doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Voluntary lead ban in UK

Absolutely unintelligible Fester or subtle sarcasm ? I�m opting for the former , perhaps you could interpret . CraigD is English your second language as what you write is reminiscent of pigeon English.

So tell us Konor3inch, just where do you get the idea that I stockpile military style firearms, and simply store them in some closet out of paranoia?

I use my guns for perfectly legitimate purposes. I hunt. I shoot targets. I collect Lefever double shotguns which have many interesting variations, but are certainly not assault weapons. If you really knew anything about me, you'd know that much of my hunting is done with a flintlock. However, I am even ready to quickly put an end to any violent criminals that might make the mistake of attacking my residence and my family. What you own and shoot sounds boring to me. Variety is the spice of life, but you are not trusted by your government. Too bad,

I do not own an AR-15 or AK 47. I have a Russian and an Albanian SKS, but just two weeks ago, added a Chinese SKS because it was offered to me so cheap that it will be a good investment if some Democrat like Obama ever threatens our rights and causes extreme demand and price increases again. Those few semi-automatics aren't bothering anyone except anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats and FUDD's like you.

My guns are posing no more risk to the public than your guns. If anything, I am better prepared to stop a thief from stealing my guns, and using them for nefarious purposes.

But still, you make lame excuses for keeping what you enjoy, and sacrificing hundreds of millions of perfectly legal guns legitimately owned by millions of perfectly law abiding citizens.

I might feel somewhat differently if liberal anti-gunners had exhausted every means of keeping the bad guys off the streets. But you and I know the exact opposite it true. You won't go near my observations about the "Stop and Frisk" laws that all of the Democrat Presidential candidates criticized Michael Bloomberg for enacting. Why on earth would any sane or intelligent person support restricting the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, when the rational and much more effective alternative would be to restrict the rights of known criminals and those most likely to commit crimes with guns?

You obviously don't have any answers for this. It is far simpler for a simpleton like you to preach your anti-gun dogma than it is to actually think. Of course, we shouldn't expect a sheep like you to think.

Tell us some more that you are not anti-gun. You are delusional enough to have convinced yourself. Not one of the guys who have confronted you believe you. Only the idiot rocky mtn bill thinks your ideas are sensible and rational. So why then, do you keep harping on something craigd posted that you don't understand?

I'll betcha craigd knows the difference between an apostrophe and a comma. But please, keep flailing and tap dancing away from the things you don't have the brains to explain.

You started off there just like a normal guy for the first four paragraphs but you just couldn�t sustain it Fester.

I noticed you didn�t attempt to interpret verbatim CraigDs unintelligible thread,I don�t blame you but your acceptance of his post yet the pedantry on the lack of commas in mine makes me think you are one of those guys who suck up to their friends just in case they lose them . Maybe indicating a lack of security that your multiple sks rifles help to overcome.

Fortunately small time crooks here have limited access to firearms or probably more accurately access to ammunition. Handguns are the realm of organised crime and are the tools of their trade ,not something I have to worry about .
What would be more of a concern would be an assault rifle owning inadequate running amok but our government has sorted that out for us.
As there is little desire to own or import assault weapons illegally I have little to worry about there too.

As I said I have enjoyed guns for a long time ironically some of America�s favourites too no not the AR15 Fester. I presently own a Winchester model 12 skeet model ,
an A5 from the 1920s ,a 12 bore Parker repro, an orvis 20 bore beretta uplander,a couple of English side by sides and 2 classic doubles 101s a 20 bore skeet and 12 bore grade 2 game every bit as good as my Miroku MK60 grade five but half the price. My biggest mistake was selling a 20 bore model 12 ,one of the first to have 2 3/4 chambers and what a balance that gun had. I had five successful shots out of seven with that gun one day, fantastic ,full choke and 25 inch barrel.
My rifles are Remington 700 in .222 ,Ruger #1 in .243 and Winchester 52 B .in 22 all great rifles and all hard saved for.
I�m not anti gun just some of them which I don�t think have any legitimate civilian use and increase the threat level for the general population .i don�t need to apologise to anyone for that and have no intention of doing so.
It�s called taking responsibility ,to ensure what happened in Dunblane has a limited chance of happening here again.

