The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Just, the fact is that we don't really have Mule Deer all over the country, and much of the country DOES have smaller game that will keep a person/family in food, so your argument of not being able to use it for hunting is lost. If you have an AR with a 24" heavy barrel with a 1:7 twist, you can shoot 80g bullets that will take down game larger than a typical deer in the mid-east, and do it quite nicely. My standard load is a 75g HPBT backed by 25.0g or Varget in a 24" Fluted barrel and I also load the 62g AP bullets with the same - 200 yards and they are touching groups.

Yes, I know all about the spray crap, and you won't catch me or most of the people I know with guns doing that - it's a waste and it's a lot different when you have to pay for your own or load your own.

I don't personally like BP, it's dirty and takes a lot of time to clean-up, and it's not normally something that I can use for Defense when there is more than one criminal threatening me. Even more importantly, it's not something that will help in returning a government from corruption.

The threat of "Assault" type weapons or "High Capacity" magazines is not from the tools themselves, it's from how kids are raised over the last 30+ years, how the "it takes a village" morons have destroyed the family unit, how they have destroyed responsibility for raising kids properly - that's the threat, and those things are getting worse. It doesn't matter of you could magically make all guns vanish, all of them, there will still be mass killings and some of them will be easier/faster than with the guns that have been used lately.

Address the real cause/thread, not some misguided idea that won't change that people are being killed.

During the civil war it was estimated that over 500 shots were fired for each casualty, Viet nam over 500,00 per casualty. And these are concertive figures.

The source for your numbers, Al-Jazeera also reported that in the gulf war there were over 5000,000 rounds fired per casualty by Americans while the better trained Iraq's only fired 5 rounds per casualty. Proof positive that guns should be taken from American citizens. Your data does indeed support gun control. Al-Jazeera also reported that Americans had to swing their hammers 50 times to inflict injuries while the Iraq's only need to swing 1 once to do the same. Since hammers kill more Americans than rifles in the United States Al-Jazeera feels those hammers with rugged handles that won't break when you hit someone over the head, should also be included in the weapon controls Obama wants.

Guns are not even in the top 10 reasons for death in the USA.

I have no plans on going after the unwashed masses when the end comes.

You really think it will be us "going after them" when shit hits the fan? :shock: When things turn really bad, if you have something they want, whether it be food or the girls/women in your house, there will be those who will come in and take it. The only thing holding them back at the moment are government checks to feed them and the threat of jail. Either one of those factor goes away and hell will break lose, you either defend what is yours or turn it over to them...your choice.

RealJustme wrote:

I have no plans on going after the unwashed masses when the end comes.

You really think it will be us "going after them" when shit hits the fan? :shock: When things turn really bad, if you have something they want, whether it be food or the girls/women in your house, there will be those who will come in and take it. The only thing holding them back at the moment are government checks to feed them and the threat of jail. Either one of those factor goes away and hell will break lose, you either defend what is yours or turn it over to them...your choice.

Yep, that's how it happens in every society that fails because of liberal/progressive destruction of the foundation of that society.

A 22 will do just fine in killing a huge number of people. If you work really hard at it even BBs could be effective if you built a high enough power gun to propel them. All this discussion of caliber is just another distraction from the real social issues. It is an avoidance of having a discussion.

A 22 will do just fine in killing a huge number of people. If you work really hard at it even BBs could be effective if you built a high enough power gun to propel them. All this discussion of caliber is just another distraction from the real social issues. It is an avoidance of having a discussion.

Anyone with half a brain "does" realize the frantic calls for gun control is in fact an attempt to avoid discussing the real problem which is violence in America and the ever growing lack of respect for human life. Our leaders should study the culture issues in our murder capitals, Chicago and Detriot than try and stop if from spreading to the rest of America through aggresive preventive measures. That would mean teachers teaching ethics, morals and respect for "everyone" in grade school. Mention teaching ethics and respect in schools and liberals go ape shit...there is the real topic of discussion my friends, not guns.

Dildo - bb's won't kill most people they are fired at, even a t-shirt can stop penetration. The same is not true for a 22LR round in most cases. I guess, if we follow your logic "if you built a high enough power gun to propel them", we could even use tooth-picks or q-tips.

The issue that won't be addressed by any law or liberals/democrats/progressives is the one of the family unit failure - to address that means that all things liberal/democrat/progressives will be clearly identified as failures, and they won't do that.

Since our country was founded with the idea that we might need to overthrow the government, our Constitution was written to permit it, to ensure that the people could do it, and that's the part that liberals/democrats/progressives never want to discuss, they misdirect and hide behind anything else.

Remember the celebratory gunfire on New Years. Read this:

http://www.cecildaily.com/news/local_ne ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember the celebratory gunfire on New Years? Read this:

http://www.cecildaily.com/news/local_ne ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two interesting things:

1) They state the bullet entered the top of her head, suggesting a good vertical angle of penetration.
2) They won't release the caliber of the round or the trajectory in details

We all know that it's almost impossible that a near vertical shot will kill someone.

Second, there is nothing to indicate that a legal gun owner was at fault.

So, again, where is there any proof that banning guns would have prevented this?

Liberals live in lala land, they think if a law is passed, criminals will obey it. EVERY murder by a gun was a violation of a law, every single one of them. Passing more laws to stop the culture melt down is a diversion from the real issues. Only an idiot can't see that.

