So I bought a new toy...

[BigBadBooDooDady]

I've had my .22 pistol for a couple of years now, but I finally got a neat accessory for it...

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c353/AJErvin/S2010523-1.jpg

Now, some people don't realize that in most US States, it's legal to own one. I've been told that, in the U.K., not only are they legal, but they are encouraged so people don't have to listen to the shooters.

What do you think about that? Is that accurate? (for those who live in the U.K.?)

[Iskandar]

I don't see a problem with it. It's just a silencer.

[Against Miik!]

Whats up James Bond

[recklessrick]

Trade it in for a blow-up doll.

[pedro durruti]

Why the devil do you want a silencer

[badtaste]

Wow, how important.

[Independent_CA]

Wouldn't surprise me if it's illegal in California.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

Everything fun is illegal in California.

[Unreal]

What do you think about that? Is that accurate? (for those who live in the U.K.?)

maybe?

why would you buy it though?

[Superfly]

Assassinate birds?

[Unreal]

Everything fun is illegal in California.

your probably a gangsta

[BigBadBooDooDady]

maybe?

why would you buy it though?

Because its sweet... and hearing protection is uncomfortable.

[GreyHam]

What do you think about that? Is that accurate? (for those who live in the U.K.?)

handguns are illegal fullstop in the UK, and that will more than likely extend to accesories

not sur ehow this fits into PNWI though

[pedro durruti]

Propably to instigate a gun debate

[Knifeboy]

Have you shot with it yet?

Does it feel much different than shooting without it on?

[pedro durruti]

Do the Beatles feel different than the Clash?

[Surtr]

Idk, I've never shot the Beatles or the Clash.

But seriously, why? Now when you shoot someone no one will hear. Oh wait.

[DBoons Ghost]

Sup Boo.

Not sure why you would need a silencer for recreational shooting. I've heard they're terribly innaccurate, which is probably a good thing.

Guns suck though, and it's the one thing I hate about this country. Right to bear arms!

[ringworm]

thats cool, i've never shot a pistol w/a silencer on it

i have been knocked an my *** by a modified AK-47 that I didnt know got switched from semi to full :p

[The Chemist]

Guns are stupid.

[Danish]

I've had my .22 pistol for a couple of years now, but I finally got a neat accessory for it...

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c353/AJErvin/S2010523-1.jpg

Now, some people don't realize that in most US States, it's legal to own one. I've been told that, in the U.K., not only are they legal, but they are encouraged so people don't have to listen to the shooters.

What do you think about that? Is that accurate? (for those who live in the U.K.?)

That's a tough-looking .22! And to answer your question, yes, full-volume gunfire can be annoying...

So are you like an assassin now or something?

[BigBadBooDooDady]

Sup Boo.

Not sure why you would need a silencer for recreational shooting. I've heard they're terribly innaccurate, which is probably a good thing.

Guns suck though, and it's the one thing I hate about this country. Right to bear arms!

It doesn't effect the accuracy of the gun because it doesn't touch the bullet.

You were born & raised in NYC weren't you? That's probably why you feel that way.

[DBoons Ghost]

It doesn't effect the accuracy of the gun because it doesn't touch the bullet.

You were born & raised in NYC weren't you? That's probably why you feel that way.

Yeah we've been over this countless times too. And that is more then likely why I feel that way is always the end result.

Well, I'm glad you're happy with your toy though. Good to see you're still around as well. :chug:

[Akira]

I have a feeling that if the founding fathers knew how the second amendment is used today, they would move to England. -_-
We don't need militias to keep the government in check, so the amendment is pointless today.

[dei]

Guns are stupid.

We have a winner.

[Reaganista]

You were born & raised in NYC weren't you? That's probably why you feel that way
you're a product of incest aren't you? that's probably why you feel that way

[lfantwister]

We don't need militias to keep the government in check, so the amendment is pointless today.

I dont understand why we shouldnt have guns. It's not like gun trafficking would stop or gangs would stop shooting people

[Reaganista]

because then there would be less guns

[lfantwister]

but not any less of the guns that are used to regularly kill people

[Avalanche.]

Opening day of deer season, I'll be taking my gun out and using it for it's intended, non-criminal purpose.

Guns=/=Crime

[Reaganista]

except for all the ones that enter the country legally and then r used for illegal purposes later for whatever reason

[Oriah]

Thumbs down.

I use a knife!

[CatfishJones]

Why the devil do you want a silencer

so he could quietly shoot cans in his backyard.

[StrangeVision]

except for all the ones that enter the country legally and then i used for illegal purposes later for whatever reason

we should just outlaw everything of potential danger, amirite, specially for those damn immigrants

[Danger Bird]

In the long run, surgical penis enhancement is probably cheaper.

[Surtr]

See the thing is, with a hand gun I don't get it.

Unless you have some extreme fear of your government trying to take you and you're convinced having a Pistol against the Squad Team that'd come for you if you were ever in a situation where a gun or weapon was needed..But that's not even a rational situation.

And so you now have a silencer, that way, when they try to take you, you can some how take out 4-6++ trained men/women silently then sneak away without drawing any attention until their bodies are discovered???

It's different if it's a rifle, used for hunting Deer, Bear, Ducks or whatever. But a hand gun has no real practical use for hunting, and most people with hand guns don't hunt at all anyways.

So yeah sure, it looks really ****ing cool, and you definitely feel like James Bond walking around with that in your hands, but it has no practical use except to inflict harm onto another human being, or some form of pointlessness. You're paying a **** load of money to be able to **** over the pigeon in your backyard in almost complete silence.

[Akira]

Opening day of deer season, I'll be taking my gun out and using it for it's intended, non-criminal purpose.

Guns=/=Crime

Yeah, but are people with silencers on their guns using them for hunting deer?
I think not.

The second amendment has been completely exploited.

[dei]

I hunt bears with a pistol.

[Akira]

You take them out faster with an M-16.

[telemore]

.50 cal

[dei]

You take them out faster with an M-16.

