syadasti said:
Its a really good idea for the government to have all the guns ain't it..?
California to ban the most bad ass gun ever.
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
Its a really good idea for the government to have all the guns ain't it..?
Yeah man weapons are so sweet. Unfortunatly arms laws are pretty strict here in Holland.
U have to be in a club, shoot at least 12times a year to get a permit or u cant even buy a gun, full auto's are illegal all toghether, u cant carry m on the streets, u have to keep m at home in seperate vaults which will be checked by the police. U can only have a permit for only a few weapons and the list go's on and on.
I used to shoot at a firing range with some friends once or twice every month but I got bored pretty quick. Offcourse u can buy one from the black market and just shoot some roadsigns from the car which I found was more exciting, but their pretty hard to come by for "normal peeps".
It must be real nice to have the right to bare arms. Have a big gun collection at the crib, shooting automatic's and offcourse having little kids accidently shoot their friends, teens stealing their dads guns to shoot the whole school and having real live driveby's nearby without having to rent "Boyz in da hood".
Damn u guys are really lucky....
U have to be in a club, shoot at least 12times a year to get a permit or u cant even buy a gun, full auto's are illegal all toghether, u cant carry m on the streets, u have to keep m at home in seperate vaults which will be checked by the police. U can only have a permit for only a few weapons and the list go's on and on.
I used to shoot at a firing range with some friends once or twice every month but I got bored pretty quick. Offcourse u can buy one from the black market and just shoot some roadsigns from the car which I found was more exciting, but their pretty hard to come by for "normal peeps".
It must be real nice to have the right to bare arms. Have a big gun collection at the crib, shooting automatic's and offcourse having little kids accidently shoot their friends, teens stealing their dads guns to shoot the whole school and having real live driveby's nearby without having to rent "Boyz in da hood".
Damn u guys are really lucky....
Horrible argument. It made sense in 200 years ago. Now, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, if the government wants you, you're dead.N8 said:Its a really good idea for the government to have all the guns ain't it..?
If your armed then it might take them awhile though... remember the Branch Dividians...???Silver said:
syadasti said:
...and gun laws did what..???
BTW, most violent crime rates are down nation wide... even those places where owning guns is manditory.
syadasti fails to reconize the sheer size and impractical nature of this gun. Yeah, this thing is sure to kill lots of people really quickly 
You cant even walk through a door with it or run with it. It weighs 40 lbs.
Consider this. This question was asked to me buy a russian guy i met while riding, because no guns are allowed in russia to the public, but criminals have them.
In america you have second thoughts about going into a 711 to rob it because you dont know if the guy behind the counter has a gun or not. In places where there are no guns, you 100% possitive that the dude doesnt.
Can we talk about the barrett and why its being banned, not weather guns in general should be banned.
You cant even walk through a door with it or run with it. It weighs 40 lbs. Consider this. This question was asked to me buy a russian guy i met while riding, because no guns are allowed in russia to the public, but criminals have them.
In america you have second thoughts about going into a 711 to rob it because you dont know if the guy behind the counter has a gun or not. In places where there are no guns, you 100% possitive that the dude doesnt.
Can we talk about the barrett and why its being banned, not weather guns in general should be banned.
Oh yes mack thats it why I don't refer to that gun at all and even mention above:mack said:syadasti fails to reconize the sheer size and impractical nature of this gun. Yeah, this thing is sure to kill lots of people really quickly
Maybe you should learn how to read, spell, and comprehend English before you argue with someone.
I guess going mad and shooting people from a tower in Texas, sniping random people from a remote location, or maybe just being a dumb gun user and maim/killing someone from stray fire from a rifle too powerful to use pratically in anything but the battlefield wouldn't happen either?
Well you tried to make it seem as if it (or other guns in its class) were used in the Hollywood bank robbery...when in reality the guns were totally different.
What does it matter if my spelling is bad, so i type fast... it doesnt mean that my arguments are invalid just because you are more righteous in your english...
EDIT: You bring up the waco texas case. Yeah, the FBI did really great on that one... That is THE only incident that the barrett was used to hurt people, the one and only, out of the countless sold. Do you have any idea how many cops are killed with handguns?
Thats why i support keeping tabs on who buys these, and not to sell them to openly fascist right wing nut jobs.
What does it matter if my spelling is bad, so i type fast... it doesnt mean that my arguments are invalid just because you are more righteous in your english...
