This goes to show just how well you actaully understand the American Conservative.... "John McCain, the beloved of the Republican partusans...."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
John McCain is the beloved of the Dim's and their lib media.
"Assault Weapons" Ban Bill Extended
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
John McCain is the beloved of the Dim's and their lib media.
Assaullt rifles are fully automatic weapons. All of those banned weapons are semi automatic.
Full metal jacketed bullets are used because expanding (hunting) bullets are banned under the Geneva Convention.
There is a big difference between being maimed (wounded) and killed, especially from a military viewpoint. When an enemy is wounded, that person, plus the ones helping to evacuate that person are removed from the battle, i.e. less enemy forces opposing you. That is why true assult weapons use mediocre rounds.
Fully automatic weapons have been illeagal to own since 1927.
IMO, people who want that bill extended would love to have the whole country disarmed of all firearms. Hitler disarmed his country in 1937...the rest is history, and everyone knows how that story ended.
I am very proud to say that I belong to the NRA, support the 2nd Amendment and oppose any laws that restrict my right to keep and bear any arms that I desire.
Full metal jacketed bullets are used because expanding (hunting) bullets are banned under the Geneva Convention.
There is a big difference between being maimed (wounded) and killed, especially from a military viewpoint. When an enemy is wounded, that person, plus the ones helping to evacuate that person are removed from the battle, i.e. less enemy forces opposing you. That is why true assult weapons use mediocre rounds.
Fully automatic weapons have been illeagal to own since 1927.
IMO, people who want that bill extended would love to have the whole country disarmed of all firearms. Hitler disarmed his country in 1937...the rest is history, and everyone knows how that story ended.
I am very proud to say that I belong to the NRA, support the 2nd Amendment and oppose any laws that restrict my right to keep and bear any arms that I desire.
Damn, clearly I'm soon to be living in a Fascist, warmongering, police-state...
Do you live in the UK ??? If so, I'd suggest you read some history books to get a better understanding of what happened in Europe about 60 odd years ago.
Oddly enough I was yanking your chain with that little bit, but a breif review of this forum show that BS, llkoolkeg and Jorvik would support him as POTUS (in some cases in preference to Dubya).Originally posted by N8
This goes to show just how well you actaully understand the American Conservative.... "John McCain, the beloved of the Republican partusans...."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
John McCain is the beloved of the Dim's and their lib media.
And you posted this:
McCain's jabs at the spend-crazed GOP-controlled Congress show that he might be one of the few conservatives left in Washington
Probably not your own opinion, but it's hard to tell sometimes...
You reckon you've get a better grasp of European politics and history than I?
Nope... not my opinion of McCain at all.Originally posted by fluff
Oddly enough I was yanking your chain with that little bit, but a breif review of this forum show that BS, llkoolkeg and Jorvik would support him as POTUS (in some cases in preference to Dubya).
And you posted this:
McCain's jabs at the spend-crazed GOP-controlled Congress show that he might be one of the few conservatives left in Washington
Probably not your own opinion, but it's hard to tell sometimes...
I'll tell you just how conservative McCain is; his name's being bantered around the lib media as a Vice President on a Kerry-McCain Dream Ticket...
No I don't. I just don't understand your position that guns are evil and citizens shouldn't own them. The nazi's disarmed their own citizens...and then killed them...if only the Jews and other minorities had been able to defend themselves, maybe there wouldn't have been six million people murdered in those death camps.
The loss of life in the US due to gun violence is quite small comparted to the loss of life due to drunk drivers and those impared on drugs (including weed)...
That isn't necessarily my position, we are talking here about asault weapons (clearly a vague term) which are arguably unnecessarily destructive for you average citizen.
I have used shotguns (for skeet shooting) here in the UK and it is good fun. It is harder to come by a gun legally in the UK, handguns are illegal and to get any kind of firearm you need a license, secure storage and a visit from a law enforcement officer to check you are no psycho.
The (illegal) alternative is to talk to a few dodgy people.
It does keep gun crime fairly rare, even if it seems overly restrictive.
As for the Jews in Germany, I doubt that guns would have helped much against the SS and the Gestapo.