Or a wrench.

[WhoDidTheElf]

See the thing is, with a hand gun I don't get it.

Unless you have some extreme fear of your government trying to take you and you're convinced having a Pistol against the Squad Team that'd come for you if you were ever in a situation where a gun or weapon was needed..But that's not even a rational situation.

When you go hunting in densely wooded areas it's best to have a pistol with you along with your riffle. If something starts charging you it's hard to swing a long barrel riffle around or run with one.

[Reaganista]

When you go hunting in densely wooded areas it's best to have a pistol with you along with your riffle. If something starts charging you it's hard to swing a long barrel riffle around or run with one.

yeah but i would rather you just get killed by a boar

[Reaganista]

we should just outlaw everything of potential danger, amirite, specially for those damn immigrants
no, we should just repeal the second amendment

[Surtr]

When you go hunting in densely wooded areas it's best to have a pistol with you along with your riffle. If something starts charging you it's hard to swing a long barrel riffle around or run with one.

My logic is, if you're dumb enough to not notice the bear about to charge you while you take aim at that deer, you're rather dense.

Not to mention it's not that hard to turn around and shoot. I've shot a rifle before, while hunting. If you don't have enough time to turn and shoot at the charging animal, you shouldn't have the gun to begin with.

[Left Shoe]

so remove seatbelts, if you are too stupid to get hit by another car then you shouldnt be driving.

[Iskandar]

so remove seatbelts, if you are too stupid to get hit by another car then you shouldnt be driving.Who is the government to tell us we should be wearing seatbelts anyway?

[Smokey D]

My logic is, if you're dumb enough to not notice the bear about to charge you while you take aim at that deer, you're rather dense.

Not to mention it's not that hard to turn around and shoot. I've shot a rifle before, while hunting. If you don't have enough time to turn and shoot at the charging animal, you shouldn't have the gun to begin with.

That's a really lame argument. The ability to turn on a dime has no bearing on your responsibility with a gun.

[Independent_CA]

Yeah, but are people with silencers on their guns using them for hunting deer?
I think not.

The second amendment has been completely exploited.

So has the first amendment some could argue.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, but it's already widely recognised that the First Amendment can be abridged.

[bleep_bloop]

http://www.caebuttons.com/images/products/all%20the%20arms%20we%20need.jpg

[big80smullet]

I think handguns should be alot more restricted than rifles because they don't really serve a valid recreational purpose. All semi and fully automatic weapons are illegal in Australia anyway.

[bleep_bloop]

all firearms should be equally restricted

[BigBadBooDooDady]

I think handguns should be alot more restricted than rifles because they don't really serve a valid recreational purpose. All semi and fully automatic weapons are illegal in Australia anyway.

"Valid recreational purpose"

Who says what's valid? I do shoot handguns recreationally, and as a matter of fact I won a match last weekend (and got to take home a prize--a new rifle). I guess it's news to me that my favorite hobby isn't a "valid recreational activity" in the eyes of an Aussie.

:rolleyes:

In the long run, surgical penis enhancement is probably cheaper.

If I could kill a deer or a person with my dick, I wouldn't need a gun. I can admit that.

Yeah we've been over this countless times too. And that is more then likely why I feel that way is always the end result.

Well, I'm glad you're happy with your toy though. Good to see you're still around as well. :chug:

Yeah, it's been awhile hasn't it. :chug:

How's the family?

My comments in italics & red...

See the thing is, with a hand gun I don't get it.
Maybe you should try shooting one sometime... that's how they got me...
Unless you have some extreme fear of your government trying to take you and you're convinced having a Pistol against the Squad Team that'd come for you if you were ever in a situation where a gun or weapon was needed..But that's not even a rational situation.
Why?
And so you now have a silencer, that way, when they try to take you, you can some how take out 4-6++ trained men/women silently then sneak away without drawing any attention until their bodies are discovered???
This is a toy for shooting ****, and maybe killing a few birds inside the barn. It's not a self defense weapon. I have bigger ones for that.
It's different if it's a rifle, used for hunting Deer, Bear, Ducks or whatever. But a hand gun has no real practical use for hunting, and most people with hand guns don't hunt at all anyways.
Plenty of people hunt with handguns. You're misinformed.
So yeah sure, it looks really ****ing cool, and you definitely feel like James Bond walking around with that in your hands, but it has no practical use except to inflict harm onto another human being, or some form of pointlessness. You're paying a **** load of money to be able to **** over the pigeon in your backyard in almost complete silence.
How much money have you blown on guitars, chrome parts to bolt on your piece of **** Honda, tattoos, or the thousands of other "stupid" ways to spend your money? Different strokes for different folks.

[Smokey D]

What the hell man? Your post count tells me you've been around long enough to know how to post right. Quadruple posts are a no no.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

Sorry man, I don't get on here near as much as I used to.

[Akira]

So has the first amendment some could argue.

The difference is that words never lose their power. On the other hand, pistols and hunting rifles are completely useless against a government with a military as advanced as ours. A militia can't touch the government. If we want to control the government, it has to be through peace.

I guess you could argue it, but I would definitely disagree.

[Smokey D]

There's absolutely no doubt that people have exploited the First Amendment. But that's not the same as saying there's something wrong with them doing so.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

The difference is that words never lose their power. On the other hand, pistols and hunting rifles are completely useless against a government with a military as advanced as ours. A militia can't touch the government. If we want to control the government, it has to be through peace.

I guess you could argue it, but I would definitely disagree.

You forget that some of the people in the government are also going to be the ones fighting it. You can't use the military against the populace if the military is the populace.

[Smokey D]

No tyrannical government worth its salt is going to leave potentially disloyal military elements in control of its best gadgets. Any move to repression would start with a) building up an alternative military structure ala the SA or SS b) establishing a climate of control in which secret police have near unfettered powers of detention and arrest and c) purge the military and replace it with /co-opt it into the alternative structure.

