Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Yup Yup
()
Date: March 19, 2013 02:36PM
Throw the kike bitch into an oven for trying to violate our rights.
Hopefully the price and availability of many of these dangerous "assault weapons" and their "ammo clips" will change soon.
Hopefully the price and availability of many of these dangerous "assault weapons" and their "ammo clips" will change soon.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
tky
()
Date: March 19, 2013 02:44PM
Yup Yup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Throw the kike bitch into an oven for trying to
> violate our rights.
>
> Hopefully the price and availability of many of
> these dangerous "assault weapons" and their "ammo
> clips" will change soon.
And hopefully more people now understand the difference between a magazine and a clip.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Throw the kike bitch into an oven for trying to
> violate our rights.
>
> Hopefully the price and availability of many of
> these dangerous "assault weapons" and their "ammo
> clips" will change soon.
And hopefully more people now understand the difference between a magazine and a clip.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Playboy deux
()
Date: March 19, 2013 03:24PM
tky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup Yup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Throw the kike bitch into an oven for trying to
> > violate our rights.
> >
> > Hopefully the price and availability of many of
> > these dangerous "assault weapons" and their
> "ammo
> > clips" will change soon.
>
> And hopefully more people now understand the
> difference between a magazine and a clip.
Please define. Some of us are not gun correct. When I was in a outhouse in southeast somewhere when you asked for a magazine you got clipped.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup Yup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Throw the kike bitch into an oven for trying to
> > violate our rights.
> >
> > Hopefully the price and availability of many of
> > these dangerous "assault weapons" and their
> "ammo
> > clips" will change soon.
>
> And hopefully more people now understand the
> difference between a magazine and a clip.
Please define. Some of us are not gun correct. When I was in a outhouse in southeast somewhere when you asked for a magazine you got clipped.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
BB*X
()
Date: March 19, 2013 03:39PM
A magazine (top pic) holds ammo and is inserted into the gun and removed in order to be re-loaded.
A clip is used to load a magazine that is fixed. In the pictures attached the clip would be inserted into a groove above the fixed magazine and then the rounds would be pushed down off of the clip and into the fixed magazine.
Attachments:
A clip is used to load a magazine that is fixed. In the pictures attached the clip would be inserted into a groove above the fixed magazine and then the rounds would be pushed down off of the clip and into the fixed magazine.
Attachments:
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
jay straud
()
Date: March 19, 2013 03:48PM
I can live with the lack of knowledge between a clip and a magazine. But before these liberals seek to pass another hundred laws to add to the thousands already on the books they should learn the difference between automatic and semi automatic weapons. They should also be aware that a person with three ten round mags is just as dangerous as a person with one thirty round mag. I heard a so called firearms expert on CNN say it takes ten seconds to change a mag. It can easily be done in less than two seconds. These "experts" are not vetted and yet claim expert status on firearms just because they say they are one.
Lastly I do not put any stock in the opinions of the organization Chiefs of Police. They are for the most part political appointees who bow to the wishes of whoever is in charge of their respective cities/counties. They hardly speak for the rank and file police officers.
Lastly I do not put any stock in the opinions of the organization Chiefs of Police. They are for the most part political appointees who bow to the wishes of whoever is in charge of their respective cities/counties. They hardly speak for the rank and file police officers.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
BB*X
()
Date: March 19, 2013 03:59PM
Jay I completely agree and would like to add one more point to that. Stop calling it a gun show loop hole. The same loop hole applies if I purchase a firearm from another citizen in a McDonald's parking lot, same loop hole if I meet up at the local Giant, etc...
The only difference is that you are more likely to encounter someone wanting to sell a firearam at a gun show than you are at the local Giant. The gun show itself has nothing to do with the loop hole, it applies in all private citizen to citizen sales no matter where they occur.
The only difference is that you are more likely to encounter someone wanting to sell a firearam at a gun show than you are at the local Giant. The gun show itself has nothing to do with the loop hole, it applies in all private citizen to citizen sales no matter where they occur.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
misinformation everywhere
()
Date: March 19, 2013 04:06PM
BB*X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jay I completely agree and would like to add one
> more point to that. Stop calling it a gun show
> loop hole. The same loop hole applies if I
> purchase a firearm from another citizen in a
> McDonald's parking lot, same loop hole if I meet
> up at the local Giant, etc...