It�s about not allowing everyone access to own such weapons then arming yourself to deal with the problem ,or more likely not deal with the problem but still have access to the arms.
If everyone had to hunt with a flintlock it would sort out those keen to hunt and all the rest.
Apostrophe or comma ,just a slip but not good in such an adversarial exchange of posts .

I notice you have not mentioned the Scottish context of what was the main point of my posting ,avoiding the point and concentrating on the second amendment I think that mistake was far greater than my apostrophe comma faux pas, that�s French again Fester, because it means you failed to engage with the point of my post making your posts largely irrelevant.

Unrestricted means specifically illegal,
you side stepped that request to translate ,were you not able to interpret , I certainly can�t ,you did say you knew exactly what he was meaning ,subtle sarcasm I think you said. Perhaps you could enlighten me ,then again maybe not you tend to shy away from answering questions or points.

My post would only be irrelevant if I was trying to dictate what all Scottish gun owners ought to be permitted to own.

You are obviously happy to be a sheep that has been corralled by a tyrannical government. You own a lot of shotguns that your 2010 mass shooter found perfectly suitable to accomplish his goal of killing a bunch of innocent people. It matters not whether your lawmakers banned them thrn, or after some future shooting. It could, and probably will happen again. It could even be the result of some Muslim or criminal who knows about your little arsenal, and decides to steal them while you are at the Proctologist office attempting to see if he can get your head inserted a bit deeper.

But here you are Konor3inch, repeating your decidedly anti-gun dogma over and over. The response from all except rocky mtn bill and SKB has not been at all welcome or well received. It certainly is not double gun related. So it fits every definition of unwelcome Trolling.

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass long enough to explain why you think anti-gunners here find it so evil and egregious to Stop and Frisk known repeat offenders and gang-bangers, who are demonstrably and absolutely responsible for murders and violent crime? But at the same time, they, and you, have no problem with restricting the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens?

Which of those scenarios is more likely to achieve the ostensibly desired results of reducing crime and saving lives? We have the numbers to show that it did reduce xrime and save kived. Why are you insensitive to those who fear all guns? This is a predominantly North America - United State firearm enthusiasts' forum... so don't try to hide from these questions again as you, an unwelcome foreigner, preaching the very same propaganda put out by rabid anti-gun organizations.

I'm not expecting much, because you have evaded these questions several times now. Clinging to some words craigd posted isn't helping you make any valid points.

By the way... I did indeed mention the Scottish context of the points you keep repeating. If we can believe you, Scottish gun owners universally accept and welcome bans on handguns and semi-automatics. This of course, after you also told us that many Scottish gun owners were not at all happy to surrender and give up their guns of choice. You have no credibility, and I find it increasingly difficult to believe that a tap dancing moron who runs from legitimate questions is representative of all Scottish gun owners. If you really are.. then you have bigger problems than anyone can fix.

I think you haven�t addressed the Scottish angle, the whole point of this discussion because you have no opinion and are interested only in confrontation.

I�d say that I am more pro gun than many assault rifle owners as I gain so much pleasure from my ownership and use of my guns than some who own weapons to use as weapons .
Is your definition of anti gun someone who thinks assault rifles are purely weapons of war and pro pro gun someone who embraces assault weapons? That�s quite a narrow viewpoint and that�s the impression I�m getting.
I think you are the anti gun person here as you�re advocating the unrestricted ownership of weapons only fit for one purpose which brings us sporting gun enthusiasts into disrepute by association in the eyes of those not well informed in such matters.
Maybe you should be apologising to all the true gun lovers for your support of a weapons free for all when doing so leads to so much suffering particularly in your own country.
I see nothing wrong with police stopping and frisking if they think that doing so will contribute to public safety , why would I ?
Propaganda or taking responsibility and common sense I think you only consider it propaganda when it disagrees with your agenda.
Not universally I said some gun owners
Not many but some gun owners resented handing in their hand guns those that had invested heavily in time and money ,remember Uncle Fester these guns were never held for protection only target practice so a far different mind set than your anti tyranny angle.
You write what you would like me to have said to suit your argument but you are too predictable and stupid to get away with it.

As far as I am aware this forum is open to all and as it is a double gun forum and I have had a life long interest in double guns I suggest I am a lot more welcome on here than some assault rifle owners that are only concerned with arguing over the second amendment.
The words CraigD posted were obviously unintelligible yet you defended it as subtle sarcasm that only an intelligent person would understand yet in reality they were gobbledygook which in effect jeopardises what little credibility you have .

