Banned in Minnesota -- huh?

[plblark]

Hey Strad, Justa has hacked your account

[EJSG19]

I owned a Jennings .22 for a while, and it ran like a champ.

FWIW, IANAL, YMMV, IIRC, LOL, FTW.

So you'd buy another random Jennings, and have high hopes for it running 100%? or would you prefer something a little higher quality? I have an uncle who isn't a gun nut, but owns them, including a little jennings .22 that has been to the gunsmith 3 times (why anyone spends money on a jennings with a gunsmith I don't know) and still can't fire 2-3 rounds without jamming. I've only been around 3 others, but they were all the same. 4 out of 4 is enough for me to make an opinion I guess. Though I don't doubt there are a few that actually work. Make enough of something, and 5-10% are bound to actually work!

not saying, just saying. buy a glock, no buy a 1911, I'm trying to keep up, and I don't want this to make us look bad. Where are my 62 DESS sweatpants?

[Stradawhovious]

I owned a Jennings .22 for a while, and it ran like a champ.

FWIW, IANAL, YMMV, IIRC, LOL, FTW.

So you'd buy another random Jennings, and have high hopes for it running 100%? or would you prefer something a little higher quality?

No. What I'm saying, justajr........ and try to keep up here......, is that you can't poo poo an entire brand or style of firearms as 100% unreliable because the one you had, and a few others you heard about are ****. that would put you on the same level as justa1911hater, and I know you don't want that. Would I choose a jennings over my Kimber? Hell no. But if i was a concerned citizen, and only had $80 to buy a pistol to defend myself and my family, would I appreciate the ability to legally do so? You'd better believe it. I think they are ****, but I also think that they can work.

FWIW, YMMV, IANAL.

[EJSG19]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the basic premise is flawed.

Nobody "only has $80 to spend" on anything. In todays world a person can use credit, or saving a little at a time to buy anything within reason. No offense to anyone, but nobody who is able bodied and of a sound mind is limited to earning minimum wage. Go to school, get a better job, work harder, do something... Improve your position and get something better. (thats harsh I know. Left wingers please don't send me hate mail. I know Obama is taking care of you and yours! )

Knowing what I know, and seeing what I've seen... If tomorrow I only had $80 to spend on my first gun, I'd wait another month to buy something that at least had a better reputation.

In the market of used firearms, a person can get something much more reputable than a Jennings, for maybe $200-300, and likely a lot less.

But, that goes into the planning ahead, budgeting, and everything else category. I'm not the authority on following a budget, because I barely do.

So use and carry a Jennings if you have to, but in my view, it'd be temporary at best. (just like your situation StraddY! You ditched the Jennings too! There, I win. I'm claiming victory. I am now plugging my ears, taking my ball, and going home.)

[EJSG19]

No. What I'm saying, justajr...

Oh, and "Ouch." That was uncalled for.

[Stradawhovious]

(retort in the style of OZ)

Nobody "only has $80 to spend" on anything. In todays world a person can use credit, or saving a little at a time to buy anything within reason. No offense to anyone, but nobody who is able bodied and of a sound mind is limited to earning minimum wage.

Nice rose colored glasses.... where can I get a pair? Fact is, bad things happen to good people. The people of this country that are on restricted budgets aren't just charity cases and the lazy. people get laid off, people's jobs get eliminated and moved..... It happens all the time, through no fault of their own.

Knowing what I know, and seeing what I've seen... If tomorrow I only had $80 to spend on my first gun, I'd wait another month to buy something that at least had a better reputation.

So because this would be your course of action, everyone else should be forced to follow suit? How very Lib-ocrat of you.

In the market of used firearms, a person can get something much more reputable than a Jennings, for maybe $200-300, and likely a lot less.

Provided you have the money to spend..... yes.

ISo use and carry a Jennings if you have to, but in my view, it'd be temporary at best.

Yes! Finally something we agree on!

(just like your situation StraddY! You ditched the Jennings too! There, I win. I'm claiming victory. I am now plugging my ears, taking my ball, and going home.)

Yup, but I did what I had to do to protect myself, and a Jennings was all I could afford at the time.

I win.

Game over.

I will be over at your house at 8pm to collect my winnings.

[EJSG19]

If my glasses are rose colored, yours must be **** brown.

Different viewpoint. Thats ok. I've had 3 jobs in 3 years, and not by choice. I chose to do what I could to improve my position. I know what its like to scrap a little. **** does happen, lots of people give up when it happens too. (i won't go into the motivational speech.)

My views are mine, yours are yours. Anyone else needing to make up their own mind can make up their own mind.

