Brady Campaign Shitstorm has started

[willard 0]

Where can I get one of them 30.30 rifles? The one I have won't penetrate anywhere near that amount of armor.

Ted Kennedy's car has still killed more people than all of my guns combined. And I hope to keep it that way.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Just so you know chances are YOU WOULDNT HAVE 3 BULLETS LODGED IN YOU IF GUNS WERE ILLEGAL!!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! IF GUNS WERE BANNED IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN SHOT BY ONE AND THEREFORE WOULDNT FEEL THE NEED TO CARRY ONE FOR PROTECTION WHICH COULD IN TURN CAUSE MORE HARM.

Total crap logic. You think the guy that shot him bought the handgun in a store and went through a background check?

Quote

Where the hell does it say in the article that they want to get rid of all guns???

Reread the article. They want to get rid of centerfire rifles....Pretty much all rifles except 22's.

Quote

All the "progressive" politicians want to do is restrict the use of armor piercing bullets and high powered machine guns which arent practical in terms of hunting and home defense.

Here is where you totally missed the point of the 2nd. It is not just to protect us from criminals, but to protect us from our own Government. Absolute power corupts and the founding fathers were smart enough to know that.

Quote

To be honest with you I would support an all out gun ban or a severe restriction on gun rights

Then you would crap on the Constitution.

Quote

Since when does the hobby of Americans (hunting/shooting) have more importance than the safety of its citizens.

Since it is a right in the US Constitution. You may want a "nanny state", but I don't.

Plus more critical thinking homework for you. How can a gun be powerful enough to shoot through armor, but only wound an animal?

[billvon 2,453]

>Then you would crap on the Constitution.
>Plus more critical thinking homework for you.

And thus we see why people still support things like the Brady Campaign.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

After they get rid of all guns, next on their agenda will be the bow and arrow

Where the hell does it say in the article that they want to get rid of all guns???

All the "progressive" politicians want to do is restrict the use of armor piercing bullets and high powered machine guns which arent practical in terms of hunting and home defense. Why are all of you damn Charelton Heston lovers getting your panties in a bunch over this? Just because the "libtards" want to take away unpractical and unnecessarily harmful guns/ammo does not mean that the government is going to strike the 2nd amendment from the constitution.

When was the last time you went hunting with this???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M2_machine_gun.jpg

To be honest with you I would support an all out gun ban or a severe restriction on gun rights. Since when does the hobby of Americans (hunting/shooting) have more importance than the safety of its citizens. Just look at the gun deaths in the US vs. that of any other westernized nation with gun control laws (UK, Germany, Japan). The disparity in the number of gun related deaths alone should be enough to severely restrict gun ownership. Its about time we did pry those guns from your fingers if you ask me.

Machine guns are already restricted in the U.S. Even if you get a Class III permit most people can't afford to buy or feed a machine gun.

What defines an armor piercing bullet? I've shot through 3/8 steel with a 22-250. Depending on velocity, you can shoot a bullet made of almost any material through almost anything.

[pmw515 0]

You a gun person, or do you just like to play devil's advocate a lot?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And thus we see why people still support things like the Brady Campaign.

Nice try at an attack.

The second allows the ownership of guns. Wanting to ban guns is going against the second. You would get all pissed if it was any other Amendment, but not the second.

As for critical thinking, maybe you can explain how one bullet can both be strong enough to kill through armor, but not strong enough to kill without the target wearing armor?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

By their definition overly powerful rifles would include-

223- aka 5.56

Note that .223 Remintgon is illegal for deer hunting in some states because it's not powerful enough to insure a high probability of a humane kill.

Quote

3006

The "06" in .30-06 comes from the cartridge's year of introduction: 1906. It's not too different from 7.62x54R (1891) and 7.92x57 Mauser (dating back in slightly less powerful form to 1888)

The guns and ammunition they're going after have been arround over a century.

Quote

If I want a gun to protect myself since the cops are an ex post facto force, I'm going to have one, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

And the criminals are too.

In fact elliminating overflow from the legal market will turn criminals to other sources which have no problem providing even less desireable weaponry. Open bolt blowback operated sub-machine guns are the simplest repeating arm to manufacture (resistance movements made them during WW2; now we have personal CNC mills and no foreign armies imposing martial law) and sub guns have become the weapon of choice among Yardie gangsters in the UK.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Even if you get a Class III permit most people can't afford to buy or feed a machine gun.

All you need is a Tek-9 and a willing machinist. What's that cost, like $200?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Even if you get a Class III permit most people can't afford to buy or feed a machine gun.

All you need is a Tek-9 and a willing machinist. What's that cost, like $200?

And lots of lube for the federal fuck me up the ass prison you will be going to.

