M
markeo99
Guest
bump fire my 12 gauge backs you up about 10 feet before the 11 shells are gone once you start the gun does it on its own
M
markeo99
Guest
see no gun had anything to do with that kids head being f'd up
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by markeo99
http:///forum/post/2831136
see no gun had anything to do with that kids head being f'd up
LOL take away the guns then people will use sharp objects.take away sharp objects people will use blunt force..........
http:///forum/post/2831136
see no gun had anything to do with that kids head being f'd up
LOL take away the guns then people will use sharp objects.take away sharp objects people will use blunt force..........
sharkbait9
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2831139
LOL take away the guns then people will use sharp objects.take away sharp objects people will use blunt force..........
Amen
I know on some weapons you can get the trigger bounce easier then others. I was just saying on my comp 40 i had a lighter trigger put in and until i got used to it I would empty a clip with one squeeze
http:///forum/post/2831139
LOL take away the guns then people will use sharp objects.take away sharp objects people will use blunt force..........
Amen
I know on some weapons you can get the trigger bounce easier then others. I was just saying on my comp 40 i had a lighter trigger put in and until i got used to it I would empty a clip with one squeeze
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2831168
Amen
I know on some weapons you can get the trigger bounce easier then others. I was just saying on my comp 40 i had a lighter trigger put in and until i got used to it I would empty a clip with one squeeze
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHhEAnce9s&NR=1
http:///forum/post/2831168
Amen
I know on some weapons you can get the trigger bounce easier then others. I was just saying on my comp 40 i had a lighter trigger put in and until i got used to it I would empty a clip with one squeeze
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHhEAnce9s&NR=1
salty blues
Active Member
Yeehaw, another gun nut thread!!
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2831225
Yeehaw, another gun nut thread!!
HEH HEH,
Why not,
we have Leftys and Rightys, Pro-life and Abortionists,Democrats and Republicans,Believers and NON,and the we have People who believe there is NO Exception to the Second Amendment and we have Sheep waiting for the slaughter.
What fun would it be if we all thought alike.
http:///forum/post/2831225
Yeehaw, another gun nut thread!!
HEH HEH,
Why not,
we have Leftys and Rightys, Pro-life and Abortionists,Democrats and Republicans,Believers and NON,and the we have People who believe there is NO Exception to the Second Amendment and we have Sheep waiting for the slaughter.
What fun would it be if we all thought alike.
1knight164
Member
So the news is full of reports of gun sales sky-rocketing. Is this over-reaction, or justified? I couldn't find anything that I thought would make me go and stock up before Obama is sworn in. Is it just assault weapons?
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2830663
Clinton had a gun ban? I must have missed the memo.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2830687
I was thinking the same thing...........
Originally Posted by digitydash
http:///forum/post/2830690
I dont think he had a gun ban.I think what you are refering to is the assault weapon ban.That basiclly did nothing but cut the flash supresser off the end of the barrel.
NRA-ILA Clinton Gun Ban
Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon “assault weapons” as a political issue. Along with “midnight basketball” and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.
Clinton had barely finished moving into the White House when he proclaimed we “can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.” Then, stringing together several whoppers in a single sentence, he announced, “I don’t believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure.”
Of course, not everybody in American can buy a firearm—felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens and fugitives from justice, for example, can not—and ownership of fully-automatic firearms has been heavily regulated by federal law since 1934. And, of course, semi-automatic firearms, which have been around for more than a century, are used by millions of Americans for hunting, self-defense, recreational target shooting and in formal marksmanship competitions such as the Olympics.
Like all firearms, except for fully-automatic machine guns, semi-automatics—including those defined as “assault weapons” by the Clinton ban—fire only once each time the trigger is pulled. They also use the same ammunition as other types of guns.
“Gun control” advocates claim that various military-style attachments—attachments that in their minds re-define semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons”—provide advantages to criminals. But even the rabidly anti-gun Washington Post admits, “Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime.” Data from police experts must be deliberately avoided by those pushing "assault weapons" bills. A clear case in point is the internal memorandum to California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady that warned: “Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the “Assault Weapons” ban legislation would be based.”
Members of Congress who voted for the Clinton ban in 1994 disregarded hard evidence, pretending instead that BATF trace data “proved” widespread criminal “assault weapon” use. They ignored the Congressional Research Service’s finding that: “Firearms selected for tracing . . . cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes.”
The American people eventually learned the truth, and it was not surprising then that pro-ban votes cost—by Bill Clinton’s count—at least 20 Democrats their seats in the next election. Nor was is surprising that less than two years after its passage, the House of Representatives voted 239 to 173 to repeal the Clinton gun ban.
A decade has passed, and both the facts and the goals of anti-gun politicians remain unchanged.
http://clintongunban.com/
http:///forum/post/2830663
Clinton had a gun ban? I must have missed the memo.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2830687
I was thinking the same thing...........
