Obama on guns, his own words!

[PPGMD]

From Field and Stream, Oct 2008.

LICATA(reporter): You mentioned common-sense gun legislation. Would you consider the assault weapons ban and registration of guns to fall into that category of common-sense gun control?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think those are two separate issues. I think that when it comes to the assault weapons ban, the answer is yes. I think AK-47s generally are not used for hunting. AK-47s or vest-piercing bullets are generally used to hurt people. And I think that it's legitimate for us to say military-style weapons that aren't traditionally used for purposes other than killing people, we've got to be careful about.

Vest piercing bullets, every bullet can be a vest piercing bullet, every vest is rated to a certain level, there are vests that can stop just about every caliber, and their are vests that barely stop anything.

AWBs are pretty much non-sense, but I am sure that everyone else knows that. Few crimes are committed with weapons that fall under the last ban, there are more murders from bare fists, or using blunt objects then with all rifles (the FBI does separate out weapons that would be covered by an AWB).

[Rich]

No different view than just about any liberal. "If it has a potential to be harmful, it might as well be banned."

[PPGMD]

I know, but his supporters here claim other wise.

[YuppyKiller]

^ Except for Biden. He said Obama better "watch out for his baretta" when talking about banning guns.

[adric]

Notice he did not answer the question about registration?

[YuppyKiller]

Notice he did not answer the question about registration?

Because he doesn't want anybody to have guns. The government can control our lives and take away our protection....

People like Xynespse (esp?) and moldyhands will feel alright though because the Government will tuck them in to bed at night...

[XYNaPSE]

From Field and Stream, Oct 2008.



Vest piercing bullets, every bullet can be a vest piercing bullet, every vest is rated to a certain level, there are vests that can stop just about every caliber, and their are vests that barely stop anything.

AWBs are pretty much non-sense, but I am sure that everyone else knows that. Few crimes are committed with weapons that fall under the last ban, there are more murders from bare fists, or using blunt objects then with all rifles (the FBI does separate out weapons that would be covered by an AWB).

Mind if I get a link? I'd like to read the whole article. I see nothing wrong here. He's not going to ban guns. You guys are way too paranoid and it's really annoying.

Notice he did not answer the question about registration?

He answered the question in the first sentence. :lol:

[PPGMD]

Not everything is on the internet. That is from the latest issue.

Banning a vast majority of guns for sale, IS banning guns. Rifles covered by the AWB far out sell the guns not covered by a AWB.

[Duceanahalf]

And I think that it's legitimate for us to say military-style weapons that aren't traditionally used for purposes other than killing people, we've got to be careful about.

these are military rifles that were designed to kill people. and im sure that these would be on any kind of list they make up

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Rifle_Springfield_M1903A3.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Garand.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/En-Kar98k_rifle.jpeg
http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/mn1.jpg

[Rich]

Mind if I get a link? I'd like to read the whole article. I see nothing wrong here. He's not going to ban guns. You guys are way too paranoid and it's really annoying.

He answered the question in the first sentence. :lol:

Just like Clinton didn't ban guns?

[XYNaPSE]

Not everything is on the internet. That is from the latest issue.

Banning a vast majority of guns for sale, IS banning guns. Rifles covered by the AWB far out sell the guns not covered by a AWB.

Neither McCain or Obama will ban guns. EVen if they wanted to they would need approval from congress. I think you'd be surprised with McCain's view on the gun issue. Seems it's somewhat the same as Obama's.

Speech from Huckabee on McCain
Senator John McCain is running for President (again). He has been courting various conservative leaders in his quest to secure the Republican nomination. McCain wants voters to believe that he is a conservative… but his record would certainly suggest otherwise.
Take, for instance, his record on gun rights and political speech affecting Second Amendment activists. Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic are words that come to mind.
Then … here is John Lott, writing for NRO, discussing McCain’s attempt to sell Conservatives on his gun rights credentials:
Let’s consider just one of these issues: McCain’s claimed pro-gun record. This was true a decade ago, but since then, on issues such as regulating gun shows, banning less expensive guns and so-called assault weapons, and requiring gunlocks, McCain has supported central portions of the gun-control agenda. Indeed, in a couple cases, McCain authored the proposed legislation himself.McCain’s gun show regulations, instead of simply requiring background checks on sales at gun shows, would make it extremely difficult for gun shows even to function. A special license would be required to operate gun shows. Licenses could be denied without the federal government even having to give a reason, and no time limits would be placed on how long the government had to make its decisions.

While gun-control groups have tried for years to register the names of gun owners, McCain’s legislation helps accomplish this by effectively requiring the registration of all people who attend a gun show. Gun show operators would even face criminal penalties and imprisonment if any unregistered attendees were to trade a gun after the show if the gun were discussed in any way during the show. The only option to operators would thus be to register everyone.

McCain acknowledges that these regulations could be abused, but, according to him, the goals are too important to compromise, and McCain assures us that we should trust the regulators. Yet, it was not so long ago that the Clinton administration constantly halted gun sales nationwide as background checks broke down and kept records long after the law explicitly allowed.

Most troubling are McCain’s extreme measures for what is essentially a non-existent problem. The Bureau of Justice Statistics under Clinton conducted a survey of 18,000 state prison inmates in 1997 — the largest survey of inmates ever conducted. Less than one percent of inmates (0.7 percent) who had a gun obtained it from a gun show. The vast majority of criminals — 40 percent — say they got their guns either from friends or family, and 39 percent got it on the street or from other illegal sources.

Of course, like with many gun-control regulations, this call for more regulations rests on distortions. Despite the “gun show loophole” term used by McCain and others, there are no special exemptions for buying a gun at a gun show. Dealers must perform the same background checks as in a store. What gun-control groups refer to is the non- regulated private transfer of guns. Eighteen states regulate the private transfer of handguns, with some having regulations going back more than several decades. However, not surprisingly, just as with the semi-automatic gun bans, there is not a single academic study showing that these regulations reduce any type of violent crime.

[thereturnofdark]

Why would you guys need assult rifles for anyway? AK-47's seriously?

[XYNaPSE]

Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]."

John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain's pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.

In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.

For example, if John McCain's proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

But there is so much more to the McCain madness.

Former California State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson wrote this about John McCain, "He's [McCain's] proven his dislike for conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.

"Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience with elitist RINO's (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the conservative movement out of existence."

[clear]

This is an issue with Obama that I dont like, I agree with the auto ban but thats it. Anyways he has to get the bills passed to ban guns, that will be hard to do. Even if he does ban the guns your always be able to get them on the streets.

[PPGMD]

Why would you guys need assult rifles for anyway? AK-47's seriously?

The difference between a banned firearm and a non-banned firearm is best illustrated in this movie:
YouTube - The Truth about Firearms

They are attempted to ban a category of weapons that has few crimes associated with it. The FBI tracks what type of weapons are used in murders, rifles (which includes so called assault weapons) has less murders then bare fists, and most other categories of weapons.

[TNathe]

can you tell me WHY we are guaranteed the right to own guns? That should answer your question other than the fact thehy are COOL! Can you tell me what an "AK-47" can do that a rifle from WalMart design to shoot deer cant?\

[jabtay]

The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ‘ 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
http://www.guncontrolkills.com/236/guncontrol/nra-responds-to-obama-false-statements/

this is what obama supports. its pure bullshit...and it is insulting to all gun owners in this great country.

[XYNaPSE]

According to a review by Gun Owners of America (GOA), "in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor".[283] McCain's GOA rating went from a "C-" in 2000 to an "F-" in 2006.[284]

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

[BAMF]

From Field and Stream, Oct 2008.



Vest piercing bullets, every bullet can be a vest piercing bullet, every vest is rated to a certain level, there are vests that can stop just about every caliber, and their are vests that barely stop anything.

AWBs are pretty much non-sense, but I am sure that everyone else knows that. Few crimes are committed with weapons that fall under the last ban, there are more murders from bare fists, or using blunt objects then with all rifles (the FBI does separate out weapons that would be covered by an AWB).

Heres the thing. By 'vest piercing bullets' he actually meant Teflon coated rounds or AP ammo. If memory serves, you can't buy AP ammo and some states already have banned Teflon coated rounds because its sole purpose is to rip through soft body armor. That jigaboo is just too much of a moron to know the specifics.

Also, he is right. AK-47s are generally NOT used for hunting. There are more stable platforms for a 7.62 round which are used for hunting if you must use the 7.62 round for hunting.

Now, I'm with you that I don't want him in office and I don't want him near my guns, but lets call a peach a peach here. He WAS correct in the snippet you posted.

[YuppyKiller]

can you tell me WHY we are guaranteed the right to own guns? That should answer your question other than the fact thehy are COOL! Can you tell me what an "AK-47" can do that a rifle from WalMart design to shoot deer cant?


Semi Auto Deer Killer..... Fully Auto 30 round clip fed Assault rifle....

Yeah I don't see the difference....