It is already illeagal to own real military weapons in this country.
The firearms on that list function no different than any other semi-auto firearm. Both are deadly against humans in the hands of a criminal.
Why should a firearm be illeagal just because it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor and a bayonet lug?
The firearms on that list function no different than any other semi-auto firearm. Both are deadly against humans in the hands of a criminal.
Why should a firearm be illeagal just because it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor and a bayonet lug?
Because it is scary looking to Lib's silly....
That bit gives me no problem - window dressing after all.
I don't see the need for anything that can kill a lot of people very quickly to be in civilian hands.
Well, in that case you can sleep easier knowing that full on automatic weapons are banned from general civilian ownership since 1927.
I'm not convinced that covers the quesiton off fully but I guess that's a matter of opinion and we'll just have to agree to differ.Originally posted by N8
Well, in that case you can sleep easier knowing that full on automatic weapons are banned from general civilian ownership since 1927.
How many rounds could you get off in 10 secs with the most dangerous legal gun?
The fastest shooters I know all shoot revolvers. They can squeeze off six rounds faster than you can possibly count. The advantage with the revolver vs. semi-auto in speed is the time it takes for an auto's slide to blow back, compress the main spring, pick up a new round, and insert it into the chamber.
I am just amazed how facts cannot move the ignorant from their entrenched positions. I don't know why I even attempted to talk guns with people who have no comprehension of how they work much less why they are inextricably woven into the fabric of this nation. I just don't get it. Fluff or derekbob trying to debate me on guns is akin to me telling Einstein he got relativity all wrong. The difference is that a reasonably intelligent man is cognizant of and admits to his limitations while the fool argues on bluefaced that the earth is flat despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. 
N8,
We just spent like 8 pages describing how the weapons arent really any more dangerous. Fluff just doesnt want to hear it because he doesnt want to be wrong. Our point has been made, and people will go on and on trying to ban things just because.
We just spent like 8 pages describing how the weapons arent really any more dangerous. Fluff just doesnt want to hear it because he doesnt want to be wrong. Our point has been made, and people will go on and on trying to ban things just because.
I wish you guys could read as well as you claim to be able to shoot.
See, this is what I mean by gun nut.
Let me know how the patriots in Ruby Ridge and Waco made out with their weapons.
Face it, your rifle is NOT going to protect you from the government.
Typ Lib.... maybe they were partiots in your public school based revisionist history class....
Assault rifles should be banned from general public use, and the definition of assault rifle should be any rifle with a 20 round or more magazine firiing a round who's primary balistic characteristics are to maim and not kill, IE the 5.56/.223 round (of course the .50 round and any rifle firing it should be outlawed, there is no practical purpose for this against any creature as it is primarily a anti-material round).
The most classic example of the above definition is the AR-15, the civilian counterpart to the military M-16. By many weapon owners, even those in this thread, it is an unviable hunting rifle. It is also very unviable for home defense, the 5.56/.223 FMJ round has a nasty habit of passing through urban dwelling walls with ease, often maiming or killing those on the other side of the wall. A full size rifle is also unwieldy in close combat, hence the reason the Army is moving the M-4 carbine for most infantry units now.
A pistol and a hunting rifle(including shotguns), limited to 5-10 round magazines, is all that is needed for the public.
To recap the 3 common arguments:
1. I need an assault rifle for fun. - I like to club baby seals for fun, does not mean I should be able to do it. If the only reason you can think of to own an assault rifle is fun, you need help.
2. I need it for home defense. - A handgun, shotgun are much more suited for close combat and home defense. The common rounds in most assault rifles (5.56/.223 and 7.62) go through walls very easily. A 9mm and buckshot round has a more difficult time.
3. I need it to keep the man from coming down on me if the US turns into Nazi Germany - First, you should be ashamed to think for a single moment that those of us in the Military would follow an obviously illegal order en masse and attack our own country. We are not all mindless slaves. And secondly, if you think for a moment that you stand a chance against my team in any urban environment with anything short of a tank, you are kidding yourself. Teams like mine will be in your house and have you subdued before you can get out of your bed. (Average room entry time is ~ 1 second, and thats 4 men coming in after a flashbang)
I support our civilians right to bear arms and protect themselves, but there has to be limits.
