Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
You could have thought of that.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                       

Gun-of-the-Month Club

A gun a month--just what I wanted!
  (+31, -22)(+31, -22)
(+31, -22)
  [vote for,
against]

Since leftists have begun passing "One Gun A Month" laws in many states (for example, California, where I have the misfortune to reside), let's tweak their noses and start a "Gun of the Month" Club.

All on the up-and-up, transfers through FFL holders, paperwork filled out and filed, waiting periods abided by, Brady Law, background check, etc.

But twelve guns a year, like clockwork. "Well you SAID one gun a month!"...

Alas, only the rich could really afford it, so the audience would be limited.

boris, Dec 31 2000

(?) FreeRepublic, "A Conservative News Forum" http://www.freerepu...m/a3a4f62341ed7.htm
Oh good, it's fish ties all over again. "Well, I've posted the idea on Halfbakery, and I am shamelessly soliciting "pro" votes." (Except that this is actually an interesting idea, if of course you buy into the premise.) [jutta, Dec 31 2000]

U.S. Bill of Rights http://www.nara.gov...hts/billrights.html
Being necessary to the security of a free State . . . [wasraw, Dec 31 2000]

[link]






       If I get my FFL, can I steal your idea? :)
Critter_fr, Dec 31 2000
  

       Truly wealthy families could sign up everybody from Mother and Dad to little Junior and Sister Dot. What a powerful impression they would make on nervous neighbors when their mail arrived and they took it into the back yard to test it.
Oberon, Dec 31 2000
  

       Gun of the Month -- what a great way to spend all your money... After the first year, you automatically enter a sweepstakes for a free shed -- or an addition to your home -- so you have someplace to put all that crap.   

       I feel compelled to chime in with DafyddRees...   

       I lived in Los Angeles for 12 years (mid-80s through '90s)... I survived the floods, the riots, the earthquakes -- and amazingly I was never once even remotely in a situation where I would have needed a gun.   

       The whole concept of being able to take up arms (ostensibly against governmental forces) is absurd -- there is no way the populace can match the military's force.   

       As for personal safety, one is significantly more likely to use a gun on a friend or loved one, than on an intruder into one's home.   

       The most laughable excuse I've heard "for" arming the general population goes something like: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them." What balderdash! The guns the outlaws possess are usually stolen from the law-abiding citizens in the first place...   

       ...so if you DO win the free shed, lock it up good, cuz you're just begging to be burgled -- and possibly shot in the process!
danrue, Jan 02 2001
  

       How many of you (Americans) who are gun owners are also members of the National Guard?   

       Sorry, but unless you're a member of the "militia" and ensuring the security of a free state, go turn your guns in! You should try to do a good exegesis of the second amendment some time to try and *REALLY* justify American gun ownership. Doesn’t look good from my point of view . . .   

       (Yes, I *do* have a .306 and a couple of other hunting rifles my LOCKED gun safe. I'll be turning them in, uh, tomorrow?)
wasraw, Jan 03 2001
  

       danrue: I suppose you'll be getting rid of your fire extinguishers? After all, you probably haven't used them in over a decade. And while you're at it, remove the seatbelts and airbombs from your car(s), since you probably haven't used those either.   

       wasraw: When the LA riots broke out, tell me which type of militia was most effective at keeping order:   

       -1- The police, who fled the scene   

       -2- The National Guard, who took hours to arrive   

       -3- Individual shopkeepers who guarded their stores from the rooftops (many of them using nasty-looking rifles like SKS's and MAK-90's).   

       While armed shopkeepers obviously only were able to keep order in the places they actually were, this was no less true of the police or National Guard. The difference was that the shopkeepers were actually present to protect their stores from looters when the others were nowhere to be found.   

       BTW, for some strange reason spray-painting "LOOTERS WILL BE SHOT" on the front of a building seems to cause looters to go elsewhere, resulting in none of them actually getting shot.
supercat, Jan 04 2001
  

       This is a wonderful idea..I'm sure that it will be "merchandised" shortly!
Registered, Jan 04 2001
  

       Hey Danrue   

       "The whole concept of being able to take up arms (ostensibly against governmental forces) is absurd -- there is no way the populace can match the military's force."???   

       Tell that to the Viet Cong or the Afghans!   

       "As for personal safety, one is significantly more likely to use a gun on a friend or loved one, than on an intruder into one's home."   

       If you are so unstable that you believe that having a gun in your home would lead you to kill your loved ones, please seek professional help - And I'd appreciate it if you didn't drive or operate any heavy machinery either. But don't project your instability on the rest of us.   

