Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14

 

2006-07-25 14:29:34
ts-pulsar
Member
+54|6724
Just cause It's driving me nuts.

QUIT CALLING THEM CLIPS!!!!!!!  They are called Magazines.  Clips are used to make loading of a firearm easier, like stripper clips for an SKS, or just about any military bolt action rifle.  They do not remain in the firearm once the ammo is loaded.  The only exception to this is the M1 Garand, which uses the En Bloc clip.

A Magazine holds the ammo, and stays with the firearm, and often essential to the function of the firearm.  Magazines are not always removable.  An SKS is an example of a rifle that has a non detachable magazine (unless modified), and like I said earlier, a stripper clip is used to load the magazine.


As for the the collapsable stock being concealable.  That's not the point of a collapsable stock, the point of a collapsable stock is to make the rifle fit the shooter better.  You can make it longer for a larger person, or shorter for a smaller person.


I'd go on, but I see most of it is covered already.
2006-07-25 22:46:01
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

ts-pulsar wrote:

Just cause It's driving me nuts.

QUIT CALLING THEM CLIPS!!!!!!!  They are called Magazines.  Clips are used to make loading of a firearm easier, like stripper clips for an SKS, or just about any military bolt action rifle.  They do not remain in the firearm once the ammo is loaded.  The only exception to this is the M1 Garand, which uses the En Bloc clip.

A Magazine holds the ammo, and stays with the firearm, and often essential to the function of the firearm.  Magazines are not always removable.  An SKS is an example of a rifle that has a non detachable magazine (unless modified), and like I said earlier, a stripper clip is used to load the magazine.


As for the the collapsable stock being concealable.  That's not the point of a collapsable stock, the point of a collapsable stock is to make the rifle fit the shooter better.  You can make it longer for a larger person, or shorter for a smaller person.


I'd go on, but I see most of it is covered already.
+1, on everything, thanks!!!!
2006-07-26 03:44:32
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6707|New Brunswick, Canada
Well..I read through most of the posts and was quite impressed with everybody's opinions.
My stand on Gun Laws is simple....As a society, we must refuse to allow our Gov't to control the purchasing, handling, and distribution of firearms in order to prevent a complete unarming of the populace. Yes, this is inevitable, it is, and has been in the process of becoming reality. I am a proud Canadian _Non-Gun Owner, X-Military) but I would like to help my neighbors South of our Border. I like American People...Your choice in Gov't, however, continually disgusts me.

The federal government has been chomping at the bit for decades to disarm the American people, and now an amalgamation of state and local police led by the BATF are having their deepest desire fulfilled in New Orleans.
Major newspapers are reporting that in middle-class neighborhoods undamaged by floodwater's paramilitary police are going door-to-door demanding citizens’ firearms.
The New York Times even admitted that this is so the citizenry cannot resist when they are physically forced to leave their homes.
There should be a howling, screaming the likes of which has never been heard against the Bush administration that is in control of New Orleans. If we let them legitimize gun confiscation for security, they are going to use this all over the country.
Lord Bush is already licking his lips and talking about making Gonzalez, a person who is adamantly anti-gun, his pick to succeed Rehnquist. All Americans can now count on this: when you're in trouble or when you're in crisis, the "authorities" aren't going to come with aid. They're going to send a squad of goons to take advantage of the situation, take your guns and drag you off to a FEMA camp. This is what we pay taxes for.

Seriously people...think about it...disarm the populace and complete submission by the people will follow. Opening the door to a Police state...completely giving up your civil rights.

Peace
2006-07-26 03:59:54
uk-anubis-uk
Member
+21|6743
The problem is that guns are too easy to get in america! In england u need to go and get a license and the register the weapon and it has to be in a secure locked cupboard (glass is allowed) the ammo has to be kept in a seperate place and u can only use it on private property or somethin like that! I recently heard but dont know if it is true that you can now buy weapons in wallmart??? The problem is that is anyone without proper training responsible enough to fire a weapon??? i think a lot of people that own guns dont actually understand the capability of them! Many people will buy a gun for "protection" but really its just because its something like a colt and is shiny and silver how many people in america that own a gun would fire upon someone??? how ofter do u come across a situation where a gun is actually needed! Ive seen all sorts of documentarys on tv about american civilians carrying guns and panicing and blindfiring shooting unintended targets or nothin!!! If you cant hit the target why have you got it! I wonder how many BF2 players own a gun? This calls for a poll!
2006-07-26 12:56:28
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6706

