[Huntster]

Ordnance has it's place in use for self defense. The military uses it often in force protection. When overwhelming numbers appear (and gangs present such situations), blowing up the entire fucking lot of them in the driveway is much more efficient than exchanging gunfire with them.

You don't blow shit up when it's your own turf, and you're afraid to hit property\innocents.

1) You do when you're overrun

2) I live in the woods. I can set off a BIG explosion here. Claymore mines would be a gimme here.

Also, anything explosive you might wanna throw at them would have to be pretty big, and not man-portable anyway.

I hate hand grenades. I just can't throw those fucking things far enough away.

I like mines, especially Claymores.

Wanna build a mechanised militia?

Nope.

You won't get far by firing RPGs and the like, better get aircraft with 250kg\500lb bombs.

The VC did pretty well with such weapons.

Well-placed bursts from two or more machine-guns are devastating against crowds. One crew could take on hundreds, possibly thousands.

True. However, machine guns are expensive to feed, and they are crew served weapons. Setting mines is a one man job, and so is detonating them.

The US military didn't use tactical nukes, napalm, or most other "massively-destructive weapons" against Iraqi insurgents.

And that's certainly going swimmingly.

The USA does not conduct genocide, that's all.

Correct, so I doubt they'll carpet bomb or nuke the Matanuska Valley in Alaska.

There are a variety of reasons for that, but primarily it's a cost/return thing. One simply doesn't use nukes on small targets that can't be found.

Fuel bombs and NAPALM aren't expensive, I think. Neither are huge iron bombs. Compared to its destructive force, a nuke is also pretty cheap, I think.

While fuel bombs and napalm aren't expensive, they are when dropped indiscriminately when a target is in an unknown spot. They work wonders when the target and it's location is identified.

Nukes are incredibly expensive, not only financially, but politically.

[War Angel]

1) You do when you're overrun

Set off explosives, maybe.. not fire anything.

2) I live in the woods. I can set off a BIG explosion here. Claymore mines would be a gimme here.

Snipers, and that's all I'll say.

I hate hand grenades. I just can't throw those fucking things far enough away.

Same here, I can't throw for shit. I meant 'throw' in a more relaxed way, though. Rockets are also 'thrown'.

The VC did pretty well with such weapons.

They had rockets, AA cannons, etc... they were not ill-equipped.

True. However, machine guns are expensive to feed, and they are crew served weapons. Setting mines is a one man job, and so is detonating them.

Mines are one-go, and that's that. MGs keep on firing for as long as they're fed. As for expensive... that's your life we're talking about here!

Correct, so I doubt they'll carpet bomb or nuke the Matanuska Valley in Alaska.

I wouldn't bet on it.

While fuel bombs and napalm aren't expensive, they are when dropped indiscriminately when a target is in an unknown spot. They work wonders when the target and it's location is identified.

Just scorch everything, live no hiding place, spread Anthrax everywhere, salt the earth, than nuke it. Nothing will survive.

Nukes are incredibly expensive, not only financially, but politically.

Not an issue for a country fighting against its own population. Who would care? Who would start a war over an internal civil conflict?

[Huntster]

I live in the woods. I can set off a BIG explosion here. Claymore mines would be a gimme here.

Snipers, and that's all I'll say.

You missed the obvious: "I live in the woods." Obstructed visibility.

True. However, machine guns are expensive to feed, and they are crew served weapons. Setting mines is a one man job, and so is detonating them.

Mines are one-go, and that's that. MGs keep on firing for as long as they're fed. As for expensive... that's your life we're talking about here!

If I set Claymores off because a bunch of bad guys just drove up my driveway, I'm leaving their carcasses behind and bugging out immediately afterwards. I won't be around for their reinforcements to find.

Correct, so I doubt they'll carpet bomb or nuke the Matanuska Valley in Alaska.

I wouldn't bet on it.

I will. The Mat-Su Valleys are bigger than many states. If the Beqaa Valley can hide mofos and drug manufacturers successfully for decades, they'll never find me in the densely forested Mat-Su.

While fuel bombs and napalm aren't expensive, they are when dropped indiscriminately when a target is in an unknown spot. They work wonders when the target and it's location is identified.