>
> The only difference is that you are more likely to
> encounter someone wanting to sell a firearam at a
> gun show than you are at the local Giant. The gun
> show itself has nothing to do with the loop hole,
> it applies in all private citizen to citizen sales
> no matter where they occur.
Not to mention that the vast majority of sales at a gun show are from FFLs who are doing a NICS check.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jay I completely agree and would like to add one
> more point to that. Stop calling it a gun show
> loop hole. The same loop hole applies if I
> purchase a firearm from another citizen in a
> McDonald's parking lot, same loop hole if I meet
> up at the local Giant, etc...
>
> The only difference is that you are more likely to
> encounter someone wanting to sell a firearam at a
> gun show than you are at the local Giant. The gun
> show itself has nothing to do with the loop hole,
> it applies in all private citizen to citizen sales
> no matter where they occur.
Not to mention that the vast majority of sales at a gun show are from FFLs who are doing a NICS check.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Ralph Pootawn
()
Date: March 19, 2013 04:30PM
jay straud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can live with the lack of knowledge between a
> clip and a magazine. But before these liberals
> seek to pass another hundred laws to add to the
> thousands already on the books they should learn
> the difference between automatic and semi
> automatic weapons. They should also be aware that
> a person with three ten round mags is just as
> dangerous as a person with one thirty round mag. I
> heard a so called firearms expert on CNN say it
> takes ten seconds to change a mag. It can easily
> be done in less than two seconds. These "experts"
> are not vetted and yet claim expert status on
> firearms just because they say they are one.
>
> Lastly I do not put any stock in the opinions of
> the organization Chiefs of Police. They are for
> the most part political appointees who bow to the
> wishes of whoever is in charge of their respective
> cities/counties. They hardly speak for the rank
> and file police officers.
Cho had 17 10 round magazines when he shot up Virginia Tech. Not a 15 round magazine or 30 round.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can live with the lack of knowledge between a
> clip and a magazine. But before these liberals
> seek to pass another hundred laws to add to the
> thousands already on the books they should learn
> the difference between automatic and semi
> automatic weapons. They should also be aware that
> a person with three ten round mags is just as
> dangerous as a person with one thirty round mag. I
> heard a so called firearms expert on CNN say it
> takes ten seconds to change a mag. It can easily
> be done in less than two seconds. These "experts"
> are not vetted and yet claim expert status on
> firearms just because they say they are one.
>
> Lastly I do not put any stock in the opinions of
> the organization Chiefs of Police. They are for
> the most part political appointees who bow to the
> wishes of whoever is in charge of their respective
> cities/counties. They hardly speak for the rank
> and file police officers.
Cho had 17 10 round magazines when he shot up Virginia Tech. Not a 15 round magazine or 30 round.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Berdhuis
()
Date: March 19, 2013 05:16PM
jay straud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can live with the lack of knowledge between a
> clip and a magazine. But before these liberals
> seek to pass another hundred laws to add to the
> thousands already on the books they should learn
> the difference between automatic and semi
> automatic weapons. They should also be aware that
> a person with three ten round mags is just as
> dangerous as a person with one thirty round mag. I
> heard a so called firearms expert on CNN say it
> takes ten seconds to change a mag. It can easily
> be done in less than two seconds. These "experts"
> are not vetted and yet claim expert status on
> firearms just because they say they are one.
>
An untrained person could easily take 10 seconds to change a magazine; I've personally watched them.
A person with 3 10-round magazines is not going to kill as efficiently as a person with 1 30-round magazine. Note that this is a comparison, not a denial that someone with 3 10-round magazines would not be able to kill several people.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can live with the lack of knowledge between a
> clip and a magazine. But before these liberals
> seek to pass another hundred laws to add to the
> thousands already on the books they should learn
> the difference between automatic and semi
> automatic weapons. They should also be aware that
> a person with three ten round mags is just as
> dangerous as a person with one thirty round mag. I
> heard a so called firearms expert on CNN say it
> takes ten seconds to change a mag. It can easily
> be done in less than two seconds. These "experts"
> are not vetted and yet claim expert status on
> firearms just because they say they are one.
>
An untrained person could easily take 10 seconds to change a magazine; I've personally watched them.
A person with 3 10-round magazines is not going to kill as efficiently as a person with 1 30-round magazine. Note that this is a comparison, not a denial that someone with 3 10-round magazines would not be able to kill several people.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
contridiction
()
Date: March 19, 2013 05:37PM
your post contridicts itself. You just said how easy it is to change mags then you said that 3 10s are less effective than 1 30.
Someone with less than a week of experience can change it in 2-3 seconds or faster.
Won't make a difference.
How how about having multiple guns so they don't have to reload either? Most of these killers have multiples for that very reason. Its sick, but they do it.
Someone with less than a week of experience can change it in 2-3 seconds or faster.
Won't make a difference.
How how about having multiple guns so they don't have to reload either? Most of these killers have multiples for that very reason. Its sick, but they do it.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Berdhuis
()
Date: March 19, 2013 05:48PM
contridiction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your post contridicts itself. You just said how
> easy it is to change mags then you said that 3 10s
> are less effective than 1 30.
No, I said that it could easily take 10 seconds. I did not write that it is easy to change magazines.
I also said that 1x30 is more efficient than 3x10, not more effective.
Example: Shooter A fires 30 rounds from 1 mag in 30 seconds and hits the target 2 times.
Shooter B fires 30 rounds from 3 mags in 50 seconds and hits the target 5 times.
I would qualify Shooter A as more efficient in firing, but not as effective as Shooter B. Matter of semantics, possibly.
-------------------------------------------------------
> your post contridicts itself. You just said how
> easy it is to change mags then you said that 3 10s
> are less effective than 1 30.
No, I said that it could easily take 10 seconds. I did not write that it is easy to change magazines.
I also said that 1x30 is more efficient than 3x10, not more effective.
Example: Shooter A fires 30 rounds from 1 mag in 30 seconds and hits the target 2 times.
Shooter B fires 30 rounds from 3 mags in 50 seconds and hits the target 5 times.
I would qualify Shooter A as more efficient in firing, but not as effective as Shooter B. Matter of semantics, possibly.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Shooter up
()
Date: March 19, 2013 06:08PM
Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> contridiction Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > your post contridicts itself. You just said how
> > easy it is to change mags then you said that 3
> 10s
> > are less effective than 1 30.
>
> No, I said that it could easily take 10 seconds. I
> did not write that it is easy to change
> magazines.
>
> I also said that 1x30 is more efficient than 3x10,
> not more effective.
>
> Example: Shooter A fires 30 rounds from 1 mag in
> 30 seconds and hits the target 2 times.
>
> Shooter B fires 30 rounds from 3 mags in 50
> seconds and hits the target 5 times.
>
> I would qualify Shooter A as more efficient in
> firing, but not as effective as Shooter B. Matter
> of semantics, possibly.
"Could" and what's likely are two different things. Most novices with even minor practice would not take nearly that long. You'd almost have to try hard to make it take a full ten seconds. Anyone with any experience is going to be much closer to two to three. Pinning hopes (and legislation) around one incident where a burnout fumbled the change isn't particularly realistic. On the same basis one could make the case that there's a greater chance that a single 30-round mag might malfunction so when you force someone to carry more they're more inclined to do so and thereby have backups that they might not otherwise.
You can game all kinds of hypothetical scenarios but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't going to be hindered much by changing magazines as Cho and some others have demonstrated.
-------------------------------------------------------
> contridiction Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > your post contridicts itself. You just said how
> > easy it is to change mags then you said that 3
> 10s
> > are less effective than 1 30.
>
> No, I said that it could easily take 10 seconds. I
> did not write that it is easy to change
> magazines.
>
> I also said that 1x30 is more efficient than 3x10,
> not more effective.
>
> Example: Shooter A fires 30 rounds from 1 mag in
> 30 seconds and hits the target 2 times.
>
> Shooter B fires 30 rounds from 3 mags in 50
> seconds and hits the target 5 times.
>
> I would qualify Shooter A as more efficient in
> firing, but not as effective as Shooter B. Matter
> of semantics, possibly.
"Could" and what's likely are two different things. Most novices with even minor practice would not take nearly that long. You'd almost have to try hard to make it take a full ten seconds. Anyone with any experience is going to be much closer to two to three. Pinning hopes (and legislation) around one incident where a burnout fumbled the change isn't particularly realistic. On the same basis one could make the case that there's a greater chance that a single 30-round mag might malfunction so when you force someone to carry more they're more inclined to do so and thereby have backups that they might not otherwise.