[jabtay]

Heres the thing. By 'vest piercing bullets' he actually meant Teflon coated rounds or AP ammo. If memory serves, you can't buy AP ammo and some states already have banned Teflon coated rounds because its sole purpose is to rip through soft body armor. That jigaboo is just too much of a moron to know the specifics.

Also, he is right. AK-47s are generally NOT used for hunting. There are more stable platforms for a 7.62 round which are used for hunting if you must use the 7.62 round for hunting.

Now, I'm with you that I don't want him in office and I don't want him near my guns, but lets call a peach a peach here. He WAS correct in the snippet you posted.
read my post

[PPGMD]

Heres the thing. By 'vest piercing bullets' he actually meant Teflon coated rounds or AP ammo. If memory serves, you can't buy AP ammo and some states already have banned Teflon coated rounds because its sole purpose is to rip through soft body armor. That jigaboo is just too much of a moron to know the specifics.

Also, he is right. AK-47s are generally NOT used for hunting. There are more stable platforms for a 7.62 round which are used for hunting if you must use the 7.62 round for hunting.

Now, I'm with you that I don't want him in office and I don't want him near my guns, but lets call a peach a peach here. He WAS correct in the snippet you posted.

Teflon coated ammo doesn't penetrate vests any more or less then a non-teflon version of the bullet. Teflon coating was used to protect the barrel from bullets made of brass, which were the earliest attempts to make bullets penetrate auto glass and other light barriers better.

He is true that AK-47s aren't used for hunting, he was using that to support his stance on proposing a new assault weapons ban in a Fudd magazine.

[TNathe]

Semi Auto Deer Killer..... Fully Auto 30 round clip fed Assault rifle....

Yeah I don't see the difference....

right, cause everyone can afford and process the paperwork required to possess a real AK :roll: If you own a full-auto you are on the BATF's "list" and you are also about $10,000 short in your bank account. I was speaking of the ak-47 replicas and semi-auto versions.

[Duceanahalf]

teflon coatings dont allow a bullet to magically penetrate body armor. That comes from the Winchester "black talon" round. when they renammed the black talon to "ranger SXT" they went back to a brass case and got rid of the black teflon coating (all it did was reduce fouling in the barrel) The Modern Ranger SXT's are just as effective as the old black talons.

on top of that very few handgun rounds have the velocity to penetrate soft armor, that and most are too big and flat to penetrate. however the FN 5.7 and the HK 4.6 were designed to penetrate military body armor, but there is no firearm available in this country that is chambered for 4.6 and the ammo is nearly impossible to find. The 5.7 is only commercially available in hollow point which severly limits its ability to penetrate body armor

now pretty much every rifle round with a FMJ round will penetrate soft body armor, and most full power rifle rounds ( i dont use the term "high power" unless we are talking about something like .300 win mag and up) will penetrate most hard armor. with modern ceramic plates if you can get 2-3 rounds in a small group it will break the plate enough that the subsequent rounds will pass through the vest. Even if they dont just the impact from the rounds could kill the person.

.30-'30 is the most common deer hunting cartridge in this country, and it is capable of penetrating body armor

[jabtay]

Come to think of it...One of my collection is the victim of a ban. It was Bush that banned it personally. So yeah, the government wants to ban weapons.

Oh yeah refer to my sig, it was obama speaking about the 2nd amendment

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

SENATOR OBAMA: I think AK-47s generally are not used for hunting. AK-47s or vest-piercing bullets are generally used to hurt people.

Um, yeeeees. I am not a hunter so the reason I want a gun is to hurt people. Specifically people that threaten me. So yes, I want to hurt them bad, very, very bad. Got a problem with that Obama? You dumbfuck.

If your shitty fucking justice system did it's job then maybe you'd have a legit argument for gun control. You're a lawyer, fix your shitty justice industry. But until your shitty fucking justice system can provide a little justice and protection for the people - fuck you. If I want an AK-47 then fuck you.

[YuppyKiller]

right, cause everyone can afford and process the paperwork required to possess a real AK :roll: If you own a full-auto you are on the BATF's "list" and you are also about $10,000 short in your bank account. I was speaking of the ak-47 replicas and semi-auto versions.

LOL it doesn't cost 10 grand for a fucking AK47...

[BAMF]

Um, yeeeees. I am not a hunter so the reason I want a gun is to hurt people. Specifically people that threaten me. So yes, I want to hurt them bad, very, very bad. Got a problem with that Obama? You dumbfuck.

If your shitty fucking justice system did it's job then maybe you'd have a legit argument for gun control. You're a lawyer, fix your shitty justice industry. But until your shitty fucking justice system can provide a little justice and protection for the people - fuck you. If I want an AK-47 then fuck you.

The only reason you want an AK-47 is to shoot the kids that come on your lawn.

[TNathe]

LOL it doesn't cost 10 grand for a fucking AK47...

okay, price me out a FULL AUTO AK :) It's a moot point anyways so I dont really give-a-fuk, unless of course you know where i can get one for under a grand. :lol:

[YuppyKiller]

^ Under a grand is probably impossible, but 10 grand is ridiculous :lol:

Fuck AK, I'd rather have M4A1 anyway!

[TNathe]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/SearchResults.asp
well, m16's and m4's that are full-auto are fetching about $15,000 :)

[Duceanahalf]

^ Under a grand is probably impossible, but 10 grand is ridiculous :lol:

Fuck AK, I'd rather have M4A1 anyway!

the cheapest you can get into full auto for is about $5,000 for a MAC-9/10/11, the one single part in a MP5/G3 that makes it full auto that a civilian can buy goes for between $11,000 and $15,000 depending on the economy, and thats a little piece of metal that costs about $2 to make

[YuppyKiller]

the cheapest you can get into full auto for is about $5,000 for a MAC-9/10/11, the one single part in a MP5/G3 that makes it full auto that a civilian can buy goes for between $11,000 and $15,000 depending on the economy, and thats a little piece of metal that costs about $2 to make

You can buy M4's and shit in gun stores in the US (or at least you used to be able to).

Shit I could walk down to 8th ave and buy a mac-11 for 500.00, or probably trade a big piece of crack rock for it :lol:

[BAMF]

the cheapest you can get into full auto for is about $5,000 for a MAC-9/10/11, the one single part in a MP5/G3 that makes it full auto that a civilian can buy goes for between $11,000 and $15,000 depending on the economy, and thats a little piece of metal that costs about $2 to make

Dude...I'll cast or even forge that bitch myself, file it down, and sell it for half that much.

[Duceanahalf]

Dude...I'll cast or even forge that bitch myself, file it down, and sell it for half that much.

maybe make one and keep it for your self. i wouldnt take the risk of selling them. 10 years in prison, unless your a rapper then you get probation

[TNathe]

You can buy M4's and shit in gun stores in the US (or at least you used to be able to).

Shit I could walk down to 8th ave and buy a mac-11 for 500.00, or probably trade a big piece of crack rock for it :lol:

No you can NOT, well, Im sure you can, but you arent getting it cheap. I think the M4's and what-not you are talking about are the SEMI-auto ones. M4 in semi-auto will still fetch between $800 and $1200. Are you sure you were lookin g at FULL autos ;) Im going to assume not. /offtopic

ontopic:f obama :) :lol:

[Punkin]

Um, yeeeees. I am not a hunter so the reason I want a gun is to hurt people. Specifically people that threaten me. So yes, I want to hurt them bad, very, very bad. Got a problem with that Obama? You dumbfuck.

If your shitty fucking justice system did it's job then maybe you'd have a legit argument for gun control. You're a lawyer, fix your shitty justice industry. But until your shitty fucking justice system can provide a little justice and protection for the people - fuck you. If I want an AK-47 then fuck you.

when you say "your justice system" do you mean Obama's justice system? because that makes zero sense. and furthermore, even if he was in charge of the justice system (which no one person really is) that has nothing to do with the douchebags of the world who choose to break the law. crackheads smoke crack and child molesters molest children, thats just the way it goes.

and i'd love to hear of one example of when an ak-47 was necessary to have to protect a person's life (excluding acts of war obviously). shot guns, hand guns, and hunting rifles seem like the only logical and necessary weapons that a civilian should need.

however, should the time come that the people of this country need to revolt against their own government, then assault rifles would be helpful. also, if the zombies were to invade, ak's would be nice.

so i guess i'm saying that a ban on assault rifles is not necessarily a good thing, however, your babble about the justice system did seem a little bit retarded.

[BAMF]

when you say "your justice system" do you mean Obama's justice system? because that makes zero sense. and furthermore, even if he was in charge of the justice system (which no one person really is) that has nothing to do with the douchebags of the world who choose to break the law. crackheads smoke crack and child molesters molest children, thats just the way it goes.

and i'd love to hear of one example of when an ak-47 was necessary to have to protect a person's life (excluding acts of war obviously). shot guns, hand guns, and hunting rifles seem like the only logical and necessary weapons that a civilian should need.

however, should the time come that the people of this country need to revolt against their own government, then assault rifles would be helpful. also, if the zombies were to invade, ak's would be nice.

so i guess i'm saying that a ban on assault rifles is not necessarily a good thing, however, your babble about the justice system did seem a little bit retarded.