[Spiritofmosa]

I dont see the point of keeping a gun unless you are living in fear, which is what is going on in American. Americans live in fear,and point the weapon to get things the way one wants to, heh can't problems be solved in another way ?

thats a sweet pistol by the way..

[Akira]

No tyrannical government worth its salt is going to leave potentially disloyal military elements in control of its best gadgets. Any move to repression would start with a) building up an alternative military structure ala the SA or SS b) establishing a climate of control in which secret police have near unfettered powers of detention and arrest and c) purge the military and replace it with /co-opt it into the alternative structure.

Exactly.
And besides, handguns would still be useless.

[Independent_CA]

Exactly.
And besides, handguns would still be useless.

No they wouldn't especially in close quarters.

[Reaganista]

"Valid recreational purpose"

Who says what's valid? I do shoot handguns recreationally, and as a matter of fact I won a match last weekend (and got to take home a prize--a new rifle). I guess it's news to me that my favorite hobby isn't a "valid recreational activity" in the eyes of an Aussie.
i dont get why people should have to get shot at so some **** kicker with 48 chromosomes can play cowboy

[StrangeVision]

i dont get why people should have to get shot at so some **** kicker with 48 chromosomes can play cowboy

Do you honestly believe if guns were outlawed criminals wouldn't be able get them? Seemed to work well with prohibition and illegal drugs.

[Reaganista]

they would be harder to get

[StrangeVision]

Yeah you're right, they would be harder to get. Everything illegal is harder to get. It works great for drugs.

[-1up!-]

Yeah you're right, they would be harder to get. Everything illegal is harder to get. It works great for drugs.

Good luck defending the point that illegal drugs are as easy to obtain as if they were legal.

[StrangeVision]

The point is that they are still easy to get. Making guns illegal wouldn't mean that criminals couldn't get them without much trouble. And, the black market for guns would grow, leading to a failed attempt at getting rid of illegal guns.

[lfantwister]

Plus, the people who would potentially be shot by the criminals and their illegal weapons wouldnt have access to legal means of self-defense. banning guns would essentially empower the criminal element

[ringworm]

I dont see the point of keeping a gun unless you are living in fear
lol, i love gun debates, morons against morons, the ones that can and have been able to responsibly handle/own firearms just sit back and laugh at the rest of you argue and make posts like this :p

[BigBadBooDooDady]

I dont see the point of keeping a gun unless you are living in fear, which is what is going on in American. Americans live in fear,and point the weapon to get things the way one wants to, heh can't problems be solved in another way ?

thats a sweet pistol by the way..

I'm a Police Officer... so I carry one (well, two) everyday at work.

The rest have nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with shooting animals, paper or steel targets, potential home intruders, or zombies.

[StrangeVision]

I'm a Police Officer... so I carry one (well, two) everyday at work.

The rest have nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with shooting animals, paper or steel targets, potential home intruders, or zombies.

I ****ing hate those damn things.

[Reaganista]

Yeah you're right, they would be harder to get. Everything illegal is harder to get. It works great for drugs.
except it's much easier to buy beer than any illegal drugs
I'm a Police Officer... so I carry one (well, two) everyday at work.

The rest have nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with shooting animals, paper or steel targets, potential home intruders, or zombies.
what if you think your father-uncle or brother-cousin is an intruder and accidentally shoot him!!!!?

[StrangeVision]

except it's much easier to buy beer than any illegal drugs



Thank god. But, you can still get illegal things with relative ease.

[DBoons Ghost]

Guns aren't the problem.

People are.

As always.

[WhoDidTheElf]

My logic is, if you're dumb enough to not notice the bear about to charge you while you take aim at that deer, you're rather dense.

Not to mention it's not that hard to turn around and shoot. I've shot a rifle before, while hunting. If you don't have enough time to turn and shoot at the charging animal, you shouldn't have the gun to begin with.

More often than not, your not going to have an animal stumble on to you while you're sitting there taking aim at a deer, it's more likely that you're going to stumble on to an animal, spook it, and have it charge you.

Also "taking aim" at a charging animal is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Odds are it will not be charging at you in a straight line. And if your hunting with a shotgun and bear comes after, you're so dead. A shotgun will just aggravate a bear even more, unless you're shooting slugs.

[Independent_CA]

except it's much easier to buy beer than any illegal drugs
Not necessarily...I can get pot faster than I can get beer where I live (and I'm over 21). I can also get other drugs, like cocaine and E within probably a day or less after making a few phone calls. If all guns were outlawed, I'd probably be able to make a similar arrangement to buy a handgun or some other common firearm.

[Spiritofmosa]

i dont mind collecting some cool looking guns just for display.
http://www.jibjab.com/view/193752

[Nadinus]

I'm a Police Officer... so I carry one (well, two) everyday at work.

The rest have nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with shooting animals, paper or steel targets, potential home intruders, or zombies.

You think someone who breaks in to your home deserves to be shot, regardless of whether they intend to hurt you are not?

[ringworm]

thats a pretty dumb question considering that it would be kinda hard to figure that out while a complete stranger was bashing your window in

[Reaganista]

Not necessarily...I can get pot faster than I can get beer where I live (and I'm over 21)
they sell pot at the 7-11?

[DBoons Ghost]

they sell pot at the 7-11?

The dude in the parking lot!

[Reaganista]

that's still less convient you have to buy from him and buy food in the store

[WhoDidTheElf]

You think someone who breaks in to your home deserves to be shot, regardless of whether they intend to hurt you are not?

Why yes, yes they do.

[Reaganista]

hay that guy ninja edited

[DBoons Ghost]

Why yes, yes they do.

I concur with this.

Breaking into the home of another for any reason is grounds to be shot and killed on the spot.

[Iscariot]

See the thing is, with a hand gun I don't get it.

Unless you have some extreme fear of your government trying to take you and you're convinced having a Pistol against the Squad Team that'd come for you if you were ever in a situation where a gun or weapon was needed..But that's not even a rational situation.

