Ah...sorry about the confusion...my.45 rounds cost about a dime to reload(not having to buy brass).
Well, no, it does not save some cash- you will just shoot more!:-)
That sounds like the most likely outcome of getting into reloading for me;) At least I'll get to shoot more though:)
enabling you to use 'milder' loads for just plinking
For plinking I'm debating the wisdom of getting either a rimfire conversion kit or even a separate.22LR target pistol. Have to decide on priorities first though for my limited funds. I'm just getting into the shooting sports and it might be a better bet to pick up a rifle and hone my skills with that instead. I started out with the handgun because A) It's more challenging, B) I wanted to pick up my NYS pistol permit before Albany decides that I shouldn't be able to.
I'm also currently not overloaded with funds...so I'm with ya there.
Oh really? In what regard? Is somebody going to nuke us into the stone age? Hmm, that might not end well for them. Is somebody going to invade us? Hmm, that might not end well for them either. You can hate us all you want but we'll be around for a long time. We might draw inwards a bit but most of us wouldn't consider that a bad thing. Either way we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
He's the captain of a sinking ship.
Be careful what you wish for, the suction from that sinking ship may pull you under too:)
For the US, declaring "space" a "neutral zone" would basically mean that a whole bunch of military equipment that makes our soldiers fight better is legally considered off-limits
What makes you think it will stay off-limits if a full-fledged war were to break out? Are you drawing upon the history of cities not being bombed and unrestricted submarine warfare not happening? Oh, wait......
And just ask the Jews of WWII how being disarmed helped them
<sarcasm>Everybody knows that if the Jews had been armed they would have been 12 times more likely to injure themselves than the SS officers. Imagine if their kids had found those guns or something? Think of the children!</sarcasm>
Ask Neville Chamberlain how diplomacy in the face of your enemies worked out.
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing
Here's something that worries the hell out of me. Apparently we shouldn't be keeping our nuclear deterrent reliable and having any sort of assurance that the weapons actually work as designed.
Stop slamming liberals, I am a liberal and I support the 2nd amendment.
So who did you vote for then?
I think you are confusing god-damn hippies with liberals
Well, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Mind you, I live in a State where the Democratic party just freaked the fuck out because our Governor had the audacity to appoint someone to the Senate who is pro 2nd amendment even though that someone is a Democrat. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical about the Democratic Party when it comes to guns.
To generalise wildly, countries with large military R&D spending and manufacturing tend not to be good at consumer products.
Yeah, I can't think of any consumer products developed and produced by American companies that anybody would want to buy.
and no-one gets hurt.
Until some adversary emerges and we don't have the means to deal with him short of total war. Imagine if the French and Brits had addressed a particular problem in the early 30s instead of waiting until they had rearmed?
U.S.: responds to first strike and rains down 1,400 nuclear warheads on China
See, there's the folly in your thinking. You leave the United States with no other response than a nuclear one if China blows our satellites up? Flexible response has been our policy since the 60s and seems much more likely to deter someone than being limited to killing hundreds of millions of people.....
I do not believe that there are a lot of 'evil nations' out there just waiting to rob the US of everything they have or some such thing.
There weren't a lot of 'evil nations' out there in the 20s either. Times can change and I see no reason we should leave ourselves vulnerable or needing to play catch up if one emerges.
Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
I wouldn't know the answer to that. The only person I've ever known who almost got raped ended the attempted attack with three shots from her.38 special. Don't tell any of the liberals though, they'd probably get upset that she didn't try to reason with him and/or call the police. She could have gotten hurt, don't you know?
I don't know what prices are like now days, but IIRC,.45 used to set me back around a dime a round.
Locally it seems to run around 40 cents a round. I've seen online deals that can bring that down to 35 or less if you buy in bulk. I haven't had the funds to buy in bulk lately though.
I would recommend starting with a single-stage reloading press at first. Too much going on with a progressive press- easy to make mistakes with when first starting out. Don't take shortcuts, pay attention to detail, set up a procedure/protocol and stick to it.
My relative made the same recommendation. He also said that you learn more about the process doing it with a single-stage press and can always upgrade later once you understand the concepts better.
It's been my observation (as a recovering liberal) that liberals don't really care as much about the Constitution as they profess to. They can invent a "right to privacy" that isn't listed anywhere when it supports their agenda while denying the plain text of the 2nd or even 1st amendments when it suits their agenda.