The most classic example of the above definition is the AR-15, the civilian counterpart to the military M-16. By many weapon owners, even those in this thread, it is an unviable hunting rifle. It is also very unviable for home defense, the 5.56/.223 FMJ round has a nasty habit of passing through urban dwelling walls with ease, often maiming or killing those on the other side of the wall. A full size rifle is also unwieldy in close combat, hence the reason the Army is moving the M-4 carbine for most infantry units now.
A pistol and a hunting rifle(including shotguns), limited to 5-10 round magazines, is all that is needed for the public.
To recap the 3 common arguments:
1. I need an assault rifle for fun. - I like to club baby seals for fun, does not mean I should be able to do it. If the only reason you can think of to own an assault rifle is fun, you need help.
2. I need it for home defense. - A handgun, shotgun are much more suited for close combat and home defense. The common rounds in most assault rifles (5.56/.223 and 7.62) go through walls very easily. A 9mm and buckshot round has a more difficult time.
3. I need it to keep the man from coming down on me if the US turns into Nazi Germany - First, you should be ashamed to think for a single moment that those of us in the Military would follow an obviously illegal order en masse and attack our own country. We are not all mindless slaves. And secondly, if you think for a moment that you stand a chance against my team in any urban environment with anything short of a tank, you are kidding yourself. Teams like mine will be in your house and have you subdued before you can get out of your bed. (Average room entry time is ~ 1 second, and thats 4 men coming in after a flashbang)
I support our civilians right to bear arms and protect themselves, but there has to be limits.
I didn't go to an American public school. That's why I know more American history than your average American, but that's another thread...Originally posted by N8
Typ Lib.... maybe they were partiots in your public school based revisionist history class....
a born in the USA American what kind of guns I can own. And I'm tired of them trying to re-write American History too. It's because Americans were armed to the tooth that we've never been invaded.
them and liberal type Americans...I'm tired of being degraded because of my European heritriage too. Yea, I'm trollin'...so what.
Exhibit "A", your honor...
AHHHAHAHAHAhaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
hhahaaaaaaaahahahahaahahaaaaaaa.
*breath*
HHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAHAAAaaaaaaaa. aaaaaaa. ha.
Dude, I just snotted on my new t-shirt.
Funniest political forum post, EVER. Even MMike can't come up with **** that good.
"...and the definition of assault rifle should be..."
Who cares what you think it should be. My definition is what it IS.
"1. I need an assault rifle for fun. - I like to club baby seals for fun, does not mean I should be able to do it. If the only reason you can think of to own an assault rifle is fun, you need help."
Who argued that they NEED one for fun? And who besides you said a damned thing about baby seals?? As usual, instead of arging facts, those void of logic inject non sequitors. I have my own opinion of who needs help, BTW.
"2. I need it for home defense. - A handgun, shotgun are much more suited for close combat and home defense. The common rounds in most assault rifles (5.56/.223 and 7.62) go through walls very easily. A 9mm and buckshot round has a more difficult time."
True, they are not the best tool to use within a dwelling, but they are very useful for firing from inside at those outside. Also, 9mms can zip through drywall as well. I prefer 00 buckshot and 200 gr. JHPs in .45cal inside.
"3. I need it to keep the man from coming down on me if the US turns into Nazi Germany - First, you should be ashamed to think for a single moment that those of us in the Military would follow an obviously illegal order en masse and attack our own country. We are not all mindless slaves. And secondly, if you think for a moment that you stand a chance against my team in any urban environment with anything short of a tank, you are kidding yourself. Teams like mine will be in your house and have you subdued before you can get out of your bed. (Average room entry time is ~ 1 second, and thats 4 men coming in after a flashbang)"
Before spouting off at the mouth, read some history and learn why the 2nd Amendment was demanded inclusion in the Bill of Rights. If there was no previous precedent for the use of militaria against US citizens, why do we have Posse Comitatus? Why have there been court cases brought referencing that statute by CA citizens whose homesteads were raided by Federal Agents backed by Guardsmen who were supposedly looking for weed patches that were never found? I have the utmost respect for our Armed Forces, but I prefer on a domestic front to look after my own safety instead of blindly hoping someone else can be counted on in that regard.
