Do you support gun control?

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87

-All guns sold, and all owners should be put in a federal database which includes the ID'ing of guns based on its unique case markings.

This is nice. So when the govt comes to take our weapons. They will know exactly where to look.

The only partial gun control i support is for felons convicted of a crime.

This has already been covered. You are beyond paranoid and this type of hyperbole deserves to be put in OT as it has NO basis of fact, reasoning, logic, or fathomable circumstance.

Registration can be and is used as a waypoint to confiscation. It has happened in both California and New York.

Please provide more information

I believe the Nazis and communists did something similar to what New York is trying to do now. New York Gun Confiscation
I do not understand how people can let this sort of thing happen right under their noses. It is really sad when people do not grasp the repitition of history even when it is happening directly in front of them.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

That's a nice thought but guns alone won't do the trick. We'd need cruise missles, stingers, fighter jets, tanks, battleships, subs, extensive and well set up intelligence feeds. Even if we gave every person in the US a gun our military could still kick the sh!te out of us. The chance of a violent overthrow of the gov't is pretty much nill unless some people in the military decide to side with the people and not the gov't.

In a straight up, all-in fight, you'd be correct. However, our military hasnt been fully unleashed in Iraq. Do you really think they'd be given less restrictive ROE in NYC? Or that they'd be willing to inflict more collateral damage here in the States than they have been in Iraq? The hypothetical revolution we are discussing would have advantages over the Iraqi insurgents in practically every area, except I doubt there would be any suicide bombers. The only thing the government would be able to do to stop it is to prevent them from getting the weapons needed to start in the first place, ie restrictive gun control.

EDIT:

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
-Edward Abbey

It's hard to defend your country with a Super-Soaker.

They'd go for less collateral damage unless they weren't winning in which case they'd keeping upping the force until they did win.[/quote]

Yeah, and that almost worked in Vietnam. When the collateral damage is American citizens and American property, the politicians have much less stomach for it. If they kill 100,000 Iraqis, they still havent killed one person who can vote for them.

The one thing about this argument that never ceases to amaze me is that the same people who think a group of Americans couldnt resist the American government are generally the same ones that say we cannot beat a bunch of Iraqi's armed with rifles and a couple RPGs (which they do not usually use effectively). Iraqi's that are not former US military (meaning those with any military training recieved inferior training in tactics and weaponry), are not part of the current US military (making internal sabotage harder, and large scale mutiny unlikely)... it boggles my mind sometimes.

I seem to remember someone else in the gov't having a drunk driving problem - oh yeah it was the president. fortunately he wasn't unlucky enough to have killed anyone (although his wife killed someone - that was an awful sketchy story).

And why exactly are you bringing up Dubya's drinking problems? I dont see how it is topical. I didnt vote for the @sshole, but I dont see how his drug problems are topical to the situation being discussed.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Pfff, I don't want that watered down stuff. I want the real deal with the armor piercing rounds. Criminals have access to body armor too.

Most of them dont wear it, though. I'd rather have a round that does a little more damage to an unarmored target than the 5.7x28mm, and deal with the fact that I'd have a less effective weapon in the extremely small chance that I may encounter someone wearing body armor.

At 900 rounds a minute the P90 will do plenty of damage. Trust me.

Have they fixed the magazine's tendency to jam after being jarred? Personally, unless I expected to use it only against armored personnel, I wouldnt bother with something chambered in 5.7x28mm. But that is just me.

No, they have special magazines.

The P90 is a blowback operated, selective fire weapon. It is fed from 50-rounds box magazines, made from transluscent polymer. The magazine is being located above the barrel, with the cartridges being aligned at 90 degrees to the barrel axis. Each magazine has built-in ramp that rotates cartridge to align it with the barrel prior to chambering it.

Text

Edit: According to this site it is just a rumor that the magazine on the P90 jams if it is dropped.

That only says that a.) they didnt have it happen to them, and b.) the manufacturer says it's fine.

In my experience, the manufacturer always denies the problem until being beaten over the head with it. And even then, they will try to deny it until the head injuries result in unconciousness. Given that the P90 fires a round I consider inadequate to the task at hand, the reported problems with FTFeed are just the nail in the coffin.

But, self defense is an art, not a science. Go with whatever you think suits you best. I just prefer to not need 5+ rounds CM to quickly eliminate a threat.

 

[CaptnKirk]

There are some weapons that are best left in the hands of the military.
As was mentioned - armor piercing, explocive warheads, street sweeping equipment.
There's no reason in hell that anyone in Fort Worth, including myself and the police
department needs and Uzi or a Mac-10 under any circumstance - period.

Joe Postal doesn't need to be able to go the the Sports Arena Gun-O-Rama when it comes to town - like a traveling version of the Theatrical Porductions 'Cat's', as they have a tendency to do, so Joey can get a shiney new AK-47 to liven up the office on the afternoon shift aand Psyko-Joe sure doesn't need a 6 pellet buck load to get a Yorkshire off of the sidewalk when it comes yapping down the driveway towards him.

I keep a handgun, so if I really need it . . . .

I don't even get to use what I do every day.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Pfff, I don't want that watered down stuff. I want the real deal with the armor piercing rounds. Criminals have access to body armor too.

Most of them dont wear it, though. I'd rather have a round that does a little more damage to an unarmored target than the 5.7x28mm, and deal with the fact that I'd have a less effective weapon in the extremely small chance that I may encounter someone wearing body armor.

At 900 rounds a minute the P90 will do plenty of damage. Trust me.

Have they fixed the magazine's tendency to jam after being jarred? Personally, unless I expected to use it only against armored personnel, I wouldnt bother with something chambered in 5.7x28mm. But that is just me.

No, they have special magazines.

The P90 is a blowback operated, selective fire weapon. It is fed from 50-rounds box magazines, made from transluscent polymer. The magazine is being located above the barrel, with the cartridges being aligned at 90 degrees to the barrel axis. Each magazine has built-in ramp that rotates cartridge to align it with the barrel prior to chambering it.

Text

Edit: According to this site it is just a rumor that the magazine on the P90 jams if it is dropped.

That only says that a.) they didnt have it happen to them, and b.) the manufacturer says it's fine.

In my experience, the manufacturer always denies the problem until being beaten over the head with it. And even then, they will try to deny it until the head injuries result in unconciousness. Given that the P90 fires a round I consider inadequate to the task at hand, the reported problems with FTFeed are just the nail in the coffin.

But, self defense is an art, not a science. Go with whatever you think suits you best. I just prefer to not need 5+ rounds CM to quickly eliminate a threat.

The only gun I own is a S&W 686+ .357 magnum, which is more than adequate for my defensive purposes at this time.

However, if you know what you are doing I assure you a P90 is an effective weapon at close range.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The only gun I own is a S&W 686+ .357 magnum, which is more than adequate for my defensive purposes at this time.

However, if you know what you are doing I assure you a P90 is an effective weapon at close range.

So is a 2x4 with nails in it. But I am not going to pick that as my weapon of choice.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The only gun I own is a S&W 686+ .357 magnum, which is more than adequate for my defensive purposes at this time.

However, if you know what you are doing I assure you a P90 is an effective weapon at close range.

So is a 2x4 with nails in it. But I am not going to pick that as my weapon of choice.

Then what is your weapon of choice? Perhaps I should introduce you to the HK MP-7. Text

 

[thegimp03]

No, because then only criminals have guns. Nice irony, isn't it?

 

[dfinder]

I would like to restrict gun ownership for convicted people.

 

[Delta52]

You should have to be a legal resident of the country you are in, be able to pass a background check without any outstanding offences, and that's it. You can say thats making it eaiser for criminals to get weapons, but how many do you think got them legaly in the first place? Do you think a mugger wants to rob an armed man, or one carring a gun? All these gun control laws are disarming the public, not the criminals.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The only gun I own is a S&W 686+ .357 magnum, which is more than adequate for my defensive purposes at this time.

However, if you know what you are doing I assure you a P90 is an effective weapon at close range.

So is a 2x4 with nails in it. But I am not going to pick that as my weapon of choice.

Then what is your weapon of choice? Perhaps I should introduce you to the HK MP-7. Text

You can't introduce me to the MP-7, as I've known of it back when it was the PDW concept . I was actually thinking about asking you if you had compared the P90 to the MP-7, and why you chose the P90 over the MP-7 (and now that you've broached the subject... why do you prefer the P90?). While paper performance can be made to look good (ie, the 5.56mm NATO vs the 7.62mm NATO)*, real world results are different. If you've talked to someone who has used the M16/M4 in combat, you'd know what I mean, especially if they were using the unholy combination of M4 +M855/M856 on a target at any kind of range.

Anyways, my weapon of choice depends on what I am planning to use it for. CC? Home defense? TEOTWAWKI? Give me a scenario and I'll give you my pick.


*The paper results are different (ie, the 7.62 is the clear winner) if you dont bias the tests.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Partial gun control sounds good ...

My suggestions
... require some sort of "firearms safety" knowledge to carry concealed weapons.
... background checks on all gun sales, anyone with any violent felony convictions in the last 10 or 20 years (i dunno ... just guessing a timeframe) should be restricted form possessing firearms. (by violent felony convictions, I don't mean "got in a fight at a bar, assault", I mean Rape, Manslaughter, Armed Robbery, etc)

Otherwise, collectors, people interested in self defense, hunters, and people who in general, don't have a history of violent crime, should be able to purchase and own whatever firearms they want.

