(01-24-2013 02:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The second amendment was meant to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the government. That was back when a group of citizens could actually storm the government offices and effect change.

Trying to get your buddies together to storm the White House today will simply get you killed. I don't care what kind of weapons you have.

Yeah, and the 1st amendment is outdated too, Comrade. We should do something about that.

All you that think the military is just going to willingly turn their munitions on the American populace are fools. The military isn't worth the words on the MTOE without personnel, and those personnel swore and oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, not every order by the temporary resident of 1600.

I can only speak for myself but that is EXACTLY why I am not affraid of a "tyrannical" President and why I don't think I need a gun for the reason of protecting me from the government.

Not worried about tanks, jets, or the military, Robbie. These guys, however...

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/dhs-pu...ower-ammo/

...and there are links in the page to verify, if you're not too lazy.

(01-24-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I noticed that Browning automatics weren't on the list. You can get those from Great Britain, and a BAR can shoot through a car or truck...

I guess it doesn't look as scary as a MAC-11....that has the range of about my foot to as far as I can throw an Abrams.

(01-24-2013 02:57 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I noticed that Browning automatics weren't on the list. You can get those from Great Britain, and a BAR can shoot through a car or truck...

I guess it doesn't look as scary as a MAC-11....that has the range of about my foot to as far as I can throw an Abrams.

I know John Dillinger's gang swore by them...

(01-24-2013 03:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:57 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I noticed that Browning automatics weren't on the list. You can get those from Great Britain, and a BAR can shoot through a car or truck...

I guess it doesn't look as scary as a MAC-11....that has the range of about my foot to as far as I can throw an Abrams.

I know John Dillinger's gang swore by them...

Yeah, somehow I doubt that.

(01-24-2013 03:05 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 03:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:57 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I noticed that Browning automatics weren't on the list. You can get those from Great Britain, and a BAR can shoot through a car or truck...

I guess it doesn't look as scary as a MAC-11....that has the range of about my foot to as far as I can throw an Abrams.

I know John Dillinger's gang swore by them...

Yeah, somehow I doubt that.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Dillinger_(197...atic_Rifle

Does one need any other proof that California is a f**ked up place, then they keep sending this thing back to the Senate. We need to just let them go be their only western hemisphere version of Greece.

(01-24-2013 01:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 01:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and you're not disarming me.

Do you make love to your guns too? Please pull the trigger next time. We don't need any more of you nutjobs roaming the country.

You need a time out moron. Reported

(01-24-2013 03:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 03:05 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 03:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:57 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I noticed that Browning automatics weren't on the list. You can get those from Great Britain, and a BAR can shoot through a car or truck...

I guess it doesn't look as scary as a MAC-11....that has the range of about my foot to as far as I can throw an Abrams.

I know John Dillinger's gang swore by them...

Yeah, somehow I doubt that.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Dillinger_(197...atic_Rifle

Thought you were referring to the MAC-11.

Why not? We already types of free speech, next on the docket limit religions.

(01-24-2013 03:39 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 01:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 01:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and you're not disarming me.

Do you make love to your guns too? Please pull the trigger next time. We don't need any more of you nutjobs roaming the country.

You need a time out moron. Reported

this is why you should ignore him... He's like a pigs at the zoo... Worth walking by every now and again for entertainment purposes but each and every time he smells like crap.

I have a few of those, and no way in hell are they ever being registered.
i seriously doubt this goes anywhere, it would have to get past the house, and if I were congressional republicans I'd do to this bill exactly what Reid has done to every budget passed by the House... Let it rot on the floor in the corner.

(01-24-2013 05:06 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I have a few of those, and no way in hell are they ever being registered.
i seriously doubt this goes anywhere, it would have to get past the house, and if I were congressional republicans I'd do to this bill exactly what Reid has done to every budget passed by the House... Let it rot on the floor in the corner.

Hell, it might not make it out of the Senate.

He Robert, which one is more dangerous?

The Beretta Storm? REALLY? That fires pistol ammo!

(01-24-2013 01:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 01:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and you're not disarming me.

Do you make love to your guns too? Please pull the trigger next time. We don't need any more of you nutjobs roaming the country.

Way over the line man. I do think we need some better regulations on firearms (especially military grade assault weapons), but that is not how to debate that fact.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

(01-24-2013 08:08 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Way over the line man. I do think we need some better regulations on firearms (especially military grade assault weapons), but that is not how to debate that fact.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Do you know what the difference is between an "assault weapon" and a traditional sporting rifle?

Essentially it's makeup.

Which one of these to guns do you want to ban?





Shouldn't matter. It's the exact same gun. It functions the same way in either configuration. The fluff in the second picture doesn't make the gun any more dangerous than it is in the first configuration. In both pictures you are looking at a Ruger 10/22. However because the second gun has put on some makeup it is considered by the gun control freaks as an assault weapon.

The very fact that the list posted in the OP has the Tec-9 listed as a banned weapon shows that this is just about the appearance of a weapon because anybody that knows anything about guns knows the Tec-9 is simply a piece of crap. Criminals love it because it looks mean, but honestly if I get to choose what handgun I get confronted with I want to pick the Tec-9 because chances are the shooter is going to miss because it is a heavy, poorly designed piece of garbage.

Locking this garbage.