As far as the "you'd stand no chance against us" bullshi+, you are right only if you attack unwitting people in their sleep. If someone knows you're coming, the playing field is leveled when you are attacking someone on their own turf. You come into a dwelling flashbang or not w/o knowing where the occupants are and whether or not the have a gasmask and semi auto 12GA trained, the first guy in the door or window loses an appendage. It's easy to be a tough guy punching holes in paper targets that don't shoot back during your training exercises. And if you think your markmanship is so hot, you'd be surprised I think at what a good ol' Southern boy can do with guns he's been shooting since before you were old enough to properly wield a super soaker. Not that I have even a whit of respect for the Branch Davidians, but I seem to remember them being underestimated to deadly effect by a few gung ho hotshots that tried to enter an upper window dressed like ninjas. Your cocksure swagger and bravado on this topic do not become one wearing the uniform, if you ask me.
Who cares what you think it should be. My definition is what it IS.
"1. I need an assault rifle for fun. - I like to club baby seals for fun, does not mean I should be able to do it. If the only reason you can think of to own an assault rifle is fun, you need help."
Who argued that they NEED one for fun? And who besides you said a damned thing about baby seals?? As usual, instead of arging facts, those void of logic inject non sequitors. I have my own opinion of who needs help, BTW.
"2. I need it for home defense. - A handgun, shotgun are much more suited for close combat and home defense. The common rounds in most assault rifles (5.56/.223 and 7.62) go through walls very easily. A 9mm and buckshot round has a more difficult time."
True, they are not the best tool to use within a dwelling, but they are very useful for firing from inside at those outside. Also, 9mms can zip through drywall as well. I prefer 00 buckshot and 200 gr. JHPs in .45cal inside.
"3. I need it to keep the man from coming down on me if the US turns into Nazi Germany - First, you should be ashamed to think for a single moment that those of us in the Military would follow an obviously illegal order en masse and attack our own country. We are not all mindless slaves. And secondly, if you think for a moment that you stand a chance against my team in any urban environment with anything short of a tank, you are kidding yourself. Teams like mine will be in your house and have you subdued before you can get out of your bed. (Average room entry time is ~ 1 second, and thats 4 men coming in after a flashbang)"
Before spouting off at the mouth, read some history and learn why the 2nd Amendment was demanded inclusion in the Bill of Rights. If there was no previous precedent for the use of militaria against US citizens, why do we have Posse Comitatus? Why have there been court cases brought referencing that statute by CA citizens whose homesteads were raided by Federal Agents backed by Guardsmen who were supposedly looking for weed patches that were never found? I have the utmost respect for our Armed Forces, but I prefer on a domestic front to look after my own safety instead of blindly hoping someone else can be counted on in that regard.
As far as the "you'd stand no chance against us" bullshi+, you are right only if you attack unwitting people in their sleep. If someone knows you're coming, the playing field is leveled when you are attacking someone on their own turf. You come into a dwelling flashbang or not w/o knowing where the occupants are and whether or not the have a gasmask and semi auto 12GA trained, the first guy in the door or window loses an appendage. It's easy to be a tough guy punching holes in paper targets that don't shoot back during your training exercises. And if you think your markmanship is so hot, you'd be surprised I think at what a good ol' Southern boy can do with guns he's been shooting since before you were old enough to properly wield a super soaker. Not that I have even a whit of respect for the Branch Davidians, but I seem to remember them being underestimated to deadly effect by a few gung ho hotshots that tried to enter an upper window dressed like ninjas. Your cocksure swagger and bravado on this topic do not become one wearing the uniform, if you ask me.
Realistically, what percentage of gun owners are as prepared or trined for such an event as you are? Realistically, what are the chances said percentage would be aware that a raid on their home is about to occur (i.e. not asleep and standing ready at the exact point of entry with a shotgun)?