Actually it is illegal to do a conversion to FA since 1986 there have been no FA weapons imported or manufactured for civilian use.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Even if you get a Class III permit most people can't afford to buy or feed a machine gun.

All you need is a Tek-9 and a willing machinist. What's that cost, like $200?

Only if you hold an appropriate Federal Firearms License and pay the corresponding Special Occupational Tax, which the Feds only allow people who have bonifide businesses involving machineguns to do.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 makes it impossible for the rest of us to register machine guns manufactured after 1986 and unregistered machineguns are illegal. Since few people wanted to deal with the administrative hassles and pay to feed machine guns before then, the supply is limited and expensive.

Transferable sub guns start in the $3000-$4000 range.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Just so you know chances are YOU WOULDNT HAVE 3 BULLETS LODGED IN YOU IF GUNS WERE ILLEGAL!!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! IF GUNS WERE BANNED IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN SHOT BY ONE AND THEREFORE WOULDNT FEEL THE NEED TO CARRY ONE FOR PROTECTION WHICH COULD IN TURN CAUSE MORE HARM.

(I know caps lock means yelling on the internet.)

You mean like in England?

Three hit in machinegun attack at night club

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20061101/ai_n16815846

[kallend 1,660]

Quote

Quote

What defines an armor piercing bullet? I've shot through 3/8 steel with a 22-250. Depending on velocity, you can shoot a bullet made of almost any material through almost anything.

What defines "steel"? There are hundreds of grades of steel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

After they get rid of all guns, next on their agenda will be the bow and arrow

All the "progressive" politicians want to do is restrict the use of armor piercing bullets and high powered machine guns which arent practical in terms of hunting and home defense.

Legally owned machineguns are not a problem.

Since 1934 (prior to that you could walk into the hardware store and pay cash for a Thompson), only one legally owned machinegun has been used in a crime by a corrupt police officer who used his personal sub-gun to murder an informant.

Quote

Its about time we did pry those guns from your fingers if you ask me.

Personally I'm a lot more worried about my neighbor's car and fridge, since cars (44,000+) combined with alcohol (half those) kill more people than firearms (about 10,000 homicides) even though there are fewer motor vehicles than guns.

That's only assuming I have a statistically average chance of being non-white (52% of murder victims aren't white) a criminal (about 850 murder victims each year are gang members and 600 are killed in the drug trade) , or involved in a romantic triangle (over 100) which are all risk factors for being shot. Just being white means I'm as safe in Seattle where any law abiding citizen can have a permit to carry concealed handguns as I am accross the border in Vancouver where that's out of the question.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

I understand that in Switzerland, all men are required to own a rifle (someone correct me on this if I'm wrong).

The Swiss have to stay in the reserves for a number of years after their national service as well as participate in yearly refresh training.

During that time they have to keep their weapon at home. The reason is that this would make it easy to organise resistance in case Switzerland is invaded / occupied.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Gene03 0]

Quote

Quote

Lastly, I HAVE BEEN victimized by violent criminals. I was a victim of a carjacking and was shot 5 times and left for dead. Where were the cops when I NEEDED them? As a result, I'm still carrying 3 slugs in my carcass, one is lodged in L5 in an inoperable location and causes neurological problems. If I want a gun to protect myself since the cops are an ex post facto force, I'm going to have one, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

I am very sorry to hear you were harmed.

However, what happens next time when your carrying a gun and you get approached one night on the street by a bum who wants some spare change. You think hes gonna rob you when he gets to close for comfort so you blow his brains all over the pavement and all he wanted was some quarters. You think you wouldnt make a mistake like that but people have done it before and people will continue to do it in the future.

Just so you know chances are YOU WOULDNT HAVE 3 BULLETS LODGED IN YOU IF GUNS WERE ILLEGAL!!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! IF GUNS WERE BANNED IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN SHOT BY ONE AND THEREFORE WOULDNT FEEL THE NEED TO CARRY ONE FOR PROTECTION WHICH COULD IN TURN CAUSE MORE HARM.

(I know caps lock means yelling on the internet.)

How did you attain such marvelous physic ability?

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Ted Kennedy's car has still killed more people than all of my guns combined.

His car killed one person. Two of his brothers were murdered with guns. Oswald bought the rifle used to kill his brother Jack by mail order under an assumed name. It was an obsolete piece of mediocrity mass-produced for Italian soldiers in WW1 and 2 that no self-respecting American hunter in 1963 would have been caught dead with. The gun Sirhan used to kill his brother Bobby just 4 1/2 years later was a cheap piece of shit .22 Saturday night special that no self-respecting gun owner would be caught dead with. Whatever you may think of Ted and his politics, I'm willing to give him a little slack on this.

[billvon 2,453]

>You a gun person, or do you just like to play devil's advocate a lot?