Your tirades throughout your posting has led me to believe I have been arguing with the village idiot intent on avoiding the point and throwing anything into the mix to avoid addressing any point and muddy the waters,possibly a bit of a bully but more likely a couch potato with little double gun experience out with an internet search.
I don�t think you are representative of anyone least not anyone outside of an institution and I guess we�ll just have to beg to differ on all these important issues we have discussed
Just a bit of advice ,superlatives rarely add force to an argument especially when it is obvious that the person using them has no argument against the basic concept being discussed. CraigD can explain that to you.

If this is you confronting me Uncle Fester you�ve done a pisspoor job of it . Apart from some generic insults ignoring about half the points I made and questions I asked eg projected results on the Scottish referendum on would you vote to reverse the gun laws and allow free access to assault rifles not a squeak from you.
You�re not the great defender of the second amendment more of an embarrassment to those who defend it, you�ve not really done yourself proud at all. Never mind better luck next time. Are you the guy who breaks the law by trying to track people down on the internet hmmmm . I think you might be a bit of a dodgy character that would fit in with the creepy assault weapon and second amendment obsession I think I�ve seen a few of you guys on TV the ones in full battle dress and the big beer gut. No wonder you don�t want anyone taking those assault weapons you�re low hanging fruit
Remember Uncle Fester we agreed you were the Asshat. Keep up dozey

I'm curious, about two things. Does Scotland give its citizens the right to have pleasure? And, can you truly own a firearm, or do you actually license a firearm?

In Nova Scotia (New Scotland), as in rest of Canada, there is no constitutional right to possess firearms. Google it:


"By law, there is no right in Canada to possess firearms.

The facts:

The right to bear arms has been a hotly debated topic in the United States for decades.

That right, say advocates, is deeply entrenched in the U.S. Constitution, and provided for in the Second Amendment that was adopted Dec.15, 1791, as part of the United States Bill of Rights.

In Canada, such a right is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, although proponents of the notion argue that such a right exists.

But does it?

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does not.

"Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms," the high court stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.

"Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited," said the court."

Seems to me the reason for the enduring Second debate is that it's short on details, with lower courts making different findings of what it means every day.

The federal government makes the gun laws in Canada, and they're voted on democratically as the will of the people in the House of Commons.

There's nothing new about citizens voting on how they want to live, and no good reason to get our knickers in a knot. There's no unanimity in anything.

No Coward3inch, you aren't paying attention at all to what I've said. You remind me quite a bit of a little internet worm from Topeka who only sees what she wants to see.

Let me spell this out for you once more. In my view, you are clearly anti-gun because you cannot get beyond blaming only one particular inanimate object for the criminal actions of violent killers. You want law abiding and totally innocent citizens of your country and my country to pay for the sins of a small minority of criminals.

If a violent killer mowed down a large crowd of innocent people with a large truck, you would not blame large trucks. You would not say that large trucks have become the weapon of choice for many terrorists, so they should be banned. You would not say that law abiding truck owners should be threatened with arrest and imprisonment if they did not give up their truck that never hurt a flea when they were behind the wheel.

Now substitute matches and gasoline for trucks, and you would feel the same, and you have as much said so. Have you ever heard about the largest mass murder in U.S. history prior to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, or the 9-11 Muslim terror attacks?

On March 25, 1990, Julio Gonzalez deliberately set fire to the illegal Bronx dance club Happy Land in a deliberate jealous rage after an argument with his ex-girlfriend. 87 innocent people were horribly burned to death. The weapon was matches and less than $1.00 of gasoline.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc...ticle-1.2152091

And how about the worst mass school killing in U.S. history? There were zero guns involved:

Andrew Philip Kehoe was an American farmer and treasurer of his township school board, notable as a mass murderer for killing his wife and 43 other people (including 38 children), and injuring 58 people by setting off bombs in the Bath School disaster on May 18, 1927.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about...-in-us-history/

There are thousands of other mass killings around the world that do not involve guns of any type. I told you about the arson fire in Japan last July. 33 people, mostly terrified women, died in that massacre.