And so you now have a silencer, that way, when they try to take you, you can some how take out 4-6++ trained men/women silently then sneak away without drawing any attention until their bodies are discovered???

It's different if it's a rifle, used for hunting Deer, Bear, Ducks or whatever. But a hand gun has no real practical use for hunting, and most people with hand guns don't hunt at all anyways.

So yeah sure, it looks really ****ing cool, and you definitely feel like James Bond walking around with that in your hands, but it has no practical use except to inflict harm onto another human being, or some form of pointlessness. You're paying a **** load of money to be able to **** over the pigeon in your backyard in almost complete silence.

Blah blah blah

You can use a .22 handgun to hunt small game like birds, you can use a .50 cal handgun like a Desert Eagle to hunt bears, you can carry a 9mm sidearm with you when you're hunting deer. Handguns are just as applicable to hunting as rifles are. Stop whining.

[Akira]

You think someone who breaks in to your home deserves to be shot, regardless of whether they intend to hurt you are not?

I believe guns need to be controlled better, and even I think that if someone breaks into your house, they deserve to be shot and killed.

[Reaganista]

Breaking into the home of another for any reason is grounds to be shot and killed on the spot.
ya but not really

[Independent_CA]

they sell pot at the 7-11?
No, but a few of my neighbors do and just about everyone I know has a "stash". 7-11 is a few blocks and a good 10 minute walk away.


ya but not really
Breaking in is a hostile act and I'm going to protect myself, my property, and my family before I give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Iskandar]

Killing an intruder is completely unnecessary unless he is armed.

[Akira]

If someone breaks into my house and I am armed, I am not waiting to find out. I wouldn't shoot to kill, but I would shoot to incapacitate.

[Iskandar]

If someone breaks into my house and I am armed, I am not waiting to find out. I wouldn't shoot to kill, but I would shoot to incapacitate.That would be a lot better than killing someone on sight, which is just a disproportionate amount of force.

Not that these comments necessarily mean much from a legal perspective.

[Iscariot]

I keep my 20 gauge and a handful of shells nearby when I'm asleep because we've had a few attempted burglaries in the past and most times all you have to do is pump the action to scare an intruder off. If that ever didn't work, the shells are there to be used. If someone isn't afraid of a rifle then they must have a weapon of their own and that's reason enough for me to use force.

[Akira]

That would be a lot better than killing someone on sight, which is just a disproportionate amount of force.

Not that these comments necessarily mean much from a legal perspective.

Well I mean I wouldn't aim for the head or anything, but at the same time I won't exactly mourn the death of someone killed trying to break into a house.

[Iskandar]

Well I mean I wouldn't aim for the head or anything, but at the same time I won't exactly mourn the death of someone killed trying to break into a house.If it were accidental. There is no reason to have to kill an intruder, though, unless it's in self-defense. Incapicitation is enough.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

You think someone who breaks in to your home deserves to be shot, regardless of whether they intend to hurt you are not?

Not necessarily. However, I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time determining whether or not he intended to cause me harm. That is what the coroner and detectives will do :thumb:

I keep my 20 gauge and a handful of shells nearby when I'm asleep because we've had a few attempted burglaries in the past and most times all you have to do is pump the action to scare an intruder off. If that ever didn't work, the shells are there to be used. If someone isn't afraid of a rifle then they must have a weapon of their own and that's reason enough for me to use force.

Do you keep them separate? I keep my HD Shotgun in a state called "cruiser ready". The slide is closed, safety off, and hammer dropped on an empty chamber. The magazine is full. That why you don't have to fumble with a safety or anything if the **** hits the fan really quick. The only thing required is to pump the action which is a non-thought process and requires no fine motor skills (like flipping off a safety).

Well I mean I wouldn't aim for the head or anything, but at the same time I won't exactly mourn the death of someone killed trying to break into a house.

Any self defense shooting should be at the center of mass... you stand the less chance of a miss if you're shooting into the biggest part of the body. The head moves around alot, and while it would probably mean a quick incapacitation, an offcenter hit on the body beats a total miss of the head.

[DBoons Ghost]

ya but not really

Ok, in the future when you find a stranger in your home hovering over the bed of your children, lemme know how that conversation turns out for you.

You're all just going to be taken advantage of, when your human kindness ends up being your end.

The only reason someone breaks into your home is to either rob you, kill you, or rape your wife and kids.

You gonna tell me these are human rights to be respected?

[The_Berzerker]

People who break into other people's houses should have there rights as humans revoked imho.

There invading your privacy, stealing what you have worked hard to produced and most of all putting your entire family at risk

[DBoons Ghost]

People who break into other people's houses should have there rights as humans revoked imho.

There invading your privacy, stealing what you have worked hard to produced and most of all putting your entire family at risk

Tell that to the bleeding heart idiots who dwell here and argue that you should stop and greet your home invaders as if they have a right to be there.

[ringworm]

yeah, we have many laws and sayings down here similar

like: dont shoot someone unless they are COMPLETELY inside your home, or else you may wind up being sued by the thief you shot for breaking into your home and endangering you, lol

it has happened too, i've seen cases (or maybe heard) where the thiefs family sued the homeowner who shot him and wound up making him pay all the hospital bills, crazy stuff

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't even own a gun, but it's just fun to argue that tidbit. If I did, I am truly unsure how I would react. I wouldn't want to kill someone. With all hope, you wake up and scare someone out of the house.

I'm anti-gun myself, but I've learned to respect the constitution.

My wife and daughter are worth providing protection for, but I am too afraid of having a gun in my house. I have a few alarm systems and live in a gated condo community. For now, that will have to be enough.

[ringworm]

same here, even though i have a few, they arent remotely close enough to go for in case of an intruder, its just stupid to have a gun that a kid could possibly find, and i'd hate to think i lived somewhere where i needed a loaded gun nearby anyway

i shoot targets maybe once a year or so, and for no reason, really, my guns are mainly handed down from several gens ago, stuff like that, i dont hunt or anything and generally dont like being near other people while shooting is happening

[Reaganista]

Breaking in is a hostile act and I'm going to protect myself, my property, and my family before I give you the benefit of the doubt.
the only kind of man who deserves to die is a stawman
!!!

