Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know why it cools down so fast? Because it is a fucking weak ass gun that barely penetrates human skin, which also explains why the US military now uses a higher caliber weapon despite the advantages of not loading down the troops with the heavier ammo.
As for all the sights, you can do that with any rifle made.
You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.
The military has one reason to use them, the average soldier has to carry 75 pounds of gear into combat if they use the lightweight weapons that scare the shit out of you. Why do you think special forces carry heavier weapons?
By the way, the reason an M-16 tumbled when it hit in Vietnam is that the tip of the bullet was heavier than the rear of the bullet. This has nothing to do with muzzle velocity, something any competent armorer would tell you. In fact, higher velocity bullets tend to make cleaner holes than lower velocity ones.
Post where I said anything about banning guns! You make up shit, Windbag, so you can't even deal with the simple reality of what someone has said. When you aren't correct about what someone has said, you can't be correct evaluating what was said. That was just another insane impulse where mind keeps telling you they will ban guns, whether they said it or not.
Either post a quote of what wasn't said or just admit you're a lying ass loser! We know which choice that will be.
Guns are not banned in the UK. It is perfectly legal to won them, as long as you accept the government registration program. That is exactly what you want to do here, and you are trying to deflect this into a debate about something else rather than admit you are wrong.
If only I was stupid enough to cooperate.
If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.
I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.
There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.
What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.
You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.
Funny, that's what Stalin and Mao said, good job baby boy, you're right up there with your heroes.
You turkeys keep bringing up the revolution, so get it on, bitch!
I laugh, only because I know you would never have the balls to say that to my face.
Anytime you gun nutters feel froggy, jump! We would be glad to get rid of you.
Never happen. Go back to your Government 101 class and have the progressive de jour professor fill your head with more junk.
Didn't you say this:
or if they really force it, something else.
You better hope the cops or military find your kind before I do. I already told you, I'm not taking prisoners, so rebel whenever you want to.
Poly sci majors were a joke in my day. It's amazing how you always have to be wrong about everything. I had to take some electives, but I wouldn't waste my time on bullshit courses like that. You should have learned that stuff in high school. I took European History, but I had no history or civics requirements to get my degree in college. What kind of fool would need a course in government?
You still here?...Isn't your ass red enough?You turkeys keep bringing up the revolution, so get it on, bitch!
I laugh, only because I know you would never have the balls to say that to my face.
The Stoner SR-25 doesn't have to say it to your face. When you start a war the talking is over.
A universal background check will help enforcement - a partial background check is next to useless. Sound like a plan?
I've asked this before, now I'll do it again, how do you verifiably get universal background checks? Tell me, how would it work, and how do you verify compliance?
Truthfully, I don't know. But then again - I don't know the ins and outs of how a lot of laws work in terms of verifying compliance. Do you?
What is obvious to me is a background check is better than no background check.
A universal background check - even if incomplete in terms of compliance - is better than a partial background check.
What's so darn difficult in doing that?
Correlation does not equal causation.Back on topic...The current background checks have proven completely ineffective, as evidenced by the headline grabbing mass murders and the one-by-one killings in the streets of DC, NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etcetera.And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks? Or, is this more fear mongering?
How will doubling down on ineffectiveness be of any benefit to anyone, but the politicians ans the bureaucrats?
What verifiable proof do you have that background checks stop anything that matters?
What evidence do you that they are "completely" ineffective? The stats for gun violence shows otherwise (though I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing): Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice
Dealth by blunt objects, alas, remains relatively unchanged. I suspect current headlines have more to do with what the media chooses to highlight than it does with actual trends in violence.
The current background checks cover only a portion of gun sales and completely exclude private transactions and gun shows. I think it is reasonable to suppose that broadening background checks might help.
Guns are not banned in the UK. It is perfectly legal to won them, as long as you accept the government registration program. That is exactly what you want to do here, and you are trying to deflect this into a debate about something else rather than admit you are wrong.
If only I was stupid enough to cooperate.
If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.
I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.
There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.
What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.
You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.
Why renewable registration and periodic ballistics tests? Who would pay for them? Because...if the gun owner has to pay, then I would object to that for the same reason I would object to a voter having to pay to get an "acceptable" id or documents to prove his right to vote. It begins to put unreasonable obstacles to the persons right to excersize his right.
You turkeys keep bringing up the revolution, so get it on, bitch!
I laugh, only because I know you would never have the balls to say that to my face.
The Stoner SR-25 doesn't have to say it to your face. When you start a war the talking is over.