Time just ran an interesting story about how the Dems want to regulate direct to consumer drug advertising. Mind you, I tend to think the pharmaceutical industry has gone overboard with advertising (why do drugs need to be advertised? Shouldn't they sell themselves?) but I also tend to think that they have the right to advertise their product if they want. The money quote from that article is:
Waxman takes a harder stance. "I think the First Amendment is not an absolute guarantee to say whatever [we want] under any circumstances," he says. "We often prevent free speech when it can do harm - such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater... I think there's a balancing. A very limited restriction on the First Amendment right to advertise drugs, if there is such a right, is reasonable for the public safety."
Unbelievable. He's comparing advertising to shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. The former serves a legitimate purpose -- the latter has none. And how is public safety enhanced by regulating advertising? Because the sheep are so stupid that they'll try and get drugs they don't need if they see a fancy TV commercial? Why is that something the government needs to be involved in?
Freedom means nothing to liberals if they think that freedom places us in the smallest amount of danger. We need the government to protect us from all sources of harm because we aren't grown up enough to do it for ourselves. If that means trampling on the Bill of Rights then so be it -- the founding fathers never could have anticipated repeating firearms or big pharmaceutical companies!
Yeah. Expect gun violence rates to jump since the DC Handgun turnover.
Practically every published statistic that I've ever read disputes this. If gun accessibility caused gun violence then why isn't Vermont a war zone? In that state any adult without a criminal record can purchase a handgun and carry it openly or concealed without needing a permit. Funny how they have almost no gun violence while NYC and DC are infested with it.
Maybe the big city mayors should look at the underlying causes of crime instead of attacking firearms?
BTW, M1911 was/is my personal favorite. Good choice, and enjoy!
Yeah, I need to get into reloading though..45 ACP costs too damn much when you buy it factory. I have a family member who does reloading and is going to teach me the ropes once I accumulate enough brass.
The War on Drugs is the term that the US Government uses to describe it's drug prohibition policy. The reason I mentioned it was to point out the utter failure of said policy to prevent people from using illegal drugs. When there's a demand for some product there will be somebody willing to supply it.
For the same reason I'm opposed to gun control because all it does is make it harder for those who obey the law to obtain guns. Those who would break the law can still obtain them -- and now they know the rest of us are unarmed and easy pray.
There's also that one Congresslady (whose name I forget at the moment)
Carolyn McCarthy. She's a fucking nutjob and as a New Yorker (though not from Long Island or NYC) I feel the need to apologize to the rest of the country for her. Gun control is her sole issue and she is making rumblings about running against our new senator in the primary solely because she happens to be pro-gun rights.
who referred to "the shoulder thing that goes up". I assume she means the stock that every rifle and shotgun has?
If you want a good laugh check out this video:) I love when people who know nothing about firearms try and regulate them.
I'd also suggest that the violent types (rapists, child molesters, etc.) get life without parole, and actually mean it
You could make room for them by letting all of the people who are locked up for drug possession go, IMHO. I love seeing my tax dollars keep someone behind bars whose only crime was wanting to poison himself while kiddie rapists walk the streets....
Surely you realize that from a practical point of view this is impossible. The Government outlawing something has never once made it impossible to obtain said item. If you accept this basic fact then you should be able to see the folly of having armed criminals and unarmed citizens. If you don't accept that basic fact then take a look at the war on drugs and tell me I'm wrong.
And seriously, why do you want your government waging wars?
I think his point was that the only two jobs for government are protecting the citizenry from outside harm (generally done by waging war) and paving roads.
Well, according to the British home office (not exactly an organization that I would describe as having a pro-gun agenda), 6% of robbery victims who used a gun in self-defense wound up injured somehow. Contrast that with 25% whom did nothing to resist and 40% who resisted with a knife.
In any case, even if I bought your argument that's still not a justification to infringe on a constitutionally protected right. And if you think the victim is more likely to wind up wounded/dead if they resist with a firearm then why don't you go rob some people at the next gun show in your area? What could possibly go wrong?
Wow, they really aren't cheap are they? That sounds like it'd be an absolute blast though. Maybe some day:) At least I've already got the right pistol.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah...sorry about the confusion...my .45 rounds cost about a dime to reload(not having to buy brass).
Well, no, it does not save some cash- you will just shoot more! :-)
That sounds like the most likely outcome of getting into reloading for me ;) At least I'll get to shoot more though :)
enabling you to use 'milder' loads for just plinking
For plinking I'm debating the wisdom of getting either a rimfire conversion kit or even a separate .22LR target pistol. Have to decide on priorities first though for my limited funds. I'm just getting into the shooting sports and it might be a better bet to pick up a rifle and hone my skills with that instead. I started out with the handgun because A) It's more challenging, B) I wanted to pick up my NYS pistol permit before Albany decides that I shouldn't be able to.
