One Nation, Under Gun...

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

I don't see your point. So you agree that the point of the 2ndA was to allow the populace to have arms similar to that of the government, right? (And arms counts as what you said, rifles and handguns. All others were called "ordnance" which is not defined in the 2ndA). And the purpose of that was to pose a threat to the government, and to usurp it if needed. So because now our government has shoulder fired rockets, M1 tanks, A10 gunships, and guided bombs, they are no longer a threat to their own people? Government should be trusted with impunity? I don't really see the logic train there. The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

I don't see your point. So you agree that the point of the 2ndA was to allow the populace to have arms similar to that of the government, right? (And arms counts as what you said, rifles and handguns. All others were called "ordnance" which is not defined in the 2ndA). And the purpose of that was to pose a threat to the government, and to usurp it if needed. So because now our government has shoulder fired rockets, M1 tanks, A10 gunships, and guided bombs, they are no longer a threat to their own people? Government should be trusted with impunity? I don't really see the logic train there. The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Are you drunk? Your impression of my post is the exact opposite of what i meant.

The people should have access to all the weapons the government has, that was the meaning behind the 2nd amendment, as it is, the people could never take on the government with the military might it posesses, i think most people realize that and those that do not are delusional.

The meaning of the amendment was that if the government would be need to be overthrown then a well armed militia of the people could do it with the guns available at that time, this isn't the case today and so "The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment." is a daft statement, it has to do exactly with that.

I'm not American, i own four rifles, two for hunting and two fully automatic weapons, both for work, three hand guns, one for target practice and two for work.

It's fun to shoot but if you really believe that a "well armed militia" of today is one that only carry hand guns and semi automatic weapons then you are sorely mistaken my friend.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

I don't see your point. So you agree that the point of the 2ndA was to allow the populace to have arms similar to that of the government, right? (And arms counts as what you said, rifles and handguns. All others were called "ordnance" which is not defined in the 2ndA). And the purpose of that was to pose a threat to the government, and to usurp it if needed. So because now our government has shoulder fired rockets, M1 tanks, A10 gunships, and guided bombs, they are no longer a threat to their own people? Government should be trusted with impunity? I don't really see the logic train there. The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Are you drunk? Your impression of my post is the exact opposite of what i meant.

The people should have access to all the weapons the government has, that was the meaning behind the 2nd amendment, as it is, the people could never take on the government with the military might it posesses, i think most people realize that and those that do not are delusional.

The meaning of the amendment was that if the government would be need to be overthrown then a well armed militia of the people could do it with the guns available at that time, this isn't the case today and so "The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment." is a daft statement, it has to do exactly with that.

I'm not American, i own four rifles, two for hunting and two fully automatic weapons, both for work, three hand guns, one for target practice and two for work.

It's fun to shoot but if you really believe that a "well armed militia" of today is one that only carry hand guns and semi automatic weapons then you are sorely mistaken my friend.

John, as much as I would like to see military style weapons in the hands of the citizenry, you have to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't want my neighbor storing nuclear bombs in their basement, for instance.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

I don't see your point. So you agree that the point of the 2ndA was to allow the populace to have arms similar to that of the government, right? (And arms counts as what you said, rifles and handguns. All others were called "ordnance" which is not defined in the 2ndA). And the purpose of that was to pose a threat to the government, and to usurp it if needed. So because now our government has shoulder fired rockets, M1 tanks, A10 gunships, and guided bombs, they are no longer a threat to their own people? Government should be trusted with impunity? I don't really see the logic train there. The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Are you drunk? Your impression of my post is the exact opposite of what i meant.

The people should have access to all the weapons the government has, that was the meaning behind the 2nd amendment, as it is, the people could never take on the government with the military might it posesses, i think most people realize that and those that do not are delusional.

If 100 million armed Americans stand up against the government do you really think the leaders of America are going to start calling in air strikes against US cities? Do you think the majority of the pilots would shoot missiles at a US city filled with their fellow Americans?

Whose side do you suppose the National Guard will be on?

Hell, look at the recent history of our wars. People where dodging the draft and refusing to go fight in Vietnam and Iraq (no draft dodging, but some soldiers "deserted"). Just how many members of our current military do you think would be on the governments side if there truly was a mass uprising. There would have to be darn good reason for a 100 million Americans to take up arms against its own government. Will the military men and women somehow be blind to the reasoning behind it and rain death from above on their fellow countrymen?