Thats right...right now you make fun of all of us pudgy, nerdy gun owners. But when the zombies come all the girls are gonna be flocking to US for protection. What then?!

:nerd:

[TNathe]

we'll get laid...lots? :lol:

[Punkin]

regarding gun registration, what makes that bad?
it makes sense that certain weapons should be registered to their owners because that is one way to keep the "shitty justice system" informed about who may have broke into your house and shot you in the face.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

when you say "your justice system" do you mean Obama's justice system?

Yes, I mean Obama's justice system. Obama's and every other lawyer and judge. They are the ones making the laws and perpetuating their job security.

It aint my justice system. I didn't build it, I am not a part of it, I have nearly zero influence on it. But the lawyers, they do. So they need to take responsibility for it and how fucked up it is.

[Niggariffic]

Why would you guys need assult rifles for anyway? AK-47's seriously?+1....If you need an AK for 'protection', then you pissed off too many damn people.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

and i'd love to hear of one example of when an ak-47 was necessary to have to protect a person's life

It doesn't matter if an AK-47 was ever necessary for protection. If some woman feels more comfortable and secure with an AK-47 under her mattress then I support her right to have it.

[Billy]

regarding gun registration, what makes that bad?
it makes sense that certain weapons should be registered to their owners because that is one way to keep the "shitty justice system" informed about who may have broke into your house and shot you in the face.

There are currently some states that require registration of firearms. In those states it has never been proven that the registration has helped solve and/or prevent a crime. All that has been proven is that it is a great expense paid for by the tax payers of those areas.

And, just as an aside, every modern society that has experienced a ban on firearms first experienced government imposed registration. It's not a new idea and the arguments for it haven't changed. But I'd rather not have to pay for it or deal with the possible consequences of it.

[TNathe]

regarding gun registration, what makes that bad?
it makes sense that certain weapons should be registered to their owners because that is one way to keep the "shitty justice system" informed about who may have broke into your house and shot you in the face.

Yeah, supposing of course he left his gun behind AND it wasnt stolen. :roll: What was the first thing Hitler did to gun owners in Germany? Wasn't it require them to register their weapons?

[PPGMD]

and i'd love to hear of one example of when an ak-47 was necessary to have to protect a person's life (excluding acts of war obviously). shot guns, hand guns, and hunting rifles seem like the only logical and necessary weapons that a civilian should need.

Shotguns requires gross motor skill to operate (unless it's semi-auto), have high recoil, and low reloading speed.

Handguns have low capacity, and are harder to use.

Hunting rifles have low capacity (purposely to be within hunting laws of many states), have very high penetration, and magnified optics that makes them very hard to use in home defense.

Carbines have high capacity, fast reloads, low penetration (the 223 round has less penetration of wall boards then 9mm), low recoil, can mount a light, and using red dot optics they are faster to fire accurately. The same attributes that make it an excellent weapon of war, makes it an excellent home defense weapon.

If you encounter a determined opponent, or one high on drugs if can take more rounds to hit critical areas to take the opponent down. There is a case in Miami recently where a guy fired 14 rounds into a man who was breaking into his house, and the bad guy only went down because he hit him in the femur.

The human body is a surprising survivable machine.

[TNathe]

I think you guys fail to comprehend the MEANING of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. It was specifically put there for us peons as a means to OVERTHROW a tyrannical governement. Think waht you want blah blah Conspiracy this and that, but before you say shit, look at HISTORY of the world.

[Billy]

and i'd love to hear of one example of when an ak-47 was necessary to have to protect a person's life (excluding acts of war obviously). shot guns, hand guns, and hunting rifles seem like the only logical and necessary weapons that a civilian should need.


Meet Harry Beckwith...

High Volume Shootout: The Harry Beckwith Incident (http://www.gunowners.org/op0730.htm)

[clear]

Here in NC your gun has to be registered and you have tons of paper work.

[jabtay]

shot guns, hand guns, and hunting rifles seem like the only logical and necessary weapons that a civilian should need.
Logic, is that what you call your brain process? Look, there is more to guns than protection, and hunting. Hell I hate hunting, I would rather watch bowling on tv. But I do love shooting. So why should I not be able to get an evil AK to take out and destroy some cans with?

This whole argument is a distraction from the real issue...human behavior. you have 2 people, one of them gets a full auto rifle (aka assault rifle), and the other gets a kitchen knife. which one is more dangerous? It depends on the person holding the item. Actually you can argue without human input, the knife is much much more dangerous. Give me an assault rifle, i can guarantee you that I would not use it against anyone, unless a last resort. Just because someone has one, does not mean they would go on a murdering spree, or rob a 7-11.

[Niggariffic]

Cars are registered....why not guns?!?!? GO OBAMA!!!!

[jabtay]

Cars are registered....why not guns?!?!? GO OBAMA!!!!
your an idiot...fuck obama

[Billy]

Cars are registered....why not guns?!?!? GO OBAMA!!!!

Besides the reasons I already gave?

The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving is a privilege granted by the state.

But....

Are you saying the requirements for gun ownership should be changed to match the driving requirements?

I don't know, I might be able to get behind that...

I mean, hell, I could go from state to state with my guns with no issue...just like I can drive in any state in the union with a valid drivers license.

I would simply have to complete a 20 question test once to get the license. It would be good for 10 years or so and I can renew it by mail.

Once I had the license, that's it. No other restrictions on what I can and can't own or checks when I want to purchase something new.

Yeah, that doesn't sound all that bad.


Another Gun/Car comparison...

...
Comparing Cars to Guns

You do not have a right to own a car, or to drive one. There is no constitutional guarantee for you to own or possess an automobile, truck, car, motorcycle, bicycle or even a skateboard. If any of these products were deemed to be illegal you would have no constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (except, perhaps, that of due-process before you must give up your vehicle).

With that out of the way, let's do a little comparison. First, let's think about registering guns like cars and licensing gun owners like car drivers. In the first place we'll have to purge a lot of useless laws off the books regarding firearms. Consider:

* There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile.
* Anyone can purchase an automobile as long as they can sign a legal contract to pay for it.
* You are not required to lock up your car and keep it away from children.
* People convicted of felonies or domestic violence can own an automobile.
* Anyone paying cash can purchase an automobile, even if they're under 18.
* You do not have to have a driver's license to buy an automobile.
* The government does not have the power to inspect how you garage your car.
* There is no limit how many cars you can own, or how many you can buy per month.
* The government can't limit the features of your car, such as top speed, fuel capacity, horsepower, etc.
* The government does not limit how many gallons of gas you can buy per month.
* The only penalty for not registering your automobile yearly isn't a felony.
* The government, except for a few states, cannot seize your automobile if you fail to register it.
* You only need to register an automobile if you plan to use it on the street.
* To obtain a driver's license you fill out a written test, provide a birth certificate (and/or INS papers), take an eye exam and a short driver's test to show you can operate the vehicle.
* The fee for a license ranges from about $5 to $20.
* Licenses are good for several years, some states renew automatically; others are lifetime licenses.
* Licenses are only revoked after a court trial for misuse or violating the laws.

Are you still enthusiastic about it? You can see how many so called "gun-control" laws would be abolished by such a scheme. But we have not considered the opposite side of this question. Since you don't have a right to an automobile, the government can impose many laws on their ownership, purchase and use that cannot be applied to guns. But let's stick with guns for the moment and see what you'd have to go through.

Registering and Licensing Cars like Guns

* Convicted felons could not own or drive a car.
* You'd pay for a car, register it and then wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up your car.
* Purchasing a used car from a neighbor requires the same waiting period and you would have to transact the sale through a licensed car dealer.
* You could buy a car, register it but you'd need a special permit to take in on the streets.
* To get the above "street permit" you have to show good cause and be of good moral character.
* Persons convicted of "domestic violence" could not own or drive a car, even if that occurred 30 years ago.
* Cars have to be stored where no child could access it and hurt themselves playing with it.
* In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) you would first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain.
* If you own more than a certain number of cars, the government could enter your home at any time to ensure you stored your cars properly. This is actually a proposed law by Handgun Control, Inc. that would require anyone owning more than 4 guns to have an "arsenal" license and permit warrantless searches.
* If a minor child stole your car and hurt himself or others with it, you'd be guilty of a felony.
* In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) you would have to store your car partially disassembled.
* Failure to register your car would be a federal felony (prevents you from owning another one).
* People under psychiatric care or mentally incompetent could not own or drive a car.
* Some models of automobiles might be banned after you buy them and you'd have to turn them over to the government without compensation.
* "Assault vehicles" look evil and must be specially registered at extra cost. Hummers, 4x4 trucks, Suburbans, Dodge Vipers, Nissan NSX's, and Corvettes are likely targets.
* Cars under a certain size or having certain features could not be imported.
* You could not modify your car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering.
* The government would allow some states or cities to not issue licenses at all, for any reason.
* Cars could not be operated on city streets with gasoline in the tank. (Kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?)
* In some states (e.g. Virginia, California) you could only buy one car per month.
* There would be no traffic "infractions", all violations would be misdemeanors or felonies.
* It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller.
* Car dealers would have to allow government agents to review their records without a warrant and without notice.
* Car dealers who sell a car to someone prohibited would be charged with a federal felony.
* Car dealers would be subject to being shut down by the government for failure to keep proper records and charged with a felony.
* The inventory of car dealers could be seized and destroyed before a conviction was obtained.