Just scorch everything, live no hiding place, spread Anthrax everywhere, salt the earth, than nuke it. Nothing will survive.

Clearly, you don't understand the size of the Mat-Su.

Nukes are incredibly expensive, not only financially, but politically.

Not an issue for a country fighting against its own population. Who would care? Who would start a war over an internal civil conflict?

You're joking, right? Who would want to nuke their own land? Why fight for it if you're going to turn it to glass beforehand?

[Syd]

Discuss.

[Huntster]

Discuss

.

The Desert Eagle is too heavy and bulky to serve as a sidearm. You may as well carry another rifle.

[Voltaire]

The Desert Eagle is too heavy and bulky to serve as a sidearm. You may as well carry another rifle.

Maybe if your in a scenario when you need to use it to fight, otherwise the Deagle is an awesome weapon to own and fire.

You quite simply just feel cool shooting it.

[Huntster]

When they were first introduced in 44 mag they got the attention of some Alaskans as a good sidearm in bear country, but they never really became big sellers. I think their weight and price killed their popularity here. It's difficult to beat a S&W 629 or Ruger Redhawk in price and double action reliability, and they weigh over a pound less, especially the 4" version.

[Infidelis]

I traded my Colt Series 70 for a set of Steiner binoculars for my wife.

Why do you want to hurt me like that?

A Series 70 or a Springer Mil-Spec is what I'd like to get next.

The shotgun is the best close-combat gun. If you're in your house, its going to be closequarters. The shotgun is very devastating and its extremely intimidating. The shotgun requires little skill to use, and it'll instantly kill anyone in front of you. You don't need to have great accuracy.

Like I also said, the gun is extremely intimidating. Just the sight and sound of the gun would likely make any intruder run.

That's all good and true, but I'd rather not have scattering buckshot flying around my house when/if I shoot someone.

1) You must be a citizen

2) You must not have a criminal history

3) The gun must be registered

4) You must pass a gun safety course

Meh...I'd rather have it taught in school, in a health class, like sex education or drug/alcohol awareness.

[Rancid]

That's all good and true, but I'd rather not have scattering buckshot flying around my house when/if I shoot someone.

Indeed, give me a handgun any day for home defense.

Meh...I'd rather have it taught in school, in a health class, like sex education or drug/alcohol awareness.

i agree 100% with this.

[Huntster]

I traded my Colt Series 70 for a set of Steiner binoculars for my wife.

Why do you want to hurt me like that?

A Series 70 or a Springer Mil-Spec is what I'd like to get next.

Both are excellent firearms! I just needed another set of binoculars because when we were hunting she always seemed to have my Zeiss binocs. I had pretty much worn that Colt out.

[Captain Sam]

Infidelis, what do you have against gun registration? Do you not like the government knowing which guns you have?

I'm not anti-gun by the way. I personally wouldn't mind owning a rifle or shotgun sometime in the future.

[Rancid]

Infidelis, what do you have against gun registration? Do you not like the government knowing which guns you have?

I've covered this topic a number of times. Gun registration has always been used to confiscate weapons (I've cited numerous cases in the past). Besides, registration goes against the very concept of the second amendment.

Registration has also never helped solve a crime, or prevent one. There is no benefit to gun registration. It's another stupid useless feel good law that does nothing but attack honest people.

[Infidelis]

Infidelis, what do you have against gun registration? Do you not like the government knowing which guns you have?

I'm not anti-gun by the way. I personally wouldn't mind owning a rifle or shotgun sometime in the future.

Basically, what Rancid said...registration serves no purpose. As a legal gun owner, just jot your serial # down and take either take down the DL# of the person you sold it to or transfer it through a Federal Firearms Licenced dealer who will do the background stuff.

[Fasces]

I own one registered 1888 Colt revolver and an unregistered Colt "Peacemaker" (which no longer fires), an M1 Garand from the second world war I have never fired or attempted to, and a registered P08 I received from my uncle, long ago.

Guns are beautiful, in my opinion, much like swords (of which I own many more), particularly old, antique revolvers which frequently have incredible designs and colorings.

[Syd]

Ah really? How much does it weigh?

[R_G]

Orgasmic.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

1911 Browning. But I didn't say that M'kay.

[Infidelis]

Meh? What?

