[Beren]

^^ looks like something the Queen gives knighthood with

You nailed it, I made it for the Windsors themselves.

[Godstud]

You might just be a Japanese or French chef, in which case, no you won’t be judged but praised for the freshness of your produce

Nawwww, I only torture cheese by slicing and grating it. I do fry eggs, though. Does that count?

Making axes can be a real art though.

I made a viking bearded axe replica once. It turned out relatively well. I used a really good shovel handle, a steel pipe and some plate steel. It was not pretty like yours, but it was entirely functional and very durable.

[Beren]

I actually make axes, sharpen them in the basement for hours, it's in my resume, and it's always the first thing I tell a woman about myself.

[ness31]

Then she tells you she wants to get married and have children. Funnily enough, you’re the first to run

[Beren]

:lol: Then she tells you she wants to get married and have children.

Then I tell her to come and see my little workshop in the basement...

[Godstud]

Your little house of horrors??

[Beren]

Your little house of horrors??

Just a little introduction into the wonderful world of very sharp axes...

[Zagadka]

[Ranb]

Highly immoral.

Why is making or using silencers highly immoral?

And oh by the way it is just silly too.

Firearms like many other noisy machines benefit by having an effective muffler attached.

Why don't you try doing something that benefits mankind some day?

Not sure if you know anything at all about guns, but making them less noisy does benefit people in general.

You know. Instead of acting like a GI wannabee.

Where is this coming from? In the USA silencers were patented and marketed by a civilian (Maxim) for civilians. It wasn't until decades later that the military showed any interest in them.

[Ranb]

That's nice. Do you tell about it on dates too?

I don't date as I'm married. Guns and silencers occasionally come up in conversation. Sometimes I get the "silencers are illegal" or the "why do you want to use them" crap. But over the years it's become less common to encounter people who are so ignorant.

With the Obama administration easing some of the requirements on obtaining the tax stamp, silencers will continue to be more popular with the shooting public in the 42 states where they can be owned without a license.

[Ranb]

I’m sure the engineering that goes into a silencer is totes the same as one of Berens ‘great’ axes.

I'm not sure what goes into a good axe, but silencers can be rather basic and still work well. They're for the most part a tube filled with baffles and spacers with end caps on the end. They provide a volume into which hot gun powder gases can expand and cool prior to exiting the firearm.

[Drlee]

Not sure if you know anything at all about guns, but making them less noisy does benefit people in general.

Making guns quieter benefits no one.

I know nothing about guns other than owning several and serving in combat arms in the Army for 20 years.

Guns are ugly killing machines. To try to cast them as anything else if disingenuous. There are a few target shooters who might have a case but just them. Untrained civilians running around with assault rifles and handguns is preposterous. The fact that is legal is even more preposterous.

[Hong Wu]

We need to get the info on the shooter's motivations and the security cam footage soon, I read a rumor that people are playing politics with it which bothers me.

[Ranb]

Making guns quieter benefits no one.

It is actually more accurate to say they are less noisy. A 10/22 is still going to be about 110 decibels even with subsonic ammo and a good silencer. An AR-15 will be about 135 decibels when shooting standard ammo with a silencer. If you ever used on you know it benefits the shooter and anyone nearby who isn't wearing ear protection.

I know nothing about guns other than owning several and serving in combat arms in the Army for 20 years.

So?

Guns are ugly killing machines.

They can be, it's up to the person using them.

There are a few target shooters who might have a case but just them.

What about hunters?

Untrained civilians running around with assault rifles and handguns is preposterous. The fact that is legal is even more preposterous.

I was talking about silencers. Exactly what do you have against them knowing that they don't make a gun silent?

Drlee, You claimed making silencers was highly immoral but have not said why. Care to explain?

[blackjack21]

Making guns quieter benefits no one.

Is the contrapositive true? That should tell you something about the soundness of your reasoning. Does making guns louder benefit everyone?

I know nothing about guns other than owning several and serving in combat arms in the Army for 20 years.

Well, then you should be able to field strip and reassemble an AR-15. That's a little more than nothing. At least you know which end makes the "bang" sound, right?

The fact that is legal is even more preposterous.

It's not just legal, it is a constitutional right. So you find George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin preposterous? Good to know... Do you still call yourself a conservative?

If you ever used on you know it benefits the shooter and anyone nearby who isn't wearing ear protection.

