Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
DRUNK08

The right to bear arms

Recommended Posts

Except the amendment doesn't appear to give you that right, seeing as you said almost nobody is allowed to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, in California at least.

Actually, I believe that mostly applies to concealable weapons. I could be mistaken, but who walks through the mall with a shotgun and doesn't expect to freak people out? The police would want to know why you felt it necessary to cause a disturbance. As far as I know, technically, if the weapon is in plain sight (e.g. mounted on a rack in a truck window) and properly documented they can't cite you for it. Brandishing it is something else altogether. However I'm sure they'd find a way of charging you with being "menacing" if they wanted to. But that's at the discretion of the coppers. But I believe a permit to carry applies primarily to handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate it when the 'authorities' say that. It's not true. We don't. Outside a few select cities (London being one of them and even then it's only specific parts of each city) we don't live in a 'multicultural' society. England is still over 90% white Anglo Saxon culture.

In no way do I live in a 'multicultural' society, even though some others might.

Mangani, hi mate, of course you dont live in a "Multi Cultural Society" you live on the "Isle of Wight", i doub you ever get to see a foreigner let alone interact with one, why even us Cockneys would be classed as "Aliens" by you "Wighties" wouldnt we. :lol:

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a cur rent Driver's

License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical

& mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change

or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs

$25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm

and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause

on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be

locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right

to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from

accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in

prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many

options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people

are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your

family pass this along.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and

disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a

little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone

realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one t o use against me. HR

45 only makes me/us less safe.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

Please... copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you

support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have

the right to choose.

We can't let them get away with this, write your reps and senators now!

This is how the slimeballs work. They try every dirty trick in the book.

For once in my lifetime I'd like to draw a bead on a fuckin' commie.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That thing even looks terrifying. :o

And then the even bigger boys moved in....

dresden.jpg

B)

Hi Redrum,

That plane is just a Lancaster Bomber, biggest bomb load was a 12,000lb "Cookie".

Now the B17 Flying Fortress was a biggie which could carry a bomb load of 17,600lb, but nothing compared to the B52 Stratofortress with a bomb load of up to 70,000lb, now thats awesome.

:flying::flying::flying::flying::flying:

Regards, Danny

Edited by BIGDAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Redrum,

But nothing compared to the B52 Stratofortress with a bomb load of up to 70,000lb, now thats awsome.

Howdy BIGDAN!

'Arc Light'

Charlie was shakin' in his boots.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howdy BIGDAN!

'Arc Light'

Charlie was shakin' in his boots.

B)

Howdy Redrum, (I like the sound of that, wheres me Stetson? :lol: )

Too true, the shoch wave that those MFers made in Vietnam were enough to give me the shits, and i was 5000 miles away, again, Awesome.

Regards, danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Redrum,

That plane is just a Lancaster Bomber, biggest bomb load was a 12,000lb "Cookie".

Now the B17 Flying Fortress was a biggie which could carry a bomb load of 17,600lb, but nothing compared to the B52 Stratofortress with a bomb load of up to 70,000lb, now thats awsome.

:flying::flying::flying::flying::flying:

Regards, Danny

Funny how the old day's where all about bigger and bigger bomb loads. All fine and dandy for old timer's carpet bombing city's but now a day's that's not the story at all. B1 carry's 16 2K lb. bomb's and I'm not sure want the Stealth tote's but it's likely less than that. No more, "kill'em all and let the good lord sort them out!"

I do know for a fact that we (USAF) used a bunch of B52's to do some of that old time carpet bombing in 1991 on a large bivouac that Saddam had set up for the Republican Guard in southern Iraq. I'm sure it was effective for that terrain and the concentration needed for a large soft target.

Just a foot note, in the 2nd world war the target range for the heavy bomber's was around 2-5 miles! So if you hit your target you where some where in that distance of accuracy, now-a-days we are down to a few feet in target ranges. :pwnd:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how the old day's where all about bigger and bigger bomb loads. All fine and dandy for old timer's carpet bombing city's but now a day's that's not the story at all. B1 carry's 16 2K lb. bomb's and I'm not sure want the Stealth tote's but it's likely less than that. No more, "kill'em all and let the good lord sort them out!"

I do know for a fact that we (USAF) used a bunch of B52's to do some of that old time carpet bombing in 1991 on a large bivouac that Saddam had set up for the Republican Guard in southern Iraq. I'm sure it was effective for that terrain and the concentration needed for a large soft target.