Also, I don't mean to twist your logic, but are you arguing that we need these weapons for the protection of militant fringe groups?
Can you give me one example in the last 20 years in the United States where the authorities (for reasons just or not, it doesn't matter) left a gun owner alone due to the fact that he was highly armed, rather than saying "fvck it!" and calling in the SWAT team?
(Or the National Guard or the FBI?)
Basically, do you have one example of a successful defence against the government that didn't involve lawyers or the ACLU, and involved firearms?
(Or the National Guard or the FBI?)
Basically, do you have one example of a successful defence against the government that didn't involve lawyers or the ACLU, and involved firearms?
Your definition is wrong:
Assault Rifle - a rifle specially suited for combat-type operations, designed for effective combat ranges of under 400 meters, using an intermediate round (eg. 5.56 mm NATO, or 7.62 x 39 mm), which is loaded into the rifle in a box magazine - civilian versions would include the popular AR-15 variants, as well as the AK 47 - assault rifles are characterized by their light weight and low recoil
Several in this thread, and the usual NRA rhetoric when confronted with why anyone needs an assault rifle. You do not need a rifle with these capabilites for home defense, you do not need a rifle with a 20-30 round magazine for hunting
Most subsonic 9mm rounds have a difficult time going through walls, it happens in a lot of 3rd world, poor crafted homes, but most US homes the round will penetrate and bounce around between wallboards.
and political forum
By KO as well.......someone just got owned I think.
Good friggin' grief...one at a time, please!
ohio- I am not trained for such things; I've simply spent a lot of brass in my day. I have a pregnant wife and a 2-year old. If someone comes knocking with a badge and gun, I'm going in cuffs w/o even a cross word of retort. The strength in the 2nd is not with individuals, but with the collective. And thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing out your logical twist- no, I do not support militant fringe groups.
Silver- I am not privy to Law Enforcement working files. I would not suggest anyone, however, get into armed conflicts with Johnny Law. It never turns out nice.
Kihaji- Your definition is more lengthy and accurately describes the type of firearm, save the semi-auto vs. full-auto/select fire component(unless you're referring to the differences between the M16/AR15). I was not cutting and pasting one from a specific source. BTW, what is yours?
I never said 20-30 round mags were for hunting OR home defense. The 2nd amendment is not about either and you presumably are aware of that.
Again, why the red herring? Who said anything about subsonic rounds? 9mm FMJ ammo will penetrate drywall, to say nothing of law enforcement grade or +P.
My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is spot on. Do you deny that it was included in the Bill of Rights for the purpose of enabling citizens the means of overthrowing a rogue or tyrannical regime? Come on...let's not be disingenuous. As for what would be termed Class IIIs or "destructive devices", there is a lengthy and expensive licensing process one may go through to get access to such things. I don't personally see a need, though. As far as tanks and howitzers, private citizens DO own those things if they are wealthy enough, undergo the FBI licensing procedure and pay the hefty tax stamp on them. Obviously, they are not permitted on the streets. There are several organizations that have marksmanship competitions with both .50BMGs AND cannons.
We are in agreement on the 2nd Amendment not being about fending off prosecution. I do not agree that the US military should be used for domestic law enforcement, save occasional necessities like burning/looting/rioting in the streets or for assistance after an act of God.
No postcard? Well, I guess I was mistaken then.
I have seen urban combat training at Quantico and have participated in some of the unit training there as modified for DOA civilians. Going into a hot hole first takes some nuts. I wouldn't want to do it.
I have had guns shot in my direction, but not with lethal intent to my knowledge. I never claimed to be a service member, though.
We are in agreement on the ATF/FBI HRT yahoos.
Like I said before, if someone ever came to arrest me, I'd go willingly and take my chances before a jury of my peers. I am still not feeling intimidated by you, though. Sorry. Your chances asleep at home under similar threat would be scarcely better than mine, though, I imagine.
LordOpie- I thank you for your biased opinion, but am inclined to disagree.
valve bouncer- Same as above...but since when have you taken to thinking?
ohio- I am not trained for such things; I've simply spent a lot of brass in my day. I have a pregnant wife and a 2-year old. If someone comes knocking with a badge and gun, I'm going in cuffs w/o even a cross word of retort. The strength in the 2nd is not with individuals, but with the collective. And thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing out your logical twist- no, I do not support militant fringe groups.