Drlee has some identity issues in my opinion. Basically, he claims to be a conservative and yet he disagrees with essentially all of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

[Potemkin]

Drlee has some identity issues in my opinion. Basically, he claims to be a conservative and yet he disagrees with essentially all of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

DrLee is an Eisenhower conservative. What the word "conservative" means in America has always changed over historical time. Were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al 'conservatives'? No, absolutely not; they were revolutionaries. King George III represented the 'conservative' position at that time. Jefferson even supported the Jacobin Terror, ffs. By the 1950s, 'conservatism' had morphed into 'Eisehower conservatism' - high taxes, high social spending, anti-communism and social traditionalism. This is no longer regarded as 'conservatism' these days, which presents guys like DrLee with a problem - does he continue voting Republican in the age of Trump and "alternative facts", or does he acknowledge that the world has changed around him and change what he calls himself?

[ness31]

I'm not sure what goes into a good axe, but silencers can be rather basic and still work well. They're for the most part a tube filled with baffles and spacers with end caps on the end. They provide a volume into which hot gun powder gases can expand and cool prior to exiting the firearm.

Don’t know what baffles or spacers are. I’m too frightened to google them cos the guvments a watchin. I was googling the history of guns not that long ago and I was well freaked out..
I’d have thought that the actual material a silencer is made with to be of primary importance; the shape also.

[Zagadka]

How much energy and time you people people put into defining a simple label for everyone is astonishing.


EDIT

You literally go so far as to say that the Republican party totally was the right side of the Civil War while the Democrats were for the South... then instantly swap around and say that Eisenhower doesn't count because reasons.

[ingliz]

I make silencers as a hobby.

I collect firearms as a hobby.

I know nothing about guns

I know a fair bit.

I had to convince a panel of recognised experts I knew a fair bit to gain my collector licence.

about 110 decibels

The De Lisle carbine, a British World War II integrally suppressed rifle chambered in .45 ACP, was recorded at 85.5 dB in official firing tests.

City Traffic [inside car] 85dB

[Drlee]

I know nothing about guns other than owning several and serving in combat arms in the Army for 20 years.

Sarcasm.

Well, then you should be able to field strip and reassemble an AR-15. That's a little more than nothing. At least you know which end makes the "bang" sound, right?

Yes. That and how to qualify as expert with the M-16, M1911A1 and some others.

Drlee wrote:
The fact that is legal is even more preposterous.

Blackjack said: It's not just legal, it is a constitutional right. So you find George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin preposterous? Good to know... Do you still call yourself a conservative?

The answer to this could be quite long. I will go with the easier route. I disagree with them on a great many things. Slavery is the easy one. Just as gun owners in a reasonable future might bemoan the loss of their parent's right to own certain firearms, as a conservative, should I bemoan the loss of my forefathers right to own people? They most certainly did.

Drlee has some identity issues in my opinion. Basically, he claims to be a conservative and yet he disagrees with essentially all of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

That depends on a couple of things. For example I do not believe that they included the words "a well ordered militia" for no reason at all. I totally believe in what Jefferson wrote:

"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

The notion that the constitution is a living document, carefully crafted to encourage its change when necessary, IS the conservative position. It is the very definition of 'original intent'.

May I remind our gentle reader that the right to bear arms was not part of the original constitution. From March of 1789 until December of 1791 there was no such right. Going back we can see what the founders thought of a "well ordered militia" as under the articles of confederation the states were not allowed a standing army but were required to "keep ready a well trained, disciplined and equipped militia".

If the age of the document is the determinant to what is "conservative" then the second amendment is just the result of some Johnny come lately howling democracy.

This is no longer regarded as 'conservatism' these days, which presents guys like DrLee with a problem - does he continue voting Republican in the age of Trump and "alternative facts", or does he acknowledge that the world has changed around him and change what he calls himself?

The world has changed but I refuse to allow these shit birds to claim the title 'conservative' and clothe themselves in what they wish to call "original intent".

Clearly they don't really believe it anyway as both parties attempt to redefine original intent through their supreme court appointments. My personal opinion is that had the founders seen our modern society, and the way that the very nature of firearms had changed that they would have no problem carefully controlling them. Proof? Ok.

After the ratification of the constitution, free blacks in many states were prohibited from owning firearms. The founders were fine with this. So the right to keep and bear arms by citizens of the US was never universal. Further.

How about them believing in a difference between military and hunting firearms. Well they did in Virginia where they passed a law that read that free blacks were not allowed to, ""to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..."

So they were not adverse to that distinction either.

It would be simply wrong to paint my opinions as contrary to original intent and therefor not conservative. Clearly, with regard to the right to own arms, my assertion that control by the states or federal government of who and what citizens might own is the original position.

Now lets talk about women voting.