I once read an article in the Readers Digest about a gentleman in England who, one day, was visiting a gun show. Low and behold he recognized his old Lee-Enfield MK4. This was the weapon he defended England and fought NAZI Germany with. He immediately purchased the weapon and properly registered it with the local officials. Some years later, as the gentleman grew older, the local police chief decided that this gallant former soldier was no longer capable of owning the weapon he used during WWII. The point here is that the local copper had absolutely no evidence to backup his decision but the old soldier had to either turn in his weapon or have the local smitty weld the barrel closed so that it could no longer be used. This is what we in the States refused to permit. If the old gentleman could be trusted with the safety of your country why should he no longer be trusted with the weapon he used in it's defence.
I picked up the CZ yesterday and there is no way that I am competent to replicate the grip checkering. I thought that it would have been much simpler but it is not.
It is a beautiful and delicately proprtioned piece and I'm confident that the boy will be able to handle it well.
Had I owned a similar rifle at his age I would have never let it leave my sight.
To Aardvark: I am sorry to disagree with you and I believe this to be a cultural divide. Where and when I grew up it was a rite of passage for a twelve year old boy to get a .22 rifle for his twelfth birthday, or the Christmas preceding. My son will be twelve in February.
We here in the United States of America consider the entire populace to be the "...well regulated militia..." that is described in our Constitution. As such, it is not merely our right but our duty to transmit the knowledge and wisdom that goes along with gun ownership to our progeny.
You folks had a similar right secured as far back as 1689 but you seem to have lost your way.
We have a wonderful organization called the National Rifle Association that helps us to train our young people in the safe and effective use of firearms. They also lobby, very effectively, to keep our right to bear arms as it was intended by the Founders of our country.
I am happy to be a member and I am happy to say that my son is now also a member.
Took a look at their website after seeing this thread. Looks like they make some very nice pieces.
Check (so to speak) your area for a good gunsmith; they may be able to point you to someone who can do what you want with the results that such a firearm deserves.
Well, times have changed some, just heard that my 12 year old niece asked for, and got, a 22 for her birthday several weeks ago. Probably driven somewhat by being with our son while shooting 22's this summer at the annual family get-together on Grand-dad's farm.
OK, where is the real Tom Watson and what have you done with him? I actually agree with what you have written.
Darned shame really.
A surprise -- quite a happy surprise, but one none the less.
And so, Grasshopper, you begin to see that there is more complexity to our engagement than the mere hurling of insults such as, "Liberal", or, "Democrat"?
I joined the NRA in 1960. I have occasionaly sent them checks in excess of my membership dues.
Yes - I voted for Obama. I also voted for Nixon and Regan.
I have taught my two lads (10 and 14) marksmanship and weapon safety with a .22 air rifle which is always kept under lock and key. If I'm not there, the rifle stays locked away and I'll only let them use it under my supervision. I certainly wouldn't dream of allowing either of them to have a REAL firearm even if it were less difficult to acquire one easily.
As a lad I was fortunate enough to have always had firearms around and learned to respect them and fear their potential. I'm from Northern Ireland originally and my father was in a profession which gave him access to a variety of smallarms, including fully automatic weapons. The first handguns I ever fired on the local police range at the age of 13 were a Colt .45 Peacemaker and a WWII Luger 9mm Parabellum. I was pretty pleased that I was able to hit a 'Figure 11' target at 25 metres with every shot I fired from both weapons- one of the other lads who was on the range only managed to hit the target once LOL.
I think that many Americans misinterpret your Second Amendment to mean something it wasn't intended to mean. Perhaps members of official 'militias' are allowed to keep and bear arms, but it's a bit of a stretch to insist that this right should extend to every member of the population.
We're a bit more civilised now than we were in the days of King James.
Hmmmm.
Who took over when Chuck 'From my cold dead hand' Heston died?
I would say 'vociferously misinterpret the Second Amendment', but who says my opinion should amount to more than a pile of sheep shit?
It's difficult to think of any legitimate reason for anyone to keep a firearm in their home. You may say that it's to protect your home against intruders. I would say that if you were to shoot an intruder the fact that you had a firearm in your home at all implies premeditation on your part and therefore you should be prosecuted by the law in much the same way as if you had walked into the street with a firearm and shot the first person you came across.
NASCAR fans too?
Much as I've enjoyed this little debate, I know that this is the wrong place for this kind of discussion and so I'll leave it here. Thanks to all who openly disagreed with me and those who said nothing but tacitly agreed with me.
To Tom Watson- I do hope that you come to a satisfactory solution to your checkering conundrum. I have a set of good carving chisels but I certainly wouldn't take lightly the proposition of using them for the task you describe. Hope it works out for you.
I think it is you doing the "misinterpreting". George Mason was one of our founding fathers and played a large part in writing our "Bill of Rights", our first ten amendments to our Constitution. In fact, he is known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights".
