• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Slaughter in vegas

If people are casting aside views of "gun virgins" because they don't know enough about guns, why are we waiting for elkman's analysis on constitutional concerns? Unless elkman is some sort of constitutional scholar
 
If people are casting aside views of "gun virgins" because they don't know enough about guns, why are we waiting for elkman's analysis on constitutional concerns? Unless elkman is some sort of constitutional scholar

Cause constitution talk is way more interesting without lawyers chiming in
 

Was just coming to post this. Add in every brown skinned male in the US...I would hope the 2nd amendment crowd would support it
 
The NRA would support it. Because every white skinned male would be two more guns the next day.
 

Aren't like 40% of adult black males felons. Simple background check rules them out. Another 30% are in prison, so they're probably ruled out also. That leaves Ph, Obama, and Tim Duncan eligible to buy firearms so it's all good.

ETA: A picture of Obama with a firearm stealing ammo from whitey would double gun purchases by the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
That and you're not qualified to discuss something unless you're an expert or Republican
 
Well time for discussing this is over. Cam Newton made fun of a female reporter. /endthread
 
Is this one of those things where we denigrate somebody to their hobby or starting job like we do for Obama the community organizer who miraculously became POTUS?

Speak up. I can't hear you at this adult height.
 
Speak up. I can't hear you at this adult height.

What does it feel like to try for humor so frequently yet miss the mark more often than not?
 
Someone posted this earlier...

Both the AR and AK families are traditionally chambered for rounds that have little purpose outside of combat. The NATO 5.56x45mm used by the AR family and the 7.62x39mm used by the AK family are both designed for combat situations and ranges against human targets. They are relatively under performing as hunting rounds and aren't optimized for sports either. The 5.56x45mm in particular lacks punch against anything larger than a human, and is a round that was designed to be as small as possible while still being lethal to humans (so soldiers could carry as much ammunition as possible and to limit recoil allowing for more extended periods of accurate fire).

The 5.56x45 was based off the the Remington .222/.223 cartridges, which were designed for shooting small game and varmints. The 7.62x39 cartridge was designed by the Soviets, and not for a hunting purpose. However, the terminal ballistics of the bullet a cartridge sends downrange determines whether or not said cartridge is useful for hunting. The .222 and .223 Remington cartridges are perfectly legal for hunting small game and varmints. The 7.62x39 cartridge, if loaded with a soft nosed bullet, is a fine round for deer hunting in the woods, regardless of action type. Semi auto rifles have been used by hunters since the first decade of the last century. Dont believe me? Check out a guy named John Browning...
 
Last edited:
If people are casting aside views of "gun virgins" because they don't know enough about guns, why are we waiting for elkman's analysis on constitutional concerns? Unless elkman is some sort of constitutional scholar

I'm not looking for a legal diatribe. He clearly is the most knowledgeable about guns here and, as such, probably will think of something I didn't about the practicality of a DAO (double action only) law as a form of gun control. If he thinks it infringes on his right, I'm sure he'd be able to articulate rather clearly why he thinks that.
 
Elkman is usually quick to dismiss people for not knowing every specification of certain models of guns or every law that's been passed so I'm interested to hear his take on what or if anything should be changed legally to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
 
I am not a constitutional scholar, I just read at the same level as everyone else who went to WFU or another school and posts here.

What I do read are firearms laws, and I know them fairly well. If you want to have a discussion, or a debate, then yes, I suggest you read up on the following before proposing more laws...

The National Firearms Act of 1934

The Gun Control Act of 1968

The Gun Control Act of 1986, including the Hughes Amendment

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

One of the few things you should know about this whole assault weapons thing, is that that humpty dumpty phrase was coined by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center, who floated it to politicians and the news, but hoped that since people did not know the difference between an assault rifle (military term), and assault weapon (his own phase), people would be confused about proposed laws, and would not bother to look up the difference. Again, do not believe a word I just typed, look it up for yourselves...
 
Back
Top