CaneBrain 95 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 FACEsigh. so dumb.big shock another 5-4 decision where Kennedy was the swing vote. The Supreme Court is a myth. It is the court of Anthony Kennedy. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 sigh. so dumb.big shock another 5-4 decision where Kennedy was the swing vote. The Supreme Court is a myth. It is the court of Anthony Kennedy.So are you saying that you thought the gun ban was a good thing??? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 So are you saying that you thought the gun ban was a good thing???I think most gun bans are good things. But I am more distressed that one guy (Kennedy) basically makes all major judicial decisions in this country. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 So are you saying that you thought the gun ban was a good thing???nm Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think most gun bans are good things. But I am more distressed that one guy (Kennedy) basically makes all major judicial decisions in this country.I don't disagree, kind of dumb to have 8 of 9 votes already decided on pretty much most issues.I do find it comical that they banned guns in the city that had the highest murders per capita. Link to post Share on other sites
nhlfan 0 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 What I find comical, and I really haven't heard this brought up on talk radio or CNN or anything, is that in Chicago and DC they are letting the officers carry assault rifles in their vehicles because they are under-armed on the streets. This is in cities that HAVE BANNED GUN OWNERSHIP!!! If banning gun ownership cuts down on gun crimes, WHY DO THE COPS NEED TO BE MORE HEAVILY ARMED? That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard in my life. Link to post Share on other sites
gatortom64 1 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 What I find comical, and I really haven't heard this brought up on talk radio or CNN or anything, is that in Chicago and DC they are letting the officers carry assault rifles in their vehicles because they are under-armed on the streets. This is in cities that HAVE BANNED GUN OWNERSHIP!!! If banning gun ownership cuts down on gun crimes, WHY DO THE COPS NEED TO BE MORE HEAVILY ARMED? That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard in my life.Because the cops do not need to defend themselves against unarmed law abiding citizens. It is the thugs buying uzis and AK-47 toting drug dealers the cops have to worry about. When your MAYOR is caught doing coke, you know there is more than a handgun problem!!! Link to post Share on other sites
nhlfan 0 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Because the cops do not need to defend themselves against unarmed law abiding citizens. It is the thugs buying uzis and AK-47 toting drug dealers the cops have to worry about. When your MAYOR is caught doing coke, you know there is more than a handgun problem!!!What I mean is, Liberals think that banning guns will help stop gun crime. If that were true, cops in DC and Chicago shouldn't have anything to worry about, because it's illegal. This just shows how stupid liberal thinking can be. Link to post Share on other sites
CBass1724 1 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 When your MAYOR is caught doing coke, you know there is more than a handgun problem!!!"Goddamn bitch set me up!"Some more priceless quotes from my hero..."If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."--Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington, D.C.Can anybody find anything wrong with the next statement???"I read a funny story about how the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republicans are the ones who created slavery by law in the 1600's. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was not a Republican."- M. Barry,Mayor of Washington, DC Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 What I mean is, Liberals think that banning guns will help stop gun crime. If that were true, cops in DC and Chicago shouldn't have anything to worry about, because it's illegal. This just shows how stupid liberal thinking can be.and making it easier to get guns will decrease crime? the conservative position on this is that we cant stop criminals from getting guns we might as well arm untrained citizens too. good plan. in essence, liberals are trying to solve the gun violence problem whereas conservatives think it is a lost cause so we might as well turn America into the OK corral. Link to post Share on other sites
Love4hockey 0 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 and making it easier to get guns will decrease crime? the conservative position on this is that we cant stop criminals from getting guns we might as well arm untrained citizens too. good plan. in essence, liberals are trying to solve the gun violence problem whereas conservatives think it is a lost cause so we might as well turn America into the OK corral.I live in the midwest so it's probably different out here than it is on the east coast. You talk about untrained citizens with guns. I would say that the average man here has more experience handling guns than most soldiers. My girlfriend is in the national guard, and I am much better at shooting than she is. I've been handling and shooting guns since I was 8. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I live in the midwest so it's probably different out here than it is on the east coast. You talk about untrained citizens with guns. I would say that the average man here has more experience handling guns than most soldiers. My girlfriend is in the national guard, and I am much better at shooting than she is. I've been handling and shooting guns since I was 8.I understand your point....but the bolded seems like a gross exaggeration. maybe some probably not most.And I really dont think more guns will ever help decrease gun violence. That doesnt compute for me even if everyone in the midwest is Wyatt Earp and Annie Oakley combined. Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodAFD 0 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Supreme Court 1Liberals 0 Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Supreme Court 1Liberals 0after guantanamo, I think the score is 1-1. Is anyone else a bit furious that one person (Justice Kennedy) basically makes every important judicial decision on his own? The other 8 are a lock to come up 4-4..... Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I understand your point....but the bolded seems like a gross exaggeration. maybe some probably not most.LOL.You're grossly overestimating "soldiers" and equally underestimating the hunting and outdoors culture that exists in the upper midwest. Any "professional military" system is going to draw heavily from the bottom of societies barrel, including 'urban types' (<-- we all know who that is) that don't know anything about firearms. Not to say that all military folk are this way- just 'a very large number'. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 LOL.You're grossly overestimating "soldiers" and equally underestimating the hunting and outdoors culture that exists in the upper midwest. Any "professional military" system is going to draw heavily from the bottom of societies barrel, including 'urban types' (<-- we all know who that is) that don't know anything about firearms. Not to say that all military folk are this way- just 'a very large number'.This is true, I have a couple guns, I am not a traditional gun person, I shoot them on occasion, I have to take a few minutes every time to re-learn the gun. Same with shooting a friends gun, I make sure I know here the safety is, clip release, how to de-**** it, etc. With that being said, I have seen many many ex-military that I am much more gun savy than. Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodAFD 0 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 This is true, I have a couple guns, I am not a traditional gun person, I shoot them on occasion, I have to take a few minutes every time to re-learn the gun. Same with shooting a friends gun, I make sure I know here the safety is, clip release, how to de-**** it, etc. With that being said, I have seen many many ex-military that I am much more gun savy than.That's because the majority who don't go infantry get a crash course of 1 week on weapons before being assigned to their desk job behind lines.I like shooting... it's fun !Im also a licensed carrier but I would rather shoot targets than bad guys. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Watched Shooter with the old man the other day and we were trying to figure out what the rifle was that he had in the AGs office toward the end of the flick.So I went to this website to look it up and found this rifle, which sounds and looks pretty amazing.They did a piece about it on FutrueWeapons too.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpRHdjBj5ZII bet it's 10 bucks a shot though given that it's a proprietary bullet."The CheyTac M-200 holds the world record for best group at a distance, landing 3 bullets within 16-5/8 inches (42.2 cm) at 2321 yards (2122 m) near Arco in Idaho.[2]On The TV show Future Weapons episode "Massive Attack" the host Richard Machowicz, a former United States Navy SEAL sniper, made 3 out of 6 shots hit a human sized sheet of metal at a distance of 2,530 yd (2,313 m) at Arco Pass in Idaho.[3]."awesome! Link to post Share on other sites
hank213 1,823 Posted June 29, 2008 Author Share Posted June 29, 2008 "The CheyTac M-200 holds the world record for best group at a distance, landing 3 bullets within 16-5/8 inches (42.2 cm) at 2321 yards (2122 m) near Arco in Idaho.[2]On The TV show Future Weapons episode "Massive Attack" the host Richard Machowicz, a former United States Navy SEAL sniper, made 3 out of 6 shots hit a human sized sheet of metal at a distance of 2,530 yd (2,313 m) at Arco Pass in Idaho.[3]."awesome!That's what I'm sayin! That thing is wicked sweet. Hopefully the price will drop on them in 10 years or so and I can toy with the idea of getting one.So I was looking for a new sling for my M4 today and couldn't decide between these two so I got 'em both since they were relatively inexpensive and my bday is coming up. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites
chaosnhavoc 0 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 This is true, I have a couple guns, I am not a traditional gun person, I shoot them on occasion, I have to take a few minutes every time to re-learn the gun. Same with shooting a friends gun, I make sure I know here the safety is, clip release, how to de-**** it, etc. With that being said, I have seen many many ex-military that I am much more gun savy than.What is funny is people going through police training to become an officer and either 1. never fired a handgun, or 2. are afraid of guns. Happens all the time as wells as my favorite discharging a round while holstering the firearm.. CLassic! Link to post Share on other sites
hank213 1,823 Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 Napa,If you're looking at getting an M4 I highley recommend Bushmaster. Also, I recommend getting one with the A3 sights over the A2. Here's why: the A3 has a removable carry handle with a Picatinney rail system so if you should choose to add optics down the road it doesn't have to mount on top of the carry handle which looks terrible and (so I've been told) can make it top heavy and awkward to handle.They're not exactly cheap though. I paid about a grand for mine. If you don't want to drop that much now I suggest you get the "lower" with the telescoping stock. That piece of equipment was on the last ban list and will most likely make any new one that comes out.http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_military_MCWA2F14M4.asp Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Napa,If you're looking at getting an M4 I highley recommend Bushmaster. Also, I recommend getting one with the A3 sights over the A2. Here's why: the A3 has a removable carry handle with a Picatinney rail system so if you should choose to add optics down the road it doesn't have to mount on top of the carry handle which looks terrible and (so I've been told) can make it top heavy and awkward to handle.They're not exactly cheap though. I paid about a grand for mine.http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_military_MCWA2F14M4.asp yeah I second the bushmaster sentiment. i think they are probably the best overall deal out there in ar guns. you can pay more for colts and other brands, but you really aren't getting more from what I've seen. also, I had no idea there were a2 and a3 sights, I just happened to find the one with a3. guess thats pretty lucky. also hank: how do you like that top sling up there? I really need to buy one and can't decide. and have you gotten any other toys for yours yet? Link to post Share on other sites
hank213 1,823 Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 yeah I second the bushmaster sentiment. i think they are probably the best overall deal out there in ar guns. you can pay more for colts and other brands, but you really aren't getting more from what I've seen. also, I had no idea there were a2 and a3 sights, I just happened to find the one with a3. guess thats pretty lucky. also hank: how do you like that top sling up there? I really need to buy one and can't decide. and have you gotten any other toys for yours yet?I much prefer the top sling to the bottom one. It's more stable but still allows for enough freedom of movement to bring the rifle up to firing position quickly. If I didn't care about my gun getting banged up/scratched to hell the bottom would be ok.No mods yet, want to be fairly proficient with it before I start tinkering. Also, I dropped a couple hundy on 500 rds for it so that's pushing back any toys for a bit. I think I'll probably look at optics within the next few months or so. Link to post Share on other sites
Napa_Don 688 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Hank, I can't remember if you're from Omaha or Council Bluffs so this may or may not apply...can I hunt with an A4 in Iowa? I'm not talking deer, I'm talking like rabbits and squirrels, and coyote...stuff like that. I've been looking and can't find any definitive answers on this. I have a lot of private property I can hunt on and I'd like to kill some things legally with the M4 aside from just target shooting. Link to post Share on other sites
hank213 1,823 Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 Hank, I can't remember if you're from Omaha or Council Bluffs so this may or may not apply...can I hunt with an A4 in Iowa? I'm not talking deer, I'm talking like rabbits and squirrels, and coyote...stuff like that. I've been looking and can't find any definitive answers on this. I have a lot of private property I can hunt on and I'd like to kill some things legally with the M4 aside from just target shooting.Don't really know about coyote but as for varmints (rabbits, squirrels, etc) I would think it's fair game since (to my knowledge) there's no licensing involved to kill them. I've only really done any hunting in kansas many, many moons ago, when I lived on a farm for a while. I killed rabbits like they were Jews and I was their own version of Hitler. Never killed coyotes because that required licensing. I wouldn't think Iowa would be extremely different from Kansas in regards to hunting small game. Just rememberUncle Ted says: "EAT WHAT YOU KILL!" Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now