This all sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? Most of these are gun-laws, applied to autos or drivers.

Source (http://hematite.com/dragon/gunlicenses.html)

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Cars are registered....why not guns?!?!? GO OBAMA!!!!

I'm not fully in support of car registration either.

[XYNaPSE]

I'm not fully in support of car registration either.

McCain is. :lol: He's also into registering your guns! :gordy:

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

McCain is. :lol: He's also into regitering your guns! :gordy:

I don't have any guns. And I'm not fully in support of McCain either.

[jabtay]

And I'm not fully in support of McCain either.
+1...He was my last choice in the race

[Duceanahalf]

regarding gun registration, what makes that bad?
it makes sense that certain weapons should be registered to their owners because that is one way to keep the "shitty justice system" informed about who may have broke into your house and shot you in the face.

if criminals dont obey the laws that say your not supposed to break into people's homes and not supposed to shoot people, why would they obey a law that requires to register your guns?

and before someone says that a registered gun could be stolen and used in crimes. If criminals can import 50 tons of cocaine into the US every year what would prevent them from importing a few tons of full auto firearms? only about 4% of all international shipments ionto this country are inspected.

[clear]

Source (http://hematite.com/dragon/gunlicenses.html)

I was reading your quote, there is one that I know is wrong. Some states do require you to have a DL to purchase a car. We just bought a truck a few months back and had to sign that we both had DL registered in the state that we are buying the car and also that they are both valid.

Gun laws are getting ridiculous, there should only be a full auto ban and people who have committed a felony should not have the rights to own guns anymore. I am sure theres a few more that are good but most are crap.

[Billy]

North Carolina's only states that you have to have a license to register the car in the state of North Carolina.

If you want to buy it and park it in your garage or take it out of state it doesn't look like a valid license is required for the purchase of the car.

[Manwich]

This is an issue with Obama that I dont like, I agree with the auto ban but thats it. Anyways he has to get the bills passed to ban guns, that will be hard to do. Even if he does ban the guns your always be able to get them on the streets.

+2 the people in this country that claim to know what the fuck they are talking about generally don't. They seem to know SHIT about how a bill gets passed and think that the president is some dictator who just changes laws and shit to his liking with no opposition. Who's to say his bill will even get passed in any way shape or form.

I have yet to find any credible source or reason as to why someone would need fully automatic weapons/armor piercing rounds. Seriously i'd like to know.

[BAMF]

+2 the people in this country that claim to know what the fuck they are talking about generally don't. They seem to know SHIT about how a bill gets passed and think that the president is some dictator who just changes laws and shit to his liking with no opposition. Who's to say his bill will even get passed in any way shape or form.

I have yet to find any credible source or reason as to why someone would need fully automatic weapons/armor piercing rounds. Seriously i'd like to know.

Here is your error.

We don't need a reason to own [x]. YOU need a reason as to why we shouldn't own [x]. Thats how something works when the bill of rights says I can do something. ;)


By the way, Bush Jr. has 'passed' a lot of legislation in manners that circumvented the normal legislative process. It happens every day.

[PPGMD]

I have yet to find any credible source or reason as to why someone would need fully automatic weapons/armor piercing rounds. Seriously i'd like to know.

Do you need a car that goes faster then 80 mph (the highest speed limit in the country)?

Cars kill many more people then guns. True AP rounds are extremely rare, I can't think of the last time I saw AP rounds for any of the common calibers except 50BMG.

What the media calls armor piercing is simply normal rifle rounds that can go through soft body armor. Is it because the rifle rounds are armor piercing? No it's because soft body armor wasn't designed to stop rifle rounds.

[BAMF]

Do you need a car that goes faster then 80 mph (the highest speed limit in the country)?

Cars kill many more people then guns. True AP rounds are extremely rare, I can't think of the last time I saw AP rounds for any of the common calibers except 50BMG.

What the media calls armor piercing is simply normal rifle rounds that can go through soft body armor. Is it because the rifle rounds are armor piercing? No it's because soft body armor wasn't designed to stop rifle rounds.

Except Dragonskin *drool*

[clear]

We don't need a reason to own [x]. YOU need a reason as to why we shouldn't own [x]. Thats how something works when the bill of rights says I can do something. ;)


Exactly!

+1

[jabtay]

+2 the people in this country that claim to know what the fuck they are talking about generally don't.
oh, the irony in this sentence is great.

[PPGMD]

Except Dragonskin *drool*

Dragonskin is hard body armor. They just use a ring mesh (similar to chain mail) to make it more flexible.

The full version of Dragonskin was rated to NIJ IV (stops just about everything) until it was revoked since the glue had issues. There was a concealable version of Dragonskin that was NIJ III rated (stops some rifles rounds), but it was still pretty heavy, and got its NIJ rating revoked at the same time since it used the same glue.

Most police body armor is NIJ IIIA rated, which means it will stop almost all handgun rounds, but it worthless against rifle rounds.

[Punkin]

THESE ALL MAKE SENSE TO ME:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration_ca.html

[Punkin]

Yes, I mean Obama's justice system. Obama's and every other lawyer and judge. They are the ones making the laws and perpetuating their job security.

It aint my justice system. I didn't build it, I am not a part of it, I have nearly zero influence on it. But the lawyers, they do. So they need to take responsibility for it and how fucked up it is.



lawyers and judges don't make the laws. National laws are made in Congress, which is part of the legislative branch and is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The state legislature makes state laws.

your right, its not "YOUR" justice system, its everybody's justice system. and if you don't like it then its up to people like you, who want things to change, to voice their opinions to their state representatives, or better yet, run for congress and change things from the inside.

then again, if you don't even know the purpose of congress, perhaps you should study a bit before launching your campaign.

quick and simple run down for you:
1. congress makes the laws.
2. lawyers merely advise and represent clients regarding legal matters.
3. judges decide on the outcome of legal proceeding in the court of law.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

lawyers and judges don't make the laws. National laws are made in Congress, which is part of the legislative branch and is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The state legislature makes state laws.

your right, its not "YOUR" justice system, its everybody's justice system. and if you don't like it then its up to people like you, who want things to change, to voice their opinions to their state representatives, or better yet, run for congress and change things from the inside.

then again, if you don't even know the purpose of congress, perhaps you should study a bit before launching your campaign.

quick and simple run down for you:
1. congress makes the laws.
2. lawyers merely advise and represent clients regarding legal matters.
3. judges decide on the outcome of legal proceeding in the court of law.


And here is a quick and simple run down for you:

Approximately 50% of Congress is made up of lawyers and judges.

It isn't 50% doctors.
It isn't 50% farmers.
It isn't 50% mechanics.

So yes, lawyers do make our laws.

[Iroc Joe]

LOL it doesn't cost 10 grand for a fucking AK47...

Yes it most certainly does, in fact an actual AK-47 costs well over $10,000. An M16 costs in the ballpark of $15,000.

An AR-15 you purchase in the gun store for under $1,000 is not an M4 or an M16 as those are select fire weapons. A Romanian WASR that costs $400 is not an AK-47 because it is not capable of fully automatic fire.

There is a huge difference.

[Iroc Joe]

I have yet to find any credible source or reason as to why someone would need fully automatic weapons/armor piercing rounds. Seriously i'd like to know.

Since you have to ask, you are obviously too ignorant to understand. Why would we waste time trying to explain it to you?

I'll give you a hint, it is a safeguard from tyranny. Research the rest on your own.

[Punkin]

There are currently some states that require registration of firearms. In those states it has never been proven that the registration has helped solve and/or prevent a crime. All that has been proven is that it is a great expense paid for by the tax payers of those areas.

And, just as an aside, every modern society that has experienced a ban on firearms first experienced government imposed registration. It's not a new idea and the arguments for it haven't changed. But I'd rather not have to pay for it or deal with the possible consequences of it.

i find it hard to believe that gun registration has never led to any arrests of any persons who committed a crime.

however, after doing a big of interweb research, i think i may have changed my mind on the subject considering that, while it may help solve a few crimes here and there, the vast majority of crimes it is not that helpful mostly because there are so many unregistered guns, stolen guns, and so on.

i'm not a gun owner so i never really had an opinion before. it just seemed logical to register something like that. but i just read a few accounts where gun owners registered their guns and then laws changed in their states and suddenly they had to give up those guns for nothing but a big fuck you in return. that is pretty shitty.

seems like only law abiding citizens register their guns anyways.