You can game all kinds of hypothetical scenarios but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't going to be hindered much by changing magazines as Cho and some others have demonstrated.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Berdhuis
()
Date: March 19, 2013 08:01PM
Shooter up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can game all kinds of hypothetical scenarios
> but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't
> going to be hindered much by changing magazines as
> Cho and some others have demonstrated.
If even the smallest hindrance would save just one life, then it would be well worth it, don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can game all kinds of hypothetical scenarios
> but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't
> going to be hindered much by changing magazines as
> Cho and some others have demonstrated.
If even the smallest hindrance would save just one life, then it would be well worth it, don't you think?
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Shooter up
()
Date: March 19, 2013 10:10PM
Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shooter up Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You can game all kinds of hypothetical
> scenarios
> > but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't
> > going to be hindered much by changing magazines
> as
> > Cho and some others have demonstrated.
>
> If even the smallest hindrance would save just one
> life, then it would be well worth it, don't you
> think?
No, I don't because it's just another typical attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing something because it's easy and people can pat themselves on the back regardless whether that something actually is effective. You're attempting to legislate against, quite literally, a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is easily worked around by anyone intent on doing so. Just as other shooters have demonstrated and as the past ban proved to be useless.
If the intent is to "save lives" then there are many other things which could be banned which would be much more effective. If the intent is to reduce gun violence, there are many other things closer to the root of the issue(s) which could have much greater results. But those tend to be larger, harder to deal with social problems which people don't like to have to face. Not easy like a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend to make all of the bad things go away.
The fact is that people pushing such bans don't really understand how such things really work nor do they care. It's simply that guns are evil and anything done to restrict guns is viewed as good. Period.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shooter up Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You can game all kinds of hypothetical
> scenarios
> > but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't
> > going to be hindered much by changing magazines
> as
> > Cho and some others have demonstrated.
>
> If even the smallest hindrance would save just one
> life, then it would be well worth it, don't you
> think?
No, I don't because it's just another typical attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing something because it's easy and people can pat themselves on the back regardless whether that something actually is effective. You're attempting to legislate against, quite literally, a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is easily worked around by anyone intent on doing so. Just as other shooters have demonstrated and as the past ban proved to be useless.
If the intent is to "save lives" then there are many other things which could be banned which would be much more effective. If the intent is to reduce gun violence, there are many other things closer to the root of the issue(s) which could have much greater results. But those tend to be larger, harder to deal with social problems which people don't like to have to face. Not easy like a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend to make all of the bad things go away.
The fact is that people pushing such bans don't really understand how such things really work nor do they care. It's simply that guns are evil and anything done to restrict guns is viewed as good. Period.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
dJVwW
()
Date: March 19, 2013 10:41PM
It never had a chance. Why gun owners where so upset is besides me.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Wouldn't be nice
()
Date: March 19, 2013 10:53PM
Shooter up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shooter up Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > You can game all kinds of hypothetical
> > scenarios
> > > but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't
> > > going to be hindered much by changing
> magazines
> > as
> > > Cho and some others have demonstrated.
> >
> > If even the smallest hindrance would save just
> one
> > life, then it would be well worth it, don't you
> > think?
>
>
> No, I don't because it's just another typical
> attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing
> something because it's easy and people can pat
> themselves on the back regardless whether that
> something actually is effective. You're
> attempting to legislate against, quite literally,
> a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is easily
> worked around by anyone intent on doing so. Just
> as other shooters have demonstrated and as the
> past ban proved to be useless.
>
> If the intent is to "save lives" then there are
> many other things which could be banned which
> would be much more effective. If the intent is to
> reduce gun violence, there are many other things
> closer to the root of the issue(s) which could
> have much greater results. But those tend to be
> larger, harder to deal with social problems which
> people don't like to have to face. Not easy like
> a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend to
> make all of the bad things go away.
>
> The fact is that people pushing such bans don't
> really understand how such things really work nor
> do they care. It's simply that guns are evil and
> anything done to restrict guns is viewed as good.
> Period.
If only gun nuts were as tough as they try to project on this forum.
Hell,every wanna be terrorist would shit all over themselves and head home.