Originally Posted by digitydash
http:///forum/post/2830690
I dont think he had a gun ban.I think what you are refering to is the assault weapon ban.That basiclly did nothing but cut the flash supresser off the end of the barrel.
NRA-ILA Clinton Gun Ban
Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon “assault weapons” as a political issue. Along with “midnight basketball” and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.
Clinton had barely finished moving into the White House when he proclaimed we “can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.” Then, stringing together several whoppers in a single sentence, he announced, “I don’t believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure.”
Of course, not everybody in American can buy a firearm—felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens and fugitives from justice, for example, can not—and ownership of fully-automatic firearms has been heavily regulated by federal law since 1934. And, of course, semi-automatic firearms, which have been around for more than a century, are used by millions of Americans for hunting, self-defense, recreational target shooting and in formal marksmanship competitions such as the Olympics.
Like all firearms, except for fully-automatic machine guns, semi-automatics—including those defined as “assault weapons” by the Clinton ban—fire only once each time the trigger is pulled. They also use the same ammunition as other types of guns.
“Gun control” advocates claim that various military-style attachments—attachments that in their minds re-define semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons”—provide advantages to criminals. But even the rabidly anti-gun Washington Post admits, “Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime.” Data from police experts must be deliberately avoided by those pushing "assault weapons" bills. A clear case in point is the internal memorandum to California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady that warned: “Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the “Assault Weapons” ban legislation would be based.”
Members of Congress who voted for the Clinton ban in 1994 disregarded hard evidence, pretending instead that BATF trace data “proved” widespread criminal “assault weapon” use. They ignored the Congressional Research Service’s finding that: “Firearms selected for tracing . . . cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes.”
The American people eventually learned the truth, and it was not surprising then that pro-ban votes cost—by Bill Clinton’s count—at least 20 Democrats their seats in the next election. Nor was is surprising that less than two years after its passage, the House of Representatives voted 239 to 173 to repeal the Clinton gun ban.
A decade has passed, and both the facts and the goals of anti-gun politicians remain unchanged.
http://clintongunban.com/
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2831270
So the news is full of reports of gun sales sky-rocketing. Is this over-reaction, or justified? I couldn't find anything that I thought would make me go and stock up before Obama is sworn in. Is it just assault weapons?
As senator he mentioned the ban of all handguns. I posted the link in another thread. I'll try to dig it up.
http:///forum/post/2831270
So the news is full of reports of gun sales sky-rocketing. Is this over-reaction, or justified? I couldn't find anything that I thought would make me go and stock up before Obama is sworn in. Is it just assault weapons?
As senator he mentioned the ban of all handguns. I posted the link in another thread. I'll try to dig it up.
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2831280
The question is do you think he'll ever get it passed? Personally i don't think he'll be able to. Democrats have made some bigger inroads into red america. But senators in the midwest voting to ban weapons are going to get voted out of office.
It's already happened once. I think it'll be easier this time.
http:///forum/post/2831280
The question is do you think he'll ever get it passed? Personally i don't think he'll be able to. Democrats have made some bigger inroads into red america. But senators in the midwest voting to ban weapons are going to get voted out of office.
It's already happened once. I think it'll be easier this time.
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2830857
I prefer my .50 Cal for deer hunting. I only get one shot, but then, I've never actually needed more that one.
In certain places in this country you would be forced to give up your .50 cal.
Any owned and posessed before the ban were to be registered or removed from the county. Failure to comply constitutes felony possesion of a banned weapon.
Others will follow. It starts here in Kalifornia and spreads like a plague.
Ask Mr Ronnie Barrett how he feels about California. He designed and built a new rifle in a new caliber just to be able to market to Ca customers affected by the ban and tick off the communist government in power here.
Here's a look at how he feels...
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2727
http:///forum/post/2830857
I prefer my .50 Cal for deer hunting. I only get one shot, but then, I've never actually needed more that one.
In certain places in this country you would be forced to give up your .50 cal.
Any owned and posessed before the ban were to be registered or removed from the county. Failure to comply constitutes felony possesion of a banned weapon.
Others will follow. It starts here in Kalifornia and spreads like a plague.
Ask Mr Ronnie Barrett how he feels about California. He designed and built a new rifle in a new caliber just to be able to market to Ca customers affected by the ban and tick off the communist government in power here.
Here's a look at how he feels...
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2727
1knight164
Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2831317
In certain places in this country you would be forced to give up your .50 cal.
Any owned and posessed before the ban were to be registered or removed from the county. Failure to comply constitutes felony possesion of a banned weapon.
Others will follow. It starts here in Kalifornia and spreads like a plague.
Ask Mr Ronnie Barrett how he feels about California. He designed and built a new rifle in a new caliber just to be able to market to Ca customers affected by the ban and tick off the communist government in power here.
Here's a look at how he feels...
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2727
This is depressing!
