I will throw in my opinion on this subject. As much as I love the P-64, and it is my favorite small pistol, I do have interest in other firearms. There are always "OT" postings about other firearms and accessories. My opinion is another Heading for other firearms would be a welcomed addition to this fine Forum.
In in particular is "normsutton's" posting about the SKS rifle......I found this thread to be fun reading and discussing this fine rifle, and my posting for my Cowboy addiction, LOL. In addition, we all have interest in other firearms, and the wealth of information we could share would certainly be a good addition for comradery with a great bunch of guys!
Would you like this? Rifles
Would you like this? Rifles
I'm not that active right now with my new job but I beleive in quality over quantity.
Let's keep it P-64.
Let's keep it P-64.
-
nicksterdemus
- Senior member
- Posts: 224
- Joined: January 5th, 2007, 9:23 pm
- Location: SINTRULL RKINSAW
Would you like this? Rifles
I voted yes coz it's hard 2 stand on just the 64 alone. Take a peek how many folks are on @ any given time. I don't propose 2 go helter skelter on any & all things related 2 going boom but I feel an expansion is neccesary 4 growth. I don't care 2 see the board turn in2 a flame war as others but as it stands there's not hardly enough folks 2 maintain a chat. Specialize on the 64 while leaving room 4 other common firearm interests..................................
-
gunneyrabbit
- Forum supporter
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: February 5th, 2007, 8:52 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
Would you like this? Rifles
I own several military handguns and rifles, my second favorite European is the Feg PA63, they seem to sell well at the auction sites and would bring a huge response to the forum.
G.R.
G.R.
Would you like this? Rifles
a single Off topic forum sounds good. it doesn't specialize in one particular gun, or heck it could be a good place for all the "OT" threads.
-
redfestiva
- Senior member
- Posts: 428
- Joined: December 24th, 2006, 11:47 am
- Location: Dayton,Ohio
Would you like this? Rifles
I agree to have an off topic area too. Hey Papabear, did you see how long your post was? That was'nt your 2 cents worth, you took up at least a dimes worth of space!!! 
Would you like this? Rifles
My feeling is that this forum brings a common interest in the P-64, but with that said I do believe that we can only talk so much about the P-64. I would like to see this forum grow and think that it is natural for each member and future members to discuss other weapons, including other handguns and rifles. I'm in agreement to search for other off topics.
-
papabear
- Global moderator
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: January 22nd, 2006, 1:16 am
- Location: Madisonville, Kentucky
Would you like this? Rifles
Steve,I agree to have an off topic area too. Hey Papabear, did you see how long your post was? That was'nt your 2 cents worth, you took up at least a dimes worth of space!!!
I know, I get carried away sometimes, I must have had a pocket full of change when I wrote that......... ::)
Hayden
POINT SHOOTER
Would you like this? Rifles
We don't really have an "Off Topic" section, so I put this here. If the moderator would like to delete it or move it that's OK by me. I found it on the "Gun&Game" forum. http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/ccw/37 ... ation.html
Why The Gun Is Civilization
Forwarded By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Finally. . . A statement about guns that makes a lot of sense.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those
two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon
that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,
a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger,
and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys
with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm
makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course,
is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most
of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the
banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and
the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A
mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are
won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on
the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun
makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker
defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is
level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply
wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal
and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight,
but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm
afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the
actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Why The Gun Is Civilization
Forwarded By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Finally. . . A statement about guns that makes a lot of sense.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those
two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon
that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,
a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger,
and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys
with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm
makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course,
is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most
of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the
banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and
the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A
mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are
won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on
the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun
makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker
defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is
level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply
wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal
and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight,
but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm
afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the
actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Would you like this? Rifles
Thanks, I enjoyed reading that. Later Don
Would you like this? Rifles
wow, that should be reposted as a sticky!
Would you like this? Rifles
There should definitely be an "other 9x18 pistols" section. It just makes sense.