On the other hand, a relatively small number of "loyal" soldiers would be needed to quell an unarmed uprising.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

I don't see your point. So you agree that the point of the 2ndA was to allow the populace to have arms similar to that of the government, right? (And arms counts as what you said, rifles and handguns. All others were called "ordnance" which is not defined in the 2ndA). And the purpose of that was to pose a threat to the government, and to usurp it if needed. So because now our government has shoulder fired rockets, M1 tanks, A10 gunships, and guided bombs, they are no longer a threat to their own people? Government should be trusted with impunity? I don't really see the logic train there. The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Are you drunk? Your impression of my post is the exact opposite of what i meant.

The people should have access to all the weapons the government has, that was the meaning behind the 2nd amendment, as it is, the people could never take on the government with the military might it posesses, i think most people realize that and those that do not are delusional.

The meaning of the amendment was that if the government would be need to be overthrown then a well armed militia of the people could do it with the guns available at that time, this isn't the case today and so "The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment." is a daft statement, it has to do exactly with that.

I'm not American, i own four rifles, two for hunting and two fully automatic weapons, both for work, three hand guns, one for target practice and two for work.

It's fun to shoot but if you really believe that a "well armed militia" of today is one that only carry hand guns and semi automatic weapons then you are sorely mistaken my friend.

John, as much as I would like to see military style weapons in the hands of the citizenry, you have to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't want my neighbor storing nuclear bombs in their basement, for instance.

While i agree with you that also directly invalidates the second amendments inherent meaning, that a well armed militia can overthrow the government since it's armed with tanks, fighter jets, missiles and attack helicopters.

I think it's time to drop the second amendment argument (since it's just daft clamoring to it in this day and age) and argue other points of self defense (which many do, and it was never intended that gun ownership should be for self defense in the second amendment, they still refer to it as if it was though).

I just think the whole second amendment discussion is ridiculous.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

I don't see your point. So you agree that the point of the 2ndA was to allow the populace to have arms similar to that of the government, right? (And arms counts as what you said, rifles and handguns. All others were called "ordnance" which is not defined in the 2ndA). And the purpose of that was to pose a threat to the government, and to usurp it if needed. So because now our government has shoulder fired rockets, M1 tanks, A10 gunships, and guided bombs, they are no longer a threat to their own people? Government should be trusted with impunity? I don't really see the logic train there. The weapons in the hands of the government have nothing to do with the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Are you drunk? Your impression of my post is the exact opposite of what i meant.

The people should have access to all the weapons the government has, that was the meaning behind the 2nd amendment, as it is, the people could never take on the government with the military might it posesses, i think most people realize that and those that do not are delusional.

If 100 million armed Americans stand up against the government do you really think the leaders of America are going to start calling in air strikes against US cities? Do you think the majority of the pilots would shoot missiles at a US city filled with their fellow Americans?

Whose side do you suppose the National Guard will be on?

Hell, look at the recent history of our wars. People where dodging the draft and refusing to go fight in Vietnam and Iraq (no draft dodging, but some soldiers "deserted"). Just how many members of our current military do you think would be on the governments side if there truly was a mass uprising. There would have to be darn good reason for a 100 million Americans to take up arms against its own government. Will the military men and women somehow be blind to the reasoning behind it and rain death from above on their fellow countrymen?

On the other hand, a relatively small number of "loyal" soldiers would be needed to quell an unarmed uprising.

The executive branch controls the military, including the national guard (but they are doing their fifth tour in Iraq now so don't count them on either side).

You have missed the point entirely, what you are arguing is "will the military shoot at Americans if ordered by the US government" not that handguns in every home will be enough to overthrow an opressive government that has control of the military, and per your last sentence, you say just that, the government won't need many pilots for Jets, Choppers and tanks, a few of each against handguns and the battle is already lost.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

You need to rethink your defintiion of toy. Are knives toys too?

I can understand that someone such as yourself who has little to no firsthand knowledge of weapons can think of them as toys, and quite frankly people who think firearms are toys shouldn't have them. Over here we "Yanks" are smarter then that. 😛

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Hand guns are just fine for a hobbyist to use on a shooting range, they suck for protection though, most people would miss a moving target at 25 feet.

This coming from someone that doesnt own a gun. Handguns can be great home-defense weapons, if you have a quality one and know how to use it.

Hence the phrase 'most people'.

Id like to see some sort of proof most couldnt hit a moving target at 25 feet. I would claim that MOST people properly trained with a handgun could hit a moving target at 25 feet (granted they couldnt hit a fly, or something moving stupidly fast). 25 feet is not far at all, hell there are people that can jump that far.

That statistic sounds like it was pulled out of his you-know-what.

Most TRAINED cops can't hit a moving target at greater then 50% of the time from 25feet. Yet I am sure you are the magic gun shooter and really "trained" better then anybody else. :roll:

Hit Potential In Gun Fights

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed
confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

 

[piasabird]

I chose to sell my handguns when my children got old enough to start walking. Mainly because of their safety. I personally think handguns are too dangerous for the home unless they are locked up in a real heavy duty metal safe. I have seen some shows on how easily children can find hidden guns, and how they are so interested in guns. It is like the candy that they can not have.

I see nothing wrong with the theoretical right for the homeowner to have a gun. In fact I think handguns should be required to pass more stringent safety and reliability requirements. Some handgus are built so cheap. Often they misfire or jam up after a few rounds. Also some handguns are purposely designed with shorter barrels and in a smaller size so they will fit in the pocket of a would-be thief or killer.

The most accurate handgun I owned was Ruger long barrelled target pistol. Good Weight, little kick, and could fire 100 rounds without jamming. It was only a .22 Rimfire but at 50 feet I could get 90% of the rounds into the number 9 or 8 target circles. You could fire 10 rounds with a gun like this accrurately in 15-20 seconds. While a 44 magnum is so heavy and has so much kick that you would be lucky to get off 6 rounds. However, if you hit someone once they would definitely know it.

I am guessing a police officer standard firearm was quite often a 38 revolver. I hate those lousy guns with the double action, that have so much movement in them that they make your gun move around when you pull the trigger. The Military 45 auto is probably more accurate. Maybe the newer 40 autos are a little better. The trick is to have a heavy enough round to shoot through a leather jacket and still not go through most exterior walls or doors. Nothing like a good brick wall.

I think a big problem is most gun laws are not enforced. Any crime committed with a gun against another person should be classified as attemted murder.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Most TRAINED cops can't hit a moving target at greater then 50% of the time from 25feet. Yet I am sure you are the magic gun shooter and really "trained" better then anybody else. :roll:

Hit Potential In Gun Fights

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed
confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

Cops are trained to write tickets and break up parties. The reason they can't shoot is because they are required to qualify with their sidearm usually once a year. There are certainly some cops who are very good shooters, but by and large their performance is pretty embarrassing.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

You need to rethink your defintiion of toy. Are knives toys too?

I can understand that someone such as yourself who has little to no firsthand knowledge of weapons can think of them as toys, and quite frankly people who think firearms are toys shouldn't have them. Over here we "Yanks" are smarter then that. 😛

Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Also some handguns are purposely designed with shorter barrels and in a smaller size so they will fit in the pocket of a would-be thief or killer.

Puh-lease.

Sound just like the reporter yesterday who said a sound suppressor is only good for killers so they can shoot people without being heard.

:roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor


Sure. Nearly 100 million gun owners, armed with fully automatic, and semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Supressors, armor piercing ammunition, body armor. Hell I know people that have field artillery, bazookas and RPGs.

So yes, a modern military would get absolutely wrecked in open war with the American people.

It's a travesty that fully automatic weapons and supressors are as restricted as they are.

No.... no they wouldn't. There is a reason why an army of 260,000 US troops can completely obliterate a force 50% larger, and inflict approximately 3,500% greater casualties then they took. I'll give you a hint, it's not because the Iraqis didn't have machine guns, rifles, field artillery, bazookas, or RPGs.

Even the current environment in Iraq isn't terrible because our army is going to be destroyed by casualties... that just has to do with operational tempo and our inability to accomplish objectives. If we really felt like wasting a lot of time, money, and lives, our army could comfortably camp out in Iraq for the forseeable future.

Oh, and there's no way the average American can competantly use a firearm and hit something moving at 25 feet in a stressful situation. No way in hell.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

You need to rethink your defintiion of toy. Are knives toys too?

I can understand that someone such as yourself who has little to no firsthand knowledge of weapons can think of them as toys, and quite frankly people who think firearms are toys shouldn't have them. Over here we "Yanks" are smarter then that. 😛

Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

And you're a complete douche bag from what us yanks can tell, FOAD. You're condescension towards the US is getting really old.

Anyways, weren't you in some Iraq threads the other day gloating over how difficult a time the US army is having against a bunch of insurgents, armed mainly with small arms and assault rifles?

Edit - maybe you didn't mean to insult all Americans, if so, remove your insult and I'll remove mine...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: piasabird
Also some handguns are purposely designed with shorter barrels and in a smaller size so they will fit in the pocket of a would-be thief or killer.

Puh-lease.

Sound just like the reporter yesterday who said a sound suppressor is only good for killers so they can shoot people without being heard.

:roll:

Well, the reporter is right, a sound supressor destroys every chance of accuracy you have and should only be used when absolutely required. For target practice... heh, laughable.

Shorter barrels means less accuracy, these guns like th 3" barreled guns are not meant to do anything but killing someone close range, you can argue against that all you like but it's still true.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

You need to rethink your defintiion of toy. Are knives toys too?

I can understand that someone such as yourself who has little to no firsthand knowledge of weapons can think of them as toys, and quite frankly people who think firearms are toys shouldn't have them. Over here we "Yanks" are smarter then that. 😛

Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

And you're a complete douche bag from what us yanks can tell, FOAD. You're condescension towards the US is getting really old.

Anyways, weren't you in some Iraq threads the other day gloating over how difficult a time the US army is having against a bunch of insurgents, armed mainly with small arms and assault rifles?

Actually, my condescension is directed to you and those like you, who refuse to realize that you have been played for fools for almost 8 years.

I think you and those like you should join us here and then we can talk about it.

No, idiot, Kabul is NOT in Iraq, i know you shitforbrains don't know your arse from your your elbow or Mexico from Russia on a map but i'm in Kabul which is (prepare to be surprised you stupid twat) in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is the war to fight, Iraq, it's to keep idiots like you screaming yeeeeHAW all day long, or whatever, i know the reason why but i can't tell your puny little fat arse about it.

Now get out of my face and STAY out of my face, got that, little one?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

You need to rethink your defintiion of toy. Are knives toys too?

I can understand that someone such as yourself who has little to no firsthand knowledge of weapons can think of them as toys, and quite frankly people who think firearms are toys shouldn't have them. Over here we "Yanks" are smarter then that. 😛

Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

Which part of the UK are you from? Isle of Man? Ireland?

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

Half a mile is ~800 meters. The diameter of a penny is .75 inches. If 1 MOA = 1 inch groups at 100 meters, then that means your rifle is .75/8 = .09375 MOA. Not even a ridiculously riced out Remington 700P can do that. Get fucking real, dude.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, the reporter is right, a sound supressor destroys every chance of accuracy you have and should only be used when absolutely required. For target practice... heh, laughable.

Shorter barrels means less accuracy, these guns like th 3" barreled guns are not meant to do anything but killing someone close range, you can argue against that all you like but it's still true.

Shorter barrels do not mean less accuracy. If all other things are equal, a shorter barrel will only result in a lower muzzle velocity of the bullet exiting the barrel. 😛

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

You need to rethink your defintiion of toy. Are knives toys too?

I can understand that someone such as yourself who has little to no firsthand knowledge of weapons can think of them as toys, and quite frankly people who think firearms are toys shouldn't have them. Over here we "Yanks" are smarter then that. 😛

Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

Which part of the UK are you from? Isle of Man? Ireland?

England, Sheffield.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: piasabird
Also some handguns are purposely designed with shorter barrels and in a smaller size so they will fit in the pocket of a would-be thief or killer.

Puh-lease.

Sound just like the reporter yesterday who said a sound suppressor is only good for killers so they can shoot people without being heard.

:roll:

Well, the reporter is right, a sound supressor destroys every chance of accuracy you have and should only be used when absolutely required. For target practice... heh, laughable.

Shorter barrels means less accuracy, these guns like th 3" barreled guns are not meant to do anything but killing someone close range, you can argue against that all you like but it's still true.

I'd say you just lost all your credibility right there. I can shoot better than 1" MOA at 100 yards with a Remington 700 .308, supressed, with subsonic loads. If you need more examples of long range supressed, accurate shooting, check out the Precision Rifles section of AR15.com.

A supressor has no impact whatsoever on the accuracy of a gun. I can confidently hit the head sized metal plates at 15 yards with my HK USP Tactical with a Gemtech supressor.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, at the time the second amendment was written handguns and rifles were the most modern military arms and so the people could have them and fight their government.

If the government controls US military, what you are going to be plinking on with your ridiculous weapons are tanks and attack choppers, fully equipped F18-s and so on.