Just a foot note, in the 2nd world war the target range for the heavy bomber's was around 2-5 miles! So if you hit your target you where some where in that distance of accuracy, now-a-days we are down to a few feet in target ranges. :pwnd:

Hi 'BonzoLikeDrumer' thanks for the info mate.

You also did a lot of "Carpet Bombing" in Afghan too, and to very good effect i might add.

A very good friend of mine once explained this to me,

"when a bomb goes off and the blast doesnt get you, the shock wave will travel so fast that the moisture in the air freezes and when that hits you it takes all your cloths and skin off on one side but leaves no trace of any damage on the other"

He had seen that type of damage first hand, i would not like to be with a mile of a bomb like that.

When the USAF did the "Carpet Bombing" of the Mountain Hideaways in Afghan they generated that much heat that most of the casualties were killed from the lack of oxygen ond the intense heat rather than from the blast. Its "Horses for Courses" really, the more we improve things the more there is to bomb.

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Redrum,

That plane is just a Lancaster Bomber, biggest bomb load was a 12,000lb "Cookie".

Now the B17 Flying Fortress was a biggie which could carry a bomb load of 17,600lb,

Hi BigDan,

Actually the Lancaster carried a bigger bomb load than the B17 Flying Fortress.

The usual/normal bomb load of the B17 Flying Fortress was only around a 4,000 to 6,000lb.

In contrast, the heavier Lancaster usually carried a bomb load of around 8,000 to 12,000 lb. It's biggest bomload was the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam'.

The Lancaster had a vastly superior bomb load to the B17 Flying Fortress although the B17 was 'slightly' better defended.

Mangani, hi mate, of course you dont live in a "Multi Cultural Society" you live on the "Isle of Wight", i doub you ever get to see a foreigner let alone interact with one, why even us Cockneys would be classed as "Aliens" by you "Wighties" wouldnt we.

LOL, I'm an 'immigrant' here myself. I used to live in the south London/Surrey border area. You'd be surprised at the number of 'immigrants' (whites from city areas of England hehe) we have moving here. Funny thing is, the 'born islanders' tend to bugger off to the big cities like London when they hit their 20s. :D

Still, not many non white folks here and its definitely NOT multi cultural.

Edited by Mangani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I believe that mostly applies to concealable weapons. I could be mistaken, but who walks through the mall with a shotgun and doesn't expect to freak people out? The police would want to know why you felt it necessary to cause a disturbance. As far as I know, technically, if the weapon is in plain sight (e.g. mounted on a rack in a truck window) and properly documented they can't cite you for it. Brandishing it is something else altogether. However I'm sure they'd find a way of charging you with being "menacing" if they wanted to. But that's at the discretion of the coppers. But I believe a permit to carry applies primarily to handguns.

Thanks Evster. This is complete confusion to me.I know little. If I listen to some people, I could be forgiven for thinking all Americans are allowed to arm themselves wherever and whenever they like and that it's still like the 'wild west' out there.

I guess I shouldn't read too many 'far right' sites. Sounds like there are a lot of sound regulations and laws in place. :)

I'd still want a gun if I lived there though. I'm gonna get me one of those fecking bigfoots some day. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi BigDan,

Actually the Lancaster carried a bigger bomb load than the B17 Flying Fortress.

The usual/normal bomb load of the B17 Flying Fortress was only around a 4,000 to 6,000lb.

In contrast, the heavier Lancaster usually carried a bomb load of around 8,000 to 12,000 lb. It's biggest bomload was the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam'.

The Lancaster had a vastly superior bomb load to the B17 Flying Fortress although the B17 was 'slightly' better defended.

LOL, I'm an 'immigrant' here myself. I used to live in the south London/Surrey border area. You'd be surprised at the number of 'immigrants' (whites from city areas of England hehe) we have moving here. Funny thing is, the 'born islanders' tend to bugger off to the big cities like London when they hit their 20s. :D

Still, not many non white folks here and its definitely NOT multi cultural.

Hi 'Mangani'

I stand corrected, i forgot about the 22,00lb Grand Slam bomb, the B17 could actually carry 17,660lb when overloading the plane but usually only up to

8000lb for ranges of up too 400 mile.

Where all immigrants one way or another mate so dont fret about it. :lol:

I always thought that the Isle of Wight would be a great place to put all our Prisons, you know keep all the scum together and when global warming really takes hold maybe we could import some of those Crocks and Sharks from Aus just so they dont try and swim for it. :lol:

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always thought that the Isle of Wight would be a great place to put all our Prisons, you know keep all the scum together and when global warming really takes hold maybe we could import some of those Crocks and Sharks from Aus just so they dont try and swim for it. :lol:

Regards, Danny

LOL, I just went past Parkhurst prison on the island earlier today. I think we have enough of them. :blink:

We have to make sure we have enough woods so that our red squirrels can flourish, mate. We don't need any more prisons, Dan. Blimey, any more prisons and we'd sink. It's only the lovely real ales in the pubs here that are keeping us afloat. :D

Edited by Mangani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, I just went past Parkhurst prison on the island earlier today. I think we have enough of them. :blink:

We have to make sure we have enough woods so that our red squirrels can flourish, mate. We don't need any more prisons, Dan. Blimey, any more prisons and we'd sink. It's only the lovely real ales in the pubs here that are keeping us afloat. :D

Hi mangani,

OK mate, we will just have too keep the scum ourselves, or maybe the Isle of Man could take em, now they know how to "Correct" wrong doers.

Just a thought, do you know where the word "Blimey" comes from? No cheating and looking it up though.

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought 'blimey' came from the expression "god blind me" abbreviated to " Gor Bimey" that folks say when something amazing happened?

I'm wrong, probably! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always thought 'blimey' came from the expression "god blind me" abbreviated to " Gor Bimey" that folks say when something amazing happened?

I'm wrong, probably! :(

Spot on mate, "Gore Blimey" was a term used in everyday life around the East End of London when i was a lad, "Cor Blimey" also got used a lot and this was further compressed to just "Cor" whilst our Aussie cousins still use "Blimey" in everyday usage. :beer:

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi 'BonzoLikeDrumer' thanks for the info mate.

You also did a lot of "Carpet Bombing" in Afghan too, and to very good effect i might add.

A very good friend of mine once explained this to me,

"when a bomb goes off and the blast doesnt get you, the shock wave will travel so fast that the moisture in the air freezes and when that hits you it takes all your cloths and skin off on one side but leaves no trace of any damage on the other"

He had seen that type of damage first hand, i would not like to be with a mile of a bomb like that.

When the USAF did the "Carpet Bombing" of the Mountain Hideaways in Afghan they generated that much heat that most of the casualties were killed from the lack of oxygen ond the intense heat rather than from the blast. Its "Horses for Courses" really, the more we improve things the more there is to bomb.

Regards, Danny

Welcome but, it can be much worse than that dude! The part abut the O2 being sucked out of the air is also from the great mass of air that all those explosive's need's to detonate it's fuel store (deplete it's charge)!

The heat of the desert and the lack of moisture in the air in that part of the world will make this easy to do for the massive amount of explosive's where talking about here.

And then there is the shock wave you talked about! You don't want to be any where near by that source of vibration, as it will likely scramble all your inerd's like an egg in a mixing bowl!

In the 2nd world war the English would make two passes with there heavy bomber's on German city's, the first with regular HE bomb's and the next wave right after ward's with incendiary's. The HE bomb's would bust up the wooden building's and the incendiary's would set them a light.

I do remember reading about a raid on a large bridge that the German's had built, the English used those 10 ton bomb's to topple it by dropping them near the base of it's pillar's. If I remember right it took about a half a dozen of the bomb's to cause the concrete to crack and fall under it's own weight.

Edited by BonzoLikeDrumer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do remember reading about a raid on a large bridge that the German's had built, the English used those 10 ton bomb's to topple it by dropping them near the base of it's pillar's. If I remember right it took about a half a dozen of the bomb's to cause the concrete to crack and fall under it's own weight.

Do you mean the famous 1943 'Dambuster' raids on the German dams in the Ruhr?

Barnes Wallis came up with the 'bouncing bombs' where the Lancasters would drop the bouncing bombs during their run up along the rivers and the bombs would skip across the surface until they hit the the dam wall and explode at the base.

Trully fascinating concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambuster_Raids

A film was made in the 1950s about this and there is supposed to be a remake on the way.

Edited by Mangani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean the famous 1943 'Dambuster' raids on the German dams in the Ruhr?

Barnes Wallis came up with the 'bouncing bombs' where the Lancasters would drop the bouncing bombs during their run up along the rivers and the bombs would skip across the surface until they hit the the dam wall and explode at the base.

Trully fascinating concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambuster_Raids

A film was made in the 1950s about this and there is supposed to be a remake on the way.

Yeah I remember that movie, the bouncing bomb's where large and barrel shaped, they attached them to a motor in the bomb bay that would start them spinning to a certain RPM before they would drop them. The physical spinning of the cylinder shaped bomb would allow them to skip across the top of the water and over top of the torpedo net's that where deployed out in front of the dam.

Here's what I was thinking of ...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/grandslam.html

Sorry, I should have looked it up the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

banning something just because they are considered dangerous, is moronic.

it will lead to a slippery slope of legislation that quickly will turn your country

into a fascist state.

in a free society where the responsibilities and dangers of such a thing is understood,

they will cause little or no problems. When the government starts to decide for you

what you should be able to own or use, based on THEIR thoughts and FEELINGS , things get wrong very quickly.

I remember reading somewhere (maybe it was travel-wiki) that Norway was a country where

there where "few" warning signs and that places like prekestolen lacks a safety fence.

I remember smiling and getting a warm fuzzy feeling inside as I was reading this.

Who would deface a national natural monument by putting on barriers and fences around

something like prekestolen?! if you are so dumb that you fall of that edge, you deserve every bit of death you find on the bottom.

link to prekestolen wiki

Here in Norway, you can own more or less any gun, as long as you can prove that you need it.

proving that is not difficult, I know a man that owns over 52 guns.

There are several limitations, like select fire firearms.

Hunting is a national pastime, and I dread the day when urban know it alls may try to

change that. When you turn a gun on a person, it is YOUR responsibility, what ever outcome

will be YOUR fault. The large majority people that own guns know this, and the large majority of the people that don't, didn't buy their gun from a licensed dealer.

I remember when the Norwegian police had a gun asylum, you could turn in illegal guns without

getting prosecuted. From all over the country tons of illegal guns where poring in.

sten guns from the second world war, garands and alike. Did the police have any prior knowledge of these weapons? no, they didn't. They had been collecting dust in the attics and barns of law abiding citizens for years, most of them left there by the resistance. Most of the people that handed them in where already gun owners. They had never been used in any robberies or murders, they had flied under the radar for almost 60 years! Because they people that had them in their possession knew that using them would be dangerous and illegal.

a gun in the hand of a law abiding person, is not anymore dangerous than a hammer in the same persons hand. They know the responsibility, and they feel it every time they take the gun out to use it. You can say that no everybody has these feelings, but should a small minority of people that will

be armed whatever the government does, decide what you should be able to own?

Should irresponsible parents be able to outlaw swimming pools? Should drunken drivers be able to

affect the legality of cars?

I have started competing in western action shooting, and will own several guns by the end of the year, including two revolvers. does this make me danger to society, to my family and friends?

Seems like it, from several of the posts in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had a bb gun when i was a kid. i shot a bird, a rabbit and a squirrel and then after feeling like crap about it...forgot about the bb gun.

i dont think anything can save anybody at this point....it feels like the world has changed twice in the last ten yrs. if you think a gun is going to be important, then you have to feel secure then. actually i think a boat loaded with gas is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it amazing how during the 8 years of Bush, there was an unprecedented attack on all of our civil rights, from warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, naked political prosecutions, the list goes on and on, and loyal republicans were all about how much safer he made you. I hate to even going to go into the mind boggling stupidity required to believe that telling the whole middle east "Fuck You" constantly and invading the wrong country while depleting our military to breaking doesn't really make us safer. And being that fictitiously keeping us safer is all that the Republican party has to run on, why would they actually want to make us safer?

Obama gets elected and he says pretty much continually that he doesn't want your guns, and you have to know that because of the gun manufacturers lobby that is the NRA, he would be nuts to even think about making any stricter gun laws, and you guys are all worried about 1984.

I mean get a fucking clue. This is just like how you're all teabagged up about your taxes going up despite the fact that if you make less than 250k, your taxes have already gone down under Obama. If you make more than 250k and your taxes went up 1% and you're pissed about that, tough shit, your BMW isn't going to do you a lot of good when poor people are eating you. In reality, if you make less than a million dollars a year, aren't a sociopath, and you're a republican, you're being used by the wealthiest 5%. Again, if you're part of the wealthiest 5% and you're upset because your taxes are going to be raised back to where they were under socialist Ronald Reagan, give me your address so that I can eat you first.

Edited by Karlzbad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...