The sight of Wayne LaPussy would prvoke instant heart attacks in men and miscarriages in women. But alas we all know that most of you shake everytime you caress your guns
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berdhuis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shooter up Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > You can game all kinds of hypothetical
> > scenarios
> > > but in either case an unopposed shooter isn't
> > > going to be hindered much by changing
> magazines
> > as
> > > Cho and some others have demonstrated.
> >
> > If even the smallest hindrance would save just
> one
> > life, then it would be well worth it, don't you
> > think?
>
>
> No, I don't because it's just another typical
> attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing
> something because it's easy and people can pat
> themselves on the back regardless whether that
> something actually is effective. You're
> attempting to legislate against, quite literally,
> a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is easily
> worked around by anyone intent on doing so. Just
> as other shooters have demonstrated and as the
> past ban proved to be useless.
>
> If the intent is to "save lives" then there are
> many other things which could be banned which
> would be much more effective. If the intent is to
> reduce gun violence, there are many other things
> closer to the root of the issue(s) which could
> have much greater results. But those tend to be
> larger, harder to deal with social problems which
> people don't like to have to face. Not easy like
> a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend to
> make all of the bad things go away.
>
> The fact is that people pushing such bans don't
> really understand how such things really work nor
> do they care. It's simply that guns are evil and
> anything done to restrict guns is viewed as good.
> Period.
If only gun nuts were as tough as they try to project on this forum.
Hell,every wanna be terrorist would shit all over themselves and head home.
The sight of Wayne LaPussy would prvoke instant heart attacks in men and miscarriages in women. But alas we all know that most of you shake everytime you caress your guns
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Occutwat
()
Date: March 19, 2013 11:12PM
Wouldn't be nice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If only gun nuts were as tough as they try to
> project on this forum.
> Hell,every wanna be terrorist would shit all over
> themselves and head home.
> The sight of Wayne LaPussy would prvoke instant
> heart attacks in men and miscarriages in women.
> But alas we all know that most of you shake
> everytime you caress your guns
WTF are you babbling about idiot?
What would be nice is if you dumbfucks had brains and could reason beyond what you're told to think.
Now go beat off thinking about how you're going to teach those damn rich people and oil companies a lesson. *shaking fist* lulz
-------------------------------------------------------
> If only gun nuts were as tough as they try to
> project on this forum.
> Hell,every wanna be terrorist would shit all over
> themselves and head home.
> The sight of Wayne LaPussy would prvoke instant
> heart attacks in men and miscarriages in women.
> But alas we all know that most of you shake
> everytime you caress your guns
WTF are you babbling about idiot?
What would be nice is if you dumbfucks had brains and could reason beyond what you're told to think.
Now go beat off thinking about how you're going to teach those damn rich people and oil companies a lesson. *shaking fist* lulz
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
The ups and downs
()
Date: March 19, 2013 11:32PM
Occutwat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't be nice Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > If only gun nuts were as tough as they try to
> > project on this forum.
> > Hell,every wanna be terrorist would shit all
> over
> > themselves and head home.
> > The sight of Wayne LaPussy would prvoke instant
> > heart attacks in men and miscarriages in women.
> > But alas we all know that most of you shake
> > everytime you caress your guns
>
>
> WTF are you babbling about idiot?
>
> What would be nice is if you dumbfucks had brains
> and could reason beyond what you're told to
> think.
>
> Now go beat off thinking about how you're going to
> teach those damn rich people and oil companies a
> lesson. *shaking fist* lulz
You mad, bro? Not getting laid? Please don't go shooting up the place.
Personally I feel the oil corporations aren't charging enough. Ten a gallon would be fair for the region. Rich people hopefully wipe their asses like us common folk. One pant leg at a time and hit the urinal. And they die too.
So I hope you shake your fist in the vertical position.
It only gets worse and yes I've been certified.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't be nice Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > If only gun nuts were as tough as they try to
> > project on this forum.
> > Hell,every wanna be terrorist would shit all
> over
> > themselves and head home.
> > The sight of Wayne LaPussy would prvoke instant
> > heart attacks in men and miscarriages in women.
> > But alas we all know that most of you shake
> > everytime you caress your guns
>
>
> WTF are you babbling about idiot?
>
> What would be nice is if you dumbfucks had brains
> and could reason beyond what you're told to
> think.
>
> Now go beat off thinking about how you're going to
> teach those damn rich people and oil companies a
> lesson. *shaking fist* lulz
You mad, bro? Not getting laid? Please don't go shooting up the place.
Personally I feel the oil corporations aren't charging enough. Ten a gallon would be fair for the region. Rich people hopefully wipe their asses like us common folk. One pant leg at a time and hit the urinal. And they die too.
So I hope you shake your fist in the vertical position.
It only gets worse and yes I've been certified.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Chic-fil-a must die!
()
Date: March 20, 2013 12:40AM
The ups and downs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You mad, bro? Not getting laid? Please don't go
> shooting up the place.
> Personally I feel the oil corporations aren't
> charging enough. Ten a gallon would be fair for
> the region. Rich people hopefully wipe their asses
> like us common folk. One pant leg at a time and
> hit the urinal. And they die too.
> So I hope you shake your fist in the vertical
> position.
> It only gets worse and yes I've been certified.
I have no doubt you've been certified. lulz
Whack sacks like you are the ones who seem to go off.
Get some help bro.
I don't wanna see you on the news being dragged away after trying to shoot up the NRA building since you don't get your precious assault weapons ban.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You mad, bro? Not getting laid? Please don't go
> shooting up the place.
> Personally I feel the oil corporations aren't
> charging enough. Ten a gallon would be fair for
> the region. Rich people hopefully wipe their asses
> like us common folk. One pant leg at a time and
> hit the urinal. And they die too.
> So I hope you shake your fist in the vertical
> position.
> It only gets worse and yes I've been certified.
I have no doubt you've been certified. lulz
Whack sacks like you are the ones who seem to go off.
Get some help bro.
I don't wanna see you on the news being dragged away after trying to shoot up the NRA building since you don't get your precious assault weapons ban.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Curses! Foiled again!
()
Date: March 20, 2013 01:48AM
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Berdhuis
()
Date: March 20, 2013 05:51PM
Shooter up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, I don't because it's just another typical
> attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing
> something because it's easy and people can pat
> themselves on the back regardless whether that
> something actually is effective. You're
> attempting to legislate against, quite literally,
> a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is easily
> worked around by anyone intent on doing so. Just
> as other shooters have demonstrated and as the
> past ban proved to be useless.
>
> If the intent is to "save lives" then there are
> many other things which could be banned which
> would be much more effective. If the intent is to
> reduce gun violence, there are many other things
> closer to the root of the issue(s) which could
> have much greater results. But those tend to be
> larger, harder to deal with social problems which
> people don't like to have to face. Not easy like
> a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend to
> make all of the bad things go away.
>
> The fact is that people pushing such bans don't
> really understand how such things really work nor
> do they care. It's simply that guns are evil and
> anything done to restrict guns is viewed as good.
> Period.
I understand your argument completely, and agree that societal issues are the largest causes for gun violence. But I also think that there are certain "technologies", for lack of a better word, that should not be readily available to the public and should remain with the military and government. As an example, I think that high-velocity rounds that can kill someone from a half-mile to a mile away should not be available to the public.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, I don't because it's just another typical
> attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing
> something because it's easy and people can pat
> themselves on the back regardless whether that
> something actually is effective. You're
> attempting to legislate against, quite literally,
> a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is easily
> worked around by anyone intent on doing so. Just
> as other shooters have demonstrated and as the
> past ban proved to be useless.
>
> If the intent is to "save lives" then there are
> many other things which could be banned which
> would be much more effective. If the intent is to
> reduce gun violence, there are many other things
> closer to the root of the issue(s) which could
> have much greater results. But those tend to be
> larger, harder to deal with social problems which
> people don't like to have to face. Not easy like
> a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend to
> make all of the bad things go away.
>
> The fact is that people pushing such bans don't
> really understand how such things really work nor
> do they care. It's simply that guns are evil and
> anything done to restrict guns is viewed as good.
> Period.
I understand your argument completely, and agree that societal issues are the largest causes for gun violence. But I also think that there are certain "technologies", for lack of a better word, that should not be readily available to the public and should remain with the military and government. As an example, I think that high-velocity rounds that can kill someone from a half-mile to a mile away should not be available to the public.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
BB*X
()
Date: March 20, 2013 06:10PM
Do you know how far a .22 round can travel? Close to a mile and a half at the right trajectory and that is not a high velocity round. The skill required to make an accurate shot at a mile is incredible. I think your talking 50 BMG here and those rounds are extremely expensive not to mention the cost of a rifle that would fire a round like that. There are other rounds out there that can make that shot but again adjusting for elevation and windage is not a simple task that just anyone can do.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
Commitment and duty
()
Date: March 20, 2013 06:11PM
Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shooter up Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > No, I don't because it's just another typical
> > attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing
> > something because it's easy and people can pat
> > themselves on the back regardless whether that
> > something actually is effective. You're
> > attempting to legislate against, quite
> literally,
> > a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is
> easily
> > worked around by anyone intent on doing so.