 

[SuperTool]

But why shouldn't people be allowed to own howitzers? 2nd ammendment says "Arms," not "guns" So if someone wants to own their private tank or jet fighter, that should be covered under "arms?"

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But why shouldn't people be allowed to own howitzers? 2nd ammendment says "Arms," not "guns" So if someone wants to own their private tank or jet fighter, that should be covered under "arms?"

I beleive in the context of the constitution a howitzer would not fall into the category of "arms".

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But why shouldn't people be allowed to own howitzers? 2nd ammendment says "Arms," not "guns" So if someone wants to own their private tank or jet fighter, that should be covered under "arms?"

As long as the threat of a totalitarian government (and to say the least the U.S. government has become quite totalitarian) is around why not? I think it would be great if there were militias (and I do not mean government militias) with that kind of hardware. The more weapons and the better quality/size of those weapons Americans have, the less chance of a complete government takeover.

As I said before, the government today has an enormous amount of power. It has a long ways to fall. If it does fall greatly, it wouldn't suprise me one bit if those in government tried some kind of last ditch power-grab i.e. using military force.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But why shouldn't people be allowed to own howitzers? 2nd ammendment says "Arms," not "guns" So if someone wants to own their private tank or jet fighter, that should be covered under "arms?"

Because in the parlance of the day, "arms" were infantry weapons. A howitzer would have been classified as "ordnance" back then, and the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of the right to keep and bear ordnance. The same reasoning holds for ships, tanks, bombers, fighters, etc.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The only gun I own is a S&W 686+ .357 magnum, which is more than adequate for my defensive purposes at this time.

However, if you know what you are doing I assure you a P90 is an effective weapon at close range.

So is a 2x4 with nails in it. But I am not going to pick that as my weapon of choice.

Then what is your weapon of choice? Perhaps I should introduce you to the HK MP-7. Text

You can't introduce me to the MP-7, as I've known of it back when it was the PDW concept . I was actually thinking about asking you if you had compared the P90 to the MP-7, and why you chose the P90 over the MP-7 (and now that you've broached the subject... why do you prefer the P90?). While paper performance can be made to look good (ie, the 5.56mm NATO vs the 7.62mm NATO)*, real world results are different. If you've talked to someone who has used the M16/M4 in combat, you'd know what I mean, especially if they were using the unholy combination of M4 +M855/M856 on a target at any kind of range.

Anyways, my weapon of choice depends on what I am planning to use it for. CC? Home defense? TEOTWAWKI? Give me a scenario and I'll give you my pick.


*The paper results are different (ie, the 7.62 is the clear winner) if you dont bias the tests.

Hmm, for home defense I do not think you could beat hidden min-guns operated by remote control with infrared cameras, with remote perimeter alarms of course.

Imagine you are sitting in your hotel on vacation when your cell phone buzzes with an intruder alert. You open up your laptop, bring up your infrared cameras and you notice a suspicious figure coming towards your house. Out pops the min-gun, wherupon you put 50,000 rounds in the guy before he even puts a foot on your doorstep.

Unless you are talking explosives I think everything else goes down from there. As for concealed carry, that's a different matter. They have some pretty small .45 autos now that I was checking out.

 

[MrPabulum]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
reasonable control..background checks etc. not the current system of massive loopholes and such.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MrPabulum

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
reasonable control..background checks etc. not the current system of massive loopholes and such.

The only real massive loophole is the private sale of guns between individuals. Closing this loophole would be impossible.

 

[0roo0roo]

you mean gunshows and such right?

 

[StageLeft]

of course in some sense, it's asinine not to. Everybody here does, even if they say they don't. Nobody questions (well nobody with a brain) the merit of not allowing private citizens to own RPGs, anti air craft guns, grenades, etc.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow
You can't introduce me to the MP-7, as I've known of it back when it was the PDW concept . I was actually thinking about asking you if you had compared the P90 to the MP-7, and why you chose the P90 over the MP-7 (and now that you've broached the subject... why do you prefer the P90?). While paper performance can be made to look good (ie, the 5.56mm NATO vs the 7.62mm NATO)*, real world results are different. If you've talked to someone who has used the M16/M4 in combat, you'd know what I mean, especially if they were using the unholy combination of M4 +M855/M856 on a target at any kind of range.

Anyways, my weapon of choice depends on what I am planning to use it for. CC? Home defense? TEOTWAWKI? Give me a scenario and I'll give you my pick.


*The paper results are different (ie, the 7.62 is the clear winner) if you dont bias the tests.