EDIT: You bring up the waco texas case. Yeah, the FBI did really great on that one... That is THE only incident that the barrett was used to hurt people, the one and only, out of the countless sold. Do you have any idea how many cops are killed with handguns?
Thats why i support keeping tabs on who buys these, and not to sell them to openly fascist right wing nut jobs.
No, but thanks for bringing it up. I was talking about the serial sniper Charles Whitman who in 1966 killed 14 people and injuried dozens of others in a 90 minute shooting spree from a university tower in Texas. He was an upstanding citizen, an ex-Marine, and A student and snapped one day. And no (luckily for the student body) he didn't use a 50 caliber rifle that day...mack said:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/whitman/
SOI also teaches that there's a giant lump of iron in the Hudson Bay of Canada which is responsible for magnetic north's deviation from geographic north. If you don't think the Marine Corps fed you some whoppers, you're in for a few more rude shocks in life. The tradition of erroneous oral history in the Marines is unsurpassed...with the elevation of our initial teachings to the sacred level, no one questions stupidity and passes on bad word with the eagerness of a group of 5th grade girls.jon cross said:
By the way, "flustrated" isn't really a word, either...
Silver is right about the Barrett. It's a psychological band-aid for America, like a lot of gun control laws that don't do a damned thing to solve the real problems. Then again, it does make the secret service sh1t their pants to think about someone using one of these weapons on a long, narrow street in DC, from way outside their security, regardless of whether said weapon was legally or illegally obtained.
They're really really f'in hard to shoot, too, by the way. Only done it once, and it's pretty damned difficult, mentally and physically.
Wanna see some good talk about gun issues, check out this thread in another forum... http://www.911jobforums.com/vB/showthread.php3?t=37698
MD
Yeah, see that vent at the tip, that is a exhaust vent to pull the gun away from your shoulder. Without that vent the gun is like 10 12 gauges fired at once, with it i think it isnt so bad, but still bad. And shooting from a mile away one has to account for wind and bullet drop of course, so i doubt you would ever be able to hit the president from that range.
Unless you happened to be a good marksman.mack said:
Since our armed forces are tiny, and we don't have any hunters in this country, luckily that isn't going to be a problem, right?
Peace is a good dude. However, read the response from an ATF agent who knows his stuff:mack said:
Insider's answer
Believe me I could go on and on. However, some points to ponder. For some reason, the quick shot at gun control laws is that they don't prevent criminals from getting guns. This is Profundity for Idiots. Sounds meaningful and has no meaning. Under that standard every law enforced by every officer and agent is a failure. Homicide laws do not prevent people from committing homicide; drug laws do not prevent people from getting high; speeding laws etc.etc. So what do they do? Well depending on the surety with which they are enforced and the resources devoted to enforcing them they may form a deterrent or suppressant effect (thus folks might agree that ramming the gun control act down the throat of prohibited persons may supress violent crime rates - call this Project Exile). The act of ramming is called accountability. You are a career criminal, catch you with a bullet and you do a minimum mandatory 15. What is your career? Armed Robbery? See you in 15 spud.
I personally am skeptical about the stolen gun thingy. By the logic involved most hit and runs are committed with stolen cars. Persons who dump their guns on the street often use the reported theft as a half ass attempt to clear their back trail. ATF tracing studies show that significant criminal gun availability is the product of those who either in collusion with retail dealers or who acting to defraud legit dealers buy them at retail and then sell them at markup across the street, across the county line, across state lines. The reason for my skepticism is that the guns frequently traced in crimes do not match with the guns most commonly owned by straight citizens across the board. Still a lot of stolen guns out there, worked and ATF still works some pretty ugly ones where everybody working in the gun shop got executed and the inventory cleaned out. My skepticism isn't that there aren't stolen guns its that folks claim that is all that is going on out there which is often an exuse to cover that there is some minor level of industry corruption.
Locking up your gun as appropriate may keep you child or a playmate alive, but is probably not the core of keeping guns off the street. that is a product of tracing the guns you recover and ensuring that the gun control laws in your jurisdiction are actually used or enforced. If not, you live in Never Never Land and policing is always tough where there are no adults.
Dude, shooting one of those things is really, really draining. It kinda sucks the air of of you when the shot breaks. Frankly, it's not all that pleasant...mack said:
If you're into serious long-range marksmanship, it's a hell of a round, though. It's also expensive as hell.