We'll be down to slingshots soon. If it weren't for the beaches and weather, i'd pack my bags. How much longer are you going to hang out, SoCal? OH, and then Corona gets himself in trouble.
He was great with CCW permits in OC. That was my next move, but too bad so sad.
http:///forum/post/2831317
In certain places in this country you would be forced to give up your .50 cal.
Any owned and posessed before the ban were to be registered or removed from the county. Failure to comply constitutes felony possesion of a banned weapon.
Others will follow. It starts here in Kalifornia and spreads like a plague.
Ask Mr Ronnie Barrett how he feels about California. He designed and built a new rifle in a new caliber just to be able to market to Ca customers affected by the ban and tick off the communist government in power here.
Here's a look at how he feels...
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2727
This is depressing!
coral keeper
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2831199
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHhEAnce9s&NR=1
Check this video out!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1RvT...eature=related
http:///forum/post/2831199
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHhEAnce9s&NR=1
Check this video out!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1RvT...eature=related
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2831309
It's already happened once. I think it'll be easier this time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no obama fan, but lets do a little political science (a misnomer if I've ever heard one). A key assumptions. Rural areas have a higher per capita gun ownership. These areas are also pro 2nd amendment. Gun rights is a key voting issue for these areas.
Congress was set up in a way that both highly populated states and lower populated states have influence in the political process.
I highly doubt a gun ban such as ones that ban anything 50 cal and up will actually be passed. Remember these people want to get re-elected. So these democrats from more rural districts aren't going to vote for something like this.
2nd the supreme court has set a precedent by striking down the DC gun ban. Which unless he pulls an FDR and tries to add justices, it isn't likely he'll just get to replace a couple of the activist judges. So if he does by some reason get an extreme ban of 50 caliber and above weapons chances are it will get overturned.
3rd I think hunting is more popular than ever. (no actual data just an impression) and if he does go after hunters guns which some previous legislation he supported did do, on a national level. He is going to commit political suicide.
4th in all honest what has he actually done. Other than get elected president running against the most incompetent person the republicans could find.. He has no major legislative reform. Until this all his accomplishments are in academia. He had the help of every major form of media behind his back, yet in the form of popular vote only won by 6%.
So overall I don't know how effective he is going to be in passing major legislation ESPECIALLY something as unpopular as major restriction of gun ownership. Do I think they'll pass some stuff that ticks us off. Ammo taxes, stupid restriction ect. Yes, but nothing as far reaching as the folks on gun forums would lead us to believe.
http:///forum/post/2831309
It's already happened once. I think it'll be easier this time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no obama fan, but lets do a little political science (a misnomer if I've ever heard one). A key assumptions. Rural areas have a higher per capita gun ownership. These areas are also pro 2nd amendment. Gun rights is a key voting issue for these areas.
Congress was set up in a way that both highly populated states and lower populated states have influence in the political process.
I highly doubt a gun ban such as ones that ban anything 50 cal and up will actually be passed. Remember these people want to get re-elected. So these democrats from more rural districts aren't going to vote for something like this.
2nd the supreme court has set a precedent by striking down the DC gun ban. Which unless he pulls an FDR and tries to add justices, it isn't likely he'll just get to replace a couple of the activist judges. So if he does by some reason get an extreme ban of 50 caliber and above weapons chances are it will get overturned.
3rd I think hunting is more popular than ever. (no actual data just an impression) and if he does go after hunters guns which some previous legislation he supported did do, on a national level. He is going to commit political suicide.
4th in all honest what has he actually done. Other than get elected president running against the most incompetent person the republicans could find.. He has no major legislative reform. Until this all his accomplishments are in academia. He had the help of every major form of media behind his back, yet in the form of popular vote only won by 6%.
So overall I don't know how effective he is going to be in passing major legislation ESPECIALLY something as unpopular as major restriction of gun ownership. Do I think they'll pass some stuff that ticks us off. Ammo taxes, stupid restriction ect. Yes, but nothing as far reaching as the folks on gun forums would lead us to believe.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2831270
So the news is full of reports of gun sales sky-rocketing. Is this over-reaction, or justified? I couldn't find anything that I thought would make me go and stock up before Obama is sworn in. Is it just assault weapons?
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2831273
NRA-ILA Clinton Gun Ban
Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon “assault weapons” as a political issue. Along with “midnight basketball” and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.
You're hurting your own cause by trying to equate a ban on assaut rifles with a gun ban. Clinton didn't have a gun ban. If you describe it for what it is you'll have a much better chance of capturing an audience.
I'm just sayin'
http:///forum/post/2831273
NRA-ILA Clinton Gun Ban
Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon “assault weapons” as a political issue. Along with “midnight basketball” and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.
You're hurting your own cause by trying to equate a ban on assaut rifles with a gun ban. Clinton didn't have a gun ban. If you describe it for what it is you'll have a much better chance of capturing an audience.
I'm just sayin'