for the insured drivers.
As far a gun laws, heck yes there are way too many and depending on how Nov. 2008 goes, there could be the start of the greatest anti-gun legislation in U.S. history.
As far a gun laws, heck yes there are way too many and depending on how Nov. 2008 goes, there could be the start of the greatest anti-gun legislation in U.S. history.
P-64 as a carry weapon.
+1,000,000 Butch
Milsurpcop: seatbelts are lifesavers and if the legislation was enacted for the good of the people I would agree. Once again lobbista convinced the government and the federal legislators are telling states that they "must adher" and make seat belt laws manditory or the state will lose federal funding. So far I think NH is the only or one of the last remaining holdouts that told the government to keep their highway funds NH stays free!
I don't disagree with any of the laws in questions...
...riding a motorcycle with a helmet on is safer than without.
...riding in a car with a seatbelt on is safer than without.
...carrying a gun in a holster is safer than without.
I just don't like the goverment telling me I have to "insert action here" for the greater good! That's bull crap!
Milsurpcop: seatbelts are lifesavers and if the legislation was enacted for the good of the people I would agree. Once again lobbista convinced the government and the federal legislators are telling states that they "must adher" and make seat belt laws manditory or the state will lose federal funding. So far I think NH is the only or one of the last remaining holdouts that told the government to keep their highway funds NH stays free!
I don't disagree with any of the laws in questions...
...riding a motorcycle with a helmet on is safer than without.
...riding in a car with a seatbelt on is safer than without.
...carrying a gun in a holster is safer than without.
I just don't like the goverment telling me I have to "insert action here" for the greater good! That's bull crap!
-
- Member
- Posts: 82
- Joined: August 30th, 2007, 10:19 pm
- Location: Minnesota
P-64 as a carry weapon.
Bullcrap or not, it is reality. I do not agree with it and I am afraid of it. Even though I firmly believe that it is my right to carry a firearm, granted by the second amendment, I am also very aware of the reality that they can take that ability away. We can take one excuse away from them by not accidently shooting ourselves. If they do take my permit away, I will not carry and I will obey the law. What else can I do?
In 2008, vote for the right candidate. I know that Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the 2nd amendment.
www.ronpaul2008.com
As always, carry often and carry safe.
In 2008, vote for the right candidate. I know that Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the 2nd amendment.
www.ronpaul2008.com
As always, carry often and carry safe.
Last edited by reprisejim on September 30th, 2007, 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Forum supporter
- Posts: 955
- Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 8:40 pm
- Location: delaware/Virginia eastern shor
P-64 as a carry weapon.
Only have one thing to say about laws and holster. here is a picture I took today and now all I have to say is
HOLSTER THIS!!!!!
Here is the range in De. for my new carry gun
HOLSTER THIS!!!!!
Here is the range in De. for my new carry gun
Last edited by anjdrifter on September 30th, 2007, 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Forum supporter
- Posts: 955
- Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 8:40 pm
- Location: delaware/Virginia eastern shor
P-64 as a carry weapon.
carguy here is my Beretta 418.I have since replaced the franzite grips with black oem ..
P-64 as a carry weapon.
Very cool
I like it :-/
I like it :-/
-
- Member
- Posts: 82
- Joined: August 30th, 2007, 10:19 pm
- Location: Minnesota
P-64 as a carry weapon.
anjdrifter, that's an intimidating carry piece!!! There would be some piece of mind having that baby mounted in the front yard!! I'm not sure how the neighbors would feel though...
I'm wondering if you can email a picture of that piece carried "mexican" style!! ::) ;D :-/
I'm wondering if you can email a picture of that piece carried "mexican" style!! ::) ;D :-/
P-64 as a carry weapon.
is that a cannon in your pocket or are you just happy to see me
Last edited by trent on October 1st, 2007, 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
- papabear
- Global moderator
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: January 22nd, 2006, 1:16 am
- Location: Madisonville, Kentucky
P-64 as a carry weapon.