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

America is out of place with them though. Children have guns there. Children my cousin's age. That's fucking 6!
What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



https://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
2006-07-26 13:24:14
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

cosmichippo wrote:

against the Bush administration that is in control of New Orleans.
I agree with all your other comments, thanks for supporting us responsible firearm owners.  But the Bush administration does not control New Orleans.  With the incident in New Orleans, the federal government was not the one to make the decision to take firearms away from law abiding people.
2006-07-26 13:29:31
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

uk-anubis-uk wrote:

The problem is that guns are too easy to get in america! In england u need to go and get a license and the register the weapon and it has to be in a secure locked cupboard (glass is allowed) the ammo has to be kept in a seperate place and u can only use it on private property or somethin like that! I recently heard but dont know if it is true that you can now buy weapons in wallmart??? The problem is that is anyone without proper training responsible enough to fire a weapon??? i think a lot of people that own guns dont actually understand the capability of them! Many people will buy a gun for "protection" but really its just because its something like a colt and is shiny and silver how many people in america that own a gun would fire upon someone??? how ofter do u come across a situation where a gun is actually needed! Ive seen all sorts of documentarys on tv about american civilians carrying guns and panicing and blindfiring shooting unintended targets or nothin!!! If you cant hit the target why have you got it! I wonder how many BF2 players own a gun? This calls for a poll!
Wow, its this seperation from reality that some UK'ers have because they do not understand the gun culture in America.  You can't make accurate assumptions without actually being here and talking to a majority of firearms owners.  You need to branch out and not use TV documentaries as sources.  Blind shooting does not happen that often, in fact the majority of American firearm owners are extrmely responsible and trained at least to mediocricy.  There are exceptions of course, but this DOES NOT accurately describe the MAJORITY of firearm owners in the U.S.  This negative outlook on firearms and the thought that a firearm should be stored seperated from its ammo (wow if someone comes in your house, what are you gonna say, hey burgular hold on while i open two different safes so I can shoot you?) promulgates the disarming of citizens from their right to protect themselves.  This should be an international right, however some are not so lucky.  (UK).  In fact a think tank in the UK has found that the strict gun laws in the UK have caused crime rates to soar.

If you restrict and ban firearms, than only criminals will have guns.  Think about the thousands of lives (yes thousands) that are SAVED every year from wrongful harming, burgularies, batteries, and other crimes because of firearms.  If you think there aren't a lot of situations that requires a firearm.  Than you need to do more research.
2006-07-26 13:31:51
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

America is out of place with them though. Children have guns there. Children my cousin's age. That's fucking 6!
What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
+1, this is what the status quo should be, its the fear and ignorance of firearms that creates this so called society of fear and lack of understanding of firearms, and their rightful place.  Firearms like any other tool, can kill, BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY the responsibilty and INTENT of the user of this tool that decides whether who lives or dies.  DO NOT PUNISH law abiding citizens.  We need to focus on the crimes committed and those that commit them.
2006-07-26 13:32:28
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6770|Southeastern USA

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

America is out of place with them though. Children have guns there. Children my cousin's age. That's fucking 6!
What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
some of my earliest memories were of going to the gun range with my parents, and I am now the most gun safety paranoid person I know, not sure if I could party with alexander without having a heart attack
2006-07-26 13:34:56
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6776

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

America is out of place with them though. Children have guns there. Children my cousin's age. That's fucking 6!
What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
How's about alcohol, sex and motor vehicles for 6 year olds too?
2006-07-26 13:41:47
-=CB=-krazykarl
not always PWD, but usually.
+95|6757|Carlsbad, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

America is out of place with them though. Children have guns there. Children my cousin's age. That's fucking 6!
What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
How's about alcohol, sex and motor vehicles for 6 year olds too?
once again neither fair, nor balanced, guns are tools the others aren't. think before posting.

Last edited by -=CB=-krazykarl (2006-07-26 13:42:41)

2006-07-26 13:42:00
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

America is out of place with them though. Children have guns there. Children my cousin's age. That's fucking 6!
What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
How's about alcohol, sex and motor vehicles for 6 year olds too?
Thats a little different friend.  He was mentioning the fact that 6 year olds should be TAUGHT about firearms, not neccessarily use them.  Maybe a BB gun at most at that age.  Alcohol, sex, and automobiles are a different topic.  Plus firearms are not even on the same level of lethality or danger as any of those three alone.
2006-07-26 13:43:07
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

-=CB=-krazykarl wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:


What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
How's about alcohol, sex and motor vehicles for 6 year olds too?
once again neither fair, nor balanced, guns are tools the others aren't think before posting.
Well I think he was just trying to make some point about how children shouldn't use firearms...I think he just misunderstood the original point about trying to teach children ABOUT firearms.  Also if children do "have" guns, than thats a violation of a couple of laws of the top of my head. 
2006-07-26 13:45:26
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6776