If it was updated then all of the latest military equipment should be available to the average joe, heh, wouldn't THAT be fun? 😀

So it's lost it's purpose because it doesn't take more than one missile to destroy a large part of the charging militia.

American love their guns, it's toys for overgrown boys, there aren't many men in the US, most are just overgrown boys.

Toys don't kill, now do they.

Hehe, overgrown boys toys do kill, now don't they?

You need to rethink your defintiion of toy. Are knives toys too?

I can understand that someone such as yourself who has little to no firsthand knowledge of weapons can think of them as toys, and quite frankly people who think firearms are toys shouldn't have them. Over here we "Yanks" are smarter then that. 😛

Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

And you're a complete douche bag from what us yanks can tell, FOAD. You're condescension towards the US is getting really old.

Anyways, weren't you in some Iraq threads the other day gloating over how difficult a time the US army is having against a bunch of insurgents, armed mainly with small arms and assault rifles?

Actually, my condescension is directed to you and those like you, who refuse to realize that you have been played for fools for almost 8 years.

I think you and those like you should join us here and then we can talk about it.

No, idiot, Kabul is NOT in Iraq, i know you shitforbrains don't know your arse from your your elbow or Mexico from Russia on a map but i'm in Kabul which is (prepare to be surprised you stupid twat) in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is the war to fight, Iraq, it's to keep idiots like you screaming yeeeeHAW all day long, or whatever, i know the reason why but i can't tell your puny little fat arse about it.

Now get out of my face and STAY out of my face, got that, little one?

Wow, if you can point to where I said that you are in Iraq without editing my quote I'd love to see that. Work up on your reading skills then get back to me, k? I know where Kabul is btw... Sorry, I shouldn't have called you a douchebag, I should have called you an illiterate douchebag. You're such an E-tough guy, its cute.


Edit - BTW, I actually agree that Afghanistan is the place to fight, but we're in Iraq now, we have to deal with it. I see that in your drug induced rage you completely ignored my point about a bunch of insurgents armed mainly with small arms giving our military hell.....

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

Half a mile is ~800 meters. The diameter of a penny is .75 inches. If 1 MOA = 1 inch groups at 100 meters, then that means your rifle is .75/8 = .09375 MOA. Not even a ridiculously riced out Remington 700P can do that. Get fucking real, dude.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, the reporter is right, a sound supressor destroys every chance of accuracy you have and should only be used when absolutely required. For target practice... heh, laughable.

Shorter barrels means less accuracy, these guns like th 3" barreled guns are not meant to do anything but killing someone close range, you can argue against that all you like but it's still true.

Shorter barrels do not mean less accuracy. If all other things are equal, a shorter barrel will only result in a lower muzzle velocity of the bullet exiting the barrel. 😛

LOL, but he can hit a flee with a glock 19 from 5 miles away, cuz he said so....

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, i see these threads with people hunting with hand guns and you think that the US have people knowing how to use their weapons? Heh.

I've got an 30-06 with a scope that can hit a penny between your fingers half a mile away, but that doesn't mean much, does it?

I grew up around guns, i've always had them around me since then, right now, i'm in Kabul, and you can take three guesses on the equipment i'm carrying and you'd have three wrong guesses.

Yanks are stupid as shit from what i can tell, they even argue the second amendment as if it would really help to have plinking guns against attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks.

We get to have fully automatic rifles though, and the licence for it is easy to aquire.

Half a mile is ~800 meters. The diameter of a penny is .75 inches. If 1 MOA = 1 inch groups at 100 meters, then that means your rifle is .75/8 = .09375 MOA. Not even a ridiculously riced out Remington 700P can do that. Get fucking real, dude.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, the reporter is right, a sound supressor destroys every chance of accuracy you have and should only be used when absolutely required. For target practice... heh, laughable.

Shorter barrels means less accuracy, these guns like th 3" barreled guns are not meant to do anything but killing someone close range, you can argue against that all you like but it's still true.

Shorter barrels do not mean less accuracy. If all other things are equal, a shorter barrel will only result in a lower muzzle velocity of the bullet exiting the barrel. 😛

Wow, you know so many things that are just wrong.

It's not very hard to use a bolt 30-06 and hit five shots from 800 meters within .75 inches, in fact, i'd suggest that anyone who can't is a lousy shot.

Actually, on handguns the shorter barrel will mean that that the accuracy is greatly diminished since the rifles will make the bullet spin but not around it's own axis as it leaves the barrel.

You just don't have a clue when it comes to guns, do you?