Nobama/dems Wants To Ban Your Fishing, And Firearms,

[FiveSpeedF150]

If a guy breaks into your house, most likely he has been scoping it and you are also not home, because he knows more about you than your wife does. He will most likely not be armed, unless he knows you are armed. If the dud decides to be an ass and hold you and your family hostage, he will either get you first while you are sleeping (how will you get your pistol and defend yourself then?) or get your wife or kid. If he's going fro your kid you won't eve know til it's too late. You can hunt him down, but what's the point.

There are stupid burglars, and these tend to be kids no older than 19 and in a bad crowd, are you really gonna put a bullet through a kid because he's trying to steal your TV?

And are you starving? Do you need to hunt to stay alive? Nope. Is it fun to kill animals who have no chance? Well obviously to some. But if you need to hunt shit, then all you need is a bow and arrow, a crossbow, or a rifle/shotgun, period. No one needs an assault rifle to take out a bear. If you do, you are a pussy.

Why do you need more bullets anyway? If you are hoarding bullets I'd be worried about you as well. I would definitely want tabs kept on you.

Most of you must not have read the article about fishing, and overfishing. We are literally running out of fish. We are actually so far out of fish, they are renaming animals that were never before thought to be consumable by humans because of the way they look; i.e, the patagonian toothfish and the orange roughy - have you seen what these 2 motherfuckers look like? You really enjoy eating that shit?

Fish is full of mercury anyway. Obama or whoever could just tell you through the media that all fish is contaminated with mercury and you would never dream of eating it.


If this is about taking away freedoms... well welcome to America. If they can tap my phones they can take your guns.

I love people like this. "What do you need bullets for, anyway?" indeed, you'd probably piss yourself if you saw my gun collection. And you want tabs kept on gun collectors, this is rich.

And by the way... the 5.56 NATO round is a very poor choice for bear hunting...

[omgitsjimmy]

The minute somebody tells me what I can't own and what I don't need, I'm going to tell them what rights and freedoms they don't need. If you cannot make the wrong choice as freely as the right one, you aren't really free... We might as well put chips in our brains to control our lives if we are going to legislate what we can or cannot own/do (especially in our own homes, and does not affect others)

And the fact of the matter is, 99.7% of all guns in the United States are NOT used in crimes and those are used in crimes are operated by people who shouldn't have owned them in the first place.

[Hippo_Master]

If a guy breaks into your house, most likely he has been scoping it and you are also not home, because he knows more about you than your wife does. He will most likely not be armed, unless he knows you are armed. If the dud decides to be an ass and hold you and your family hostage, he will either get you first while you are sleeping (how will you get your pistol and defend yourself then?) or get your wife or kid. If he's going fro your kid you won't eve know til it's too late. You can hunt him down, but what's the point.

There are stupid burglars, and these tend to be kids no older than 19 and in a bad crowd, are you really gonna put a bullet through a kid because he's trying to steal your TV?

And are you starving? Do you need to hunt to stay alive? Nope. Is it fun to kill animals who have no chance? Well obviously to some. But if you need to hunt shit, then all you need is a bow and arrow, a crossbow, or a rifle/shotgun, period. No one needs an assault rifle to take out a bear. If you do, you are a pussy.

Why do you need more bullets anyway? If you are hoarding bullets I'd be worried about you as well. I would definitely want tabs kept on you.

Most of you must not have read the article about fishing, and overfishing. We are literally running out of fish. We are actually so far out of fish, they are renaming animals that were never before thought to be consumable by humans because of the way they look; i.e, the patagonian toothfish and the orange roughy - have you seen what these 2 motherfuckers look like? You really enjoy eating that shit?

Fish is full of mercury anyway. Obama or whoever could just tell you through the media that all fish is contaminated with mercury and you would never dream of eating it.


If this is about taking away freedoms... well welcome to America. If they can tap my phones they can take your guns.

I love people like this. "What do you need bullets for, anyway?" indeed, you'd probably piss yourself if you saw my gun collection. And you want tabs kept on gun collectors, this is rich.