[Independent_CA]

the only kind of man who deserves to die is a stawman
!!!
Stawman? I assume thats a typo?

And who said anything about killing? Like others have said, merely showing a gun will probably scare the intruder off and if he is aggressive, you don't have to kill him, just incapacitate. That is much more logical and effective than talking to him and asking him to leave or whatever your counter-argument is.

[south_of_heaven 11]

I've had my .22 pistol for a couple of years now, but I finally got a neat accessory for it...

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c353/AJErvin/S2010523-1.jpg

Now, some people don't realize that in most US States, it's legal to own one. I've been told that, in the U.K., not only are they legal, but they are encouraged so people don't have to listen to the shooters.

What do you think about that? Is that accurate? (for those who live in the U.K.?)

Nice. I honestly had no idea that silencers were legal to own. Is it one of those weird laws where it's illegal to buy one, but legal to own one by any chance?

[Reaganista]

Stawman? I assume thats a typo?

omg lol

And who said anything about killing?
the post i was responding to did
that's what makes your argument a strawman

[BigBadBooDooDady]

Nice. I honestly had no idea that silencers were legal to own. Is it one of those weird laws where it's illegal to buy one, but legal to own one by any chance?

No. You have to jump through some hoops, but you can buy machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles, etc.

You have to fill out an ATF form, pay for a $200 tax stamp to transfer to weapon to you, and wait for about a month for the paperwork to go through.

The thing that sucks about Class III items is that the $200 tax stamp is needed if the item is transferred to an individual. It isn't required for the Gub'ment or dealers, conveniently.

[Danish]

I don't even own a gun...

let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack! What am I going to do with a gun rack?!

[DBoons Ghost]

let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack! What am I going to do with a gun rack?!


Aww.. I dunno the movie well enough anymore to give you a worthy comeback.

Party on dude.

[Danish]

Aww.. I dunno the movie well enough anymore to give you a worthy comeback.

Party on dude.

hahahaha party on

[BigBadBooDooDady]

No. You have to jump through some hoops, but you can buy machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles, etc.

You have to fill out an ATF form, pay for a $200 tax stamp to transfer to weapon to you, and wait for about a month for the paperwork to go through.

The thing that sucks about Class III items is that the $200 tax stamp is needed if the item is transferred to an individual. It isn't required for the Gub'ment or dealers, conveniently.

I'll expand on this by adding a FAQ I started...

http://www.ar15adviser.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=299


let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack! What am I going to do with a gun rack?!

:lol:

[Independent_CA]

the post i was responding to did
that's what makes your argument a strawman
Umm...no it doesn't. The rest of my last post explains it.

[Reaganista]

Umm...no it doesn't
yes it does
you changed 'breaking into someone's house is grounds to be killed on the spot'
to
'sometimes you just show a gun and they go away'

http://reynolds.bio.upenn.edu/strawman.jpg

[Mr. Ron]

Oh joy, a thread where a bunch of people say "gunz r teh stupidz!".

[Mr. Ron]

See the thing is, with a hand gun I don't get it.

Unless you have some extreme fear of your government trying to take you and you're convinced having a Pistol against the Squad Team that'd come for you if you were ever in a situation where a gun or weapon was needed..But that's not even a rational situation.

And so you now have a silencer, that way, when they try to take you, you can some how take out 4-6++ trained men/women silently then sneak away without drawing any attention until their bodies are discovered???

It's different if it's a rifle, used for hunting Deer, Bear, Ducks or whatever. But a hand gun has no real practical use for hunting, and most people with hand guns don't hunt at all anyways.

So yeah sure, it looks really ****ing cool, and you definitely feel like James Bond walking around with that in your hands, but it has no practical use except to inflict harm onto another human being, or some form of pointlessness. You're paying a **** load of money to be able to **** over the pigeon in your backyard in almost complete silence.
Or you just like to shoot....

Um no there are handguns that can be used for hunting.


Chalk one up for ignorance.




I hunt bears with a pistol.

You can.



You take them out faster with an M-16.


.223 has crappy penetration characteristics. The M-16 is garbage.



I think handguns should be alot more restricted than rifles because they don't really serve a valid recreational purpose. All semi and fully automatic weapons are illegal in Australia anyway.

Plinking, competition, hunting, marksmanship.




I dont see the point of keeping a gun unless you are living in fear, which is what is going on in American. Americans live in fear,and point the weapon to get things the way one wants to, heh can't problems be solved in another way ?

thats a sweet pistol by the way..


One of the oldest BS arguments ever. Owning a weapon for self defense isn't living in fear. its being prepared for a situation that might arise.



You think someone who breaks in to your home deserves to be shot, regardless of whether they intend to hurt you are not?

If they do not leave after being warned and they come at you aggressively, then yes, they should be shot.



================================================== =



If a person breaks into your home, you warn them to leave and let them know you have a weapon, if they are unarmed, odds are they'll go away. YOU DO NOT SHOOT ON SIGHT. If they come at you, you BETTER shoot to kill. If you maim them odds are YOU are going to jail, and not them. At least in NY.

[Independent_CA]

omg lol

the post i was responding to did
that's what makes your argument a strawman
Killing might still be necessary and sometimes work better, I just said this isn't always so. Either way, if you aggressively break into someones home, you basically deserve to get shot if the homeowner decides to do so.

[Smokey D]

Why?

[Mr. Ron]

yeah, I support people having guns for home protection, but I don't think that just because someone breaks in its warrant enough for immediate death.

[Reaganista]

Oh joy, a thread where a bunch of people say "gunz r teh stupidz!".
o look it's the suburbs

Killing might still be necessary and sometimes work better, I just said this isn't always so. Either way, if you aggressively break into someones home, you basically deserve to get shot if the homeowner decides to do so.
no you dont

[Mr. Ron]

I don't live in the suburbs silly muffin!