Guns are not banned in the UK. It is perfectly legal to won them, as long as you accept the government registration program. That is exactly what you want to do here, and you are trying to deflect this into a debate about something else rather than admit you are wrong.
If only I was stupid enough to cooperate.
If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.
I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.
There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.
What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.
You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.
Why renewable registration and periodic ballistics tests? Who would pay for them? Because...if the gun owner has to pay, then I would object to that for the same reason I would object to a voter having to pay to get an "acceptable" id or documents to prove his right to vote. It begins to put unreasonable obstacles to the persons right to excersize his right.
If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.
I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.
There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.
What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.
You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.
Why renewable registration and periodic ballistics tests? Who would pay for them? Because...if the gun owner has to pay, then I would object to that for the same reason I would object to a voter having to pay to get an "acceptable" id or documents to prove his right to vote. It begins to put unreasonable obstacles to the persons right to excersize his right.
I figure you could get participating gun shops to fire the weapon for ballistics tests and send the bullets to the FBI to be quick scanned and put in a data base. The only thing the gun store owner would have to do is check the serial number and renew the registration, so a minor fee would cover the whole procedure, even with many firearms. The bullets could be boxed individually with the necessary information and sent periodically. The system to renew would be staggered throughout the year to prevent a rush.
The renewable registration proves the weapon is still in the hands of the owner so the firearm can't go elsewhere unless stolen. The registration is transferred when sold, starting from the time of manufacture, meaning all guns are registered, the guns in the gun store, the guns in a police force and the military. The periodic ballistics tests discourage someone ever wanting to use the gun in a crime. The penalties of possessing an unregistered weapon are severe, so the market for buying a stolen weapon dries up and burglars aren't going to want to fool with them. Someone repeatedly buying weapons and not renewing them without good reason would signal a straw purchase.
As far as the fee, consider it insurance and the added safety that you won't need that weapon to protect you from home invasion with criminals having weapons. Under the system if your weapons are stolen, a data base exists for them to be returned to you. Even a very minimal fee is enough to encourage a gunshop to get involved in ballistics testing and renewing the registration. How long does it take to fire a gun and package the bullet? How long does it take to check a serial number against a registration? There would also be a market for confiscated unregistered firearms away from cities, so gun shops and the public could profit from that. Gun shows could set up waiting periods by shipping their sold merchantise to these local participating gun stores to be picked up after the waiting (cooling off) period.
Once the remaining unregistered weapons are removed, criminals would be fearful to use a weapon that can be traced back to them. Consider a case involving a homicide from a stolen weapon and the police trace the gun in the crime to a burglary of firearms! Maybe the cops have a variety of possible suspects and show the pictures to the person who was burglarized and he says, "sure, I know that guy and he's been here seeing my guns.? Case closed! There are many ways even a stolen weapons can lead to an arrest.
You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon. So why do you only want to restrict the law abiding.
All laws apply to the law abiding. Criminals will ignore them. So why have any laws?
There are already laws to punish criminals, adding more restrictions on the law abiding will not change that and will not improve public safety. Even criminals are protected by the 4th Amendment yet you want to intrude on those rights of non-criminals. How does that make sense?
Never happen. Go back to your Government 101 class and have the progressive de jour professor fill your head with more junk.
Didn't you say this:
or if they really force it, something else.
You better hope the cops or military find your kind before I do. I already told you, I'm not taking prisoners, so rebel whenever you want to.
Poly sci majors were a joke in my day. It's amazing how you always have to be wrong about everything. I had to take some electives, but I wouldn't waste my time on bullshit courses like that. You should have learned that stuff in high school. I took European History, but I had no history or civics requirements to get my degree in college. What kind of fool would need a course in government?
You couldnt fight your way out of a paper bag. All air no wind.
All laws apply to the law abiding. Criminals will ignore them. So why have any laws?
There are already laws to punish criminals, adding more restrictions on the law abiding will not change that and will not improve public safety. Even criminals are protected by the 4th Amendment yet you want to intrude on those rights of non-criminals. How does that make sense?
So, as to the first sentence, it sounds as if you are saying laws to punish criminals (as opposed to prevent criminals) are sufficient. How does that make sense?
Claiming that it only adds restrictions to the law abiding is false - it doesn't. In any regulation or law - it is always going to be the law abiding that bears the brunt of it but in the process a certain number of criminals will be stopped.
I've asked this before, now I'll do it again, how do you verifiably get universal background checks? Tell me, how would it work, and how do you verify compliance?
Truthfully, I don't know. But then again - I don't know the ins and outs of how a lot of laws work in terms of verifying compliance. Do you?
What is obvious to me is a background check is better than no background check.