And by the way... the 5.56 NATO round is a very poor choice for bear hunting...

I would just like to see someone wake up in the middle of the night and pull out their sawn-off and blow a robber away, that's all.

Still, why do you need guns? Never answered the simple question. Is it because of your rights? If you get your guns can I have affordable healthcare?

You also sound like this guy I know who has a Confederate flag painted on the front of his gigantic 80's Suburban. That guy has 12 teeth. Total. Edited October 14, 2009 by Hippo_Master

[RingsMaster]

when you tell someone no they will do it anyway and more because you told them not to. if they ban it it will get worse. not better, we have the freedom to bear arms and many other freedoms that shouldnt be taken away, we live in america to have these freedoms. if they keep trying to tell us what we can and cant do with out free time as long as we dont hurt others thats taking our freedoms away, the way obama is going were going to be socialist in no time.


goodbye freedom

[joytron]

By the way, the biggest deterent to being a victim isn't a gun, or security system or even guards at your gate should you be famous enough to think you need them. Ask any security expert in the world. The biggest deterent is a dog with a big mouth and a willingness to use it.

'Rani

1) shoot the dog
2)????
3) profit!

hshshsh

[Giant Ninja Robot]

Ya, who was the fool that tried to say the dumbocaraps haven't taken away any freedoms? Some gone, more in the sights... as they are.

huh?



Missing species of Pokemon!

[joytron]

Ya, who was the fool that tried to say the dumbocaraps haven't taken away any freedoms? Some gone, more in the sights... as they are.

huh?



Missing species of Pokemon!

ohh look its magicarp...


hes evolving into a.....


dumbocaraps?

[FiveSpeedF150]

I would just like to see someone wake up in the middle of the night and pull out their sawn-off and blow a robber away, that's all.

Still, why do you need guns? Never answered the simple question. Is it because of your rights? If you get your guns can I have affordable healthcare?

You also sound like this guy I know who has a Confederate flag painted on the front of his gigantic 80's Suburban. That guy has 12 teeth. Total.

I have all my teeth and no flags currently on my truck. Last one had the NRA eagle on the back (got it for free with membership renewal ) but my dear father drove it through a red light and I've yet to get a new sticker for the new truck.

Now, as for your first sentence, I'm not sure if you're suggesting it doesn't happen or what... in Florida it happens, and it's legal. Castle Doctrine, if somebody breaks in to your house you are legally able to assume the subject wishes you harm and you have no duty to retreat. Beautiful thing.

As for why I "need" guns, I "need" them about as much as you "need" your hookah, or any other possession you have. What kind of commie-speak is this? When did "Need" become the justification for whether or not rights should be granted?

I choose to have them because first of all I enjoy shooting as a hobby, and second of all I appreciate the security that 10 rounds of 9mm discreetly tucked away can provide. Some people don't trust themselves with weapons, and I respect their choice. Some people just don't like guns, that's fine too. Me, I'm comfortable with them, I carry them on the job (I'm a cop) and I've come to view them as what they are - tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that they're constitutionally protected is just a perk that makes the fight against the antigun crowd easier.

And where did the healthcare comment come from?

[Venger]

I would just like to see someone wake up in the middle of the night and pull out their sawn-off and blow a robber away, that's all.

Still, why do you need guns? Never answered the simple question. Is it because of your rights? If you get your guns can I have affordable healthcare?

You also sound like this guy I know who has a Confederate flag painted on the front of his gigantic 80's Suburban. That guy has 12 teeth. Total.

I have all my teeth and no flags currently on my truck. Last one had the NRA eagle on the back (got it for free with membership renewal ) but my dear father drove it through a red light and I've yet to get a new sticker for the new truck.

Now, as for your first sentence, I'm not sure if you're suggesting it doesn't happen or what... in Florida it happens, and it's legal. Castle Doctrine, if somebody breaks in to your house you are legally able to assume the subject wishes you harm and you have no duty to retreat. Beautiful thing.