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
Least we forget the US Supreme Court's ruling in Heller v District of Columbia, decided June 26, 2008, which upheld the "standard interpretation" of the Second Amendment as held by myriad Constitutional Scholars for many years. In part:
Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (a) The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
formatting link
there is a difference between the Citizens and Subjects involved in this discussion. ;~)
John ...whom in a former life worked as an 18th century gunsmith, and in another was involved in the gun regulation academic debate circles. ;~)
That is no misinterpretation of the Constitution as Amended. If you read the body of the Constitution you will find the OFFICIAL Militias defined, their duties defined and the capability of the Federal Government to nationalize them. There is also a prohibition of lodging Federal troops in private housing. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution means that the ordinary citizens of the United States are ABSOLUTELY permitted possession of fire arms. No government entity may prohibit that right.
Umm, nope. The founders were pretty clear. They wrote WE THE PEOPLE into the preamble, and the second amendment very clearly states "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", not the "right of official militias" to keep and bear arms. 'twould be a bit ridiculous to enshrine the right of militias to be armed, wouldn't you think? Do you really think the government would need to guarantee the right of the government to keep and bear arms? No matter what permutations you place on that, it just doesn't pass the reasonableness test that the ability of militias to be armed would have to be specifically enumerated and not when the rest of the bill of rights are affirmation of individual rights.
You stated in a previous post that you view GB as being more mature.
There's a big difference between maturity and senility.
Indeed. The misinterpretation is on the part of those who believe that the government somehow had to guarantee the right of government entities to be armed. The prolific writings of the founders leave no doubt as to the intent of the second amendment. Even the intellectually honest anti-gun people will say that and recognize that an amendment to repeal the right would be the only correct means of changing that element of our bill of rights.
Well, you certainly fit the model that your overlords want you to fit. So, let's make this personal, if some thug breaks into *your* house, what are you going to do? If, fearing for your life, you hit him with a baseball bat, golf club, or lamp, would that fall under your idea of pre-meditating harm to your assailant? I'm sure your argument will be that those items are not weapons. So, let's say you use something more effective like a knife, then does pre-meditation on your part then fall into the equation? Especially since your reading this comment will make you think about the possibility of such and event, you will thus have thought through possible articles in your home with which you could defend yourself.
Your previous paragraph has this whole aura of unbelievability about it. Surely nobody can value the lives of themselves or their family so little that they would rather be the victim of an intruder rather than defend themselves. If they would defend themselves, then why not be able to do so with the most effective tool available to them.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:58:58 GMT, Aardvark cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:
Well, everyone is has an opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours. Beyond that, you've contributed in this group in other threads that I believe have established in a certain way. That said - with respect to your opinions on guns, your opinions on the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment, and your views in this thread in general, let me only say that you succeeded in arousing more than one moment for me, where I felt like responding in a less civil manner. Probably all the better you decided to bail out of this thread at this point. At least it saves me giving way to those expressions, and then saying "damn - I sure wish I hadn't said that, that way...".
Tom Watson wrote:(snip) We have a wonderful organization called the National Rifle Association that helps us to train our young people in the safe and effective use of firearms.#They also lobby, very effectively, to keep our right to bear arms as it was intended by the Founders of our country. I am happy to be a member and I am happy to say that my son is now also a member.
~~~~~ Amen brother, and please up-date us on how it shoots but also the look on his face when he first lays eyes on it. Now that's priceless...
You shouldn't go near a gunstock until you've run out of every chairleg in the house. It's not rocket surgery, but nor is it tubafour work. You need practice before even touching the real piece.
It's not done with carving chisels, unless you're the secret heir of Grinling Gibbons. Go to Brownells (et al) and buy a set of checkering tools instead - they're more like tiny files than tiny chisels. Even if you are an expert carver and will finish with chisels, you start out with these to get your spacings right.
Other minor points:
Checkering needs good timber. You can make gunsticks in a factory out of jummywood that just won't checker by hand. So make sure it's up to the job first.
Practice checkering needs good timber. Only really nice carving timber will cooperate to help you learn this: walnut, lime (linden), some maples, European beech. Don't expect to learn anything by poking a good tool at a bit of firewood, or even a furniture-grade piece of oak or ash.
You're getting through a bunch of timber in practice. So start with something big, thick and flat, and put it through the jointer after each few attempts.
After you can do flat, try curves - but not before. Use paper patterns and a pencil to practice your layout too. If you fancy a fun exercise, turn a hyperbolic surface (like a power station cooling tower - make a vase) and checker that. Then see how straight you kept those lines! (kudos to those who know why this is relevant).
The cheap checkering tools are fine, but they're multi-cutter on an exchangeable handle. You can forget that! Handles are cheap, get enough to go round.
Otherwise go to it and enjoy yourself. But not on the first cut.
Reds shot inch and a half groups with it at fifty feet, with a few fliers.
I shot five rounds on the center bull and a dime would easily cover it, so it shoots sweet.
We are shooting at a pistol range, rather than from a bench, so I have to kneel to shoot and Reds has to spread is legs way too wide to have a comfortable position.
That being said, the shooting is fun.
I want to get this little thing into a vise and see what MOA is about.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.