> Just
> > as other shooters have demonstrated and as the
> > past ban proved to be useless.
> >
> > If the intent is to "save lives" then there are
> > many other things which could be banned which
> > would be much more effective. If the intent is
> to
> > reduce gun violence, there are many other
> things
> > closer to the root of the issue(s) which could
> > have much greater results. But those tend to
> be
> > larger, harder to deal with social problems
> which
> > people don't like to have to face. Not easy
> like
> > a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend
> to
> > make all of the bad things go away.
> >
> > The fact is that people pushing such bans don't
> > really understand how such things really work
> nor
> > do they care. It's simply that guns are evil
> and
> > anything done to restrict guns is viewed as
> good.
> > Period.
>
> I understand your argument completely, and agree
> that societal issues are the largest causes for
> gun violence. But I also think that there are
> certain "technologies", for lack of a better word,
> that should not be readily available to the public
> and should remain with the military and
> government. As an example, I think that
> high-velocity rounds that can kill someone from a
> half-mile to a mile away should not be available
> to the public.
I totally agree with you. If an individual is pocessed that they need to use these weapons then do what others have done during this countries history.
Serve your country.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shooter up Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > No, I don't because it's just another typical
> > attempt to do "something" for the sake of doing
> > something because it's easy and people can pat
> > themselves on the back regardless whether that
> > something actually is effective. You're
> > attempting to legislate against, quite
> literally,
> > a 1 in 100,000,000s event in a way that is
> easily
> > worked around by anyone intent on doing so.
> Just
> > as other shooters have demonstrated and as the
> > past ban proved to be useless.
> >
> > If the intent is to "save lives" then there are
> > many other things which could be banned which
> > would be much more effective. If the intent is
> to
> > reduce gun violence, there are many other
> things
> > closer to the root of the issue(s) which could
> > have much greater results. But those tend to
> be
> > larger, harder to deal with social problems
> which
> > people don't like to have to face. Not easy
> like
> > a ban where we can just pass a law and pretend
> to
> > make all of the bad things go away.
> >
> > The fact is that people pushing such bans don't
> > really understand how such things really work
> nor
> > do they care. It's simply that guns are evil
> and
> > anything done to restrict guns is viewed as
> good.
> > Period.
>
> I understand your argument completely, and agree
> that societal issues are the largest causes for
> gun violence. But I also think that there are
> certain "technologies", for lack of a better word,
> that should not be readily available to the public
> and should remain with the military and
> government. As an example, I think that
> high-velocity rounds that can kill someone from a
> half-mile to a mile away should not be available
> to the public.
I totally agree with you. If an individual is pocessed that they need to use these weapons then do what others have done during this countries history.
Serve your country.
Re: DiFi's Assault Weapons Ban dropped
Posted by:
daniel boone
()
Date: March 20, 2013 06:34PM
Berdhuis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An untrained person could easily take 10 seconds
> to change a magazine; I've personally watched
> them.
>
> A person with 3 10-round magazines is not going to
> kill as efficiently as a person with 1 30-round
> magazine. Note that this is a comparison, not a
> denial that someone with 3 10-round magazines
> would not be able to kill several people.
Wrong big time. What comes into play is the persons proficiency with firearms. A well trained person with a scoped rifle can cause ten times the damage as some guy with a 30 rd mag who has little to no firearms experience.
-------------------------------------------------------
> An untrained person could easily take 10 seconds
> to change a magazine; I've personally watched
> them.
>
> A person with 3 10-round magazines is not going to
> kill as efficiently as a person with 1 30-round
> magazine. Note that this is a comparison, not a
> denial that someone with 3 10-round magazines
> would not be able to kill several people.
Wrong big time. What comes into play is the persons proficiency with firearms. A well trained person with a scoped rifle can cause ten times the damage as some guy with a 30 rd mag who has little to no firearms experience.