As for why I "need" guns, I "need" them about as much as you "need" your hookah, or any other possession you have. What kind of commie-speak is this? When did "Need" become the justification for whether or not rights should be granted?

I choose to have them because first of all I enjoy shooting as a hobby, and second of all I appreciate the security that 10 rounds of 9mm discreetly tucked away can provide. Some people don't trust themselves with weapons, and I respect their choice. Some people just don't like guns, that's fine too. Me, I'm comfortable with them, I carry them on the job (I'm a cop) and I've come to view them as what they are - tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that they're constitutionally protected is just a perk that makes the fight against the antigun crowd easier.

And where did the healthcare comment come from?

trouble is most people think health care is a right and gun ownership is a desire. They could not have it more backward. No where in the constitution does it declare that the government owes you anything. It does say how much or little the government is supposed to have. Gun ownership is protected by the constitution and therefore a right. And for all the folks out there who think people with guns and hoard ammo a anti-government nut jobs then you just insulted George Washington and all the other "traitor" who fought against their government. Had they lost they would have been hanged and labeled as traitors and you would be eating scones and tea for breakfast.

[joytron]

I would just like to see someone wake up in the middle of the night and pull out their sawn-off and blow a robber away, that's all.

Still, why do you need guns? Never answered the simple question. Is it because of your rights? If you get your guns can I have affordable healthcare?

You also sound like this guy I know who has a Confederate flag painted on the front of his gigantic 80's Suburban. That guy has 12 teeth. Total.

I have all my teeth and no flags currently on my truck. Last one had the NRA eagle on the back (got it for free with membership renewal ) but my dear father drove it through a red light and I've yet to get a new sticker for the new truck.

Now, as for your first sentence, I'm not sure if you're suggesting it doesn't happen or what... in Florida it happens, and it's legal. Castle Doctrine, if somebody breaks in to your house you are legally able to assume the subject wishes you harm and you have no duty to retreat. Beautiful thing.

As for why I "need" guns, I "need" them about as much as you "need" your hookah, or any other possession you have. What kind of commie-speak is this? When did "Need" become the justification for whether or not rights should be granted?

I choose to have them because first of all I enjoy shooting as a hobby, and second of all I appreciate the security that 10 rounds of 9mm discreetly tucked away can provide. Some people don't trust themselves with weapons, and I respect their choice. Some people just don't like guns, that's fine too. Me, I'm comfortable with them, I carry them on the job (I'm a cop) and I've come to view them as what they are - tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that they're constitutionally protected is just a perk that makes the fight against the antigun crowd easier.

And where did the healthcare comment come from?

trouble is most people think health care is a right and gun ownership is a desire. They could not have it more backward. No where in the constitution does it declare that the government owes you anything. It does say how much or little the government is supposed to have. Gun ownership is protected by the constitution and therefore a right. And for all the folks out there who think people with guns and hoard ammo a anti-government nut jobs then you just insulted George Washington and all the other "traitor" who fought against their government. Had they lost they would have been hanged and labeled as traitors and you would be eating scones and tea for breakfast.

While we can never know what the founding fathers would say today, i have a feeling when they wrote the constitution they didn't have assualt weapons in mind

[FamiliarJoe]

By the way, the biggest deterent to being a victim isn't a gun, or security system or even guards at your gate should you be famous enough to think you need them. Ask any security expert in the world. The biggest deterent is a dog with a big mouth and a willingness to use it.

'Rani

1) shoot the dog
2)????
3) profit!

whenever I see you post Destructo I can only assume you play WoW.

[FiveSpeedF150]

While we can never know what the founding fathers would say today, i have a feeling when they wrote the constitution they didn't have assualt weapons in mind

Hm, the people could arm themselves with the same weapons the military could then.

By your logic, the first amendment is moot since the founding fathers could not have predicted the internet.



Also, you've fallen for the "Assault Rifle" fallacy. This is a case of ignorance and it is the medias fault more than your own. Allow me to educate you:


Exibit A: Mini-14 Ranch rifle.