Edit: forgot my point. Yeah, you can hit people from 1000m + with the thing...wtf do you think scopes and sights do, besides 'accounting for bullet drop?' Newsflash, kid, that's called "aiming." Range estimation is a critical element of aiming so you can set your weapon so the ballistic arc of the bullet strikes your target. Wind? Yeah, good marksmanship can help with that, too...that's also why you've got a spotter, to call the wind correction for a second shot. If all this thing did was make a bigger hole at close range, it wouldn't be so useful, especially since a sniper team's mobility while lugging one of these things around is pretty limited.
By the way, as to the Geneva Convention (different tangent), it doesn't ban any weapon against any specific target. It recognizes the purpose of weapons is killing, and war as a place where killing happens. You can target an individual with a cruise missile or a 2000 lb bomb or a 105mm beehive flechette round. What are banned are weapons designed specifically for cruelty and suffering, rather than simply killing...poison and glass fragmentation weapons (to prevent x-ray detection of the fragments off the battlefield) are specifically mentioned, as for some strange reason are dum-dum bullets (if I recall correctly). How relevant this is today and how much of it is simply rhetoric is debatable.
Where the erroneous ".50 cal is banned for antipersonnel use" originates, I think, is simply the literature describing the weapon's purpose. I don't think it's designated primarily as an antipersonnel weapon (again, sort of debatable...especially considering the origin of the .50 sniper rifle as just that). But I don't have the manual in front of me, so I could be very wrong. In any case, 25mm HE cannon fire is just as "legal" to kill people as anything else on the battlefield.
MD
you stole that from "the Jackle" .... that is one bad ass mini van.
edit: i think that barret desinged the gun out of fun. Buts its main purpose is long range and to take out hardend targets. Like hitting the lead trucks engine in a convoy, then taking out all the other trucks engine. A 5 dollar bullet is cheaper than a 5k lb bomb, was the main idea.
edit: i think that barret desinged the gun out of fun. Buts its main purpose is long range and to take out hardend targets. Like hitting the lead trucks engine in a convoy, then taking out all the other trucks engine. A 5 dollar bullet is cheaper than a 5k lb bomb, was the main idea.
For one, It is verry hard to conceal a gun that big. Second,the only reason Cali. wants to ban it is because there are so manny liberal hippies that just want somthing to bitch about. Besides it is hard to find the amo for that particular gun unless you have the equipment to make your own.
Can no one under the age of 20 ****ing spell anymore? Did they phase out English classes when I wasn't looking?caputo1989 said:
LOL! Abolishing the Second Amendment is not an option sparky. Meanwhile this thread was specifically about California and the M82, or at least the ammunition it fires. If you can't see how this is total feel-good legislation, not designed or intended to actually DO anything but garner some votes from the easily confused, then you are really out there in fantasy-land. But given your need to over-simplify the issue, that's probably exactly where you need to be. I think this is actually dumber than Clinton's "Assualt Weapons Ban". At least that one was marketed more effectively against more "scary" guns.syadasti said:
I had a nerf gun that was really scary looking once, It was a cyclic rate and i used to chase my little friends around with it. I bet if i painted it black and called it the Cre-146-1A it would be banned in california. Some politicians are so stupid.
Does any one remember that little boy that was killed by a cop because he pointed a nerf gun at him? Then they put those stupid orange end caps on toy guns.
Does any one remember that little boy that was killed by a cop because he pointed a nerf gun at him? Then they put those stupid orange end caps on toy guns.
caputo1989 said:
*3*. that gun is for colecters who have A.) the money for the gun AND B.) the license to own the gun witch is like $1000/ year to maintain. :mumble:
QUOTE]
You forgot C.) People who steal it for free.
syadasti said:
syadasti said:
and not deletions? And a militia will ALWAYS be necessary, because if you read the 2nd amendment you would understand what the language of the necessity of a militia really means.
and don't give me that "living document" BS as an excuse to change anything in the constitution that you dont like
syadasti said:Oh yes, I am sure a few people (or even the entire civilian population) with small arms are going to take out the law enforcement and military if needed - right
you are seriously underestimating the number of arms that the civilian population actually has. Trust me you don't know what you're talking about, and its obvious to all the people you are referring to.
So if the 2nd Amendment allows for Militias and the arming of the general populace, then the very weapons that are getting banned or on the top of everyones wish to be banned list would in fact be the type of weapons they should own.
What threats existed then that no longer exist today?