Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=FZE;37120730]Which wouldn't be an assault rifle.[/QUOTE] Its an assault weapon, no need to split hairs.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37121339]I saw some for sale at a gunshow I went to recently.[/QUOTE] I ain't gone to none gunshows none y'all. :saddowns:

[QUOTE=squids_eye;37121369]The chances of the US government turning into a tyrannical dictatorship are pretty damn low and not because of the right to bear arms.[/QUOTE] President would be impeached before anything happens, and it's not like laws trickle down from the president anyway, since his branch is designed to ENFORCE laws.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37121351]Being pro-gun doesn't mean you are mature.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's what he meant, per se, although I can see how you could draw that conclusion.

[QUOTE=FPChris;37118436]Just get a tazer/stungun/pepperspray/knife then goddamn. Aslong as everybody in America has such easy access to weapons it's never ever going to be one of the greatest countries in the world again. rip in peace[/QUOTE] Everything you just listed apart from a Knife is illegal in Texas, and using a knife in self defense places your self in extreme personal danger Also the tasers/stunguns that are legal to carry in most states require direct contact to work; to which see above.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;37121369]The chances of the US government turning into a tyrannical dictatorship are pretty damn low and not because of the right to bear arms.[/QUOTE] True, but the founding fathers did not know that at the time. I guess they chose to better be safe than sorry.

[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;37121132]Herp Derp I dumbed it down. I have shot both, and know that there is a difference. I'm kicking my self for even venturing into a gun control thread because they are autistic shitfests of conflicting opinions, which are either barely intelligent or just plain old narrowminded stupid.[/QUOTE] it's okay i understand sorry [QUOTE=DarkZero135;37121142]if you actually knew what you where talking about you would know that .22 is the diameter of the bullet hence why .22lr and .223 make the same size hole in a piece of paper[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kartoffel;37121223][t]http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-tfb.jpg[/t] Darkzero135 is right. Same diameter, different powder loads (the primary reason why .223 fragments when it enters a target, 'cause it's moving so damn fast!)[/QUOTE] i know very well what i'm talking off. you apparently don't. .22LR and .223Rem can't be compared, they have VERY different properties; one usually uses low speed, very low weight, rounded unjacketed lead bullets. the other most of the time uses very high velocity jacketed bullets. there's a reason one is used for grouse and the other for deer. (PS: .22LR has a bullet diameter of .222", .223 Rem .224" :))

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37121411]True, but the founding fathers did not know that at the time. I guess they chose to better be safe than sorry.[/QUOTE] Franklin expected the US to last a decade before a second revolution split the country again. His predictions sort of came true with the Civil War.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37121370]Its an assault weapon, no need to split hairs.[/QUOTE] That's like me telling someone there's no need to split hairs if I were to call [URL=http://www.twincharlotte.com/Portals/12698/images/2004-ford-taurus-transmission-repair-charlotte-nc.jpg]this[/URL] a stock car because [url=http://dayerses.com/data_images/posts/ford-taurus-nascar/ford-taurus-nascar-04.jpg]this[/URL] is a Ford Taurus. Remarkable aesthetic similarities, but one of them probably would have a hard time competing in the Daytona 500. Also the president supports a ban on the first one because it can go 190 miles per hour.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;37121397]Everything you just listed apart from a Knife is illegal in Texas, and using a knife in self defense places your self in extreme personal danger[/QUOTE] Knife against a robber with a gun won't work too well. Wait, my mom has a taser and we're texan. though she did get it from working with animal control. But now she doesn't but still has one. [QUOTE=squids_eye;37121232]I normally agree with Penn and Teller but their argument essentially hinged on "It is written in the constitution so it must be right." You shouldn't need guns to overthrow a government who is acting against the benefit of the people, that is what democratic elections are for.[/QUOTE] Also probably the most important point made in the video is the criminals who the laws don't affect.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37121411]True, but the founding fathers did not know that at the time. I guess they chose to better be safe than sorry.[/QUOTE] That is exactly why I think obeying the constitution like it is the word of god is stupid. It was written by a bunch of guys hundreds of years ago, sure they were very intelligent people but they aren't infallible and they couldn't see the future.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37120579]And you are assuming every single inmate knows how to build one, has access to the materials, and most importantly, will be able to fire it without killing themselves in the process? Making a gun is VERY difficult. If the barrel is too thin, it will burst. If the barrel is not rifled, then the gun will be horrifically inaccurate. If the bullet doesn't even fit correctly, then the gun is useless. The difference is that they ARE trained specialists who spent a good deal of time making and perfecting their art. Plus their access to weapons parts is easier.[/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of the Sten gun? Designed to be so simple that during WWII it was made in bloody toy factories, it only has 47 different parts, and any school that has a half-decent metal shop has the ability to produce dozens of these submachine guns right now, and it would probably only take a week or so to train the students how to make them. To be honest, anyone with access to Wal-Mart, the Home Depot, and the Internet can make a functioning gun and ammo for it. Guns back in the day took so long to make/perfect due to a lack of tools. In the modern day, 10 year olds in Pakistan's Khyber Pass make AK-47s for the Taliban. Tell me what kind of gun control can stop that? None, you simply can't, and the same could be said if such operations opened up elsewhere, if they're guarded by a well-armed enough band of insurgents and stationed in a natural choke point, which could happen at many places in Utah or even Northern Ontario, then you'll never stop them making guns. Now that the gun is here, no matter what some deluded people seem to think, it cannot and will not go away. The planet cannot get rid of guns, there will forever be guns on into the future, they will not go away. Focusing on the gun is stupid and futile, you need to focus on the cause of the crime, rather than the means it was committed, or what it was committed with, if you want to have a hope of actually reducing gun crime.

[QUOTE=Honesty;37121433]it's okay i understand sorry i know very well what i'm talking off. you apparently don't. .22LR and .223Rem can't be compared, they have VERY different properties; one usually uses low speed, very low weight, rounded unjacketed lead bullets. the other most of the time uses very high velocity jacketed bullets. there's a reason one is used for grouse and the other for deer. (PS: .22LR has a bullet diameter of .222", .223 Rem .224" :))[/QUOTE] That's a difference of a fraction of an inch. To the naked eye, they look like the same diameter. I'm not saying that they are the same thing. Any dead al-Quaeda soldier can tell you that. :v: (PS: I fire them both on a regular basis)

[QUOTE=Honesty;37121433]it's okay i understand sorry i know very well what i'm talking off. you apparently don't. .22LR and .223Rem can't be compared, they have VERY different properties; one usually uses low speed, very low weight, rounded unjacketed lead bullets. the other most of the time uses very high velocity jacketed bullets. there's a reason one is used for grouse and the other for deer. (PS: .22LR has a bullet diameter of .222", .223 Rem .224" :))[/QUOTE] And both are equally effective at putting a hole in a person. Though if I had to be shot by one I'd pick the .223 since it'd probably just pass straight through.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;37121564]That is exactly why I think obeying the constitution like it is the word of god is stupid. It was written by a bunch of guys hundreds of years ago, sure they were very intelligent people but they aren't infallible and they couldn't see the future.[/QUOTE] And we don't. Hell, we even change it (Amendments), but as far as the law goes, it is the supreme Law of the Land.

guns don't kill people people kill people

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37121622] Though if I had to be shot by one I'd pick the .223 since it'd probably just pass straight through.[/QUOTE] [url=http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyDVS619J0z9YQN8Tj50uR165VQc_f2by0tXR_oxlfNmfAMSMvy6APOSEE]EXTREMELY GORY, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE WEAK OF HEART![/url] That's what .223 Remington does to your leg.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37121681][url=http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyDVS619J0z9YQN8Tj50uR165VQc_f2by0tXR_oxlfNmfAMSMvy6APOSEE]EXTREMELY GORY, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE WEAK OF HEART![/url] That's what .223 Remington does to your leg.[/QUOTE] goes in clean comes out a bloody mess wonderful

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37121622]And both are equally effective at putting a hole in a person. Though if I had to be shot by one I'd pick the .223 since it'd probably just pass straight through.[/QUOTE] you're crazy in the first place to make an specific wish like this

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37121681][url=http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyDVS619J0z9YQN8Tj50uR165VQc_f2by0tXR_oxlfNmfAMSMvy6APOSEE]EXTREMELY GORY, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE WEAK OF HEART![/url] That's what .223 Remington does to your leg.[/QUOTE] Something tells me that we're not getting the full story here. That looks like it went untreated for a good amount of time.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37121681][url=http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyDVS619J0z9YQN8Tj50uR165VQc_f2by0tXR_oxlfNmfAMSMvy6APOSEE]EXTREMELY GORY, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THE WEAK OF HEART![/url] That's what .223 Remington does to your leg.[/QUOTE] lol it looks like a hot pocket that just started oozing out pepperoni and cheese

[QUOTE=Honesty;37121433]it's okay i understand sorry i know very well what i'm talking off. you apparently don't. .22LR and .223Rem can't be compared, they have VERY different properties; one usually uses low speed, very low weight, rounded unjacketed lead bullets. the other most of the time uses very high velocity jacketed bullets. there's a reason one is used for grouse and the other for deer. (PS: .22LR has a bullet diameter of .222", .223 Rem .224" :))[/QUOTE] If you use .223 for deer then you'd need the 100 round mag just to take the deer down. .223 is a varmint and small game calibre, the minimum for deer is a heavy .243, and even then I wouldn't go lower than a .270. Even the army is pissed at the .223, because it doesn't kill well enough. Those who've been in long enough to remember the guns in .308 wish they could have them back because they'd actually put a person down.

This site used to be way more anti-control. It makes no sense to me how a liberal ideology would support the banning individual ownership of anything.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;37121797]This site used to be way more anti-control. It makes no sense to me how a liberal ideology would support the banning individual ownership of anything.[/QUOTE] bans don't get to the root of a problem. like most bans

[QUOTE=Bobie;37121817]bans don't get to the root of a problem. like most bans[/QUOTE] The idea of banning guns based on arbitrary criteria really irks me. For one, it supports the idea that "guns are bad." As if you couldn't bludgeon a guy to death with a 2x4, should we ban wood too? Or are you gonna use the wood for its intended purpose, [I]correctly[/I], so nobody gets hurt? Secondly, how arbitrary the criteria is only demonstrates a lack of understanding of guns by legislators, and I'll repeat that it's likely along the lines of "you're scared of what you don't understand." And finally, if gun violence is so rampant, the problem isn't with the abundance of guns floating around, oh no - there's something wrong with the people.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37121901]The idea of banning guns based on arbitrary criteria really irks me. For one, it supports the idea that "guns are bad." As if you couldn't bludgeon a guy to death with a 2x4, should we ban wood too? Or are you gonna use the wood for its intended purpose, [I]correctly[/I], so nobody gets hurt? Secondly, how arbitrary the criteria is only demonstrates a lack of understanding of guns by legislators, and I'll repeat that it's likely along the lines of "you're scared of what you don't understand." And finally, if gun violence is so rampant, the problem isn't with the abundance of guns floating around, oh no - there's something wrong with the people.[/QUOTE] Lets ban cars, many people die from car accidents. Enjoy the benefits but you have to have the bad side-effects.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;37122005]Lets ban cars, many people die from car accidents. Enjoy the benefits but you have to have the bad side-effects.[/QUOTE] More like "Let's ban reinforced vehicles like police interceptor Crown Victorias because they can cause more damage in a collision" It's silly. If I wanted to go commit vehicular homicide in a Civic I'd damn well do it.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37121772]If you use .223 for deer then you'd need the 100 round mag just to take the deer down. .223 is a varmint and small game calibre, the minimum for deer is a heavy .243, and even then I wouldn't go lower than a .270. Even the army is pissed at the .223, because it doesn't kill well enough. Those who've been in long enough to remember the guns in .308 wish they could have them back because they'd actually put a person down.[/QUOTE] In fact, the current round they use is a modification of the original. The original AP rounds would just go through the opponent's body and he would keep on running at you while you were putting holes in him.

I just realized that for most of my posts here, I had a revolver on my hip.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;37122218]I just realized that for most of my posts here, I had a revolver on my hip.[/QUOTE] Fucking murderer.