[Zerogouki]

-Beretta m9
-colt1911
-Ruger .22
-Ak47 (semi auto :*( )
-264 mag
-30-06 bolt
-10/22 carbine
-.22LR pump rifle
-20gauge/12 gauge shotgun

Guns in bold are too vague.

What's the point in legally owning weapons, if you can't legally kill people?

You can. It's called self-defense.

There's also hunting, or just going down to the range and putting some lead through a paper target.

Why hasn't anyone got a hard-on about my 88mm flak cannon.

Zombies don't fly.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns, but I do have a problem with people owning fully automatic weapons and handguns during times of peace.

Hanguns? But those are the only types of guns that are realistically usable if being mugged/raped/whatever on the streets.

The government should stockpile fully automatic weapons and keep them in secured warehouses. If the country is ever invaded, they can distribute the stockpiled weapons among the populace.

And when the day comes for us to overthrow our government...?

I own:

CZ 84
MN91/30 sniper w/ P/U scope
Dragunof
Barrett .50

1) What is a CZ 84?
2) By "MN91/30", I'm assuming you mean "Mosin-Nagant 91/30"
3) Barret makes several different .50-cal rifles. Which one are you referring to?

How much does a fucking Barrett cost?

Depends on the model, obviously.

The REC7 carries an MSRP of $2,400
The Model 99, either $4,000 or $4,200 depending on caliber
The 98 Bravo, $4,500
The Model 95, $6,500
And the M82A1? A wallet-raping $8,900

2) Optically equipped high power rifles (your common deer rifles) are much more devastating and tactically deadly than fully automatic weapons

Not usually. If that were true, our soldiers would all be issued sniper rifles instead of assault rifles.

if I were a US citizen I would want more reassurance than seems currently to be offered as regards the suitability of gun owners to own their guns.

You're apparently not aware of the Gun Control Act of 1968...

Guns must also be registered - or else, they would wander about, get sold to various shady characters, and eventually get used against peaceful people by the less-peaceful.

Registration does not stop any of that from happening.

No need to own heavy assault weapons, rocket launchers etc. These are not personal defence weapons.

No, they're not... until some nutjob steals a tank.

The whole 'act against the government' bullshit has been passe for a great many decades. If the United States government wanted to fuck their own citizenship up, they wouldn't come at them with muskets and bayonets, but tactical nukes, NAPALM and various other massively-destructive weapons, and then tanks and aircraft. Your crazy, fully-automatic Browning M2 wouldn't do much good against those.

If the USG wanted to exterminate its own population, then you're right, we don't stand much of a chance. But the USG would only want to control its people, not exterminate them. And if the US Armed Forces can barely maintain control over a country of the approximate size and population of California, then they sure as hell couldn't beat 300 million armed Americans.

You like the m-16? From personal experience it is an extremely expensive gun to own and and maintain, from purchasing .223 ammo...

Dude, WTF? 5.56mm ammo is cheap as hell.

In fact a lot of my army buddies say that when they were in Iraq the Ak-47 was infact a much more durable/reliable gun because the sand kept getting in their m-16's and was fucking it up.

The majority of M16 and M4 rifles in Iraq have never jammed... not even once.

Do you get issued full auto capability rifles or just burst?

Burst IS full auto. Full auto, by definition, is anything that uses the propellant gases to load and fire the next round.

Handguns are very easily concealed, and are the tool used for the majority of murders in the United States.

They are also used to prevent a great many murders in the United States, for the precise reason that they are easily concealed. This is why handgun bans invariably produce rapidly skyrocketing crime rates, and concealed carry laws invariably do the opposite.

And why do people need fully automatic weapons during times of peace?

For the same reason why some people have Lamborghinis that go 220 miles per hour. For the same reason why Bill Gates lives in a seven-story mansion.

[ingliz]

Bulgarian Arsenal, milled receiver, AK47 chambered for 5.56mm. You would think they would call it a '74 but they don't.


L1A1 with original, 'round hole', Australian? wooden furniture (not as shown) and fitted with first pattern L2A1 SUIT sight, trumpet eye piece and no shade.

Glock 34,

Glock 17C,

and a couple of shotguns