[Reaganista]

well then look it's another generic hillbilly

[Mr. Ron]

nah brah

[Reaganista]

well i know you're not from the city so you have to pick one

[Mr. Ron]

I'm sort of situated on the outskirts of the city, where the city meets the country. There's no suburban areas around me, but its like, a 10 minute drive to the nearest city but not in the "country" by any means.

[Reaganista]

that's like 200% suburbs man
you even said 'nearest city'

either way it's obvious you don't have anybody shooting at you so your stake in gun control doesn't extend any further than some toys

[Mr. Ron]

that's like 200% suburbs man
you even said 'nearest city'

either way it's obvious you don't have anybody shooting at you so your stake in gun control doesn't extend any further than some toys

I've....actually been shot at before, believe it or not. :^0

I also own 10 rifles, not toys.


wait where do you live?

[Reaganista]

've....actually been shot at before, believe it or not. :^0

I also own 10 rifles, not toys.
i dont believe it
and yes they're toys
wait where do you live?
in tha ghetto

[BridgeToSolace]

Wait, since when is shooting animals for fun a legitimate form of recreation? (I'm not actually arguing anything, just being silly)

I like Jared's idea of keeping a pump action in my house with a loud enough noise that it would scare the guy away. I wouldn't keep any real ammo, if possible. Just the fear factor.

I'd be just as fine having nothing, though.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/323557_guns13.html

I wouldn't mind us regulating our gun stores, btw. It's retarded to think that legally bought guns are never bad.

[Mr. Ron]

i dont believe it
and yes they're toys

in tha ghetto

I actually used to live in the city, but my family moved to where I am now.


Weapons aren't toys.



Wait, since when is shooting animals for fun a legitimate form of recreation? (I'm not actually arguing anything, just being silly)

I like Jared's idea of keeping a pump action in my house with a loud enough noise that it would scare the guy away. I wouldn't keep any real ammo, if possible. Just the fear factor.

I'd be just as fine having nothing, though.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/323557_guns13.html

I wouldn't mind us regulating our gun stores, btw. It's retarded to think that legally bought guns are never bad.

I gave up hunting a while ago. I just don't need to do it, and there are other reaosns. Although, there are some lower income families that do rely on deer meat for a good amount of their food supply.


I don't see how keeping a shotgun in your house is effective. You can't just hope the guy is scared away by the sound.















I just don't see why its so bad for people who are qualified to own a firearm, to keep them. I will be the first to admit that we NEED a massive overhaul of the way people buy them.

[Danger Bird]

I can't see hunting being less expensive than buying meat.

[Mr. Ron]

I can't see hunting being less expensive than buying meat.

One bullet gives you over 100 lbs of meat that will last you longer, and you don't even have to spend money. Plus, its pure meat, nothing injected, no growth hormones etc etc.

[Danger Bird]

Yeah but there's the license, the gun + ammo, gas money driving there, other hunting gear, blow-up sex dolls, etc.

And your point depends on somebody with 100% accuracy.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

Yeah but there's the license, the gun + ammo, gas money driving there, other hunting gear, blow-up sex dolls, etc.

And your point depends on somebody with 100% accuracy.

Deer tag here is $20... shotgun anywhere from $150-several thousand, although it's good for more than one use. The ammo is maybe a dollar a shot if you use the premium stuff.

Really, it's not that expensive, even if you have to shoot several times. A good sized deer here can bet 150lbs+. The farther north you get, the bigger they are.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah but there's the license, the gun + ammo, gas money driving there, other hunting gear, blow-up sex dolls, etc.

And your point depends on somebody with 100% accuracy.

The license is cheap

You only have to spend a few hundred on a decent hunting rifle, which pays itself off over time with all the food you can potentially get with it. Then there are hand-me-down hunting rifles that cost nothing.

usually people that need to rely on this meat are in rural areas, so no gas is really involved. Hell, you can sit on your deck and just wait. I know 2 guys that do that.


You got me on the blow-up dolls though. ****ers are expensive.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

The license is cheap

You got me on the blow-up dolls though. ****ers are expensive.

If you are gentle with them they will last a couple of times. Of course they do start to smell bad :smash:

[Danger Bird]

Hell, you can sit on your deck and just wait. I know 2 guys that do that.
lol maybe if they did something besides sit on their porch waiting for deer they wouldn't be low-income.

You guys are probably right though, it could be cheaper if you do it enough.

[Mr. Ron]

lol maybe if they did something besides sit on their porch waiting for deer they wouldn't be low-income.

You guys are probably right though, it could be cheaper if you do it enough.

yup

[Reaganista]

I actually used to live in the city, but my family moved to where I am now.

what borough

Weapons aren't toys.
ok but recreational purposes are the least deplorable use you could possibly be planning to put a gun to so you dont really help the case by declaring that

[Mr. Ron]

what borough

ok but recreational purposes are the least deplorable use you could possibly be planning to put a gun to so you dont really help the case by declaring that

No not NYC I used to live in Albany. The bad part unfortunately. :^/



Sure, guns can be used for deplorable things, but the majority aren't. The minority are. What we need is a much more strict and comprehensive system of how they are sold.

[Reaganista]

albany isn't a city

[Mr. Ron]

albany isn't a city

uh, how isn't it.

[Reaganista]

93,000

[Mr. Ron]

If thats the population it doesn't disqualify it from being a city.

[Reaganista]

cities have like a million people
or more

[Mr. Ron]

cities have like a million people
or more

Cities are urban areas.


whatever, this is pointless.

[Reaganista]

urbanization is a feature of cities but if they were completely synomous then one of the words would have no purpose

[Mr. Ron]

idc

[Knifeboy]

id!!

