"assault rifles aren't always supposed to be full auto anyways, as a matter of fact its better if they aren't, like the M16, back in vietnam guys would just waste their ammo to shit because of the full auto, thats why they made the rest of the M16 series burst and semiHorseman 77 wrote:
the " Assault Rifles " for Sale in the USA are not full Auto, Can you not read.
I dont think that you can make the argument that hunting rifles are MORE deadly then assualt rifles. Each weapon has a completely different task that it was built for. I hunt with a Remington 700 and it is very effective hitting deer but if i were in a gun fight i would take an assualt rifle. All of my hits to deer are complete in and out, but an assualt rifle is not ment to go straight through, it is ment to go in the target, break up, and cause as much internal damage as possible. So if kill factor was what you were looking for when hunting use an assualt rifle, if you actually what to save the meat and eat it, like i do, then use a rifle.
Does anyone remember the DC snipers?? I live in VA and they came real close to my city and it was terrifying going outside because they were so random and in so many places. But when they were caught the weapon that they were using was a AR15 with a scope. That weapon is highly accurate and does a lot of damage as the bullet is small and has a flat trajectory with a decent amount of power behind it.
So both weapons are just as deadly in their own ways, of course one is best for killing people since you dont eat the emat afterwards, and the other is best for killing bambi which tastes so good.
Does anyone remember the DC snipers?? I live in VA and they came real close to my city and it was terrifying going outside because they were so random and in so many places. But when they were caught the weapon that they were using was a AR15 with a scope. That weapon is highly accurate and does a lot of damage as the bullet is small and has a flat trajectory with a decent amount of power behind it.
So both weapons are just as deadly in their own ways, of course one is best for killing people since you dont eat the emat afterwards, and the other is best for killing bambi which tastes so good.
The bullet is what determines whether or not it'll fragment in the target, not the type of weapon. I don't think many people use hollow points when hunting.
it has nothig to do with the butllet. the velocity and pounder behind the bullet have the most effect behind what it does. How many hunters and soldiers are there that shoot hollow points, all a hollow point does is have a different mushroom, thats it. so taht argument doesnt make sense.
I can't wait till they legalize hunting with anti-missile guns
those zanny american
those zanny american
"In the U.S.A. You can only buy a gun that looks like an assault rifle."
WHAT? i found a Colt AR 15 in the thrifty nickel the other day. $1,400.
WHAT? i found a Colt AR 15 in the thrifty nickel the other day. $1,400.
Try and brush up on the subject 1st. it wasn't even remotly funny.REDTEAM wrote:
I can't wait till they legalize hunting with anti-missile guns
those zanny american
yeh so is a nuke if you know the right people.....<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
Assault rifles are easy to purchase in any country. You just need to know the right people.
wtf?Kaiser|Soze wrote:
it has nothig to do with the butllet. the velocity and pounder behind the bullet have the most effect behind what it does. How many hunters and soldiers are there that shoot hollow points, all a hollow point does is have a different mushroom, thats it. so taht argument doesnt make sense.
An FMJ round will not fragment inside a target, a hollow point will. It doesn't matter how much powder is in each, the design of the bullet is what determines its' effects on the target, not the type of rifle or the amount of powder. Velocity will determine the amount of energy that the target will be subjected to but a full metal jacket round is specifically designed not to fragment while a hollow point is.
gun nut
Im not a hunter either but i doubt anyone would think a .223 would take a deer down. Thats a job for for a 308 or larger. Not so much for larger projectile but a bigger powder load.
However there are other thing to hunt like wild hogs or small varmits. I which case a semi-auto .223 would be ideal, prolly alot of fun too . BUT the darkside is the full auto in the same situation. A potential for very dangerous sparatic fire. Mix in some liqiour or beer....badnews.
However there are other thing to hunt like wild hogs or small varmits. I which case a semi-auto .223 would be ideal, prolly alot of fun too . BUT the darkside is the full auto in the same situation. A potential for very dangerous sparatic fire. Mix in some liqiour or beer....badnews.
gun nuts? I've never heard of those. Do they taste good? I really like walnuts...
Gun nuts are only found on Male guns, female guns have "gun boobies".atlvolunteer wrote:
gun nuts? I've never heard of those. Do they taste good? I really like walnuts...
bump
At least say something useful instead of just "bump"
I think I may buy myself this for christmas
I think I may buy myself this for christmas
Well I must say that I'm impressed with the new Beretta. I like that you can choose the caliber you want. I would go with the 40 S&W myself. Also the number of accessories for it. You can really customize the weapon. If I were a bit more into guns I would definitely consider adding this to my collection. Alas maybe later when I have more money and time to waste at the firing range.