Exibit B: Bushmaster AR15 Carbine.


Now, which one would you define as an assault rifle? Why?

The Mini-14 is a .223/.556 caliber, semiautomatic rifle. The Bushmaster is a .223/.556 caliber, semiautomatic rifle.

Truth is, neither one is an "Assault Rifle", as by definition Assault Rifles are select-fire, not semiauto only. Select Fire weapons, while legal in the US, are so tightly regulated that you'll probably never come across one. Also, off the top of my head I can only think of one murder committed in the US with a legally purchased, true "Assault Rifle", and that was a police officer who killed a family member with a department issued weapon.

AR15's and AK's fire a intermediate cartridge that has significantly more power than a pistol but significantly less power than a standard hunting rifle. Your grandfathers politically correct .30-06 deer rifle fires a round that overpowers anything the AR or AK shoot by a significant margin.


Guns are Guns are Guns. Don't give me the "Assault Rifle" argument, because if you would ban one gun you'd ban them all. An AR15 isn't made for killing any more than any other gun. It's just a weapon designed to stand up to the rigors of military use better than other weapons. Plus they're a lot of fun to shoot!


Like I said, it's obvious most posters here don't have any more experience with guns than what hollywood and the news media has told them (no, a shotgun will not send a man flying back 10 feet), so I'm always willing to educate.

Any hookah smokers in FL ever want to shoot some, I'm always willing to bring new shooters for a day at the range. Open offer. Guns really aren't scary once you learn about them. Like I said, they're just guns.

[joytron]

While i do agree i know next to nothing about guns, my point was the whole gun amendment maybe needs a little updating. While I personally would love to try shooting an AR-15 (or somehing of the sort), most people i know who own guns I wouldnt trust with a hotdog shooter. I understand that guns are a hobby to plenty of people but to me they are exactly what you said a piece of hollywood. I could care less if everyones guns got revoked today, in fact i would probably feel safer.

[TheScotsman]

If a guy breaks into your house, most likely he has been scoping it and you are also not home, because he knows more about you than your wife does. He will most likely not be armed, unless he knows you are armed. If the dud decides to be an ass and hold you and your family hostage, he will either get you first while you are sleeping (how will you get your pistol and defend yourself then?) or get your wife or kid. If he's going fro your kid you won't eve know til it's too late. You can hunt him down, but what's the point.

Ever hear of a home invasion? FBI violent crime statistics show dramatic jumps over the past few years. The facts just don't support your point at all. Cause? Multiple, but for the most part they blame it on increased anti-burglary steps. It's getting easier to strongarm/swarm an occupied house than to burglarize a vacant (likely alarmed) property.
Just a few cases here... http://ci.ftlaud.fl.us/police/hurley.html. There are plenty more out there if you look a bit.

There are stupid burglars, and these tend to be kids no older than 19 and in a bad crowd, are you really gonna put a bullet through a kid because he's trying to steal your TV?

Yep, there is a high price for terminal stupidity. Most likely not one bullet, after 15 years of IPSC competition a good clean double tap is second nature. Most gunfights are at ranges of 7 feet or less, at that distance there is little chance to determine an invader's intent. The natural assumption is that they would not be there unless they meant harm.

And are you starving? Do you need to hunt to stay alive? Nope. Is it fun to kill animals who have no chance? Well obviously to some. But if you need to hunt shit, then all you need is a bow and arrow, a crossbow, or a rifle/shotgun, period. No one needs an assault rifle to take out a bear. If you do, you are a pussy.

Lack of understanding of firearms maybe?
In no state is it legal to take game with an NFA weapon, or destructive device - making any "assault rifle" liberalism just plain uninformed. But just to help out a bud... the term "assault rifle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle was derived from the English translation of "sturmgeweher", the name attached to the StG44 in WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 The weapon is a select-fire hybrid, usually firing from a closed bolt, and utilizing a low-power bottleneck cartridge. It's accuracy is usually dubious, at best, designed for use at ranges of under 200 meters. It fits between a submachinegun, and a light machinegun, if you were to categorize it.