[Banksy]

Imo, if the government can use it the people can use it; pertaining to firearms. People shouldn't fear the government, the government should fear the people; right?

Honestly, isn't a gun/rifle, a gun/rifle? Bang you're dead. If the intention is there, I think that's all that really matters regardless if it's a FA AK-47 or a hunting, pump action, shotgun with pumpkin balls. FA firearms can be obtained, but with a lengthy and thorough application, silencers as well.

I'm happy with the current gun laws in FL and hope they stay that way.

[Billy]

i find it hard to believe that gun registration has never led to any arrests of any persons who committed a crime.

however, after doing a big of interweb research, i think i may have changed my mind on the subject considering that, while it may help solve a few crimes here and there, the vast majority of crimes it is not that helpful mostly because there are so many unregistered guns, stolen guns, and so on.

i'm not a gun owner so i never really had an opinion before. it just seemed logical to register something like that. but i just read a few accounts where gun owners registered their guns and then laws changed in their states and suddenly they had to give up those guns for nothing but a big fuck you in return. that is pretty shitty.

seems like only law abiding citizens register their guns anyways.

I'm glad you took the time to read what I had to say, and research it on your own. Even if you hadn't of responded like you did and just came back with a well researched rebuttal to what I had said ...it would have been worth it.

This is what makes debating fun....informed discussion, not irrational statements backed soley by emotion.

[Derek]

seems like only law abiding citizens register their guns anyways.

yup....

Registering guns only tells the govt where to go when they ban guns.

Gun ownership is one area i disagree with democrats on, though not enough to vote on that issue.

What do you other gun owners think of private selling and gun show loopholes? (this is actually how i have bought all my guns)

I know they have done studies that show inmates convicted of gun charges usually get guns from friends and other criminals and not gun shows.

[Billy]

I have no problem with the current laws as they pertain to the private sale of firearms. I don't like the term "gun show loophole" because it implies something underhanded or sinister.

[Punkin]

Approximately 50% of Congress is made up of lawyers and judges.

So yes, lawyers do make our laws.

the point is, lawyers by definition do not make laws. congressmen, by definition, make laws. obviously its only logical for the people who make laws to have studied and practiced law, but you don't need to be a lawyer to be a congressman and make laws.

and if you are gonna call it "Obama's" shitty justice system, then we may as well go ahead and call it "McCain's" shitty justice system while we're at it.

[Derek]

I don't like the term "gun show loophole" because it implies something underhanded or sinister.

Thats politics for yah, estate tax vs DEATH TAX!!!

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

This is what makes debating fun....informed discussion, not irrational statements backed soley by emotion.

Don't forget the "fuck you you're stupid" comments.

:D

[Iroc Joe]

when you say "your justice system" do you mean Obama's justice system? because that makes zero sense. and furthermore, even if he was in charge of the justice system (which no one person really is) that has nothing to do with the douchebags of the world who choose to break the law. crackheads smoke crack and child molesters molest children, thats just the way it goes.

Ah, you then understand exactly why gun laws are useless, the criminals will never obey them anyway. People who will not break the law with their firearms are the only ones punished.


and i'd love to hear of one example of when an ak-47 was necessary to have to protect a person's life (excluding acts of war obviously). shot guns, hand guns, and hunting rifles seem like the only logical and necessary weapons that a civilian should need.

Why do you need to make the determination for someone what they choose to defend themselves with? Some people might find pistols hard to shoot accurately, and shotguns are mighty unpleasant to fire with the ammunition one would use for self-defense (buckshot or slugs). Carbines are the perfect choice for home defense for exactly the reasons PPGMD listed.


however, should the time come that the people of this country need to revolt against their own government, then assault rifles would be helpful. also, if the zombies were to invade, ak's would be nice.



A dim light brightens. Maybe you do understand the reason the Second Amendment exists. Since you brought up hunting, and hunting rifles let me ask you this. In 1791 people shot animals on their property to feed their families. Bear, deer, pig, squirrel, etc. Also, people regularly used .50 caliber and higher rifles to shoot bear, deer, wolf, etc. that would destroy their farms or livestock. There was no Publix supermarket people could run to to purchase meat. To disarm a person would literally be a death sentence in those days as that would remove their ability to protect their farm from predators and remove their ability to put food on the table for their family. With this in mind, do you REALLY believe the Second Amendment has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with hunting? No, it does not.

You postured your attacks against Chuck as if you are intelligent, but you fail to grasp the basic understanding of that which you fight. Why don't you research the Congressional proceedings of the first United States Congress in 1789? Madison introduced the Bill of Rights because he was under obligation to the voters he promised them to during the ratification debates. The Bill of Rights was a compromise promised to the anti-federalists in return for their support in ratifying the Constitution. One of the cornerstones of the importance of the Second Amendment is protection from a standing army, regarded by many in 1789 (guys like Patrick Henry and Noah Webster, ever hear of them?) as the very definition of Tyranny itself.

Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 29:

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

However, because he knew without the voters of the state of New York (yeah, we were fucking awesome even in 1789), ratification would never occur so he elaborated:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

As I said earlier, this is one of the cornerstones of the Second Amendment, and it was a compromise to the voters to ensure they would have MILITIA arms to combat a standing army. Therefore your question is a moot point, considering the right to own such arms is constitutionally protected.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

and if you are gonna call it "Obama's" shitty justice system, then we may as well go ahead and call it "McCain's" shitty justice system while we're at it.

I specifically chose Obama because he is a lawyer. McCain is an aviator. It is Obama's profession that is fucked up and fucking over people in courts throughout America.

[Banksy]

Don't forget the "fuck you you're stupid" comments.

:D

Fuck you, you're stupid. :love:

[Iroc Joe]

Fuck you, you're stupid. :love:

:lol:

I think the tone of my post to Punkin came off much more harshly than I intended. I was not implying she is stupid or dim. I'll be the first to admit sometimes I could stand to be a little more subtle.

[jabtay]

I'll be the first to admit sometimes I could stand to be a little more subtle.
yes, you need to be...that made me cry...you big meanie:mad:

[blacksheep-1]

Good points, in most states if you want a vehicle and us eit only on your property, you don't need to register it or have a license.
Now another car analogy, so because you like cars that only go 55 mph and because you think that everybody else is irresponsible, you feel that everybody should be forced to own cars just like yours, so corvettes, mustangs, cobras etc, should be banned.
Let me explain it to you once again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related

It's not about hunting, it's about your rights
about 5:15 is great, Schumer about craps his pants.

[TampaDude]

Why would you guys need assault rifles anyway?

Why would you guys need Corvettes anyway?
Why would you guys need Hayabusas anyway?
Why would you guys need 60" HDTVs anyway?
Why would you guys need 5000 sq ft houses anyway?
Why would you guys need big yachts anyway?

We don't really NEED any of those things, but we should be able to purchase, own, and use them if we WANT to. Understand???

[Josh]

Why would you guys need assult rifles for anyway? AK-47's seriously?

a government should fear its people.

[1997 GA16DE]

No different view than just about any liberal. "If it has a potential to be harmful, it might as well be banned."
I'll take the position of Liberal, here. I'm more of a centrist, but I do agree with Obama a hell of a lot more than McCain on ANY issue.

Let me explain why this statement makes no sense to me. I am pro-gun, Although I am not allowed to own a gun where I live, I plan to have one when I have my own place, as well as the proper practice to use it correctly. I find that 99% of gun owners are rightfully so and pose no danger to anyone. It's the 1% that makes them look bad, people who tote guns to be gangsta, people who accidentally shoot someone in their own household because they didn't think it was loaded, people who hunt with an AK-47. ;)

As mentioned, does any civilian REALLY need an assault rifle like the AK47? IMO, firepower like that belongs on the battlefield...and video games. You lost me on how being against one type of gun makes you against ALL guns.

[Josh]

I'll take the position of Liberal, here. I'm more of a centrist, but I do agree with Obama a hell of a lot more than McCain on ANY issue.

Let me explain why this statement makes no sense to me. I am pro-gun, Although I am not allowed to own a gun where I live, I plan to have one when I have my own place, as well as the proper practice to use it correctly. I find that 99% of gun owners are rightfully so and pose no danger to anyone. It's the 1% that makes them look bad, people who tote guns to be gangsta, people who accidentally shoot someone in their own household because they didn't think it was loaded, people who hunt with an AK-47. ;)

As mentioned, does any civilian REALLY need an assault rifle like the AK47? IMO, firepower like that belongs on the battlefield...and video games. You lost me on how being against one type of gun makes you against ALL guns.

with respects to automatic weapons...if uncle sam has them...we should too. it's a safeguard against tyranny as joe stated before.

[BAMF]

a government should fear its people.

Trust me, the government wouldn't fear us if 50% of Americans owned AK-47s.

If we hever revolt we'll either have to have the military on our side or the revolt will never succeed unless we wear them down. There is absolutely no way we can stand up to the firepower our own military commands these days. It isn't 1776 anymore.