The website BTW is this: http://www.cx4storm.com/
The website BTW is this: http://www.cx4storm.com/
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Actually, you can enrich Uranium in your kitchen, and you don't need nuclear physicists at all. There is no more theory to be developed, you just need to build it.<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
Enriched Uranium and a staff of nuclear physicists is a wee bit harder than asking that Russian dude in high school you knew what his father's uncle really does.the_heart_attack wrote:
yeh so is a nuke if you know the right people.....<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
Assault rifles are easy to purchase in any country. You just need to know the right people.
That is sexy, damn sexy.FeloniousMonk wrote:
At least say something useful instead of just "bump"
I think I may buy myself this for christmas
http://flynavy.net/fattytheferret/wall1_800.jpg
I just want a Remmington M700, to bad I need a job first.
Yes, there was a two characteristic rule, as you said, in addition to a detachable magazine. In other words, the weapon would have to have a detachable magazine, PLUS two or more other "assault rifle" characteristics, which included: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor, or threads to attach one; a grenade launcher.freebirdpat wrote:
And with the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban (AWB), it took 2 characterics to call a weapon an assault weapon, if it had a bayonet lug and a pistol grip, it was considered an assault weapon.
All weapons were grandfathered in, basically if you already had one with such stuff, it was A - OK. But you could not buy a new one, or I don't think modify one with characteristics.
(Note that adding a folding or telescoping stock AUTOMATICALLY put the weapon into a banned category, since to have a folding/telescoping stock you would also have to have a pistol grip... clever of them, huh?)
You could modify your firearm to add an "assault rifle" characteristic, so long as you didn't modify it to have more than one of the additional characteristics. For example, since my MAK-90 had zero additional "assault rifle" features I was therefore able to trade out the silly original thumbhole stocks and replace them with standard AK "pistol grip" stocks. My friend and I called ATF (now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) and verified this.
But this is all moot, since the ban has been lifted (it automatically expired in 2004). I'm not sure how the end of the ban affects weapons purchased during that 10 year period, however, as far as modification.
Bob.
a little .22 plinking gun made to look evil :p
Look harder!!! Now, you're not going to get a S&W, a Colt or a Glock for less than $200, but there are sub-$200 handguns out there.Horseman 77 wrote:
Satuday Night special? if there were Really guns out there for less than 200 bucks ( $25 if you listen to Hillary ) I think I would have picked one up.
Here's a two year old writeup I just googled, talking about different choices in this price range.
http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0103/ba … stols.html
I once almost bought a beat up old Chinese made Makarov knock off, chambered in regular old 9mm Parabellum, for $100 (though this was about 10 years ago). There are also a lot of cheap brands out there that may be under $200; Bersa and Llama come to mind, but there are probably others as well.
Also, go to a local gunshow. There are often great used, brand name guns for CHEAP, though again you have to look hard and do your research before hand so you know what a good deal is when you see it.
http://www.gunshows-usa.com/
If you're new to gun ownership and shooting, I highly suggest that you seek out a hunter or gun safety course provided by your state, as listed here:
http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/statefishgame.asp
These courses are free in every state (as far as I know), and will help to teach you to responsibly handle your firearm. Safe handling is essential to the future of gun ownership, so please take this suggestion seriously.
Your local gun range or club may also provide such instruction, as well as tactical instruction, though these (especially the latter) will likely be fee based.
Bob.
First of all, you underestimate the intelligence of deer (for example), my friend.Womansbikeseat wrote:
hunting for fun is for pussies, THE GAME DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ITS BEING HUNTED, wtf try hunting your buddies around and shoot yourselves in the ass. Next time your out there, sneak up on bambi and wrestle it to the ground and beat it to death or stab with a pocket knife, maybe then you'll feel like a complete man.
But beyond that, unless you're a vegetarian or a vegan (see below), YOU are an even bigger p*ssy, because you do what I call "hunting by proxy". You pay the butcher or grocery store for meat that someone else killed and butchered for you. Just because you don't physically take part in the killing, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it. Talk about weak. Now I have no problem with people who eat meat but don't hunt, unless you complain about hunters while eating your Big Mac.
Now, if you're a vegetarian or a vegan, then at least you have a leg to stand on in this argument. You can at least argue that "hunting" is evil, because you neither hunt yourself nor hunt by proxy by purchasing meat at the store. However, as Benjamin Franklin observed during his short stint as a vegetarian, (I paraphrase here) if fish can eat other fish, how can eating meat be wrong? Or as "Uncle" Ted Nugent would say, (again, paraphrased) "If God didn't want us to eat meat, why did he make it taste so good?"
Bob.
Last edited by SodaBob (2005-12-13 11:52:11)
yes, I TTTTOOOOTAAALLLLLLLYYYY agree with kesselkessel! wrote:
why did you even bring this up? are you retarded?