A universal background check - even if incomplete in terms of compliance - is better than a partial background check.
What's so darn difficult in doing that?
Right now the only gun sales that don't require a check is private sales, you could make the NICS system available to the public, but just as in the case of crooked dealers there's no way to insure people would use it and there still could be a problem with straw pruchasers. No matter what, you will never be able to insure 100% compliance without creating such a cumbersom system the courts would never uphold it.
You still here?...Isn't your ass red enough?I laugh, only because I know you would never have the balls to say that to my face.
The Stoner SR-25 doesn't have to say it to your face. When you start a war the talking is over.
Didn't you say this:
You better hope the cops or military find your kind before I do. I already told you, I'm not taking prisoners, so rebel whenever you want to.
Poly sci majors were a joke in my day. It's amazing how you always have to be wrong about everything. I had to take some electives, but I wouldn't waste my time on bullshit courses like that. You should have learned that stuff in high school. I took European History, but I had no history or civics requirements to get my degree in college. What kind of fool would need a course in government?
You couldnt fight your way out of a paper bag. All air no wind.
I was trained for war, were you? It isn't me running my mouth about taking on the government and it's only me telling you that you have more to worry about than those black helicopters. As long as I'm alive, you right-wing scum are not taking over this country and I'm old enough to not have much to lose. I'd shoot you down like dogs, if you ever stood up against America.
Go to the polls like a loser should and leave the rest to us! Don't ever delude yourself into thinking people who swore an oath of allegience will support you.
I laugh, only because I know you would never have the balls to say that to my face.
The Stoner SR-25 doesn't have to say it to your face. When you start a war the talking is over.
Still laughing.
Why renewable registration and periodic ballistics tests? Who would pay for them? Because...if the gun owner has to pay, then I would object to that for the same reason I would object to a voter having to pay to get an "acceptable" id or documents to prove his right to vote. It begins to put unreasonable obstacles to the persons right to excersize his right.
I figure you could get participating gun shops to fire the weapon for ballistics tests and send the bullets to the FBI to be quick scanned and put in a data base. The only thing the gun store owner would have to do is check the serial number and renew the registration, so a minor fee would cover the whole procedure, even with many firearms. The bullets could be boxed individually with the necessary information and sent periodically. The system to renew would be staggered throughout the year to prevent a rush.
The renewable registration proves the weapon is still in the hands of the owner so the firearm can't go elsewhere unless stolen. The registration is transferred when sold, starting from the time of manufacture, meaning all guns are registered, the guns in the gun store, the guns in a police force and the military. The periodic ballistics tests discourage someone ever wanting to use the gun in a crime. The penalties of possessing an unregistered weapon are severe, so the market for buying a stolen weapon dries up and burglars aren't going to want to fool with them. Someone repeatedly buying weapons and not renewing them without good reason would signal a straw purchase.
As far as the fee, consider it insurance and the added safety that you won't need that weapon to protect you from home invasion with criminals having weapons. Under the system if your weapons are stolen, a data base exists for them to be returned to you. Even a very minimal fee is enough to encourage a gunshop to get involved in ballistics testing and renewing the registration. How long does it take to fire a gun and package the bullet? How long does it take to check a serial number against a registration? There would also be a market for confiscated unregistered firearms away from cities, so gun shops and the public could profit from that. Gun shows could set up waiting periods by shipping their sold merchantise to these local participating gun stores to be picked up after the waiting (cooling off) period.
Once the remaining unregistered weapons are removed, criminals would be fearful to use a weapon that can be traced back to them. Consider a case involving a homicide from a stolen weapon and the police trace the gun in the crime to a burglary of firearms! Maybe the cops have a variety of possible suspects and show the pictures to the person who was burglarized and he says, "sure, I know that guy and he's been here seeing my guns.? Case closed! There are many ways even a stolen weapons can lead to an arrest.
Then they would start making them, as I said before.
Back on topic...The current background checks have proven completely ineffective, as evidenced by the headline grabbing mass murders and the one-by-one killings in the streets of DC, NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etcetera.And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks? Or, is this more fear mongering?
How will doubling down on ineffectiveness be of any benefit to anyone, but the politicians ans the bureaucrats?
What verifiable proof do you have that background checks stop anything that matters?
What evidence do you that they are "completely" ineffective? The stats for gun violence shows otherwise (though I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing): Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice
Dealth by blunt objects, alas, remains relatively unchanged. I suspect current headlines have more to do with what the media chooses to highlight than it does with actual trends in violence.
The current background checks cover only a portion of gun sales and completely exclude private transactions and gun shows. I think it is reasonable to suppose that broadening background checks might help.