I think any sane, law-abiding adult should be able to buy and use guns in the US - which would include rifles and handguns but not military weapons that have only military uses (like antiaircraft weapons.) That makes me a gun nut to anti-gun types, and a liberal bedwetter to the gun nuts. So be it.

(davinci said)
>Nice try at an attack.

Another point cleanly missed.

Let's take an analogy. (I know, all my analogies suck, so feel free to stop reading at this point.) Let's say a whuffo comes up to you and says "I heard about a law they were going to pass that would require all jumpers to use these life-saving things that open your parachute if you go too fast. Sounds like a good idea!"

You could respond one of two ways.

One, you could reply:

"Yes, they do save lives, and many skydivers use them. But they've also caused injuries and fatalities, and thus most skydivers are against making them mandatory, because that would _require_ jumpers to use something that might hurt them - even during jumps where they will not be needed, or where using them could endanger someone else."

Two, you could reply:

"Clueless people like you are really sad. Obviously you don't even know how an AAD works! If you did know, that argument would fall flat on it's face, but as usual you sheeple lap it up. Why don't you educate yourself before crapping on skydivers?"

Which one do you think will educate him, and which one will make him think you're an arrogant jerk who doesn't deserve his support? Which one will result in a greater likelihood of that law being passed?

While 57% of americans favor some increase in gun-protection laws, 73% think it's an inalienable right. Want that number to drop below 50%? Treat that 57% who favor gun restrictions like clueless imbeciles.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Only if you hold an appropriate Federal Firearms License and pay the corresponding Special Occupational Tax, which the Feds only allow people who have bonifide businesses involving machineguns to do.

Shit, you don't NEED that. All you need is what I said. To be legal, yes, you are correct. But we all know that never stops anyone who is determined.


I saw a guy bump fire an AK-47 as fast as auto....

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Just so you know chances are YOU WOULDNT HAVE 3 BULLETS LODGED IN YOU IF GUNS WERE ILLEGAL!!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! IF GUNS WERE BANNED IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN SHOT BY ONE AND THEREFORE WOULDNT FEEL THE NEED TO CARRY ONE FOR PROTECTION WHICH COULD IN TURN CAUSE MORE HARM.

I've never seen such a naive post on the internet...ever. That's like saying that if pencils were banned, I wouldn't have misspelled one word on my first spelling test.

Banning guns does not stop criminals from obtaining them. Where do you live?

If guns were never invented, then he might not have three slugs in him. Instead, a sharp, or blunt object might have been used, equally potentially lethal.

Now, since it is impossible to "un-invent" the gun, why not examine your ideal a little more carefully.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jm951 0]

Ok, first off-

JERROD-
I RESENT your comment and croc tears.

I am intelligent enough to be able to determine the difference between a threat and non threat. The key is situational awareness. The ONE time I wasn't carrying, I got hammered. Since that time, I've only had to draw down on a person ONCE and he was smart enough to realize his mistaken aggression and back off. The guy who shot me was a career criminal and another law wasn't going to bother him much. BTW, the gun he used on me was stolen.

I have a friend who has had to use deadly force to protect a life. The perp was a whacked out doper with a long, long record, but always managed to skate on technicalities. Exams in the Darwin school can be severe. Without a weapon at the ready (a military surplus one at that) an innocent person would be dead and others wounded by the doper.

The entire logic these Brady maggots are using is specious at best and outright deceiving for the most part. Many, many of our sporting calibers started life as military rounds. Most of those I listed started that way. If we started banning mil rounds, that would include the 45LC, 45.70, 7x57, 308, 45ACP, 9mm, 380 (9mm Kurz ring a bell?), and the list goes on and on. These clowns are after nothing less than banning guns from law abiding people when the 2nd makes no distinction between "civilian" and "military".

Here's a novel thought and a bang up way to handle violent criminals-

Enforce what laws we have already

Put the crooks in jail with mandatory sentences- this means NO PAROLE. What part of this do libs not understand?? Many crooks are careerists.

Don't let them out when libs whine and cry
(can't do the time? don't do the crime!)

insure the victim's rights come first!!!!

Make prison a very unpleasant place, in the middle of a desert in a pink tent with pbj for food and only water to drink comes to mind. No AC, CTV, or other luxuries. Hard labor comes to mind.

A few final comments, the crook who shot me was sentenced to 40 years, in part because he was also conviced of other offenses. This guy served only 12 years. The good part of this, he was arrested in FL, extradited to NC, served NC time, then extradited back to FL for having 25lbs of pot in the stolen car. He served a further 10 for that. He was out on parole as of last June when he was caught again selling crack. How do I know all this stuff? My wife has lived in fear of this guy coming back so I've kept track of him.

All you libs out there remember this, a crime affects more people than the victim. The victim will live with the effects for the rest of his life, I am reminded daily. Prone dirt dives are literally painful because of this. Arching on the ground in AFF is painful because of this. I have learned ways around it, but why should I have to change my life because of a crook with no respect for persons or property? More gun laws won't stop criminals from commiting crimes, locking the sobs up will.

[rushmc 18]

Well put, too bad you were not armed. That ass may not have gotten a chance to hurt another.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jarrodh 0]

Quote

Ok, first off-

JERROD-
I RESENT your comment and croc tears.

I am intelligent enough to be able to determine the difference between a threat and non threat. The key is situational awareness. The ONE time I wasn't carrying, I got hammered. Since that time, I've only had to draw down on a person ONCE and he was smart enough to realize his mistaken aggression and back off. The guy who shot me was a career criminal and another law wasn't going to bother him much. BTW, the gun he used on me was stolen.

I have a friend who has had to use deadly force to protect a life. The perp was a whacked out doper with a long, long record, but always managed to skate on technicalities. Exams in the Darwin school can be severe. Without a weapon at the ready (a military surplus one at that) an innocent person would be dead and others wounded by the doper.

The entire logic these Brady maggots are using is specious at best and outright deceiving for the most part. Many, many of our sporting calibers started life as military rounds. Most of those I listed started that way. If we started banning mil rounds, that would include the 45LC, 45.70, 7x57, 308, 45ACP, 9mm, 380 (9mm Kurz ring a bell?), and the list goes on and on. These clowns are after nothing less than banning guns from law abiding people when the 2nd makes no distinction between "civilian" and "military".

Here's a novel thought and a bang up way to handle violent criminals-

Enforce what laws we have already

Put the crooks in jail with mandatory sentences- this means NO PAROLE. What part of this do libs not understand?? Many crooks are careerists.

Don't let them out when libs whine and cry
(can't do the time? don't do the crime!)

insure the victim's rights come first!!!!

Make prison a very unpleasant place, in the middle of a desert in a pink tent with pbj for food and only water to drink comes to mind. No AC, CTV, or other luxuries. Hard labor comes to mind.

A few final comments, the crook who shot me was sentenced to 40 years, in part because he was also conviced of other offenses. This guy served only 12 years. The good part of this, he was arrested in FL, extradited to NC, served NC time, then extradited back to FL for having 25lbs of pot in the stolen car. He served a further 10 for that. He was out on parole as of last June when he was caught again selling crack. How do I know all this stuff? My wife has lived in fear of this guy coming back so I've kept track of him.

All you libs out there remember this, a crime affects more people than the victim. The victim will live with the effects for the rest of his life, I am reminded daily. Prone dirt dives are literally painful because of this. Arching on the ground in AFF is painful because of this. I have learned ways around it, but why should I have to change my life because of a crook with no respect for persons or property? More gun laws won't stop criminals from commiting crimes, locking the sobs up will.

I dont give two flying fucks whether you resent my comment or not.

Calling someone a "lib" for not supporting unlimited guns and assault rifles for everyone is absurd. What if I was anti gun but supported pro-life, small government, and no gay marriage would I still be a liberal? When will you god damn gun nuts understand that disagreeing with you on one issue doesnt automatically make that person a pinko commy limp wristed frenchman.

Your lobby clearly isnt getting the job done anymore. Despite Your best efforts you lost the House, the Senate, and soon the Presidency and in a few short years you and your other Charleton Heston wannabes are gonna be in a fit when more gun laws are passed and there aint gonna be shit you can do about it.

Why dont you and Warpedskydiver go on a hunting trip to Africa and never come back. The country doesnt need any more people whose entire political opinion rests solely on one issue.

2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!

[RBM 1]

man all this talk has got me fired up!! i'm taken my M1 Garand and my two .45's out and go target practicing,, nothing like a good accurency shoot with the M1, and i love my .45's need to get some freinds together for a PPC match..

as a reminder,,, without the second amendment, the other admendments are just a stroke of the pen away from existence..

those nutty ppl that want to ban regular ammo that we all use, are just plain nutzs. hell, if they had it their way, we'd have to use darts that have dull ends or rocks to throw,, wait a minute,, to think of that,,,,hmmm they'd just ban possesion of rocks,

[jarrodh 0]

Quote

as a reminder,,, without the second amendment, the other admendments are just a stroke of the pen away from existence..

very good point

2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!

[Rainbo 0]

Dude,
Your attacking a couple of pretty decent folks. Why don't you go somewhere yourself. The point is that we have the right to own and people who skew facts like the Brady group are the one's doing a disservive to the overall debate.

The "facts" don't stand up to the basic smell test, period. You talk as though your opinion is the only thing that counts. In America everybodies opinion counts, and the constitution just hyappens to support many of our opinions, period.

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."