Most states disallow crossbow usage for hunting, with the exception of persons crippled, and unable to use a conventional bow.

As far as hunting goes, some of the best medium game rifles are the big battle rifles. What would make an M1A or AR-10T any different than any other SA long gun? The colour? please, that is stupid in an extreme way.

Why do you need more bullets anyway? If you are hoarding bullets I'd be worried about you as well. I would definitely want tabs kept on you.

No one keeps track of ammo sales anyway.
I read an industry trade mag that quoted 3.5 billion rounds of ammo sold in the sporting market over the past 2 years. In the case of just one caliber, the Portuguese surplus 7.62, we imported 130 million rounds over 10 years. Better start keeping tabs soon! I am sure everyone would be happy to report the quantity in their possession!

Most of you must not have read the article about fishing, and overfishing. We are literally running out of fish. We are actually so far out of fish, they are renaming animals that were never before thought to be consumable by humans because of the way they look; i.e, the patagonian toothfish and the orange roughy - have you seen what these 2 motherfuckers look like? You really enjoy eating that shit?

Hmm... not many of those in the Great lakes. Guess the current legislation targeted at the great lakes, and inland waterways is going to save an awful allot of them! Next time I find an orange roughy in Leech Lake, I'll be sure to throw it back... Moreover, the commercial processor-factory ships that are responsible for damaging the population are mostly foreign-flagged vessels. (typically Chinese.) They don't obey our fisheries regs anyway. I do agree on both of these species, especially Roughy, it shouldn't be a commercial product. Yet no steps are taken by the USDA to bring an end to any market for the stuff.

Fish is full of mercury anyway. Obama or whoever could just tell you through the media that all fish is contaminated with mercury and you would never dream of eating it.

Mmmmm... nothing as good as a Northern Walleye, mercury and all.
Mercury in fish, BGH in your milk, steroids in your beef, what's the difference?

Maybe there are just too many people eating, and not enough growing food eh? But then it was the liberal-progressives that initiated compulsory sterilization and eugenics programs in the USA. (Hell, the last one was sometime mid '70's, Oregon, if I remember right) People have to eat, simple fact... if it's not beef, chickens, or whatever... it's going to be toothfish, and roughy... maybe even an occasional polar bear or whale if they get hungry enough.

If this is about taking away freedoms... well welcome to America. If they can tap my phones they can take your guns.

I give you that one. I don't support any of that stupidity.
Warrant-less taps, data mining, calling your car public because it's on the road then searching it, digging through your banking, garbage, phone records, or whatever they come up with, are all an invasion, and abuse of our rights to privacy, and property. Unlike the liberals, we believe you have a right to breed, or live, even if you are stupid, or funny looking!

The difference is that the progressives seem to think it's fine to take or restrict someone else's rights/property, while a true conservative will support your individual rights, even if they are a bit off the wall.


BB Code Help

Toggle Side Panel

[FiveSpeedF150]

The difference is that the progressives seem to think it's fine to take or restrict someone else's rights/property, while a true conservative will support your individual rights, even if they are a bit off the wall.

Too bad I haven't seen a true conservative in office for years.

[TheScotsman]

The difference is that the progressives seem to think it's fine to take or restrict someone else's rights/property, while a true conservative will support your individual rights, even if they are a bit off the wall.

Too bad I haven't seen a true conservative in office for years.

Very true..
And look at the mess we have as a result

[Venger]

The difference is that the progressives seem to think it's fine to take or restrict someone else's rights/property, while a true conservative will support your individual rights, even if they are a bit off the wall.

Too bad I haven't seen a true conservative in office for years.

Very true..
And look at the mess we have as a result

can i get an amen. Both parties are f*ing things up and all for the ability to get re-elected. I cringed when bush push through the warrentless taps et el. what is truly scary is for all the bitching and moaning the libs did when they first did this the obama administration is keeping that bit of it.
wether art imitates life or the other way around might i suggest watching v for vendetta,red dawn,1984, Fahrenheit 451, or ultra violet.all totalitarian societies all in the name of the greater good.
Think it can't happen here google blackwater guns and katrina.