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Obey_m0rph3us wrote:


What's wrong with that?  Teach a child from an early age that guns are tools, not toys, and misusing them can carry deadly consequences.



http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/9553/gunman5rr.jpg
How's about alcohol, sex and motor vehicles for 6 year olds too?
Thats a little different friend.  He was mentioning the fact that 6 year olds should be TAUGHT about firearms, not neccessarily use them.  Maybe a BB gun at most at that age.  Alcohol, sex, and automobiles are a different topic.  Plus firearms are not even on the same level of lethality or danger as any of those three alone.
Understood. Just looked in on the thread and wasn't following it closely.
2006-07-26 13:47:01
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


How's about alcohol, sex and motor vehicles for 6 year olds too?
Thats a little different friend.  He was mentioning the fact that 6 year olds should be TAUGHT about firearms, not neccessarily use them.  Maybe a BB gun at most at that age.  Alcohol, sex, and automobiles are a different topic.  Plus firearms are not even on the same level of lethality or danger as any of those three alone.
Understood. Just looked in on the thread and wasn't following it closely.
Well the way he worded it, it did SOUND like kids were just shooting off guns unsupervised, which I would not condone.    Man Cameron I wish more people were like you, sheeeesh, some people would go...."well YOU'RE JUST WRONG."  Heh!

+1
2006-07-26 13:47:23
-=CB=-krazykarl
not always PWD, but usually.
+95|6757|Carlsbad, CA, USA

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

-=CB=-krazykarl wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


How's about alcohol, sex and motor vehicles for 6 year olds too?
once again neither fair, nor balanced, guns are tools the others aren't think before posting.
Well I think he was just trying to make some point about how children shouldn't use firearms...I think he just misunderstood the original point about trying to teach children ABOUT firearms.  Also if children do "have" guns, than thats a violation of a couple of laws of the top of my head. 
i used firearms at 6, i used to shoot with my family at that age on a regular basis. i agree totally with what you said though. i was making a point of my own, his arguments are never fair or balanced. always half cocked, and intended to start shit.
2006-07-26 13:52:55
Deader
Member
+7|7013|TN, USA
Freedom to bear arms is there so Americans can overthrow the government if it stops being representative of the people. National security, personal protection and sporting uses are just bonus justifications. Politicians like to forget about the "overthrowing the government part" because it makes them nervous.
2006-07-26 13:53:39
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6707|New Brunswick, Canada

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

cosmichippo wrote:

against the Bush administration that is in control of New Orleans.
I agree with all your other comments, thanks for supporting us responsible firearm owners.  But the Bush administration does not control New Orleans.  With the incident in New Orleans, the federal government was not the one to make the decision to take firearms away from law abiding people.
I strongly disagree. The paramilitary police were used in conjunction with the door-to-door seizures. Along with a combination of local police. So the Federal Government does a horrible job delivering food and water to people they told to go to the Superdome, and then, almost two weeks after, they say the city is under their control. Their main mission: going door-to-door and confiscating American citizens’ lawfully owned firearms. This is treason. This is sedition against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and your way of life. If getting any valuable feedback at all from my post, please take it from this response.
2006-07-26 13:55:38
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

cosmichippo wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

cosmichippo wrote:

against the Bush administration that is in control of New Orleans.
I agree with all your other comments, thanks for supporting us responsible firearm owners.  But the Bush administration does not control New Orleans.  With the incident in New Orleans, the federal government was not the one to make the decision to take firearms away from law abiding people.
I strongly disagree. The paramilitary police were used in conjunction with the door-to-door seizures. Along with a combination of local police. So the Federal Government does a horrible job delivering food and water to people they told to go to the Superdome, and then, almost two weeks after, they say the city is under their control. Their main mission: going door-to-door and confiscating American citizens’ lawfully owned firearms. This is treason. This is sedition against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and your way of life. If getting any valuable feedback at all from my post, please take it from this response.
Ok, that makes more sense...However it was FEMA's fault and lack of coordination for the food,etc, but how is Bush responsible.  Or anyone in the administration.  Did someone personally order this???  +1 On everything else though.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-26 13:56:29)

2006-07-26 14:01:29
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6707|New Brunswick, Canada

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

cosmichippo wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


I agree with all your other comments, thanks for supporting us responsible firearm owners.  But the Bush administration does not control New Orleans.  With the incident in New Orleans, the federal government was not the one to make the decision to take firearms away from law abiding people.
I strongly disagree. The paramilitary police were used in conjunction with the door-to-door seizures. Along with a combination of local police. So the Federal Government does a horrible job delivering food and water to people they told to go to the Superdome, and then, almost two weeks after, they say the city is under their control. Their main mission: going door-to-door and confiscating American citizens’ lawfully owned firearms. This is treason. This is sedition against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and your way of life. If getting any valuable feedback at all from my post, please take it from this response.
Ok, that makes more sense...However it was FEMA's fault and lack of coordination for the food,etc, but how is Bush responsible.  Or anyone in the administration.  Did someone personally order this???  +1 On everything else though.
2 answers for ya...1. What does F.E.M.A stand for..FEDERAL emergency management agency
                    and  2. Paramiliary police are Federal employees. The Bush Administration was in complete control of the situation.