Hmm, for home defense I do not think you could beat hidden min-guns operated by remote control with infrared cameras, with remote perimeter alarms of course.

Imagine you are sitting in your hotel on vacation when your cell phone buzzes with an intruder alert. You open up your laptop, bring up your infrared cameras and you notice a suspicious figure coming towards your house. Out pops the min-gun, wherupon you put 50,000 rounds in the guy before he even puts a foot on your doorstep.

Unless you are talking explosives I think everything else goes down from there. As for concealed carry, that's a different matter. They have some pretty small .45 autos now that I was checking out.

Actually, I know a guy with Claymores emplaced around his residence. Of course, he came back from 'Nam just a little bit "quirky", to be polite about it, and I've got a suspicion that they arent all still in working condition. But I'm not going to volunteer to test that theory.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow
You can't introduce me to the MP-7, as I've known of it back when it was the PDW concept . I was actually thinking about asking you if you had compared the P90 to the MP-7, and why you chose the P90 over the MP-7 (and now that you've broached the subject... why do you prefer the P90?). While paper performance can be made to look good (ie, the 5.56mm NATO vs the 7.62mm NATO)*, real world results are different. If you've talked to someone who has used the M16/M4 in combat, you'd know what I mean, especially if they were using the unholy combination of M4 +M855/M856 on a target at any kind of range.

Anyways, my weapon of choice depends on what I am planning to use it for. CC? Home defense? TEOTWAWKI? Give me a scenario and I'll give you my pick.


*The paper results are different (ie, the 7.62 is the clear winner) if you dont bias the tests.

Hmm, for home defense I do not think you could beat hidden min-guns operated by remote control with infrared cameras, with remote perimeter alarms of course.

Imagine you are sitting in your hotel on vacation when your cell phone buzzes with an intruder alert. You open up your laptop, bring up your infrared cameras and you notice a suspicious figure coming towards your house. Out pops the min-gun, wherupon you put 50,000 rounds in the guy before he even puts a foot on your doorstep.

Unless you are talking explosives I think everything else goes down from there. As for concealed carry, that's a different matter. They have some pretty small .45 autos now that I was checking out.

Actually, I know a guy with Claymores emplaced around his residence. Of course, he came back from 'Nam just a little bit "quirky", to be polite about it, and I've got a suspicion that they arent all still in working condition. But I'm not going to volunteer to test that theory.

Crazy. Hopefully little Johnny won't go into his yard to get his lost ball. :Q

 

[rainepar]

Guns should for the most part be banned.

I've come pretty damn close to getting shot actually.

Basically what you got in a gun is an object which is designed specifically with killing in mind and is only destructive.

"But I like to target shoot" or "I like to hunt, it's part of our culture"
So just take any activity and just wrap the term "sport" or "culture" around it and apparently that will make it ok.

yeah whatever.

I guess we should still have gladitorial areanas and slavery.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mookow
You can't introduce me to the MP-7, as I've known of it back when it was the PDW concept . I was actually thinking about asking you if you had compared the P90 to the MP-7, and why you chose the P90 over the MP-7 (and now that you've broached the subject... why do you prefer the P90?). While paper performance can be made to look good (ie, the 5.56mm NATO vs the 7.62mm NATO)*, real world results are different. If you've talked to someone who has used the M16/M4 in combat, you'd know what I mean, especially if they were using the unholy combination of M4 +M855/M856 on a target at any kind of range.

Anyways, my weapon of choice depends on what I am planning to use it for. CC? Home defense? TEOTWAWKI? Give me a scenario and I'll give you my pick.


*The paper results are different (ie, the 7.62 is the clear winner) if you dont bias the tests.

Hmm, for home defense I do not think you could beat hidden min-guns operated by remote control with infrared cameras, with remote perimeter alarms of course.

Imagine you are sitting in your hotel on vacation when your cell phone buzzes with an intruder alert. You open up your laptop, bring up your infrared cameras and you notice a suspicious figure coming towards your house. Out pops the min-gun, wherupon you put 50,000 rounds in the guy before he even puts a foot on your doorstep.

Unless you are talking explosives I think everything else goes down from there. As for concealed carry, that's a different matter. They have some pretty small .45 autos now that I was checking out.

Actually, I know a guy with Claymores emplaced around his residence. Of course, he came back from 'Nam just a little bit "quirky", to be polite about it, and I've got a suspicion that they arent all still in working condition. But I'm not going to volunteer to test that theory.

Crazy. Hopefully little Johnny won't go into his yard to get his lost ball. :Q

Nah, they're set up to be command detonated... meaning no triplines. But little johnny wont be wandering into his yard without putting his hiking boots on first, since he has a couple hundred acres.