RealJustme wrote:Liberals live in lala land, they think if a law is passed, criminals will obey it. EVERY murder by a gun was a violation of a law, every single one of them. Passing more laws to stop the culture melt down is a diversion from the real issues. Only an idiot can't see that.

It's a shame that liberals are not smart enough to actually see or address the problem of violence, but, hey, they use violence to get what they want, as a standard practice, so it's no wonder that they don't actually want to address violence.

Except for a couple of small caliber guns to keep my shooting skills up with less expensive practice shooting, the only reason for me to own a gun IS to kill someone. That means I do not want the most efficient weapons I can get my hands on to be removed from the market. They should all be available but I welcome background checks and mandatory firearms training for gun owners. If and when I am in a position where I have to defend my life, the life of family members or strangers around me from a criminal who is threatening life, limb or property then I want to be able to exercise my constitutional right with the maximum prejudice against the criminal. Other than defense there is really no reason for me to own weapons unless all hell breaks loose and I wind up needing to hunt as well, so i want something very efficent and accurate for killing men.

I'm not sure why civilians would want to own military style assault rifles. Those are designed for warfare. Not for hunting animals. They make much more accurate single shot rifles for hunting game.

elklindo69 wrote:I'm not sure why civilians would want to own military style assault rifles. Those are designed for warfare. Not for hunting animals. They make much more accurate single shot rifles for hunting game.

An AR15 or AK47 that are available to Civilians ARE NOT MILITARY STYLE, they are nothing like the military weapons that idiots claim they are.

Sadly, all of the liberals want to increase background checks, want to limit magazine capacity, etc... yet the kids at SH where killed by handguns only, a background check would not have kept those guns out of the killers hands, and the capacity if the magazines has no impact on how many are killed in any of the mass-shootings.

What you liberals fail to understand is that the ownership of guns isn't about Hunting, it's about being able to stop an oppressive/fascist/out-of-control government, that's the first and most important reason that citizens should own them.

Maybe you liberals can understand this: in Chicago there were 532 gun related homicides in 2012. Look at any place in the country that encourages gun ownership and open carry or doesn't limit CCW, the numbers of gun related homicides will be significantly lower.

Leroy wrote:

elklindo69 wrote:I'm not sure why civilians would want to own military style assault rifles. Those are designed for warfare. Not for hunting animals. They make much more accurate single shot rifles for hunting game.

An AR15 or AK47 that are available to Civilians ARE NOT MILITARY STYLE, they are nothing like the military weapons that idiots claim they are.

Sadly, all of the liberals want to increase background checks, want to limit magazine capacity, etc... yet the kids at SH where killed by handguns only, a background check would not have kept those guns out of the killers hands, and the capacity if the magazines has no impact on how many are killed in any of the mass-shootings.

What you liberals fail to understand is that the ownership of guns isn't about Hunting, it's about being able to stop an oppressive/fascist/out-of-control government, that's the first and most important reason that citizens should own them.

The AR-15 is a "civilian" version of the M-16 is it not? Or did I just make that up.

Look at it from a different perspective, if you were to go to combat, what would you use a Remington 700 single shot rifle or an AR-15?

Come on people, this is not rocket science......

I have no plans on going after the unwashed masses when the end comes.

If their government checks stop, you won't have to go after them...they'll be coming through your front door if you anything in your home they want. Just hope you have bigger clip in our gun than they do.

elklindo69 wrote:

Leroy wrote:

elklindo69 wrote:I'm not sure why civilians would want to own military style assault rifles. Those are designed for warfare. Not for hunting animals. They make much more accurate single shot rifles for hunting game.

An AR15 or AK47 that are available to Civilians ARE NOT MILITARY STYLE, they are nothing like the military weapons that idiots claim they are.

Sadly, all of the liberals want to increase background checks, want to limit magazine capacity, etc... yet the kids at SH where killed by handguns only, a background check would not have kept those guns out of the killers hands, and the capacity if the magazines has no impact on how many are killed in any of the mass-shootings.

What you liberals fail to understand is that the ownership of guns isn't about Hunting, it's about being able to stop an oppressive/fascist/out-of-control government, that's the first and most important reason that citizens should own them.

The AR-15 is a "civilian" version of the M-16 is it not? Or did I just make that up.

Look at it from a different perspective, if you were to go to combat, what would you use a Remington 700 single shot rifle or an AR-15?

Come on people, this is not rocket science......

Yep, you just made it up - the AR-15 looks very close to the Military version, but it does not have the same capability, it's not rocket science.

As for what I would want to go into battle with - why would I limit myself to an AR? Personally I would want a semi-automatic/automatic with a large capacity magazine, but I would also want a 12g shotgun and a reach out and touch someone rifle - I would rather not need the AR or 12g, but there are just times when you're going to be in the shit and a bolt-action isn't going to cut it.

Look at it this way, if you were going to, as our Constitution provides, overthrow a government that has become corrupt, fascist, oppressive, against freedom, would you rather that the government tell you that you can't own any weapons that would help you or would you rather that your government follow the Constitution and not tell you anything about weapons?

Elk, do you agree or disagree that the 2nd Amendment was created to allow the people the power to overthrow the government if it became corrupt?