Thanks for your feedback. It is fun to learn fron one another
2006-07-26 14:03:30
AllmightyOz
Member
+50|6707|United States - Ohio
America loves its guns. I as an American, love my guns. I don't think guns should be harder to get, we have a right to bear arms, and if you make it harder to bear them, you are essentially violating that right. I got my first gun before I was even born. (yes truly) With guns you can protect yourself, hunt, or rob banks. What you do with your gun is your choice. If you happen to misuse your firearm, the right of owning it should be taken away from you. That is why you have to get a background check before you buy a gun.

Things I disagree with:

Have to be 21 to buy a PISTOL (at least in ohio). If I can sign up for the army, go and die for my country, I should at least be able to own a pistol at the same age.

Have to hunt with an adult if you are a minor. I realize some minors are very stupid when it comes to guns, but just as many are responsible with guns and should be able to use them at their own will for such activities.

Making guns harder to aquire.

Outlawing "assualt weapons". I like my dad's AR-15 with the red dot scope and collapsoble stock. It should be legal. Just because some people screw it up and go on a rampage, doesn't mean everyone will. Also, if you really want to get one, you can buy it on the black market. Terrorists or organized crime syndacites are NOT going to go to the local gun store to buy their guns where they have to register them. Making them illegal is not solving the problem.

Guns I own:
Mossberg 20 gauge (very nice gun)
Daisy Legacy .22 (the one i got before i was born)
Savage Over-Under 20 gauge/22 (one of my favorites)
Taurus .38 (meh)
2006-07-26 14:08:16
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

cosmichippo wrote:

2 answers for ya...1. What does F.E.M.A stand for..FEDERAL emergency management agency
                    and  2. Paramiliary police are Federal employees. The Bush Administration was in complete control of the situation.

Thanks for your feedback. It is fun to learn fron one another
1) I know what FEMA stands for, but yeah good point, however Bush doesn't sit around and tell FEMA to do this and do that, FEMA is actually the most powerful entity in the government, because the director of said agency has the authority to override, even the president in rare cases, in emergency situations.

2) Duh. But you can't just blame the top for errors in judgement of middle management.  Shit only runs uphill for certain situations.
2006-07-26 14:16:34
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6707|New Brunswick, Canada

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) I know what FEMA stands for, but yeah good point, however Bush doesn't sit around and tell FEMA to do this and do that, FEMA is actually the most powerful entity in the government, because the director of said agency has the authority to override, even the president in rare cases, in emergency situations.

2) Duh. But you can't just blame the top for errors in judgement of middle management.  Shit only runs uphill for certain situations.
I never singled out Bush as doing such; I said the Bush Adminsitration. You have a point with the middle management, however; I think in these situations (major catastrophe) the Federal Gov't is most definitly calling the shots. You have to factor in the possibility of deaths within that middle management who would precide and live in that particular area. As well, the resources the Federal Gov't has (The Army for example) surely outweigh, outnumber and out do, anything local/state gov't is going to be able to provide.
2006-07-26 14:18:10
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6865|Seattle, WA

cosmichippo wrote:

I never singled out Bush as doing such; I said the Bush Adminsitration. You have a point with the middle management, however; I think in these situations (major catastrophe) the Federal Gov't is most definitly calling the shots. You have to factor in the possibility of deaths within that middle management who would precide and live in that particular area. As well, the resources the Federal Gov't has (The Army for example) surely outweigh, outnumber and out do, anything local/state gov't is going to be able to provide.
Agreed, good points.  So than who in The Bush Administration?  Or is it just some blanket statement covering anyone in a federal position just because Bush is in office?
2006-07-26 14:23:25
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6707|New Brunswick, Canada

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Agreed, good points.  So than who in The Bush Administration?  Or is it just some blanket statement covering anyone in a federal position just because Bush is in office?
At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals......Yes, a lot of local municipality, but the Feds, without a doubt, were involved in this type of decision making.
But it seems to me that we shouldn't let our substantive views of the wisdom of the confiscation order cloud the legal question of whether it violated Louisiana law.

Last edited by cosmichippo (2006-07-26 14:33:02)

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard