GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

[Guest Sparoism]

Well, shooting cashiers.....I guess that's a little different.

 

I am a lot mellower than I used to be. I realized that people like that have a very limited impact on my life, overall. I don't know if that helps, but...

 

Sadly, it is a sign of the times when people don't want to admit that the state is a lot more responsible for their actions than they are.

 

However, if the state is responsible for their actions, then it gets out of the business of governance and becomes an arbiter of morality. THAT is something that scares me.

[!@#$%]

it's not like i need help dealing with life

i do ok.

i just sometimes think about killing people and myself.

well, maybe more than sometimes.

 

i am a very conflicted person.

i have a love/hate relationship with humanity.

2005 really reaffirmed it.

 

i'm not interested in legislating morality

i don't think the goverment should be able to tell people whether or not they can commit suicide, or have an abortion, or own guns.

the government needs to get out of people's personal lives.

but i do wish they would get more involved with CORPORATE responsibility

because some of that can be legislated.

 

so i don't care if gun companies have to redesign shit to be more reliably safe, or restrict sales of cedrtain types of guns which are not necessarily for home defense (unless you're insane) ..like a 50 cal.

 

 

i mean, i could own this gun

but it's a very bad idea. and i know that.

[robJ]

Not everybody is metally stable enough to own a firearms. Some us are real quick to put a round in somebody reguardless. I know for a fact, theres a few people on my shit list, that if I catch them at the right place and time, i'm going to turn them into swiss cheese..

But i guess thats why people want to ban guns.

[Guest Sparoism]

Originally posted by symbols@Dec 29 2005, 11:35 AM

it's not like i need help dealing with life

i do ok.

i just sometimes think about killing people and myself.

well, maybe more than sometimes.

 

i am a very conflicted person.

i have a love/hate relationship with humanity.

2005 really reaffirmed it.

 

i'm not interested in legislating morality

i don't think the goverment should be able to tell people whether or not they can commit suicide, or have an abortion, or own guns.

the government needs to get out of people's personal lives.

but i do wish they would get more involved with CORPORATE responsibility

because some of that can be legislated.

 

so i don't care if gun companies have to redesign shit to be more reliably safe, or restrict sales of cedrtain types of guns which are not necessarily for home defense (unless you're insane) ..like a 50 cal.

 

 

i mean, i could own this gun

but it's a very bad idea. and i know that.

Quoted post

 

Wow, if I had that for home protection....I mean, how much velocity does a bullet that size HAVE? My guess is, quite a lot...and not much in its way would slow it down.

 

Speaking of personal responsibility and corporate greed intersecting, there was a guilty plea in the Enron case today. I just saw the headline when I was on my way to the store.

 

Who's next? Halliburton admitting to war profiteering?

[angelofdeath]

a .50 cal is essential. but in reality, even in the military, they are not used to kill people exclusively. sure a few here and there, they are taking out big things. tanks, jeeps, setting off explosives, you know shit like that. a stock barrett .50 m107 is on a good day a 3 minute gun. what does this mean? at a 1000 yards, well in its effective velocity range, it will shoot a 30" group. this is not sniping quality. but hey, they are damn cool, and it essentially boils down to "what part of infringed dont you understand." :innocent:

 

I think overall i can agree with what symbols is saying above. however i am uncomfortable with the reguard to regulating morality. while i agree the federal government shouldnt have its hand in anything not talked about in the constitution, such as legalising abortion, banning drugs, etc etc, I do believe the states have the right to do what the people want, and it shouldnt concern the federal government what they do nor should it concern the other states. but not legislating morality is kind of a bad wording because then there might still be segregation, lynchings, slavery, etc etc. just a thought.

[!@#$%]

interesting.

i hadn't thought about it like that.

 

clearly i think though, corporations in general have very little regard for anything except their bottom line. i think that's dangerous.

then you run into the problem of our overly litigious society. and an overreaching govt

not every philosophical problem can be solved with a law.

 

as far as 50 cals.

we know there are mofos out there that have em in their homes, and are fighting for the right of private citizens to have them

i'm not really talking military use here.

 

 

this shit weirds me the FUCK out

 

"The campaign segregates large caliber rifles, in this case .50 calibers, in the attempt to convince people that the mere size of a cartridge is somehow more prone to criminal misuse or more dangerous than another. Much like the ill conceived thought that a rifle with a pistol grip was somehow more dangerous than another."

 

http://www.barrettrifles.com/

 

the movie that plays when you go to the site is a little freaky

i mean, do these guys have like one inch penises or what?

[angelofdeath]

i agree with all of ronnie barretts press releases.

its like the assault weapons ban. everyone thought it would do all this good, keep guns out of criminals hands, stop killings, etc etc. it didnt do shit. all it did was keep me and robj from buying an ak or ar15 with... something like 3 out of the 10 banned features. im sure kabar could elaborate on this, in cant remember the specifics. but, big whoop they were regulating an ar 15 from having a 30 round mag AND a bayonet lug, with a pistol grip, when in reality, an almost insignificant amount of gun crime is done with these evil black assault weapons.

[!@#$%]

it's just so unnecessary

it does make me think people that need this shit are tryin to make up for the inadequacies of their manhood.

 

eh. i'm done.

[angelofdeath]

man, this is one of the few subjects i can yap about for years.

if i had an extra 7500k laying around my man hood would really be pumped up............

[robJ]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 29 2005, 05:46 PM

man, this is one of the few subjects i can yap about for years.

if i had an extra 7500k laying around my man hood would really be pumped up............

Quoted post

:haha: :haha:

fuck yeah,, bigger guns, bigger truck, even bigger ding dong.. I told somebody the other day I wanted try out Levitra just to see if it works.

[Guest Sparoism]

The day I need a .50 caliber rifle for home protection is the day that I consider moving to Antarctica.

 

The crime in your area must be REALLY off the chain.

[robJ]

50cal rifle for home protection is pointless 50cal handjam..... vicious

Baltimore

[Guest Sparoism]

As I have said before, I doubt a handgun would do me a lot of good unless I was aiming at large, stationary targets....such as barns.

[angelofdeath]

yeah i wonder what the penetration on that jammy is? 20 walls or just 15? lol

 

i was eyeing up a .50 cal DEEAGLE the other day at the gun show.

[WhiteOx]

Originally posted by symbols@Dec 29 2005, 09:50 PM

interesting.

i hadn't thought about it like that.

 

"The campaign segregates large caliber rifles, in this case .50 calibers, in the attempt to convince people that the mere size of a cartridge is somehow more prone to criminal misuse or more dangerous than another. Much like the ill conceived thought that a rifle with a pistol grip was somehow more dangerous than another."

 

Quoted post

 

The psitol grip thing is stupid. But .50 cals are anti-light armour rifles. choppers, armoured cars etc. it's crazy to let civilions own them. you could kill an elephant with smaller cals.

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 29 2005, 05:40 PM

a .50 cal is essential. but in reality, even in the military, they are not used to kill people exclusively. sure a few here and there, they are taking out big things. tanks, jeeps, setting off explosives, you know shit like that. a stock barrett .50 m107 is on a good day a 3 minute gun. what does this mean? at a 1000 yards, well in its effective velocity range, it will shoot a 30" group. this is not sniping quality. but hey, they are damn cool, and it essentially boils down to "what part of infringed dont you understand." :innocent:

 

Quoted post

 

You are so, so, so wrong. In the proper hands, it can be used effectively at ranges well over a mile. It's not technically supposed to be used on human targets (geneva convention), so it is designated a "special purpose sniper rifle" and is only supposed to be used on military equipment. But, belt buckles and helmets are military equipment if you think about it. It has less kick than the m40, ammunition that blurs the line in between "missile" and "bullet", and looks fucking cool.

 

Also, there is no reason for any civilian to own one, unless you hunt elephants in your spare time.

[robJ]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Dec 29 2005, 10:20 PM

You are so, so, so wrong. In the proper hands, it can be used effectively at ranges well over a mile. It's not technically supposed to be used on human targets (geneva convention), so it is designated a "special purpose sniper rifle" and is only supposed to be used on military equipment. But, belt buckles and helmets are military equipment if you think about it. It has less kick than the m40, ammunition that blurs the line in between "missile" and "bullet", and looks fucking cool.

 

Also, there is no reason for any civilian to own one, unless you hunt elephants in your spare time.

Quoted post

The whole 50 cal Geneva convention is a just a urban legend. the 50cal on used in, bradlys, abrams,humvees is the m2a1 belt feed machine gun used for suppression fire. (aka swiss cheesing)

Dont quote on this, BUt the Geneva convetion I believe dosen't even covers arms that would be "the hague accords".

[Guest Sparoism]

Desert Eagles? That's like a stoner invention..."Dude...A handgun...that could kill...A CHARGING RHINO! That would be SWEET."

 

What exactly IS the purpose of a Desert Eagle? Anti-personnel? Sure, if they're high on PCP and the size of "Refrigerator" Perry...beyond that, it's just "bigger is better".

 

I'm stumped. The recoil would probably knock me about six feet back, too.

 

Stereotype, I'll send you five bucks if you post photos of yourself wearing a Army helmet in the course of one of your normal days...mind you, it has to be a workday, and preferably a day that you have a date in the evening. I need the laughs...five bucks...come on. It's easy money.

[Stereotype V.001]

The M82A1A Barret is a precision weapon system. Ma deuce is mounted on various vehicles as a fire support weapon like you said. Same Caliber, technically different uses. It is illegal to pick people off using a .50 caliber sniper rifle, and until proven otherwise I will continue to blindly believe this comes from the geneva convention.

[Stereotype V.001]

The only helmet I wear is made of tin foil, when I'm warning people about the new world order.

[KaBar2]

The .50 M107 shoots exactly the same cartridge as the .50 M2 HB machine gun. It was adopted by the U.S. military as a long-range precision marksmansip weapon.

 

Civilians are legally permitted to own and shoot .50 rifles. I suppose somebody hunts with them, but it seems like too much trouble to me. Each cartridge costs about $2.00.

 

The Texas militia had a number of members who owned .50 caliber rifles. They were considered to be quite valuable if used against enemy helicopters, light armored vehicles, trucks, etc. One of the main advantages was the extremely long range at which targets could be engaged. The .50 caliber round will not penetrate a tank, but it will go through both sides of the old Vietnam-era M113 APCs and the Marine Corps amtrac troop carriers we had twenty years ago. (The amtrac was manufactured out of "ballistics aluminum," which is to say "tin foil" if you are talking about heavy machine gun bullets like the .50 cal M2 or the Soviet 12.7 mm DshK. I don't think the .50 cal will penetrate an LAV, but I'm unsure of that. They would sure ding one up pretty good.

 

Chalk me up as "pro-Barrett." The guy is a fucking genius.

[Guest Sparoism]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Dec 29 2005, 10:38 PM

The only helmet I wear is made of tin foil, when I'm warning people about the new world order.

Quoted post

That'll work.

[angelofdeath]

"You are so, so, so wrong. In the proper hands, it can be used effectively at ranges well over a mile. It's not technically supposed to be used on human targets (geneva convention), so it is designated a "special purpose sniper rifle" and is only supposed to be used on military equipment. But, belt buckles and helmets are military equipment if you think about it. It has less kick than the m40, ammunition that blurs the line in between "missile" and "bullet", and looks fucking cool. "

 

yeah, i realize this. it is a long range weapon. the problem with the barrett is last time i talked to my sniper friend is you cant get match ammo for them. plain jane m-2 ball, isnt much in the way of precision. its for massacreing shit.

he said you can get a little here and thier but its rare, handloads. like i said before its a 3 moa gun. 30" at 1000 yards, i didnt say this was its max range. go out farther and watch is spread out more. and saying its totally effective to a mile is like saying the m40a1or 3 is really effective to 1500 yards. most people believe the marines are to generous in saying its effective to 1000 yds and encourage shorter shots. its dead on for most shooters, 7-800 or less. although, in good hands, sometimes you get your groove on farther, didnt someone just get a kill at 1600 yd with a .308 in iraq? wasnt carlos hathcocks's longest confirmed kill in vietnam with his m-2 unertl scope mounted machine gun at around 2500 yards? i dont think because one of the best snipers knocked someone off at this range, it is common. its possible, but not common. some people say the effective range of a flintlock long rifle is over 300 yards, with open sites. sure, this was about the longest confirmed kill in teh revolution with a rifle, but effectiveness was about out to 150 yds, unless you were a crack shot and have eagle eyes. and what are "rules of war" anyway? that shit is a joke. people do get shot with barretts, but as you and I both said before, its for equitment etc etc.

 

and civilians do have the right to own one.

take the .50 away and most bills i have read, would take away my .58 caliber flintlock long rifle.

[angelofdeath]

how ironic, i was browsing one of my favorite daily updated sites and this was on the front page of lewrockwell.com

 

 

'The Unlimited Power of the Sword'

by Vin Suprynowicz

 

 

 

 

A couple of loyal readers asked me, in response to my recent evisceration of the discredited "militia clause" argument, "But Vin, do you think the Founders would have written the Second Amendment that way if they'd known we'd have Uzis"?

 

Leaving aside the fact that it takes extraordinary dedication and commitment (and loot) for a "civilian" of average means to legally acquire a fully automatic Israeli machine pistol in America today, the answer is, "Yes."

 

The Founders had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

 

Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument."

 

Under the form of government that we're told Americans still enjoy, the government can exercise only those powers that are delegated to it by the people. You cannot delegate a right or power that you do not already possess. Therefore, if members of the U.S. Army have legitimate authority to "keep and bear" Uzis and nuclear weapons, they can only have gotten that right from the individual Americans who delegated it to them.

 

It doesn't matter whether you "think this is a good idea." If you want to contend we now have a form of government in which our rulers start with all rights and powers, and allow to the peasantry only those lesser included liberties as they see fit, say so out loud now, please. And tell me when the original Constitution was voided, and by what legal process.

 

Nor do we usually or necessarily abdicate a right when we delegate it: We delegate to police the duty to chase down fleeing felons, but each citizen retains the right to go ahead and do this himself if circumstances dictate.

 

Similarly, the Second and 14th amendments guarantee that we have not given up our private, individual right to keep and bear howitzers and really big machine guns just because we have also delegated this right to the Army.

 

Of particular interest is the fact that several of my questioners work in the newspaper business. How would they respond, I wonder, to the proposition that the First Amendment protects only the freedom to use old-fashioned hand presses – that the Founders can't possibly have meant to authorize unrestricted use of today's far more dangerous, high-speed electrical presses, with their ability to spread lies and seditious, anti-government propaganda hundreds of times faster than Ben Franklin or James Madison could ever have imagined?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Speaking of my (necessarily brief) summary of the inquiries that have gutted the tired old "militia clause" arguments, noted Alabama constitutional attorney Larry Becraft writes in:

 

"Vin, You did not mention: www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm."

 

Frankly, I'm cautious about using Department of Justice filings, because they're inherently political and could easily shift under some future Hillaryesque administration. Nonetheless, Larry does offer up an official DOJ memorandum of opinion, dated Aug. 24, 2004, which finds:

 

"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. ... As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.

 

"The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause – particularly its reference to the 'Militia,' which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service – is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language."

 

 

 

 

December 30, 2005

[!@#$%]

haha wow.

all this for a 50 cal.

 

Conventional Weapons (ref. (12)). The 1980 Conventional Weapons Treaty restricts or prohibits the use of certain weapons deemed to cause unnecessary suffering or to be indiscriminate: Protocol I – non-detectable fragments; Protocol II - mines, booby traps and other devices; Protocol III - incendiaries; and Protocol IV - laser weapons. The U.S. has ratified the treaty by ratifying Protocols I and II. The Senate is currently reviewing Protocols III and IV and amendments to Protocol II for its advice and consent to ratification. The treaty is often referred to as the UNCCW - United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

 

the geneva conventions don't look kindly on 'sniping' anything.

but it's hard to find specific bans of certain weapons in those things.

it's a lot of blahblahblaahing short on specifics

 

 

 

and unfortunately, our love of guns has inevitably led to their mass disseminations (although of course i don't see th eu.s. as solely responsible for arming the world)

 

The U.S. is the world's number one arms exporter in arms deals to both the developed and developing world. ($18.6 billion in the year 2000). The U.S. has supplied arms or military technology to 39 of the 42 active conflicts worldwide (more than 92%). U. S. gun industry sold at least twenty-five of the dangerous 50 caliber sniper rifles to the Al Qaeda organization. Promote efforts to create a "Code of Conduct" governing countries eligible to receive U.S. weapons based on criteria such as human rights & democracy. (Center for Defense Information & the Violence Policy Center)

[!@#$%]

al that being read about our founding fathers

 

do you think they would consider our current government imperialist?

would they agree with current policies established by said government for protection of the homeland?

 

would they support a war against government if the government had far exceeded the bounds of their power as opposed to a diplomatic and democratic change of government

 

more succintly: is that an intention or even an extrapolation of the second ammendment then; i.e. the support of the concept of revolution by military means against an overextended government by our founding fathers

[robJ]

head shot from a 50cal sniper rifle.

[!@#$%]

that's horrible dude.

you should get rid of that shit.

 

 

aaaahh!! horrrible!

[angelofdeath]

the framers of this country would consider our foreign policy imperialist. and considered revolution and removal of the current government with a proper government to be normal activity for citizens. note that our country was born out of revolution from a tyrant who taxed our stamps and tea.

seriously, by todays standards, they were isolationist, protectionist,

super pro liberty.

as for defense of the homeland. their foreign policy of "friendship and commerce will all nation, entangling alliances with none" and "we dont go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." went well with what they thought was proper homeland defense, militia, the people. after our early wars, our standing armies were disbanded pretty quick. most of these old dudes feared a standing army could easily topple the people and didnt want a anti liberty government to take over and use the standing army on the people. (think police state.) it is not possible in this day and place in the situations we are in to abolish our standing army, but im just stating what the guys who founded our government believed.

 

a simple explanation of what these dudes thought... just read my signature.

 

they wanted checks and balances, and the final checks were nullification, secession and over throwing the government.

we know the first 2 were made "illegal" from the civil war.

[John Birch]

yeah if you think about it, Lincoln was really our worst president, not our greatest...he expanded the powers of the presidency, which until then was largely ceremonial, instituted income taxes, a class based draft, and threw out the constitution essentially all in order to preserve the Union... Don't get me wrong, I'm from Mass. and am happy we won the Civil War etc etc, but at what cost did it do to the Initial Vision of our Nation?