[Independent_CA]

Why?
You've committed an aggressive act against me and you may intend to do more. It's in my own personal interest to stop you by whatever force is necessary.


cities have like a million people
or more
There's no real population requirement for a city.

[Reaganista]

except that they have like a million people
or more

i guess maybe you could have a city with like 800,000 maybe

[Smokey D]

You've committed an aggressive act against me and you may intend to do more. It's in my own personal interest to stop you by whatever force is necessary.

So why does an aggressive act give you the right to kill him?


There's no real population requirement for a city.

98000 isn't a city, though. Especially in the States.

Traditionally, cities had cathedrals, but I don't think that's a suffcient definition anymore.

[Against Miik!]

I'd say 100,000 is pushing a pretty legitimate city. I'm pretty sure there are requirements for becoming a city, or there were at one point. I remember learning about it in my human geography class last year. I just don't remember what they are.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

In Ohio, a village can be established with 1,600 residents, up to 5,000. Anything above 5,000 residents is a city (at least it is in Ohio).

[Knifeboy]

In Denmark, anything with 20+ residents is a village.. Hah

[Against Miik!]

In Ohio, a village can be established with 1,600 residents, up to 5,000. Anything above 5,000 residents is a city (at least it is in Ohio).

yay ohio:) But not Nasti Natti:(

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm confused as to why someone's stance on gun control stems from where they are located or born and raised etc..

Would I be pre-disposed to be anti-gun because I live in a big city?

Would that be the assumption?

I don't think it has to do with where I was raised but more likely how.

[Against Miik!]

In rural areas, guns are used for hunting and recreation. I mean, hicks just love their guns. Thus, pro gun. In the cities, people don't kill pigeons. They kill other people. Guns are used to commit crimes. Thus, anti gun.

[Aaron]

I hunt kangaroos with knives.

[DBoons Ghost]

In rural areas, guns are used for hunting and recreation. I mean, hicks just love their guns. Thus, pro gun. In the cities, people don't kill pigeons. They kill other people. Guns are used to commit crimes. Thus, anti gun.

I'm not so much anti-gun persay anymore, but I would love to see more effective means of gun control, and that doesn't mean I want to see the Constitution stepped on by way of eliminating guns all together. I just think they need to be smarter about gun control.

I'm no fan of hunting, but I love me some deer. Even some fawn. I can't chase one down with a machete.

Also, if some dude comes into your house with a blowtorch and a chainsaw ready to make a night out of cutting up the family, it would make sense to have some means of defending yourself.

[Against Miik!]

I'm not so much anti-gun persay anymore, but I would love to see more effective means of gun control, and that doesn't mean I want to see the Constitution stepped on by way of eliminating guns all together. I just think they need to be smarter about gun control.

I'm no fan of hunting, but I love me some deer. Even some fawn. I can't chase one down with a machete.

Also, if some dude comes into your house with a blowtorch and a chainsaw ready to make a night out of cutting up the family, it would make sense to have some means of defending yourself.

I think the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for militia purposes and to protect individuals from the government. Militia's, well, don't really have those anymore. And protection from the government? Well, ok. Necessary, but I don't think a handgun is gonna do it. I am definitely a constitutionialist, but the second amendment has definitely seen it's day. Using that as a backing for pro gun arguments is silly. It's the equivalent of quartering of troops.

What we need to use is common sense. The only people ban on firearms, or even stricter requirements, hurts is law abiding citizens and that rare case where some kid takes his parents gun and goes crazy. If a criminal wants to get a gun, they will get it.

[DBoons Ghost]

There are too many guns on the street for any corrections to amendments.

Nothing can really fix the problem at this point.

NY hasn't changed it's gun laws since the old gang wars on the streets of NYC back in the late 1800s.

I dunno.

[Against Miik!]

I'm just thinking the law is a foolish route to take, just like the drug war, just like combating racism with affirmative action. It would be better to actually combat the reasons for crime. A very small amount of the population commit violent crimes for the fun of it. Although the underlying problems are usually the harder ones to solve, so we take the easy way out.

[DBoons Ghost]

Reasons for crime?

Entire populations of people came to America simply to committ crime for profit, because it's easier then anything else.

How do you combat that?

You underestimate people if you think they don't commit violent crimes for fun. Thousands of homeless every year are killed for the fun of it, and that has nothing to do with guns.

[Against Miik!]

Reasons for crime?

Entire populations of people came to America simply to committ crime for profit, because it's easier then anything else.

How do you combat that?

You underestimate people if you think they don't commit violent crimes for fun. Thousands of homeless every year are killed for the fun of it, and that has nothing to do with guns.

There are still reasons. If, for example, people are killing homeless people when they should be helping them, it is, as are many things, caused no doubt a dissatisfaction with their own lives, and a lack of fulfillment that they don't get from other activities. Of the industrialized western nations, the United States seems to stand head and shoulders among other countries when it comes to violent acts. Why is this the case? That is the question that needs to be answered. Not how to restrict gun ownership, which is really the question we are trying to get at here.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

I think the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for militia purposes and to protect individuals from the government. Militia's, well, don't really have those anymore. And protection from the government? Well, ok. Necessary, but I don't think a handgun is gonna do it. I am definitely a constitutionialist, but the second amendment has definitely seen it's day. Using that as a backing for pro gun arguments is silly. It's the equivalent of quartering of troops.

What we need to use is common sense. The only people ban on firearms, or even stricter requirements, hurts is law abiding citizens and that rare case where some kid takes his parents gun and goes crazy. If a criminal wants to get a gun, they will get it.

The use of the 2nd has evolved, although the "militia" purpose is still useful. Back then, a militia wasn't an organized group, it was any able-bodied male over 17 years of age.

And true, "just a handgun" isn't going to do it, but there are millions of handguns in the hands of millions of honest, law abiding people. And defending ones self from government doesn't necessarily have to be our government. It's possible that we can piss off enough countries that we could possibly get invaded some day.