Al,
When you make a point, you don't hold anything back ole buddy..... :-*
When you make a point, you don't hold anything back ole buddy..... :-*
POINT SHOOTER
-
- Global moderator
- Posts: 3575
- Joined: February 26th, 2006, 6:59 am
- Location: LAKELAND FL.
P-64 as a carry weapon.
AL
I LIKE IT , IT WOULD GO NICE IN MY FRONT LAWN
WONDER WERE I CAN AMMO FOR IT MY RELOADING PRESS ISN'T BIG ENOUGH TO RELOAD THE SHELLS FOR IT
NORM
I LIKE IT , IT WOULD GO NICE IN MY FRONT LAWN
WONDER WERE I CAN AMMO FOR IT MY RELOADING PRESS ISN'T BIG ENOUGH TO RELOAD THE SHELLS FOR IT
NORM
NORMSUTTON@AOL.COM
N.R.A. LIFE MEMBER 1976
N.R.A. LIFE MEMBER 1976
P-64 as a carry weapon.
Al - I want one! I want to mount it on the hood of my car - betcha I could get to work faster!
Milsurpcop - the debate about individual freedom often becomes centered on seat belt laws, and for good reason. Seatbelt laws are a powerful argument for laws that are for the individual and collective good. We do need laws after all, and where do you draw the line between laws that are necessary and laws that are not necessary.
Laws that are necessary, such as the law against homicide, are required for a society of any complexity. Yet they are also laws that are re-active. The law is enforced after a homicide has occurred, or a clear attempt to committ homicide has occurred. They may prevent homicides by having a deterrent effect, but they are not put into play until an act has occurred.
Laws that are pro-active attempt to stop something from occurring, as in seat belt laws. Any reasonable person recognizes the benefits of seatbelts and uses them without being told to by the government under threat of penalty. But, they do infringe on a persons liberty to make choices for themselves. Seatbelt and helmet laws fall right on the cusp of the line between freedom and the nanny state.
The laws that I most detest are the laws that are pro-active and work by pre-punishing all of us in an attempt to prevent something from happening, by removing one of our rights. People are prone to react in emotional horror to horrific crimes by passing legislation quickly, like Kennedy's asassination, and the 64 gun act followed. This may feel good emotionally, but they are seldom thought through and are generally illogical.
The reason that we can not openly carry fully automatic weapons is because the government is afraid that we will committ crimes with them, or accidentally discharge them into a crowd. So every American has had that right removed, in order to prevent some crimes, or accidents, from occurring. The same kind of rationale applies to concealed hand guns, and is just as false for fully automatic guns as it is for concealed hand guns. Responsible people act responsibly regardless of what inert object is in their possession. Irresponsible people do not -and curtailing the rights of responsible people in order to limit the damage caused by irresponsible people is simply wrong. Wrong in a very major way.
I would propose that our Constitution gives us the liberty to make our own choices and to do as we please, up to the point that we harm others who do not deserve harm. Seatbelt laws fall on that cusp line as well - if I was to get into a wreck and get killed due to lack of a wearing a seatbelt, I would harm my family. If, on the other hand, I had no family and got killed in a single car accident, and had burial insurance, who did I harm other than myself?
In a lot of ways the debate gets down to, do I have the right to take risks or not? Seatbelt and helmet laws fall into a difficult area because they actually do good - but in a Nation where we were supposed to have the choice to make ourselves I say those laws are wrong; because it is not the governments place to make those choices for us. In a Nation where each person has individual liberty, there will be many who make bad choices and cause damage to others - yet you can't have both you can't have individual liberty and safety too.
Safety and liberty are not connected, and there is no reason for them to be. In fact, they are just about opposites - Liberty means risk, not safety. In order to remain free - you have to face risks every day. Attempting to remove those risks removes your freedom, no matter how well intentioned the attempt is.