       And my wife was able to dissuade a home invader at the door with my .45 - The police arrived 45 minutes later, and were she not armed and trained, would have likely found her raped or dead.   

       And no, I'm not in the National Guard, though I am a veteran. But U.S. law is very clear: All male citizens between 18 and 45 are in the militia.
LoudWisconsin, Jan 04 2001
  

       I'm not aware of that law, LW. Can I get a reference?
centauri, Jan 05 2001
  

       Knock yourself out. Have all the guns you like. It's the bullets that do the damage though!
DrBob, Jan 06 2001
  

       LoudWisconsin: Neither the Viet Cong nor the Mujahedin (nor any other popular insurgency) would have amounted to a hill of beans without an outside power giving them arms. The Mujahedin did not shoot down Hind helicopters with Stinger missiles they happened to have lying around just in case, they used Stinger missiles we gave them and trained them to use. Similarly, our Minutemen may have given ol' George III the heave-ho, but they got a lot of help from France. Washington's force at Yorktown was half French, and the French gave us over three-quarters of our gunpowder.   

       Should George II send the army against the citizens of the United States, no way in hell are we going to be able to fight back without foreign backing- and who's crazy enough to pick a fight with a United States that's willing to use the world's most powerful army against its *own* citizens?
Uncle Nutsy, Jan 06 2001
  

       Hallo, LoudWisconsin -- of course I must respond...   

       "If you are so unstable... " perhaps I am... I have been in violent relationships before. A long-ago ex- once tried to strangle me... it was quite terrible, though I've not been in that sort of relationship since (and that was years ago).   

       All said, your wife and her .45 -- have you considered writing a book, because she's a modern-day superhero (superherione?). That is not a common scenario. You didn't mention whether she shot any robbers. Did she?   

       ... do answer carefully, because I am a member of that scarcely-known outfit that placed Clinton in office, as the designated successesor to Bush Sr. and of course, predecessor to Bushcrack-Jr.   

       BUT BACK TO THE TOPIC: Gun-o-the-Month-Club... if I joined, I don't think I'd buy any wuss-ass sumple .45, it'd be somethin' that coul' kick som... y'know? I'm talkin' AK, BK, FU muthafuthawhatever shite, OK? And asamatterofact, I mustdef don't need no 12 of th' muthafuc's, reit?   

       :_)
danrue, Jan 06 2001
  

       Sheesh, mention guns and look what comes out of the woodwork.
Alcin, Jan 07 2001
  

       danrue: The guy's wife's actions are not at all unusual. They don't make the nightly news because, among other things, they'd make pretty dull coverage. After all, which is more apt to keep viewers' attention:   

       - [scene: outside an apartment building; police and ambulance lights flashing in background] "Here in the Woodville apartments, a woman was brutally raped and slaughtered by a man who forced his was into her apartment..." or   

       - [scene: outside an apartment building; no activity evident] "Here in the Pineglenn apartments, a woman avoided being raped since he was fortunate enough to be armed. Nobody was injured, as the criminal fled on foot."   

       While there are only about 2,000 criminals shot by civilians in self-defense each year in the U.S., most self-defense situations don't require actually shooting the crook. As in the case of this guy's wife, crooks who notice the muzzle of a gun pointed in their direction tend to realize they have urgent business elsewhere.
supercat, Jan 10 2001
  

       centauri: 10 USC 311. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html   

       LoudWisconsin is slightly wrong: the minimum age is 17.
reece, Jan 11 2001
  

       THE gun of the month. It should be in the Guinesss Book of Records too. So - "Killing the most people in the shortest posssible time" - goes to Australia, where we have a one-off solittary-acting mass-murderer, with a single-shot per person, killing 30 tourists (I think) in Tasmania, Australia, in a few hours.   

       Or perhaps the Indonesian army's mass slaughter of the Timor civilians - might be better. But in that case, I don't think they were crack-shots, and they also had knives & rape, so it wasn't really 'Gun of the month'.   

       I really only know Australia, so perhaps we can also find "Gun of the Year", "Gun of the Decade", "Gun of the Century" and Gun of the Millenium".   

       When we say "Gun", it could be the individual hardware gun, or it could be the individual person, or it could be both, together.   

       But who would be the judge - the United Nations?
gz, Apr 28 2001
  

       [+]
evilpenguin, Oct 20 2007
  

       To optimize profit, and thereby incentive for the organization, we'd all have to buy the same gun.   

       So you, I, (not you, you don't want one) and your neighbor, would all be comparing our WW1 surplus long guns one month, then next month it would be some exotic caliber pistol that none of us can get ammo for.   

       Speaking of which, if you ever shoot me with a .25 .... and I find out about it ....
normzone, Oct 04 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle