Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-10-2013, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,505 posts, read 6,482,709 times
Reputation: 4962

Advertisements

No true law abiding citizen would want to own an assualt weapon-obamagram.jpg


Finally, an honest statement!

Last edited by Cyborgt800; 01-10-2013 at 08:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2013, 10:05 PM
 
Location: State of Superior
8,733 posts, read 15,940,154 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
As demonstrated in the since expired Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994, limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold accomplished nothing more than selling more magazines. Like Bloomberg's ban on 20 oz. sodas, "Gee, I guess I will just have to buy two 16 oz. sodas instead."

To demonstrate just how truly futile any proposal to limit magazine capacity would be, consider first that the US Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting any retroactive laws, then consider how many millions of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds currently exist.

The sheer stupidity of such a proposal can only mean there is an ulterior purpose for such a preposterous and completely ineffectual proposal.
The machine gun in the 20s was banned because of the carnage it could do, right ? I would think that alone would be used as a justification , a President for lack of a better word.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2013, 10:14 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,262,817 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by darstar View Post
The machine gun in the 20s was banned because of the carnage it could do, right ? I would think that alone would be used as a justification , a President for lack of a better word.
You mean precedent and they weren't banned. They are no longer manufactured, but you can still own and if you get approval you might be able to make one. Not sure on the last part though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 06:00 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,452,578 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
You mean precedent and they weren't banned. They are no longer manufactured, but you can still own and if you get approval you might be able to make one. Not sure on the last part though.
There are currently eight States (Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Arizona) that have passed a Firearm Freedom Act that allows residents of their respective States to manufacture their own firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. These firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition is intended for use wholly within that given State, and are therefore exempt from all federal laws. Which means that these weapons can also be fully automatic, since federal law does not apply.

Wyoming's Firearm Freedom Act goes so far as to allow for the arrest and incarceration of federal law enforcement officers attempting to impose federal law on these specially classified firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:35 AM
 
Location: State of Superior
8,733 posts, read 15,940,154 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
You mean precedent and they weren't banned. They are no longer manufactured, but you can still own and if you get approval you might be able to make one. Not sure on the last part though.
Yes , typo. Are you talking about the Thompson Machine Gun ?....If so, how does it differ from the automatics that have been illegal for many years ? ( in firepower)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:44 AM
 
29,486 posts, read 14,650,004 times
Reputation: 14449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
A .38 or .357 might work, if you stuck your hand down the bear's throat before pulling the trigger.

My preferred caliber is .65.
I've heard some people hunt with 10mm, that is supposed to be a pretty good hunting round. Nothing like a .454 Casull though, I'm sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:47 AM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,262,817 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by darstar View Post
Yes , typo. Are you talking about the Thompson Machine Gun ?....If so, how does it differ from the automatics that have been illegal for many years ? ( in firepower)
You can look up the different specs for different automatics, but I'm talking about all automatics. In 1934 you had to register them and in 1986 they were not allowed to be manufactured for civilians anymore. So, if you want to buy one it has to be a pre 86 model. MG 42 - thompson. They aren't cheap, but they are legal. You do need to get the local sheriff, police captain, or maybe D.A. to sign off on it and then it's up to the ATF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,452,578 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
I've heard some people hunt with 10mm, that is supposed to be a pretty good hunting round. Nothing like a .454 Casull though, I'm sure.
The Alaskan bear guides that I know will add $2,000 to their fee for anyone seeking to take a brown bear with anything less than .40 caliber (10mm = .39 cal.). Until recently, I had a Remington .458 Win Mag for hunting brown bear. A Weatherby 460 Mag would work just as well, if not better. However, since I no longer hunt brown bears I sold it last year.

Handguns, regardless of their caliber, are not recommended against brown bears. They do not have the stopping power of a rifle or a shotgun. As a backup weapon, they are fine. But only as a last resort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 08:03 AM
 
29,486 posts, read 14,650,004 times
Reputation: 14449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
The Alaskan bear guides that I know will add $2,000 to their fee for anyone seeking to take a brown bear with anything less than .40 caliber (10mm = .39 cal.). Until recently, I had a Remington .458 Win Mag for hunting brown bear. A Weatherby 460 Mag would work just as well, if not better. However, since I no longer hunt brown bears I sold it last year.

Handguns, regardless of their caliber, are not recommended against brown bears. They do not have the stopping power of a rifle or a shotgun. As a backup weapon, they are fine. But only as a last resort.
Understood, I really didn't think the 10mm was a big game round. It feels a lot stronger than my .357mag but nothing like the .454 Casull I've fired before.. that wasn't even fun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,452,578 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Understood, I really didn't think the 10mm was a big game round. It feels a lot stronger than my .357mag but nothing like the .454 Casull I've fired before.. that wasn't even fun.
10mm would make a fine big game round. Just not brown bears or polar bears.

I use a .3006 for caribou or moose, and moose can weigh 1,200 pounds or more. The reason I chose that caliber was because all my shots are within 150 yards. A .3006 Springfield firing a 150 grain spitzer bullet at 2,910 feet per second, will deliver 2,820 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle and 2,000 foot pounds of energy at 150 yards. If your shots are out to 200 yards, then I would recommend a .300 Win Mag. instead of a .3006.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between hunting and protecting one's self from attack. If you are being attacked you want as much stopping power as possible. Even though I am armed with a .3006, I still carry my Mossberg 12-gauge "camp gun" that is loaded for bear. I would not want to rely on a .3006 when my life is in jeopardy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:24 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top