[QUOTE=CynicalGabe]
"You can literally buy ammunition online
[/QUOTE]
It’s worse than that:
Free Bullets on the Internets
[ul]
[li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][/ul]
[QUOTE=Squink]
It’s worse than that:
Free Bullets on the Internets
[ul]
[li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
Bullets coming through a series of tubes???
[QUOTE=Squink]
It’s worse than that:
Free Bullets on the Internets
[ul]
[li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][li]x[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
<snerk!>
Nicely done.
Scaremonger.
[QUOTE=CynicalGabe]
Latest CNN fear mongering statement:
“You can literally buy ammunition online, without a background check. I know, I’ve done it.”
[/QUOTE]
Did you know you can buy a machine that will allow you to make the ammunition yourself without a background check?
That cinches it. We need to make lead, copper, brass and sulfur controlled items. After all, someone has to think of the children!
About 14 or 15 years ago I purchased a 9mm Ruger semi-auto. I forget the exact model. It wasn’t terribly accurate, but it was fun for target shooting. I could rip through a couple boxes of ammo in no time. Sadly, at $10 a box, that ended up being a bad thing for my then underemployed self.
I also used to do a quite a bit of hunting, both small game and deer. It turns out that in my home state, you really can’t hunt anything with a 9mm. For small game you have to either use a rim fire weapon or a shotgun. For deer there was a minimum kinetic energy required (I forget the exact term). A 9mm handgun didn’t come close. It occurred to me after a while that my 9mm really wasn’t good for much. I sold it shortly thereafter.
I’m not in favor of sweeping gun control. I still own several rifles and a shotgun. I respect others’ rights or desires to own a 9mm. I guess I’m just saying that in my opinion it seems to be a particularly useless caliber. For home defense I think I would want a .22. It would be easier to teach RogueGF to shoot and be comfortable around. If I felt the need of something that would kill people breaking into my home, I would want something with more stopping power than a 9mm. YMMV.
In regards to the “scary” stories on the news. They’re mostly fucking sad. I ignore them.
[QUOTE=Phase42]
I was astonished that this woman was so gun-savvy that she could identify the weapon based solely on the sound of the shots! I don’t think even my dad, a lifelong gun enthusiast, could do that!
[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but have you ever watched Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers? One of the things I liked was how well they captured the distinctive sounds of all the firearms.
[QUOTE=CynicalGabe]
CNN is running a segment right now talking about the evils of the “9mm handgun”. A standard police and military weapon, which can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger!!! Oh noes!!
How did this weapon of mass destruction get into the hands of a killer??
Please. Give me a break. If you want to argue in favor of gun control, at least try and do it using logic and reason, and not vague insinuations.
[/QUOTE]
Well, hysteria and insinuations have worked well enough so far. Why switch?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Did you know you can buy a machine that will allow you to make the ammunition yourself without a background check?
That cinches it. We need to make lead, copper, brass and sulfur controlled items. After all, someone has to think of the children!
[/QUOTE]
Obviously, only a trained killer trying to develop the deadliest possible ammunition would do such a thing. Surely there could be no other reason for… gasp
LOADING YOUR OWN AMMUNITION!!!
See?? It even SOUNDS evil…
Do you hope that by wildly exaggerating your opposition you make your own stance seem more reasonable?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Do you hope that by wildly exaggerating your opposition you make your own stance seem more reasonable?
[/QUOTE]
We’re joking. Really, we are.
Incidentally, wild exaggeration is hardly the sole province of gun-rights advocates. See “assault weapons”, “cop-killer bullets”, “armor-piercing ammunition”, and “plastic guns” for details.
THIS didn’t take very long.
legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence
Is it 1967 again?
Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.*
Does this include the police? Contrary to poular belief they are civilians.
If it allows police to have handguns, well, the rate of burglaries on homes owned by cops will go way up. To prevent my pistol from being stolen I’d have to carry it whereever I went.
Oh…wait. I already do that. 
Tremble! Soon you will be crushed beneath the vegan jackboots of Chairman Kucinich.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
THIS didn’t take very long.
legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence
Is it 1967 again?
[/QUOTE]
Who does he propose to nominate as Cabinet Secretary, Wavy Gravy?
[QUOTE=pkbites]
THIS didn’t take very long.
legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence
Is it 1967 again?
[/QUOTE]
Kucinich has been pushing for a Department of Peace since at least his last Presidential campaign.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
THIS didn’t take very long.
legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence
Is it 1967 again?
[/QUOTE]
“Gentlemen, you can’t cooperate in here! This is the Peace Room!”
Kissinger is unavailable, and you are too young.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Tremble! Soon you will be crushed beneath the vegan jackboots of Chairman Kucinich.
[/QUOTE]
I assume these are made out of pleather.
Tofu
I’d like to go on record as here and state that I do not own a firearm of any kind. When Kucinich outlaws handguns, rest assured that I melted them all down and rendered them totally inoperable and then I sold the scrap metal to a recycling facility in Wyoming, so there’s no reason to come confiscating around here.
It’s a total gun-free zone here at the Optimist house
Hell, there are only records on paper showing that I took possession of two guns. Anyone that comes looking for firearms will see those two.