So, no Oz, everybody doesn't have to do what I do. Whether I think they should or not.

k lunch time, clean the cannon, reload, and i'll be back...

[Holland&Holland]

So what is the minimum cost of a firearm tht makes it acceptable? over $100? Over $500? over $1000? If someone wants to purchase something more econimicaly minded and realizes that it is not a custom english double why should they not be able to? Is this to say that my simple but reliable single shot 12 ga should not be allowed to be sold?

[Stradawhovious]

If my glasses are rose colored, yours must be **** brown.

Close, they are black.

My opinion on this is that it isn't about quality it's about nonsense laws. The SNS laws are nothing more than gungrabbers restricting what can and cannot be purchased by the public. This one just happens to restrict sales based on price, eliminating the low priced market. It's pure bullsh!t. And by the way, if I have the opportunity to purchase another Jennings .22, I'd be all over it.

[Holland&Holland]

Exactly, we all make purchases for different reasons. Sometimes we buy them for pure entertainment value, sometimes we buy them to potentialy save our lives. There are some who would say if the later is the case and you purchased a Glock for this then you are no better off than having purchased the jennings. The fact of the matter is that there are no mechanicaly built devises that are gaurenteed not to fail. Every make/model has had its failures and often it is user error that is the true culprit.

[justaguy]

This is the thread of the year.

Stard next time try ending the post with "more later..." to give it a little more authenticity.

[Stradawhovious]

This is the thread of the year.

Stard next time try ending the post with "more later..." to give it a little more authenticity.

Sorry. I didn't realize just how serious this **** was. I'll try to keep up.

More later.........

[EJSG19]

If my glasses are rose colored, yours must be **** brown.

Close, they are black.

007.JPG

This one just happens to restrict sales based on price, eliminating the low priced market.

As far as I can tell from the statute, price has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Materials used to make the gun seem to make the difference in whether its considered a SNS or not.

A gun can cost $1 far as I'm concerned. But it had better work. Also, I think nothing less than 95% of total production, should prove to be 99% functional. Meaning maybe 1 out of 100 rounds fails to operate properly. Thats the standard I hold my guns to anyway, with factory ammo.

Its not about being a price snob (H&H), its plain reality that guns costing less than say, $100-200 NIB, tend not to be the most reputable, or consistently be the most reliable guns on the market. So why aren't those manufacturers held to higher standards? We're all aware of it, so why the argument?

[Holland&Holland]

If my glasses are rose colored, yours must be **** brown.

Close, they are black.

007.JPG

This one just happens to restrict sales based on price, eliminating the low priced market.

As far as I can tell from the statute, price has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Materials used to make the gun seem to make the difference in whether its considered a SNS or not.

A gun can cost $1 far as I'm concerned. But it had better work. Also, I think nothing less than 95% of total production, should prove to be 99% functional. Meaning maybe 1 out of 100 rounds fails to operate properly. Thats the standard I hold my guns to anyway, with factory ammo.

Its not about being a price snob (H&H), its plain reality that guns costing less than say, $100-200 NIB, tend not to be the most reputable, or consistently be the most reliable guns on the market. So why aren't those manufacturers held to higher standards? We're all aware of it, so why the argument?

Because the way I see it, if one wants to purchase such an item, why should they not be able to? Lets say I wanted a cheap .25 APC but did not want to spend a couple hundred. Just wanted something cheap to shoot a few rounds through. Why should I not be able to?

[Stradawhovious]

As far as I can tell from the statute, price has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Materials used to make the gun seem to make the difference in whether its considered a SNS or not.

A gun can cost $1 far as I'm concerned. But it had better work. Also, I think nothing less than 95% of total production, should prove to be 99% functional. Meaning maybe 1 out of 100 rounds fails to operate properly. Thats the standard I hold my guns to anyway, with factory ammo.

Its not about being a price snob (H&H), its plain reality that guns costing less than say, $100-200 NIB, tend not to be the most reputable, or consistently be the most reliable guns on the market. So why aren't those manufacturers held to higher standards? We're all aware of it, so why the argument?

So what you are saying is that you are against a free-market society......... That the market is not capable of making rational decisions regarding price and quality. Do I have that about right? Also, Lower quality drives a lower price, so price has everything to do with it. Have we really come to a point where we have to pass restrictions on every single product being made based on quality? Where is the line here, and who determines what the quality is? No cars that get less than 20 MPG can be produced anymore, because someone deems them to be sub-standard. Firearms manufacturers can no longer produce low quality firearms because someone deems them to be sub standard. I have news for you jack, everyone considers something to be substandard, and if we have to impose limitations based on these opinions, we will not be able to produce anything. Ever. I say let the market drive itself. If the products are truly horrible, people will not buy them.