Milsurpcop - the debate about individual freedom often becomes centered on seat belt laws, and for good reason. Seatbelt laws are a powerful argument for laws that are for the individual and collective good. We do need laws after all, and where do you draw the line between laws that are necessary and laws that are not necessary.
Laws that are necessary, such as the law against homicide, are required for a society of any complexity. Yet they are also laws that are re-active. The law is enforced after a homicide has occurred, or a clear attempt to committ homicide has occurred. They may prevent homicides by having a deterrent effect, but they are not put into play until an act has occurred.
Laws that are pro-active attempt to stop something from occurring, as in seat belt laws. Any reasonable person recognizes the benefits of seatbelts and uses them without being told to by the government under threat of penalty. But, they do infringe on a persons liberty to make choices for themselves. Seatbelt and helmet laws fall right on the cusp of the line between freedom and the nanny state.
The laws that I most detest are the laws that are pro-active and work by pre-punishing all of us in an attempt to prevent something from happening, by removing one of our rights. People are prone to react in emotional horror to horrific crimes by passing legislation quickly, like Kennedy's asassination, and the 64 gun act followed. This may feel good emotionally, but they are seldom thought through and are generally illogical.
The reason that we can not openly carry fully automatic weapons is because the government is afraid that we will committ crimes with them, or accidentally discharge them into a crowd. So every American has had that right removed, in order to prevent some crimes, or accidents, from occurring. The same kind of rationale applies to concealed hand guns, and is just as false for fully automatic guns as it is for concealed hand guns. Responsible people act responsibly regardless of what inert object is in their possession. Irresponsible people do not -and curtailing the rights of responsible people in order to limit the damage caused by irresponsible people is simply wrong. Wrong in a very major way.
I would propose that our Constitution gives us the liberty to make our own choices and to do as we please, up to the point that we harm others who do not deserve harm. Seatbelt laws fall on that cusp line as well - if I was to get into a wreck and get killed due to lack of a wearing a seatbelt, I would harm my family. If, on the other hand, I had no family and got killed in a single car accident, and had burial insurance, who did I harm other than myself?
In a lot of ways the debate gets down to, do I have the right to take risks or not? Seatbelt and helmet laws fall into a difficult area because they actually do good - but in a Nation where we were supposed to have the choice to make ourselves I say those laws are wrong; because it is not the governments place to make those choices for us. In a Nation where each person has individual liberty, there will be many who make bad choices and cause damage to others - yet you can't have both you can't have individual liberty and safety too.
Safety and liberty are not connected, and there is no reason for them to be. In fact, they are just about opposites - Liberty means risk, not safety. In order to remain free - you have to face risks every day. Attempting to remove those risks removes your freedom, no matter how well intentioned the attempt is.
Last edited by butch50 on October 1st, 2007, 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
P-64 as a carry weapon.
Well put Butch50.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin that said (and I definitely paraphrase), anyone willing to give up a liberty (their rights) for added security isn't worthy of the liberty in the first place.
Now I know I screwed up that quote but the sentiment is what I was shooting for. It is an extremely fine line between maintaining those personal liberties and a government protecting the people, for the good of the masses, irregardless of their personal liberties.
Unfortunately I feel we have too many legislators that bend with the wind of the vocal minority...if you know what I mean. :'(
I think it was Benjamin Franklin that said (and I definitely paraphrase), anyone willing to give up a liberty (their rights) for added security isn't worthy of the liberty in the first place.
Now I know I screwed up that quote but the sentiment is what I was shooting for. It is an extremely fine line between maintaining those personal liberties and a government protecting the people, for the good of the masses, irregardless of their personal liberties.
Unfortunately I feel we have too many legislators that bend with the wind of the vocal minority...if you know what I mean. :'(
P-64 as a carry weapon.
anjdrifter, can you imagine riding that chair while that gun was firing? You'd probably notice when it went off, and I suppose you'd want some ear protection ...
P-64 as a carry weapon.
I wonder how many guys that shot that thing during the war were ever able to have kids?!? :'(