I think the debate over gun ownership should be a local issue. Makes a
big difference whether you are in inner city Baltimore or rural
Montana.
Dana
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:51:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Assault Weapo
Jeff,
Thanks for that good information.
Jerry Johnson
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
Hi all,
I'm a coworker of Matt's, so please don't flame him if you don't like what I say. Im replying on his account because I'm a competitive shooter and have some knowledge about this issue. Please bear with me, and Ill try to fill you in on some things.
I would say that the NRA does in fact
We is evil is all.
So are you still in the US or elsewhere by now. If you can't answer
because of obvious reasons, that's cool.
larry
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:20:29 -0400, Timothy Heald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How dare you people have this conversation while I am not around:)
>
> Tim -- Far
Weapons Ban Question
How dare you people have this conversation while I am not around:)
Tim -- Far far away!!
>Actually if the enemy runs out of ammo they can be quite valuable. :)
_
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations
How dare you people have this conversation while I am not around:)
Tim -- Far far away!!
>Actually if the enemy runs out of ammo they can be quite valuable. :)
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
Actually if the enemy runs out of ammo they can be quite valuable. :)
> A gun of any size dropped in retreat is of little
> value.
> - Original Message -
> From: Jim Campbell
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re
I agree with that too. I'm not rabid about guns. Heck, I don't own
any. I'm more annoyed by our propensity to pass "feel good" laws like
the AWB that are about making people feel safer by banning
superficialities. Similar to how the federalizing of airport screeners
and random checks has been shown
I'm probably opening up myself to a royal flaming, but I cannot see
the connection between the other freedoms and the second amendment.
Most democracies do not have firearms enshrined in their constitutions
yet they do not exactly look oppressed. For intance, Canada, Britain,
Australia, New Zealand
The ban of civil war relics is another aspect of the way the
definition of "assault weapon" was peculiar. In the legalese of the
bill, they referred to the existing legal definitions of rifle,
pistol, shotgun, and antique. IIRC, the bill wasn't explicitly banning
them but because they got caught up
ect you some day.
>
> - Matt Small
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: S. Isaac Dealey
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:37 AM
> Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
>
> > Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understan
have a Bazooka. He might have to use it to protect you some day.
- Matt Small
- Original Message -
From: S. Isaac Dealey
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:37 AM
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
> Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understand th
Its been years, but from what I remember, a 40mm round is around 12
inches in length, at least.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:03:53 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be only 50 caliber in diameter, but it is really, really long.
>
> Actually, I have a black powder musket th
I don't know much about it but I was told the original
ban included a couple of powder loaded civil war
relics and that pissed off collectors.
Also, only fully-auto uzi's are banned. You can buy a
semi-auto uzi and saw off the pin in 5 minutes making
it fully-auto. The point is the ban was just for
It may be only 50 caliber in diameter, but it is really, really long.
Actually, I have a black powder musket that is an unfortunate .48 caliber. But it is six feet long. So there.
I would NOT want to get hit with a .50 (or 12.7mm).
(I don't want to get hit with _any_ projectile, in case anyone w
Lets look at it the other way:
a 50 cal is only a half an inch.
Or to rephrase it:
HOW MANLY IS A HALF-INCH YOU MISERABLE LITTLE WIMP. THAT'S MICROSCOPIC.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:41:08 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that's a 157!
>
> (O.K., a 1.57 caliber, but stil
ge -
> From: Jim Campbell
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban Question
>
> No, no, no, Jerry...
>
> 40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds bigger?
>
>
> An inch and
But that's a 157!
(O.K., a 1.57 caliber, but still...)
My numbers are still bigger.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 11:28AM >>>
No, no, no, Jerry...
40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds bigger?
An inch and a half, good sir.
or
FORTY MASSIVE MILLIMETERS, AH
A gun of any size dropped in retreat is of little value.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Campbell
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban Question
No, no, no, Jerry...
40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds
Well, given that 40mm is about 3.2 times as big as a wimpy .5 cal,
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:24:17 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's un-American.
>
> mm is a fancy French term, which we don't use around here.
>
> *belch*
>
> Wha
No, no, no, Jerry...
40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds bigger?
An inch and a half, good sir.
or
FORTY MASSIVE MILLIMETERS, AH HA HA HA!
- Jim
Jerry Johnson wrote:
>That's un-American.
>
>mm is a fancy French term, which we don't use around here.
>
>*belch*
>
>What
That's un-American.
mm is a fancy French term, which we don't use around here.
*belch*
What caliber would that be in real-man terms?
Metrics is for wimps,
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 11:10AM >>>
If you're goinig to go that route, get a 40mm autocannon. Why use
something as wim
If you're goinig to go that route, get a 40mm autocannon. Why use
something as wimpy as a 50 or a few rockets. Pour on the testosterone.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:07:01 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course not. Rambo proved a 50 is a one handed personal weapon. You need
Of course not. Rambo proved a 50 is a one handed personal weapon. You need a phalanx of rocket launchers for the bed of your pickup. See the heavily armed pickup trucks used by Chad against Libya in the late 80s for good examples.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 10:57AM >>>
Do you me
I hear you. Back when AM General first offered Humvees to the public
(maybe 10+ years ago?) my mom refused to buy one if it didn't come with
any antipersonnel equipment. Who can blame her?
- Jim
Doug White wrote:
>Do you mean that I cannot have the 50 mounted in the bed of my pickup truck?
>
Do you mean that I cannot have the 50 mounted in the bed of my pickup truck?
:-)
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Graeme
It's important to know though that a fully automatic M-16 would still
be illegal even if there is no assault weapons ban.
Assault weapon != machine gun.
It's important to know though that a fully automatic M-16 would still
be illegal even if there is no assault weapons ban.
Assault weapon != machine gun.
-Kevin
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:37:18 -0400, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find that a good M-16 is much more effective when hun
> Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understand that line
> of thinking from
> them (the NRA) in that their concern is that if there is
> any limiting
> legislation, it could become a slippery slope. I still
> don't see the need
> for these weapons to be readily available, either for
> hunting (LO
AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understand that line of thinking from
them (the NRA) in that their concern is that if there is any limiting
legislation, it could become a slippery slope. I still don't see the need
for thes
I think the "ban" side's motivations for extending the ban are
obvious. Guns are used to kill people.
The no-ban side's argument is a little more involved, but not without
merit. 1. Responsible gun ownership is a right. 2. The term "assault
weapon" as used in this legislation is a bit of a misnome
home
defense, but oh well...
-Original Message-
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:47 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban Question
Your average gun-rights folks are fine with the ban, Marwan. Problem is, the
NRA lobby doesn't necessarily
e ban that says "you cannot own this type of gun" is unacceptable to the NRA.
- Original Message -
From: Marwan Saidi
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
And that would be political. Why are they pus
-Community
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
>>I guess what I am asking is that I don't see the need for Uzis, Tec-9s
etc.
to be available at Wal-Mart, so why allow the ban to expire?
One of the reasons that I know of it the NRA is pushing HARD to keep this
issue from being vot
nal Message-
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:09 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Assault Weapons Ban Question
Ok, so I may not be a big fan of firearms, but they are allowed under the
Constitution and I am much less of a fan of any legislation that
Ok, so I may not be a big fan of firearms, but they are allowed under the
Constitution and I am much less of a fan of any legislation that erodes our
rights, BUT:
Why is the continuation of the Assault Weapons ban a big deal? I heard a bit
on NPR this am about it and I am confused. I know that it
35 matches
Mail list logo