I'm also currently not overloaded with funds...so I'm with ya there.
Seems like everybody is there these days :(
China's space weapons destroy 99% of the nukes before they reach their targets.
Ballistic missiles aren't the only way to deliver nuclear warheads.....
America doesn't stand a chance
Oh really? In what regard? Is somebody going to nuke us into the stone age? Hmm, that might not end well for them. Is somebody going to invade us? Hmm, that might not end well for them either. You can hate us all you want but we'll be around for a long time. We might draw inwards a bit but most of us wouldn't consider that a bad thing. Either way we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
He's the captain of a sinking ship.
Be careful what you wish for, the suction from that sinking ship may pull you under too :)
For the US, declaring "space" a "neutral zone" would basically mean that a whole bunch of military equipment that makes our soldiers fight better is legally considered off-limits
What makes you think it will stay off-limits if a full-fledged war were to break out? Are you drawing upon the history of cities not being bombed and unrestricted submarine warfare not happening? Oh, wait......
And just ask the Jews of WWII how being disarmed helped them
<sarcasm>Everybody knows that if the Jews had been armed they would have been 12 times more likely to injure themselves than the SS officers. Imagine if their kids had found those guns or something? Think of the children!</sarcasm>
Ask Neville Chamberlain how diplomacy in the face of your enemies worked out.
Ask the Czechs.....
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing
Here's something that worries the hell out of me. Apparently we shouldn't be keeping our nuclear deterrent reliable and having any sort of assurance that the weapons actually work as designed.
Stop slamming liberals, I am a liberal and I support the 2nd amendment.
So who did you vote for then?
I think you are confusing god-damn hippies with liberals
Well, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Mind you, I live in a State where the Democratic party just freaked the fuck out because our Governor had the audacity to appoint someone to the Senate who is pro 2nd amendment even though that someone is a Democrat. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical about the Democratic Party when it comes to guns.
To generalise wildly, countries with large military R&D spending and manufacturing tend not to be good at consumer products.
Yeah, I can't think of any consumer products developed and produced by American companies that anybody would want to buy.
and no-one gets hurt.
Until some adversary emerges and we don't have the means to deal with him short of total war. Imagine if the French and Brits had addressed a particular problem in the early 30s instead of waiting until they had rearmed?
U.S.: responds to first strike and rains down 1,400 nuclear warheads on China
See, there's the folly in your thinking. You leave the United States with no other response than a nuclear one if China blows our satellites up? Flexible response has been our policy since the 60s and seems much more likely to deter someone than being limited to killing hundreds of millions of people.....
I do not believe that there are a lot of 'evil nations' out there just waiting to rob the US of everything they have or some such thing.
There weren't a lot of 'evil nations' out there in the 20s either. Times can change and I see no reason we should leave ourselves vulnerable or needing to play catch up if one emerges.
Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
I wouldn't know the answer to that. The only person I've ever known who almost got raped ended the attempted attack with three shots from her .38 special. Don't tell any of the liberals though, they'd probably get upset that she didn't try to reason with him and/or call the police. She could have gotten hurt, don't you know?
I don't know what prices are like now days, but IIRC, .45 used to set me back around a dime a round.
Locally it seems to run around 40 cents a round. I've seen online deals that can bring that down to 35 or less if you buy in bulk. I haven't had the funds to buy in bulk lately though.
I would recommend starting with a single-stage reloading press at first. Too much going on with a progressive press- easy to make mistakes with when first starting out. Don't take shortcuts, pay attention to detail, set up a procedure/protocol and stick to it.
My relative made the same recommendation. He also said that you learn more about the process doing it with a single-stage press and can always upgrade later once you understand the concepts better.
It's been my observation (as a recovering liberal) that liberals don't really care as much about the Constitution as they profess to. They can invent a "right to privacy" that isn't listed anywhere when it supports their agenda while denying the plain text of the 2nd or even 1st amendments when it suits their agenda.
Time just ran an interesting story about how the Dems want to regulate direct to consumer drug advertising. Mind you, I tend to think the pharmaceutical industry has gone overboard with advertising (why do drugs need to be advertised? Shouldn't they sell themselves?) but I also tend to think that they have the right to advertise their product if they want. The money quote from that article is:
Waxman takes a harder stance. "I think the First Amendment is not an absolute guarantee to say whatever [we want] under any circumstances," he says. "We often prevent free speech when it can do harm - such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater ... I think there's a balancing. A very limited restriction on the First Amendment right to advertise drugs, if there is such a right, is reasonable for the public safety."
Unbelievable. He's comparing advertising to shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. The former serves a legitimate purpose -- the latter has none. And how is public safety enhanced by regulating advertising? Because the sheep are so stupid that they'll try and get drugs they don't need if they see a fancy TV commercial? Why is that something the government needs to be involved in?
Freedom means nothing to liberals if they think that freedom places us in the smallest amount of danger. We need the government to protect us from all sources of harm because we aren't grown up enough to do it for ourselves. If that means trampling on the Bill of Rights then so be it -- the founding fathers never could have anticipated repeating firearms or big pharmaceutical companies!
Yeah. Expect gun violence rates to jump since the DC Handgun turnover.
Practically every published statistic that I've ever read disputes this. If gun accessibility caused gun violence then why isn't Vermont a war zone? In that state any adult without a criminal record can purchase a handgun and carry it openly or concealed without needing a permit. Funny how they have almost no gun violence while NYC and DC are infested with it.
Maybe the big city mayors should look at the underlying causes of crime instead of attacking firearms?
BTW, M1911 was/is my personal favorite. Good choice, and enjoy!
Yeah, I need to get into reloading though. .45 ACP costs too damn much when you buy it factory. I have a family member who does reloading and is going to teach me the ropes once I accumulate enough brass.
The War on Drugs is the term that the US Government uses to describe it's drug prohibition policy. The reason I mentioned it was to point out the utter failure of said policy to prevent people from using illegal drugs. When there's a demand for some product there will be somebody willing to supply it.
For the same reason I'm opposed to gun control because all it does is make it harder for those who obey the law to obtain guns. Those who would break the law can still obtain them -- and now they know the rest of us are unarmed and easy pray.
At least they weren't legislating your freedoms away.
Don't worry, that's on the legislative agenda for next week ;)
Why does something have to be outlawed for no-one to have it? Yes, I am a utopian in that sense, but why does anyone need guns?
Because not everyone is as utopian as you are?
A country doesn't wage wars to protect it's citizenry. That's done by defending it's borders.
How do you think those borders are defended?
It might have been context driven, but I read it as (apart from providing infrastructure) the role of the government was to go attack other countries.
You read it wrong.
Given the US foreign policy of late, I might be excused for misreading it :)
How do you know the original poster was even an American?
There's also that one Congresslady (whose name I forget at the moment)
Carolyn McCarthy. She's a fucking nutjob and as a New Yorker (though not from Long Island or NYC) I feel the need to apologize to the rest of the country for her. Gun control is her sole issue and she is making rumblings about running against our new senator in the primary solely because she happens to be pro-gun rights.
who referred to "the shoulder thing that goes up". I assume she means the stock that every rifle and shotgun has?
If you want a good laugh check out this video :) I love when people who know nothing about firearms try and regulate them.
I'd also suggest that the violent types (rapists, child molesters, etc.) get life without parole, and actually mean it
You could make room for them by letting all of the people who are locked up for drug possession go, IMHO. I love seeing my tax dollars keep someone behind bars whose only crime was wanting to poison himself while kiddie rapists walk the streets....
so unthinkable that the scenario had never even occurred to most people
Yeah, except Tom Clancy readers ;)
Surely it's much better for no-one to have guns?
Surely you realize that from a practical point of view this is impossible. The Government outlawing something has never once made it impossible to obtain said item. If you accept this basic fact then you should be able to see the folly of having armed criminals and unarmed citizens. If you don't accept that basic fact then take a look at the war on drugs and tell me I'm wrong.
And seriously, why do you want your government waging wars?
I think his point was that the only two jobs for government are protecting the citizenry from outside harm (generally done by waging war) and paving roads.
The pragmatic question is: does the risk of more frequent, small-scale violence outweigh the risk of occasional, large-scale violence?
Actually a pragmatic question would be: Has gun control done anything to actually reduce crime?
Well, according to the British home office (not exactly an organization that I would describe as having a pro-gun agenda), 6% of robbery victims who used a gun in self-defense wound up injured somehow. Contrast that with 25% whom did nothing to resist and 40% who resisted with a knife.
In any case, even if I bought your argument that's still not a justification to infringe on a constitutionally protected right. And if you think the victim is more likely to wind up wounded/dead if they resist with a firearm then why don't you go rob some people at the next gun show in your area? What could possibly go wrong?
Wow, they really aren't cheap are they? That sounds like it'd be an absolute blast though. Maybe some day :) At least I've already got the right pistol.
And then you fire that person after he's been with you for a year or two and gotten a few COLAs that make him too expensive to keep on the books ;)