[Josh]

Trust me, the government wouldn't fear us if 50% of Americans owned AK-47s.

If we hever revolt we'll either have to have the military on our side or the revolt will never succeed unless we wear them down. There is absolutely no way we can stand up to the firepower our own military commands these days. It isn't 1776 anymore.

you'd be surprised how much a well regimented militia can accomplish...hell just look at al quida.

[buck19]

Trust me, the government wouldn't fear us if 50% of Americans owned AK-47s.

If we hever revolt we'll either have to have the military on our side or the revolt will never succeed unless we wear them down. There is absolutely no way we can stand up to the firepower our own military commands these days. It isn't 1776 anymore.

The roadside bombers with archaic homemade weapons did a pretty good job and that's far less than 50% the American population. :gordy:

[BAMF]

you'd be surprised how much a well regimented militia can accomplish...hell just look at al quida.

Al Quida isn't accomplishing dick. The only reason they're even still around is because every man, woman, and child over there is prepared to pick up a gun and fire it at us. And at the same time, we're only allowed to shoot a certain few of those men, women, and children who are shooting at us. Check out the kill/death ratio in Iraq, its hilarious.

A well regimented militia was effective when the Redcoats were marching in formation through trees and hunters and farmers with super long barrelled rifles could pick them off behind trees. Nowadays....man, we would have absolutely no chance against our own military if they turned against the civillian populace. The military is the deciding factor in a revolt in America - we just don't have the technology to fight them. Never could, never will.

[1997 GA16DE]

Why would you guys need Corvettes anyway?
Why would you guys need Hayabusas anyway?
Why would you guys need 60" HDTVs anyway?
Why would you guys need 5000 sq ft houses anyway?
Why would you guys need big yachts anyway?

We don't really NEED any of those things, but we should be able to purchase, own, and use them if we WANT to. Understand???

You're saying that people need an assault rifle because it's the Rolls-Royce of firearms?

You don't NEED anything but food, water and a place to sleep and shit. On that note, unless you live in the 3rd world, you can probably survive without ANY gun. No one needs anything you listed, however, if I could afford it, I'd probably take all of the above.

Why a Corvette? Because it's faster and better than a Civic, and status. Why a 60' TV? Because it's better than a 59" TV. Why a 5,000sqft house? so you can store all your rich guy stuff. Why a Yacht? so you can take a vacation.

I don't see any benefit in having an AK47...Hunting? I don't need 30 holes to kill a deer...or an elephant. I recall hunting being some sort of skilled sport. You can't ward off a home invader with a rifle...

Yes, a lot of these fancy items, like corvettes and yachts are unnecessary, but they at least have some function.

[BAMF]

You're saying that people need an assault rifle because it's the Rolls-Royce of firearms?

You don't NEED anything but food, water and a place to sleep and shit. On that note, unless you live in the 3rd world, you can probably survive without ANY gun. No one needs anything you listed, however, if I could afford it, I'd probably take all of the above.

Why a Corvette? Because it's faster and better than a Civic, and status. Why a 60' TV? Because it's better than a 59" TV. Why a 5,000sqft house? so you can store all your rich guy stuff. Why a Yacht? so you can take a vacation.

I don't see any benefit in having an AK47...Hunting? I don't need 30 holes to kill a deer...or an elephant. I recall hunting being some sort of skilled sport. You can't ward off a home invader with a rifle...

Yes, a lot of these fancy items, like corvettes and yachts are unnecessary, but they at least have some function.


So, if you don't see a function in it because you have no interest in it, then its automatically useless, huh? Don't feel bad or get defensive, thats a pretty common line of thinking in life. But that doesn't make it right.

AK-47. Why would someone want it? Because they want to fire a 7.62 x 39 round at a target. Because they want to mount it on their wall to show off. Because they want it to take up room in their safe. Because they like the way it feels in their hands. All of the above are perfect reasons to own one.

[Iroc Joe]

As mentioned, does any civilian REALLY need an assault rifle like the AK47? IMO, firepower like that belongs on the battlefield...and video games. You lost me on how being against one type of gun makes you against ALL guns.

Try reading my large post at the top of this page, you won't look so stupid for asking questions I already answered.


P.S. Nobody hunts with AK-47s.

[XYNaPSE]

I'd like to own my very own nuclear missile and mount it on the cable box ontop of my tv. :) But I guess I'll just have to settle for this crappy scud launcher. :(

[Duceanahalf]

most people dont own a bunch of magaines for their rifles. (mine are $20 each for the rifles, and almost $40 each for the pistol, so i dont have many mags) i want them to hold as much as possible because since i dont have a lot of mags i have to reload them when i go shoot. and if im paying by the hour to shoot i dont want to spend half my time there loading magazines.

[Iroc Joe]

I'd like to own my very own nuclear missile and mount it on the cable box ontop of my tv. :) But I guess I'll just have to settle for this crappy scud launcher. :(

Nice attempt at humor, but we know you don't even own a .22 rifle. Thanks for playing. :)

[BAMF]

I'd like to own my very own nuclear missile and mount it on the cable box ontop of my tv. :) But I guess I'll just have to settle for this crappy scud launcher. :(

All you need is a shovel. To dig a hole in the sand with that you can stick your head in.

[XYNaPSE]

All you need is a shovel. To dig a hole in the sand with that you can stick your head in.

How about you pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow? :)

[BAMF]

How about you pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow? :)

Watch out. I'm a gun toting maniac with several 'assault rifles'. They're so evil all they have to do is catch wind of you talking shit to me and they'll get in my car, drive themselves to your house, and shoot you. :gordy:

[1997 GA16DE]

with respects to automatic weapons...if uncle sam has them...we should too. it's a safeguard against tyranny as joe stated before.

But they're in the hands of military members on the battle field and military members who guard high-importance government buildings, also, nuclear facilities, and high-security research institutes. They are in the hands of the most well trained, and no matter how bad this country gets, I don't see the U.S. turning the mass of the military against the mass of its people.

Put those weapons in the hands of a civilian, you're asking for more trouble. These weapons are USELESS to anyone outside of a collector, unless you're planning a mass killing at a local school. Guns, in general are useful. Both for hunting and personal security, but I don't see a civilian use for a weapon that fires any faster than a standard Glock pistol, or any more piercing than (sorry for my lack of education on types) a standard hunting rifle. Moose don't wear bullet-proof vests, the Russian military isn't going to be busting into your house, and you have no more power against the U.S. Government with or without an automatic weapon. You'd be a fool to pull a gun on any LEO in any country in the world.

[XYNaPSE]

That's it. I've had it. I'm pushing the red button you fucking fucks!

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii208/chantel567/john_mccain.jpg

[BAMF]

But they're in the hands of military members on the battle field and military members who guard high-importance government buildings, also, nuclear facilities, and high-security research institutes. They are in the hands of the most well trained, and no matter how bad this country gets, I don't see the U.S. turning the mass of the military against the mass of its people.

Put those weapons in the hands of a civilian, you're asking for more trouble. These weapons are USELESS to anyone outside of a collector, unless you're planning a mass killing at a local school. Guns, in general are useful. Both for hunting and personal security, but I don't see a civilian use for a weapon that fires any faster than a standard Glock pistol, or any more piercing than (sorry for my lack of education on types) a standard hunting rifle. Moose don't wear bullet-proof vests, the Russian military isn't going to be busting into your house, and you have no more power against the U.S. Government with or without an automatic weapon. You'd be a fool to pull a gun on any LEO in any country in the world.

Not only are you admittedly ignorant to gun/ammo types, but you're appearently ignorant to hunting. Some of these animals' skin midas well be level IIA body armor. Some of them are just such big motherfucking badasses you better have a big bullet with an unrealistic amount of power if you want to take them down. Google up on how peopel hunt grizzly bears - there are a lot worst things out there to hunt than a grizzly.

Oh, and statistically speaking, I, as a CWP holder, am less likely to use my firearm in an illegal manner than these fabled LEOs you speak of. Yet they trust SWAT with all sorts of automatics and I have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars if I want one. Go figure. :lol:

Again, I don't have to prove a reason why I should have them. You need to prove a reason why I shouldn't have them.

[PPGMD]

Hunting rifles are much much more powerful then a AK-47, or a M-4. Both fire intermediate cartridges, which are defined as more powerful then a pistol, but less powerful then a rifle.

You obviously have never fired a full auto, they are less dangerous then an semi auto rifle.

[BAMF]

Hunting rifles are much much more powerful then a AK-47, or a M-4. Both fire intermediate cartridges, which are defined as more powerful then a pistol, but less powerful then a rifle.

You obviously have never fired a full auto, they are less dangerous then an semi auto rifle.

Very good point. The cartridge that the AR-15/M-16 uses is fucking pitiful, for example. Hell, I wouldn't trust it to fuck someone up without a well-placed hit. Buncha pansy ass new-age military pussys gotta have some ridiculously low-recoil rifle of they can't use it. WAH WAH :cry:

Less dangerous to the intended target, sure. More dangerous to a gaggle of motherfuckers. Haven't you ever played any of the Grand Theft Auto series?

