Garand historical guardianship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13Fox

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?

---

Line up every Chinaman in China, line them up shoulder to shoulder and do this;
Take a brand new M1 Garand in collector condition
Have each Chinaman hand it to the person to their right
After the 2 billion hand offs have been completed you will NOT have a new gun.

Those 2 billion hands will have destroyed steel, have destroyed wood. The mere act of handling will have taken that collector grade and turned it into a heap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timshufflin

Those 2 billion hands will have destroyed steel, have destroyed wood. The mere act of handling will have taken that collector grade and turned it into a heap.

---

Yes, you are correct and further illustrated my point.

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13Fox

Yes, you are correct and further illustrated my point.

---

Sir, I only know one way to argue, science. The mere physical handling of any artifact will destroy it, the defense rests.

Tim,

I think we essentially agree on everything except your world of black and white and my embrace of the grey.

While the arguement between science and religion has been with us for 600 years, science is in many ways like religion. Don't allow the facts to debunk the "real world." In other words, see the forest, not just the trees.

Be well,
John

Yes John, I am a very black and white kind of guy. Just remember something, you can count on that sort of person :)

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WENT TO POST A REPLY TO 13fOX'S POST, & THE COMPUTER TOOK HIS MESSAGE AWAY AND GAVE IT TO ME! MODERATOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE POST FROM MY NAME & GIVE IT BACK TO 13fOX!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Garand Guy

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WENT TO POST A REPLY TO 13fOX'S POST, & THE COMPUTER TOOK HIS MESSAGE AWAY AND GAVE IT TO ME! MODERATOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE POST FROM MY NAME & GIVE IT BACK TO 13fOX!

---

You are a moderator LOL! That's how you were able to make the change to this post. What I don't know is HOW you did it. You have a gift Tony LOLOLOL

The thing I find funniest is those trying to defend doing as they please with the rifle only to no allow others what they feel is ok. Now that there is some funny sh&t.

Reminds me of those against guns but think drugs are fine cause they say so. Key is most things are fine in moderation but to go full tilt usually ends up badly. Rick B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Garand Guy

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?

---

Very much this.