As noted by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, of the Japanese Navy in WWII; "You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[Reaganista]

we dont need to rely on having a lot of rifles to keep ourselves from being invaded we have thousands of nukes

[ringworm]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
lol, maybe back then, the sissies that inhabit the country now would run to the doctor fussing about their weed/pollen allergies and requesting some form of antidepressant

[Reaganista]

what

[g°®†]

I've had my .22 pistol for a couple of years now, but I finally got a neat accessory for it...

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c353/AJErvin/S2010523-1.jpg

Now, some people don't realize that in most US States, it's legal to own one. I've been told that, in the U.K., not only are they legal, but they are encouraged so people don't have to listen to the shooters.

What do you think about that? Is that accurate? (for those who live in the U.K.?)



Dude .... are you down for some real life Counter Strike?

[Independent_CA]

what
I think he's saying that most Americans these days are afraid of guns and combat, or anything to do with the outdoors...which for better or worse is probably true.

[Reaganista]

except if someone invaded us now the sissies that inhabit this country would turn the invading army and their country of origin into glass in about an hour
but other than that yeah spot on

[Independent_CA]

except if someone invaded us now the sissies that inhabit this country would turn the invading army and their country of origin into glass in about an hour
but other than that yeah spot on

It wouldn't happen quite that fast.

[Reaganista]

maybe if they were martians

[Mr. Ron]

totally.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

lol, maybe back then, the sissies that inhabit the country now would run to the doctor fussing about their weed/pollen allergies and requesting some form of antidepressant

I can see where you are coming from, but there are plenty of people out there that prepare for, and possilbly wish something like that would happen.

A couple of examples:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/RyanJR/IMG_7203.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/RyanJR/IMG_1321.jpg
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r88/_bullseye_/tehammofortz.jpg

[Smokey D]

It doesn't matter who wants war, because no-one can ever invade the continental United States.

Unless it's some crazy group like the Montana Militia, but their opinion doesn't count.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

Never say ever.

I'd say it's very unlikely, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it won't ever happen.

[Smokey D]

Unless some other country developed a 100% failsafe missile defense system, I'm pretty comfortable with never.

The only strategic reason to invade the US is to prevent it from responding to events elsewhere, and the costs associated with an assault (not to mention the difficulty in holding onto captured territory) makes that utterly unfeasible.

[g°®†]

I can see where you are coming from, but there are plenty of people out there that prepare for, and possilbly wish something like that would happen.

A couple of examples:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/RyanJR/IMG_7203.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/RyanJR/IMG_1321.jpg
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r88/_bullseye_/tehammofortz.jpg



holy jesus

[Mr. Ron]

I can see where you are coming from, but there are plenty of people out there that prepare for, and possilbly wish something like that would happen.

A couple of examples:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/RyanJR/IMG_7203.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/RyanJR/IMG_1321.jpg
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r88/_bullseye_/tehammofortz.jpg
I'm going to buy a MK4 Enfeild pretty soon. I'm working on my WW2 bolt collection.


Here's a pic of my freind matt's collection: http://i23.tinypic.com/ddovi8.jpg

[lfantwister]

why would you ever need so many guns

[BigBadBooDooDady]

I'm going to buy a MK4 Enfeild pretty soon. I'm working on my WW2 bolt collection.


Here's a pic of my freind matt's collection: http://i23.tinypic.com/ddovi8.jpg

:thumb: Nice

My only WWII gun is an M44 Mosin Nagant. I have more modern designed military guns and hunting guns.

why would you ever need so many guns

It isn't about need man... same as collecting guitars or stamps.

[Independent_CA]

Never say ever.

I'd say it's very unlikely, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it won't ever happen.

The logistics of doing so would be absolutely mind-boggling. None of our neighboring countries would be stupid enough to allow another country access to their territory to invade us, so they'd basically be fighting an entire continent. There also aren't any decent sized island chains conveniently located off our coast for an enemy to launch an assault from. A nation like Russia or China (or both for that matter) COULD go across the Bearing Sea into Alaska and down from there into Canada and the US but that's also unlikely. The terrain and environment is pretty rugged and they'd have a few thousand miles to go before they hit the lower 48 states. Such an effort and the occupation afterwards would absolutely crush the economy of even the largest nation, even China when it becomes what everyone thinks it will.

[Mr. Ron]

why would you ever need so many guns

Because its a hobby? Why would you need so many baseball cards?

[Reaganista]

baseball cards arent used in 10000 murders a year

[lfantwister]

not that theres anything wrong with it. it definitely looks cool

i just dont understand the collecting impulse for anything really

[Reaganista]

Never say ever.
never never never never never never never

[DBoons Ghost]

baseball cards arent used in 10000 murders a year

What? You must not know many ninjas. Baseball cards are deadly if you can papercut someone's throat to pieces like a ninja can.

Ninjas eat their dead so we may never know the true numbers.

[Mr. Ron]

baseball cards arent used in 10000 murders a year

paper cutz

[Mr. Ron]

not that theres anything wrong with it. it definitely looks cool

i just dont understand the collecting impulse for anything really

Meh, I do it because I like the history behind them, plus its fun to just go to the range and shoot. *shrug*

[Knifeboy]

**** ninjas.. Ricky Jay ftw http://www.postersplease.com/images/image.php?id=600

[Mr. Ron]

lmao

[BigBadBooDooDady]

What? You must not know many ninjas. Baseball cards are deadly if you can papercut someone's throat to pieces like a ninja can.

Ninjas eat their dead so we may never know the true numbers.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Uh... yeah :p

Meh, I do it because I like the history behind them, plus its fun to just go to the range and shoot. *shrug*

I have almost as much fun taking people shooting for the first time as I do actually shooting my guns. The last shoot I was at I was running around letting everybody shoot my gun, and they all walked away with big grins on their faces.

[wartree]

make love not war
down with gun shots , hurray for cum shots

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Why can't I do all four?

[Mr. Ron]

The man has a point.

[Danger Bird]

...at the same time!!!

[Mr. Ron]

Now you're talkin'