[Sonthert]

I am a loyal atheist democrat who supports the 2nd Amendment.

You guys are missing the point. Well, one person didn't. The reason we have guns is to protect us from the government. The militia is also supposed to be there to protect us from the military and the government. The revolver was invented in the 1830s. The founding fathers didn't envision those either. Who cares? The point is the American people need firepower equal to that of the government. That is what the founding fathers envisioned. Of course, before the revolver, there was very little difference in weapons. They fired once and took time to reload. They were all equal. Why do you not imagine the founding fathers would argue that the weapons the people were free to bear was equal to that of the government? It wasn't until the 20th century that federal agents were allowed to carry weapons. They shouldn't need to, because the separation of powers should prevent it. Love ya, man, but spare me the tired assault weapons B.S. The government has better weapons than that and the founding father surely didn't imagine that to be the case. If an American wants an automatic weapon, we should be able to have one. Moreover, Texas hit the nail on the head. If you are on my property and are committing a crime, I have the right to kill you. Look at crime rates for open carry states and places that have gun bans. I wouldn't have believed it either, but there they are. I don't know why they are the case, either. Faulty statistics?

To jump on the other side of the fence, Mexico has a gun ban, but a seemingly endless stream of crime...especially coming to the US. Japan has a gun ban and nearly no homicides yearly. Canada has more guns per capita than the US, and a lower crime rate. A gun ban doesn't necessarily make for an increase in crime...or a decrease. Alcohol consumption may or may not have gone up because of prohibition. Consumption was up all over Europe in the same time period it was illegal in the United States, while it was increasing.

I don't like what the Democrat party has become. Almost as much as I hate what the Republican party has become. Every other crooked slob bought and paid for (or so it seems...). I think its clear (to me, anyways) that the Democrats raise the economy up a lot better than the Republicans. Start less wars and spend less money, too. Obama spending all that money still rings as a big disappointment for me. Too bad Bush started it in his term of office.

I should just remind all of you, when one Democrat says something stupid, Obama or not, doesn't mean its going to become a law. As an example, health care seems to be stalled pretty badly, slanting towards what I think to be ideal, heavy regulation of the healthcare industry. A seemingly endless bulwark of Democrats couldn't get that through.

I don't think you guys really understand NHT that well. One type of NHT turns people into scrubby little burglars. One type of NHT turns people into armed robbers. Not universally, but the withdrawals vary in character and govern what type of crime the person is going to turn to.

Since we're relying on statistics. A gun in the house is 8 times (12?) more likely to take the life of a household member than it is a criminal. Of course, a lot of people who own guns live in rural or suburban areas where crime rates are lower, so the guns tend to create a false sense that they prevent crime.

Oh, Rani, I must disagree with you. The best way to keep them away is a Conservative with a loud mouth and a willingness to use it.

[StreetBob]

You made some good points, can't argue with any of them.

[Sonthert]

Also, I'm no expert, but I think that the kinetic energy from a 5.56 round is higher than that of a 30-06. The 30-06 is much larger, and slower. The reasoning behind switching from the M-14 to the M-16 (7.62mm vs. 5.56mm) was that the higher muzzle velocity of the M-16 would be more deadly. A much larger round like a 30-06 would be slower (and have less kinetic energy) than a 7.62mm or a 5.56mm. The M-16, due to its higher muzzle velocity also had a longer effective range with sights. A sighted M-14 of course tears up any M-16, but thats besides the point. Smaller round, higher velocity. I think the M-14 was 850 m/sec and the M16 was 925 m/sec or something like that.

Edit: Wikipedia disagrees with me on the Kinetic Energy, so disregard this post. The increases in muzzle velocity aren't as large as the decreases in weight. The 30-06 Springfield round bottoms out at roughly 10% more energy than an M-14 though. Not that much.