Silver- I am not privy to Law Enforcement working files. I would not suggest anyone, however, get into armed conflicts with Johnny Law. It never turns out nice.
Kihaji- Your definition is more lengthy and accurately describes the type of firearm, save the semi-auto vs. full-auto/select fire component(unless you're referring to the differences between the M16/AR15). I was not cutting and pasting one from a specific source. BTW, what is yours?
I never said 20-30 round mags were for hunting OR home defense. The 2nd amendment is not about either and you presumably are aware of that.
Again, why the red herring? Who said anything about subsonic rounds? 9mm FMJ ammo will penetrate drywall, to say nothing of law enforcement grade or +P.
My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is spot on. Do you deny that it was included in the Bill of Rights for the purpose of enabling citizens the means of overthrowing a rogue or tyrannical regime? Come on...let's not be disingenuous. As for what would be termed Class IIIs or "destructive devices", there is a lengthy and expensive licensing process one may go through to get access to such things. I don't personally see a need, though. As far as tanks and howitzers, private citizens DO own those things if they are wealthy enough, undergo the FBI licensing procedure and pay the hefty tax stamp on them. Obviously, they are not permitted on the streets. There are several organizations that have marksmanship competitions with both .50BMGs AND cannons.
We are in agreement on the 2nd Amendment not being about fending off prosecution. I do not agree that the US military should be used for domestic law enforcement, save occasional necessities like burning/looting/rioting in the streets or for assistance after an act of God.
No postcard? Well, I guess I was mistaken then.
I have seen urban combat training at Quantico and have participated in some of the unit training there as modified for DOA civilians. Going into a hot hole first takes some nuts. I wouldn't want to do it.
I have had guns shot in my direction, but not with lethal intent to my knowledge. I never claimed to be a service member, though.
We are in agreement on the ATF/FBI HRT yahoos.
Like I said before, if someone ever came to arrest me, I'd go willingly and take my chances before a jury of my peers. I am still not feeling intimidated by you, though. Sorry. Your chances asleep at home under similar threat would be scarcely better than mine, though, I imagine.
LordOpie- I thank you for your biased opinion, but am inclined to disagree.
valve bouncer- Same as above...but since when have you taken to thinking?
An armed populous is far from the main reason that the US has avoided foreign invasion.
Geography is the biggest reason that it has not.
Germans were right off our shore during WWII, they never invaded. After the cold war was over, it was quoted by several USSR leaders that our citizens being armed ruled out their consideration of a land based invasion. Tha same goes for the Japanese during the WWII era.
Just off your shore? Where are you?
Ever think it's kinda strange that the Germans didn't just hop over the 16 miles of English Channel to invade this country? After all our citizens aren't armed. I guess that's why we get invaded all the time, eh?
In none of the three examples you gave did the country in question have anywhere near the resources to launch any sort of invasion of the US. Exactly how do you move an invasion force from any of those three countries to the US in any sort of coherent fashion? Then once here exactly how are you going to supply it in sufficient amounts to keep it viable? In the Cold War it would have been virtually impossible for anyone to sneak an invasion force up on the US.
That is of course unless you use the Red Dawn model of US invasion.
You show me one attributable quote from a Soviet leader that indicated that they ruled out an invasion of the US because of our armed populous. If there is one (I doubt) it most likely refers to the presence of Reserve and National Guard units not a small percentage of the population with a few shot guns, rifles and pistols.
Its my Constitutional Right to have a gun if I so desire. Its second only to the Freedom of Speech and we all know what happens whenever someone is censored in that area...
So, if you don't want a gun, don't get one. If you want a gun, go for it and learn to use it safely.
But don't tell me I can't own a gun because its "scarey" looking... that's just stupid.
So, if you don't want a gun, don't get one. If you want a gun, go for it and learn to use it safely.
But don't tell me I can't own a gun because its "scarey" looking... that's just stupid.