ShamWow, you ignorant slut. This is the most stupid post ever, and the bar for stupidity has been set very high by AssupLiar, BigAssSux and LittleEva. But you have surpassed them all.Top banter, m8.
We are all now a little dumber having read your ridiculous post.
May God have mercy on your soul. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Yes, it will take a while before illegal guns start disappearing from the streets, but its a start. Only those affected by the death of someone from a firearm would understand the gravity of the situation. Originally Posted by shanmAnd I suppose you "assume" that I would not ....
Can I safely assume that you want to get rid of poverty in this Country (the U.S.A.)? Or at least reduce the amount of people who are living in poverty? (To put it another way) .....As for the "removal" of "illegal guns" .... just when do you want to start doing that? Or more correctly, when are you going to insist that LE start doing so, because all you are going to do is sit on your ass and whine about it, because they aren't ripping people's firearms from their grip as fast as you think it ought to be done. You won't be the one taking shit from anyone, because you don't have a firearm, right?
If the answer is "yes" , then go to the next part of "the solution" ...
Can i also safely assume that you believe most crime is the result of poverty?
I believe all of them up to a Level III, and probably a Level IV by a 2nd round. Originally Posted by LexusLoverConsider this for a moment a full sized AR-15 chambered for a .223 round will render the round to have different penetrating characteristics than that same round being fired from a pistol chambered for 223. The reason being is the rate of twist. It's not the round in an of itself that determines penetrating capabilities but the velocity of that round. The longer barrel gives the bullet more time to achieve a greater velocity as it leaves the muzzle reducing wobble. In shorter barrels a bullet may wobble much sooner reducing it's penetrating abilities.
I know. And apparently you never will. Let me try another approach to "solving the problem" .... Can I safely assume that you want to get rid of poverty in this Country (the U.S.A.)? Or at least reduce the amount of people who are living in poverty? (To put it another way) .....I can already see where your flawed argument is leading. It is inherently stupid (yet somehow still manages to be patronizing) and would be a gigantic waste of time. Go back, think it through, chuckle at how stupid it is. Then come back.
If the answer is "yes" , then go to the next part of "the solution" ...
Can i also safely assume that you believe most crime is the result of poverty?
(Like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE ... wants to give ISIS jobs ... ) Originally Posted by LexusLover
Again, you show your massive tendency to compare apples with oranges in order to prove your point.
Mexico is an underdeveloped country. One which you can't trust to have proper gun control laws and/or stop the black market from fueling the gun trade.
If you want a proper example, why don't you compare the U.S with the UK and/or Australia. Firearm related deaths per 100,000 in the UK and Australia COMBINED are about 10% of firearm related deaths in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
Originally Posted by shanm
And I suppose you "assume" that I would not ....
................... "understand the gravity of the situation" Originally Posted by LexusLover
As for the "removal" of "illegal guns" .... just when do you want to start doing that? Or more correctly, when are you going to insist that LE start doing so, because all you are going to do is sit on your ass and whine about it, because they aren't ripping people's firearms from their grip as fast as you think it ought to be done. You won't be the one taking shit from anyone, because you don't have a firearm, right? Originally Posted by LexusLoverIt starts exactly when you dipshits start taking your "right to bear" fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers less as a right and more as a privelege. No, not every psycho who's pissed at women should be allowed to just load up and start shooting everyone in sight. No idiot that considers himself something out of a superhero movie should be allowed to purchase firearms and then go shoot up a movie theater. I lived/grew up in the UK and ever since they banned guns their crime rates and their homicide rates from firearms have dropped tremendously and I'm sure every prevented death is a blessing to those effected (or unaffected), whether they know it or not, and it far outweighs any constitutional right you (believe yourself to) have from a piece of paper written in an entirely different era.
Consider this for a moment a full sized AR-15 chambered for a .223 round will render the round to have different penetrating characteristics than that same round being fired from a pistol chambered for 223. The reason being is the rate of twist. It's not the round in an of itself that determines penetrating capabilities but the velocity of that round. The longer barrel gives the bullet more time to achieve a greater velocity as it leaves the muzzle reducing wobble. In shorter barrels a bullet may wobble much sooner reducing it's penetrating abilities.Consider this ... the "average" distance between a shooter (or potential shooter) and an LE officer at the time of the shooting. Then consider that even though the round does not "penetrate" through the vest into the officer's body to incapacitate him, the force of the impact will more than likely knock him or her on his or her ass with an impact that is in and of itself at least temporarily incapacitating and a second round, third, or fourth will strike at an angle into unprotected body parts resulting in a final incapacitating event. The point being that a "vest" if struck with a round to the vest's rating will merely stop the round, but not the force of the impact.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
You STILL didn't answer my question. Are you for or against private citizens being able to buy rounds that can penetrate a vest? Yes or no. I don't care if it's legal or illegal now or whether it's been that way for 30 years. Yes or no. Originally Posted by UnderConstructionIt's quite obvious that you do not have even the slightest idea of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. It's precisely BECAUSE the government HAS access to ANY type of rifle ammo, that WE the CITIZENS demand the same!
It is inherently stupid ... Originally Posted by shanmTo an arrogant, little, condescending prick, probably so. It shows how uninformed and narrow minded you are regarding the real world.
In the meantime, please don't go knocking on doors demanding firearms. Originally Posted by LexusLover
It's quite obvious that you do not have even the slightest idea of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. It's precisely BECAUSE the government HAS access to ANY type of rifle ammo, that WE the CITIZENS demand the same!There are different schools of thought on that subject. Some say it's there to give the state the ability to protect itself against a tyrannical federal govt. That's the collective rights theory. Others argue it gives the individual the right to bear arms. That's the individual rights theory. If you look at the rest of the Constitution and observe the respect it obviously has for state's rights, as evidenced by the tenth amendment, I can see the case for collective rights. Especially considering the second amendment refers to militias, not individuals. I don't expect a nuanced or measured opinion from most gun owners. They see it the way they wish to see it and have no room for any discussion to the contrary.
Since you like to ask questions, please answer one : Who or what was the 2nd Amendment designed to ensure defense against? Originally Posted by NTJME
Every commercial round sold for hunting will penetrate a bullet proof vest. So to answer your question yes I do, as the round in question does nothing more or less than a 30/06 or .308 fired at a patrol vest. So when your banning ammo under that reasoning, your leaving the door open for the banning of all rifle ammo. Originally Posted by dirty dog+1
That's his point! He wants to regulate ALL RIFLES.... not just "assault rifles."Exactly!!! Miscreants like the "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion disingenuously try to deflect away from and misrepresent Odumbo's real agenda.
Mexico has done such a splendid job of reducing death by firearms!
Per capita Mexico with "gun control" has double the firearm death rate as the U.S.
The next thing the Liberals will want to do is license printing paper and the internet feeds. Originally Posted by LexusLover
I am going to assume your point is that a .223 round fired out of that particular firearm will penetrate a ballistics vest. If so, I am afraid there is no guarantee.No. That is not what he's saying. He is questioning the legitimacy of the ATF's classifying that weapon as a "pistol", which is much like the Germans designating the German MP 40 -- "Maschinenpistole" -- which most of the rest of the world referred to as a "submachine gun" rather than a "pistol":
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