None of that matters to you. You still believe that handguns and semi-automatic rifles should be banned. You still believe that the owners of these guns are inherently evil and demented, and deserve to be classified as criminals. You claim to abhor personal attacks, yet you personally attack anyone who vehemently disagrees with you, or confronts you with facts.

Finally, the lame arguments you post to support your position totally ignores all of the above. More importantly, most of your argument is exactly the same points made by well known and admitted anti-gunners and anti-gun organizations. If it walks like an anti-gunner, and looks like an anti-gunner, and talks like an anti-gunner... then all the denials in the world aren't going to make you something else Coward3inch.

I've seen very little from you to suggest that you know much at all about double shotguns. And how could I possibly know what the results of a Scottish referendum on reversing your onerous and tyrannical gun laws would be? We certainly know how you would vote, but have not heard from any or all other Scottish gun owners. We certainly cannot take your word for anything, because you have been caught lying and changing your story several times now. Now you have your answer... even as you continue to avoid my questions.

As far as clinging to military weapons shit for brains, why don't you ask rocky mtn bill? He really likes sporterizing weapons of war such as Mauser and Springfield bolt action rifles. Many of the anti-gun Democrats he votes for feel that we should ban those weapons of war. That is just what they call them, and they fear them because they launch bullets at high velocity, and those bullets can easily penetrate police body armor. They are also used at extreme ranges by SNIPERS! As a matter of fact, your Ruger .243 would terrify them for the same reasons. Your .243 is simply a necked down version of the military 7.62 x 51 or .308 cartridge. And full metal jacket .243 bullets are readily available.

How about your Model 12 Winchester pump Coward3inch? Model 12 Pump shotguns were used as deadly military weapons in two World Wars. If you take the plug out of the magazine, and used 2 inch shells, how many people could it kill in very short order? Why are you so insecure and paranoid to need such potent military and sniper guns? Are you trying to compensate for some inherent deficiency or weakness??? Why can't you use a single shot flintlock Brown Bess musket?

If you weren't a fat stupid old demented impotent anti-gun couch potato who is nothing but a one-trick pony, you might be able to reply honestly, and realize the hypocrisy, ignorance, and disingenuous nature of your positions.

And the only thing that the majority here have agreed on is that you have your head up your ass.

P.S.-- We see that you still are avoiding my repeated questions about why you Libtard anti-gunners are hell bent on violating the rights of law abiding citizens, yet most of you are totally against Stop and Frisk laws that actually target the root of the violent gun crime problem. Stop and Frisk is proven to reduce crime, get criminals and illegal guns off the streets, and save lives. And Liberal Democrats simply hate it.
The question isn't whether you personally approve of it. The question is why you and Democrats apparently prefer to infringe upon the gun rights of the law abiding citizens.

Why does this simple question scare the hell out of you Coward3inch?

Thanks for the perspective from nuevo Scotland. I'm begining to see what Konor means by solidarity, mob rule then suck it up buttercup, eh?

Liberal anti-gun Trolls like King Brown will go to their graves in denial of the clear language of the 2nd Amendment.

King mentions in his post above that the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that the U.S. has a Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, while Canadians do not. He respects the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court... except for the part he doesn't like. There is no more dishonest person to ever disgrace this forum than King:



Anti-gunners like King Brown are unable to see Gun Rights in the 2nd Amendment, and refuse to accept the 2008 and 2010 Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions. All of those lower Court rulings King clings to were made moot points by the two Supreme Court decisions. King knows this and refuses to accept this. Yet the old anti-gunner can clearly see a Constitutional right to aborting and killing unborn babies, when the word abortion is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

Sick Liberal bastards who support killing innocent unborn babies, yet oppose the Death Penalty for violent murderers, deserve a special place in Hell.

Coward3inch is Scottish, and so is King. We aren't getting a very good representation of Scottish intelligence here. Will a Scotsman with a brain please speak up?

Is King Brown an Anti-Gunner?

Several idiots here kept asking me why I repeatedly hammered King on his anti-2nd Amendment Trolling views. They said he is a harmless old man, and nobody really takes his bullshit seriously. So as King edges toward his permanent Anti-Gun legacy here, he is being replaced by rocky mtn bill, Coward3inch, and other FUDD's and supporters of anti-gun Democrats.

Stepping on one cockroach won't help when you have an infestation. Killing one cancer cell won't stop the spread of the disease. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.