![]() |
my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9
Thanks: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Ron's response was excellent and hit all the key points to consider. As a collector, I have a set of firearms I display, study and keep safe, not only for me, but hopefully for generations to come. Then, I have my set of firearms I shoot, most are 20th-century military arms that have had some arsenal rework done, are mismatched and are safe to shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Irmo, SC
Posts: 625
Thanks: 35
Thanked 168 Times in 107 Posts
|
I dunno...I can see both sides, but to me a firearm is a machine, a tool....to not use it at all is to deny its identity, its purpose for being. I wouldn't own a functional firearm I didn't personally shoot at least ONCE, otherwise it's just a lump of metal.
Conversely, I agree that irreplaceable pieces of history shouldn't be abused or fundamentally altered (if i had a 1902 Carbine, I might put a dozen rounds a year or so through it, but I wouldn't nickle-plate it!). While we are still a ostensibly free country, you can't make other folks decisions for them though...it makes me ill that guys take P-51 Mustangs and Hawker Sea Furies and chop the wings shorter, soup up the engines and race them at Reno....but hey, they own 'em. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|