[omgitsjimmy]

Also, I'm no expert, but I think that the kinetic energy from a 5.56 round is higher than that of a 30-06. The 30-06 is much larger, and slower. The reasoning behind switching from the M-14 to the M-16 (7.62mm vs. 5.56mm) was that the higher muzzle velocity of the M-16 would be more deadly. A much larger round like a 30-06 would be slower (and have less kinetic energy) than a 7.62mm or a 5.56mm. The M-16, due to its higher muzzle velocity also had a longer effective range with sights. A sighted M-14 of course tears up any M-16, but thats besides the point. Smaller round, higher velocity. I think the M-14 was 850 m/sec and the M16 was 925 m/sec or something like that.

Edit: Wikipedia disagrees with me on the Kinetic Energy, so disregard this post. The increases in muzzle velocity aren't as large as the decreases in weight. The 30-06 Springfield round bottoms out at roughly 10% more energy than an M-14 though. Not that much.

7.62 NATO (WW2 30-06 loads has the same ballistics as 7.62x51) has more KE (you can feel it in the recoil) and effective range than the 5.56. the switch was mostly because most gun battles took place at ranges under 300 meters and soldiers can carry twice as many intermediate rounds than full size rounds. They key to make a small bullet lethal is to make it very fast. it is true more velocity is better where Force=mass * velocity^2. the trick is which round TRANSFERS energy to the target. bigger rounds generally do better, the 5.56 bullet does it by fragmenting.

[TheScotsman]

Also, I'm no expert, but I think that the kinetic energy from a 5.56 round is higher than that of a 30-06. The 30-06 is much larger, and slower. The reasoning behind switching from the M-14 to the M-16 (7.62mm vs. 5.56mm) was that the higher muzzle velocity of the M-16 would be more deadly. A much larger round like a 30-06 would be slower (and have less kinetic energy) than a 7.62mm or a 5.56mm. The M-16, due to its higher muzzle velocity also had a longer effective range with sights. A sighted M-14 of course tears up any M-16, but thats besides the point. Smaller round, higher velocity. I think the M-14 was 850 m/sec and the M16 was 925 m/sec or something like that.

Edit: Wikipedia disagrees with me on the Kinetic Energy, so disregard this post. The increases in muzzle velocity aren't as large as the decreases in weight. The 30-06 Springfield round bottoms out at roughly 10% more energy than an M-14 though. Not that much.

5.56x45 develops right around 950ft/lbs at 100 yards a 20" bbl with the old 55 gr BTJHP. and an energy efficacy of 337. and only 473 ft/lbs.
7.62x51N (the M-14) using a 147 btjhp spanks it with 2137 ft/lbs, and an efficacy of 159. 300 yds=1344 ft/lb
30Gvt 1096 is a 180 blowing either away with a 2468 ft/lbs, and 168 efficacy. 300 yds=1769 ft lbs
.44 mag with a 240 gr is going to be somewhere around 540 fl/lbs (too lazy to get out the tables)

At 450 yards the NM loading for the .308 still carries more energy than the 5.56 leaves the bbl with!

Naturally the lighter the projectile, the more wind affects it. It may not sound like much, but a 10 mph wind gust will send a 5.56 off by nearly 70 inches at 600 yards. Useless, a hit is luck, or volume of fire. (not to mention it's down to 115 fl/lbs a .22lr is about 125 at the muzzle) BUT---- you can carry 3 rds of .223 for every one of .308, an important factor in the life of a soldier dealing with crappy military logistics. Even more important is the fact the M-16 evolved when NATO was sure we were going to be facing invading Commies in the cities, and forests of West Germany. The limited ranges and tactical necessities involved in those scenarios are made-to-order for the .223.

Funny, people that always say a firearm in the home doesn't deter criminals are never willing to put a sign in their front yard stating "no firearms in this household".

I really debate your statistics of a firearm in a home.
They are biased in their wording, so biased the look like the last GOP survey those retards sent me. Most of the defensive firearms use is limited to simply possessing the weapon, and the intruder retreats. Case in point, my daughter was home when 2 people broke her sliding door and entered, she met them in the stairwell and they decided to sit down wait for the cops when they heard the ar bolt slam in the hands of a screaming, furious, 22 year old woman. Defensive use, yes, but not accounted for in your biased anti-gun statistic. Old reports indicate firearms are used for self defense about once every 13 seconds. http://homepage.mac.com/rfd1/.Public/-%20D...0Statistics.pdf (ya, I hate PDF's too... sorry.)

Further, gun control reducing crime theory doesn't hold out in light of Switzerland, Finland, Israel, or as you said, Canada. Then we hear the media go on about all the children dying from gun violence. Well, maybe someone should realize that "children" in that case are 21 and down. When you really count actual "children", you find more youth 17 and down die from bike accidents, drowning, and home fires every year.... not to mention the fact hospital "mistakes" count for 44,000 deaths a year, firearms accidents less than 900. Hmmm... I think we need Dr. control!!! Oh, wait... the dems are working on that. The "public" option should really widen the gap! (ya, cheap shot, couldn't resist. sorry.)

[Sonthert]

I'm sure you missed the point. In Canada, they have a higher per capita gun ownership than the US, and a lower homicide rate. In Japan, where they have a lower per capita gun ownership than the US, they also have a lower homicide rate. Gun ownership lowering or increasing crime depends on the country in question. To say it will have one effect or another in a general sense is not reasonable.

[omgitsjimmy]

I'm sure you missed the point. In Canada, they have a higher per capita gun ownership than the US, and a lower homicide rate. In Japan, where they have a lower per capita gun ownership than the US, they also have a lower homicide rate. Gun ownership lowering or increasing crime depends on the country in question. To say it will have one effect or another in a general sense is not reasonable.

There are certainly cultural aspects affecting crime rate. In Japan for example, personal sense of shame/honor is taken very seriously and makes their society very conformist around a specific set of moral/ethical behavior. Another aspect affecting crime rate is the legality of self defense. England for example has a "Duty to Retreat" law where self defense counts as Assault unless the defendant was unable to run away by either being cornered or surrounded. Getting rid of that stupid law will do more to reduce crime in England than simply increasing gun ownership. Edited October 28, 2009 by omgitsjimmy

[r8rfan121]

Think about this, the "assault weapons" ban that went into effect in 1994 lasted ten years, finally becoming defunct in 2004. which outlawed, "Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine".

But look at the columbine shooting, which happened in 1999, right in the middle of this ban, the killers used several weapons which were supposedly banned. Banning firearms won't do shit, all it will do is take firearms away from law abiding citizens, not from criminals, it didn't help then and won't help now.

Plus several states have concealed carry permits available. But here in Nebraska, a ccw permit holder can't carry there firearms into places that post a sign saying not to. as was the case in the Von Maur shooting. Unfortunately for everybody involved, there was one citizen who had just gotten his permit, he had gone to the store to get a christmas gift for his wife. He saw the sign and left his pistol in his truck. He was on the third floor when robert hawkins, the shooter, came out of the elevator with an AK-47. He was 20 yards away with a perfect side profile view of the shooter as the shooter opened fire. Due to this law the law abiding citizen was left helpless. He had to run for his life as 8 other lives were taken.

I'm not saying for sure he could have taken out the shooter, I am saying there is a very good possibility that he could have ended it. Unfortunately our lawmakers here in Nebraska, especially Ernie Chambers (the idiot that tried to re-segegrate our school systems here and sued god), have to accept a certain amount of responsibility. They kept that possibility from happening, because they're too afraid of law abiding citizens having firearms on them. Last time I checked, criminals don't care about laws, if they want to get an illegal gun, they'll get one, if they want to kill people in a mall, they'll do it. Laws don't always protect citizens, sometimes they harm us.

I hope it never comes to the day i have to choose between protecting myself and my family or becoming a criminal. I do hope the day comes that politicians will realize our rights as Americans can't be overridden because of bullshit excuses, whether that right be firearms, hunting, fishing, or smoking.

Just remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.