[Iroc Joe]

But they're in the hands of military members on the battle field and military members who guard high-importance government buildings, also, nuclear facilities, and high-security research institutes. They are in the hands of the most well trained, and no matter how bad this country gets, I don't see the U.S. turning the mass of the military against the mass of its people.

Put those weapons in the hands of a civilian, you're asking for more trouble. These weapons are USELESS to anyone outside of a collector, unless you're planning a mass killing at a local school. Guns, in general are useful. Both for hunting and personal security, but I don't see a civilian use for a weapon that fires any faster than a standard Glock pistol, or any more piercing than (sorry for my lack of education on types) a standard hunting rifle. Moose don't wear bullet-proof vests, the Russian military isn't going to be busting into your house, and you have no more power against the U.S. Government with or without an automatic weapon. You'd be a fool to pull a gun on any LEO in any country in the world.

Your argument fails on so many levels it is ridiculous. First, the Second Amendment is in place to ensure the "mass of the people" as you said can turn on the government. I'm not going to sugar coat it. Why does putting the weapon in the hands of civilians ask for trouble? You said it, now explain your answer. I am a collector, so that means I can have an M16? What is the difference between a collector and someone who wants a carbine to protect their home? All semi-automatic weapons fire as quickly as the user can pull the trigger. So why are automatic weapons so special as to warrant a ban? So I guess you are also in favor of banning semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines as well?

[Iroc Joe]

Hunting rifles are much much more powerful then a AK-47, or a M-4. Both fire intermediate cartridges, which are defined as more powerful then a pistol, but less powerful then a rifle.

You obviously have never fired a full auto, they are less dangerous then an semi auto rifle.

Damn your logic. Is this why most states don't allow you to hunt with an AR-15, because .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO is too small of a round? Why yes, yes it is. Yet the media sensationalizes them for the ignorant as "high-powered rifles." Hmm, interesting.

[TampaNick]

these are military rifles that were designed to kill people. and im sure that these would be on any kind of list they make up

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Rifle_Springfield_M1903A3.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Garand.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/En-Kar98k_rifle.jpeg
http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/mn1.jpg

Please tell me you are joking and not a complete moron to not understand what he is talking about. He is referencing newer rifles not these older guns.

http://www.johnnyg.westhost.com/cwg75-flint-lock-musket-s.JPG

This is a military rifle might as well ban it to. Your reasoning fails.:serious:

[BAMF]

Please tell me you are joking and not a complete moron to not understand what he is talking about. He is referencing newer rifles not these older guns.

These rifles were killing hundreds of thousands of people when you weren't even a zygote. Show some fucking respect.

[TampaNick]

I have respect for them. I just know they would not be catagorized into the group Obama is referencing.

The second one is a beautiful gun.

[BAMF]

I have respect for them. I just know they would not be catagorized into the group Obama is referencing.

The M1 Garand would (the rest of the government would bitch, though, because they make money off of them still.). The rest, being bolt action, may or may not...since you know, they likely have bayonet mounts. Its also possible that he would pass legislation saying ANY weapons the military uses or have used are not permissable to be purchased. Yes, plenty of Democrats have tried this bullshit before.

[Zealot]

I have respect for them. I just know they would not be catagorized into the group Obama is referencing.

You obviously need to take a look at the last Assault Weapons Ban. You'd be surprised to find out what was banned

[Duceanahalf]

Please tell me you are joking and not a complete moron to not understand what he is talking about. He is referencing newer rifles not these older guns.

http://www.johnnyg.westhost.com/cwg75-flint-lock-musket-s.JPG

This is a military rifle might as well ban it to. Your reasoning fails.:serious:
all they have to do is start calling it a sniper rifle that is designed to kill a person wearing body armor at a distance of 600 yards, which all those rifles are capable of doing.

full power rifles are far more destructive and deadly than "assault rifles"

Older rifles were designed to kill a person. modern military rifles are designed to wound. if you kill a solider you take one person out of the fight. If you wound a soldier you take three or more out of the fight

and in many countires it is illegal for a civilian to own a firearm chambered in any round that any military uses or has used. once they claim that those rounds are "military features" they will try to ban them. that eliminates any firearm chambered in (just off the top of my head) 9mm, .38 special, .45long colt, .45 acp, .223, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, .308, .30-'06, .30 carbine, .45-70. and all but two of those are just from the u.s.

[BAMF]

all they have to do is start calling it a sniper rifle that is designed to kill a person wearing body armor at a distance of 600 yards, which all those rifles are capable of doing.

full power rifles are far more destructive and deadly than "assault rifles"

Older rifles were designed to kill a person. modern military rifles are designed to wound. if you kill a solider you take one person out of the fight. If you wound a soldier you take three or more out of the fight

Wound....Eheheheh....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249-short-saw.gif

DO WANT!

[TampaNick]

Ill admit when i am wrong. It just does not make sense to me. These guns would be in the hands of enthusiasts, collectors, or marksmen, unlike AKs, uzis, and all the "cool" guns that your common street thug would get.

[BAMF]

Ill admit when i am wrong. It just does not make sense to me. These guns would be in the hands of enthusiasts, collectors, or marksmen, unlike AKs, uzis, and all the "cool" guns that your common street thug would get.

So now an appropriate gun ban would ban 'cool' guns that common street thugs would get? How exactly do you arrive at an accurate list? I mean you have to take a poll...because everyone with half a lick of sense knows uzis and ak-47s are NOT widely used in crimes compared to regular semi-automatic pistols or revolvers.

So you have to poll them, hope they are telling you the truth, and then weed out the common street thugs who LEGALLY own their guns?

Yeah, that sounds doable. And sensible. We don't want law abiding citizens owning the guns that common street thugs suppossedly own.

[Duceanahalf]

Ill admit when i am wrong. It just does not make sense to me. These guns would be in the hands of enthusiasts, collectors, or marksmen, unlike AKs, uzis, and all the "cool" guns that your common street thug would get.

then the police would have a hard time getting their Glocks,i sure those are some of the most used guns in crimes in the us.

and i dont think that i have ever seen an uzi out side of a gun store and very few ak's

[TampaNick]

Dont pinpoint on me i am just trying to make a point if you have one of those older rifles your a person of good standing i.e. collector not a street thug. Showing why i dont think those would be classified under the ban. This doesn't make sense to me stuck my nose somewhere where i dont know anything. Just know my rifles won't be taken from me.

[buck19]

all they have to do is start calling it a sniper rifle that is designed to kill a person wearing body armor at a distance of 600 yards, which all those rifles are capable of doing.

full power rifles are far more destructive and deadly than "assault rifles"

Older rifles were designed to kill a person. modern military rifles are designed to wound. if you kill a solider you take one person out of the fight. If you wound a soldier you take three or more out of the fight

and in many countires it is illegal for a civilian to own a firearm chambered in any round that any military uses or has used. once they claim that those rounds are "military features" they will try to ban them. that eliminates any firearm chambered in (just off the top of my head) 9mm, .38 special, .45long colt, .45 acp, .223, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, .308, .30-'06, .30 carbine, .45-70. and all but two of those are just from the u.s.

Don't forget to put the 12ga on that list.

[BAMF]

Dont pinpoint on me i am just trying to make a point if you have one of those older rifles your a person of good standing i.e. collector not a street thug. Showing why i dont think those would be classified under the ban. This doesn't make sense to me stuck my nose somewhere where i dont know anything. Just know my rifles won't be taken from me.

If your rifles are bolt action full sized basic rifles without any flash hiders, muzzle gaurds, pistol grips, or folding parts, and is not capable of accepting more than one round at a time you are correct - nobody is ever realistically going to take those away from you.

I say this because every single other kind of rifle has had legislation attempted against it which would make it illegal.


;-)

[TampaNick]

one bolt, two flints (one from civil war, one custom built for me by great grandfather), and an M1 that my grandma has promised me but she wont give until she croakes.

[BAMF]

one bolt, two flints (one from civil war, one custom built for me by great grandfather), and an M1 that my grandma has promised me but she wont give until she croakes.

Bolt may be left, like I said that depends on their round count. I have a bolt that holds 4 or 5 (I forget since its late) - that could feasibly be gone. The flintlocks aren't going anywhere unless the eco-fags decide they don't like the powder in it. And the M1 is a prime canidate for gun control.

[blacksheep-1]

In the People's Republik of Kalifornia, they banned some semi autos and calle dthem out by name, then an activist judge decided to ban every semi auto (even .22) because they were" functionally the same", they pulled the same crap with "green ammo".
BTW, I have some old rifles, if they'r e made before (I think 1898) they're not considerred firearms (?) and can actuall ybe sent through the mail.

[TNathe]

In the People's Republik of Kalifornia, they banned some semi autos and calle dthem out by name, then an activist judge decided to ban every semi auto (even .22) because they were" functionally the same", they pulled the same crap with "green ammo".
BTW, I have some old rifles, if they'r e made before (I think 1898) they're not considerred firearms (?) and can actuall ybe sent through the mail.

wow! see, i mean its not like we have much of a chance as it is if the military were against us, but shit, you might as well bring sling shots if you can't even have a semi-auto weapon to the fight.

[Love Doctor]

Let's go back to the type of gun control laws that were tipical during the "Wild West". LOL

The right for the people to bare arms is pretty much an insurance for us in case we would all collectively need to overthrow the Goverment.

That and its part of our freedom to bare arms if we F'in want without registration. Being free means you are free to screw up, and if you do, we have laws that will deal with that pretty quickly.

PEACE-

[TampaDude]

Very good point. The cartridge that the AR-15/M-16 uses is fucking pitiful, for example. Hell, I wouldn't trust it to fuck someone up without a well-placed hit.

Actually, I have to correct you on that one point. The 5.56 round is devastating when it hits someone at over 2600 fps, which is anywhere out to 100 yards or so. The bullet starts to tumble as soon as it enters the body, ruptures at the cannelure, and fragments explosively, opening up a wound channel the size of a volleyball inside the body. It's really nasty. Of course, at longer ranges, you basically just get a .22 caliber hole. The M4 is more a CQB weapon than a long-range rifle, anyway.

[TampaDude]

wow! see, i mean its not like we have much of a chance as it is if the military were against us, but shit, you might as well bring sling shots if you can't even have a semi-auto weapon to the fight.

All the gee-whiz technology is great for blowing up stuff and crippling enemy logistics, but you still need boots on the ground to hold territory...and soldiers are humans, too, and they can be shot and killed just like anyone else. Not that I think that kind of thing would ever happen here.

[BAMF]

Actually, I have to correct you on that one point. The 5.56 round is devastating when it hits someone at over 2600 fps, which is anywhere out to 100 yards or so. The bullet starts to tumble as soon as it enters the body, ruptures at the cannelure, and fragments explosively, opening up a wound channel the size of a volleyball inside the body. It's really nasty. Of course, at longer ranges, you basically just get a .22 caliber hole. The M4 is more a CQB weapon than a long-range rifle, anyway.

Well I Did learn something today, then. I thought the 5.56 round in teh M16s was primarily a LONG RANGE weapon.

Personally I'd rather have a 7.62 round that fragments in the same fashion (I think its the West German ones?) as the 5.56 and opens up an even nastier cavity. But interesting, nonetheless

[Billy]

One point of note for those saying that it's only "assault rifles" at risk of being restricted....

New Jersey, one of 2 states to ban civilian ownership of .50 Cal rifles, has been toying with the idea of proposing legislation that would extend that ban to muzzle loaders as well.

That would mean modern in-line muzzle loaders as well as the flint locks and wheel locks of old.

[blacksheep-1]

billy, that's why Barrett came up with th e.416, better ballistics and it skirts the law.
I always like to poin tout th eexample of Northern Ireland in their fight foe independence, they finall ygot it a few years ago from the brits (some autonomy to govern themselves) then the brits said something like, "OK, you're good to go, now how about handing over all those illegal weapons caches" The Irish reply was something less than enthusiastic.

[TNathe]

billy, that's why Barrett came up with th e.416, better ballistics and it skirts the law.
I always like to poin tout th eexample of Northern Ireland in their fight foe independence, they finall ygot it a few years ago from the brits (some autonomy to govern themselves) then the brits said something like, "OK, you're good to go, now how about handing over all those illegal weapons caches" The Irish reply was something less than enthusiastic.

The Irish are STILL facing a battle with the EU this time. I'll make a post about it later if I can find the article. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up arming themselves and prepare to defend themselves against the EU.

[jabtay]

Wound....Eheheheh....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249-short-saw.gif

DO WANT!
HAPPINESS IS A BELT FED WEAPON

[PPGMD]

HAPPINESS IS A WARM BELT FED WEAPON

FTFY

[jabtay]

:lmao:

[Billy]

billy, that's why Barrett came up with th e.416, better ballistics and it skirts the law.
I always like to poin tout th eexample of Northern Ireland in their fight foe independence, they finall ygot it a few years ago from the brits (some autonomy to govern themselves) then the brits said something like, "OK, you're good to go, now how about handing over all those illegal weapons caches" The Irish reply was something less than enthusiastic.

I just hoped onto Barrett's website to get the letter that Ronnie Barrett sent to LA in regards to California's ban on 50 caliber weapons, but I found this new one. He is still my hero....

March 14, 2008



Chief Boisse Correa

Honolulu Police Department

801 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813



Dear Chief Correa:



I am Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. In 1982, I invented a rifle and started producing it in my gravel-floor garage. Through hard work and financial risk, my company has grown into a brand that is known around the world for its products and services.

What began for me as a personal sport shooting rifle has evolved into one that is used by many sportsmen throughout the country, the United States military, law enforcement agencies and by nearly 50 American allied countries around the world.

Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, like all U.S. small arms defense contractors, has a combination of civilian, police and government defense sales in order to sustain its business life. This is the only way we can stand ready when products are needed in both peacetime and during war.

Simply put, the small arms defense industry in America would not survive if not for commercial sales, which are a significant part of our business. Unless the government is ready to bring back its manufacturing arsenals that were finally closed in 1968, it needs to guard and protect the privately-owned businesses that provide these essential products.

The act of a governmental entity banning commercial sales of legal firearms, such as my .50 caliber rifle, not only violates the basic principles of the United States Constitution, but also puts national security at risk by ending the delicate balance between the government and the private sector. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that endangers the future of other vital defense contractors.

How important is this particular rifle? In 2004, the United States Army named the Barrett M107 Rifle as one of the Top 10 Greatest Inventions for helping our brave service men and women do their jobs. The free enterprise system allowed me, a civilian sportsman and manufacturer, to perfect that rifle and get it into the hands of those who use it to defend freedom.

I am, of course, aware that you are receiving exaggerated and untrue information that is originating from the Violence Policy Center. For many years The VPC has claimed an urgent need to ban powerful rifles by predicting some attack will soon happen that would result in preposterous destruction. Well, as much as they promote the attack idea, they don’t happen, as this is not the type of weapon our enemies are using against us.

VPC’s call for urgent action is in hopes that no time will be spent in factual research that easily reveals the irrationality of these exaggerated claims. All of these tactics have failed to work in Washington, D.C. Now, the VPC’s plan is to continue this deception at the state level.

I was in law enforcement myself for several years. There is something that bothers me, and I believe it should bother you as a police official. Sir, your general testimony and statements must be based on factual evidence. All police work in this great nation must be firmly grounded in facts, collected evidence, and the solid truth.

Throughout history, when police work was contaminated with innuendos, fabrications and fear tactics, the society was doomed. Now, I must ask you how many murders can you report that were committed in your jurisdiction with a .50-caliber rifle? How many robberies? How many .50-caliber rifles have you found at crime scenes? The answers should be the true facts; anything else is the destroyer of our society, our great republic.

It is the law. Barrett Firearms Manufacturing cannot sell our products to those who break the law even though the officials responsible may not yet be indicted. Barrett will not support a state or local government that is obviously in violation of the United States Constitution thereby jeopardizing the safety and security of its citizens.

Be aware there are more companies that will respect this position. If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies. We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.



Sincerely,

Ronnie G. Barrett

President

[BAMF]

^ That guy is my hero, too.

[TampaDude]

Well I Did learn something today, then. I thought the 5.56 round in teh M16s was primarily a LONG RANGE weapon.

Personally I'd rather have a 7.62 round that fragments in the same fashion (I think its the West German ones?) as the 5.56 and opens up an even nastier cavity. But interesting, nonetheless

Well, compared to a handgun, the M16 is a long-range weapon, but compared to other commonly available LE and hunting rounds, the 223/5.56 round sucks for shooting at distant targets. The .308, .30-06, or any of the WinMag rounds is a better round for shooting at targets over 100 yards away, as the trajectory is flatter and the bullet carries more energy farther downrange.

[buck19]

This thread is a pretty F'en good read. And to Mr. Barrett. I love his stance. If the people can't have it, no one else can. That is an honorable ground to stand on. A true American IMO.

[TampaDude]

This thread is a pretty F'en good read. And to Mr. Barrett. I love his stance. If the people can't have it, no one else can. That is an honorable ground to stand on. A true American IMO.

+1 Barrett is the MAN. :cool:

[TNathe]

Be aware there are more companies that will respect this position. If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies. We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.

BAM! nice job!

[blacksheep-1]

After the People's Republik of Kalifornia banned .50s he sent a letter to the Orange county Sherriff's office (the sherriff backed the ban) and told him that if he wanted his rifles back (Barrett was doing service work on them) the sherriff could come get them himself, he wasn't going to pay the shipping.

Wanna bet he's NOT voting for Obomber?