Why go the to the zoo when you've already seen the monkeys?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I guess you don't have any evidence otherwise you'd just show me a link, a title, something to further prove your point. I'll do some research.
thank you. i'm working 2 computers back to back so i can be here and run my business. if i had the time i'd gladly look for you but i'm swamped. sorry.
Unfortunately, this is a message board with posting guidelines, which you agreed with.
I'll take things that are anal retentive for $1000 Alex...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
thank you. i'm working 2 computers back to back so i can be here and run my business. if i had the time i'd gladly look for you but i'm swamped. sorry.
No problem. I actually have a ton of work to do too, so I won't be looking it up any time today. I doubt I'll find anything when I do and it all seems so futile anyway, I think we can establish that we disagree on this issue.
I'll take things that are anal retentive for $1000 Alex...
ps don't take it personally but your user name gives me the heebie jeebies, I know what it is but it reminds me of MAN Roland printing machines, which I hate with a passion.
No problem. I actually have a ton of work to do too, so I won't be looking it up any time today. I doubt I'll find anything when I do and it all seems so futile anyway, I think we can establish that we disagree on this issue.
i think we can. i took a gunsmithing class in the '80s and we had an entire chapter on ballistics. frankly i didn't believe it either. my favourite gun is the thompson 1927 (A1) and i thought it would have out-killed any other. but because of muzzle jump it's hard to hang on to. i'm still looking for one so if anyone has one for sale; PM me.
anyway; i'll try to find it when i have time. the point of the chapter was to explain why snipers use single shot weapons. and also how to determine proper bullet design for it's intended purpose. for example; the perfect bullet for hunting deer is one which will mushroom and be found on the opposite side inside the hide. this varies with conditions. out west where most shots are 100 yards plus; a different bullet is used as compared to close range shots in wooded areas like michigan or wisconsin.
this is getting to be more info than you care to know but i'll find the stats.
forgive me if i sounded disrespectful when i told you to look it up yourself.
i think we can. i took a gunsmithing class in the '80s and we had an entire chapter on ballistics. frankly i didn't believe it either. my favourite gun is the thompson 1927 (A1) and i thought it would have out-killed any other. but because of muzzle jump it's hard to hang on to.
I've seen documentaries about the gangster era talking about how some of those guys were so accurate with the tommy gun, they could shoot their initials into something with one clip. They showed footage of them being pretty damned accurate too, so what gives?
By the way, i found a site that's selling them for 1450. I have no idea if thats a good price or not, I dont buy guns. But how come you're having such a hard time finding one?
ps don't take it personally but your user name gives me the heebie jeebies, I know what it is but it reminds me of MAN Roland printing machines, which I hate with a passion.
MAN Roland printing machines? There might be a support group out there somewhere for that.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I've seen documentaries about the gangster era talking about how some of those guys were so accurate with the tommy gun, they could shoot their initials into something with one clip. They showed footage of them being pretty damned accurate too, so what gives?
By the way, i found a site that's selling them for 1450. I have no idea if thats a good price or not, I dont buy guns. But how come you're having such a hard time finding one?
i think it's the same as in police shoot-outs. a cop can qualify on the range but you can watch these police video shows and see a cop empty a 17 round glock without hitting the suspect at 15 feet away. first; it's a moving target. second; it's hard to be accurate when you're being shot at.
as to shooting initials; i'd like to see that. i'm sure it's true. i can shoot a wooden match because i have over 40 years practice. annie oakley was deadly accurate shooting over her shoulder with a mirror. she traveled the country shooting cigarettes out of her husband's mouth. i recently saw a guy throw 7 clay pigeons in the air himself and shoot every one before they hit the ground. i guess i should have worded my remark as "the average person".
1450 is about twice the going rate. i heard some company bought the patent and will start making them again. i think i'll wait to buy one made with modern technology. i don't want it for shooting. i'm a collector.
why the hell would you ever need that fuckiing thing?
any gun that weighs 34 pounds and comes with tylenol is not designed for hunting.
A) Because it can hit a target 2000 yards away.
Because it's the biggest baddest gun you can own without major hassle from the government.
and perhaps most importantly...
C) Because it strikes fear in the heart of every liberal hippie douchebag on the planet.
You are right about it not being for hunting! It's an anti-material weapon! Last time I checked, the constitution didn't have a "for hunting use only" clause attached to the 2nd Amendment. However, you could use it to hunt and many do.
Guess how many of these weapons have been used to commit a crime in the US....
didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
actually no onelongsong england didn't take our freedom. january 26 commemorates the establishment of the first english penal colony at sydney cove. it's the date when the english basically stole the land from the indigenous population through a faulty precedent called terra nullius. australia has never been 'disarmed' by the english as you so quaintly put it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
looking back at the last century; old societies that felt the need to disarm had been taken by other forces. iraq was disarmed and taken by a dictator. but a better example is europe. twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it. only to condemn it for helping others obtain their freedom in the same manner it helped them.
oz is different in that it's an island. but america is a country of "outsiders". each day thousands of people sneek into america illegally. we have no idea who or what their purpose is. so for a country constantly under invasion; it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have. why doesn't anyone jump on the swiss? the last i heard it's swiss law that every head of household MUST own and know how to operate an automatic weapon. YET IT'S AMERICA EVERYONE SHITS ON ABOUT LOOSE GUN LAWS. i guess americans are good targets.
now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
so maybe it is a false sense of security for americans to think we could defend ourselves. it was twice that americans owning guns twarted the queens attempt to take our country. and we won't forget that. nor will we forget hitler and the kaiser taking europe; or musillini taking italy. all in recent history. and that is why we would fight our own government if it tried to disarm us. however misguided; we've learned from other societies. and we learned that a small group of terrorists could attack america and almost take out the pentagon and almost our capital. yes i'm talking about 9/11. so as a country under attack; we'll keep our guns.
You so know I'm coming back to this! Anyway, it'll be later, but there's NO way I'm letting it slide! Which is probably EXACTLY what you want!
looking back at the last century; old societies that felt the need to disarm had been taken by other forces. iraq was disarmed and taken by a dictator. but a better example is europe. twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it. only to condemn it for helping others obtain their freedom in the same manner it helped them.
oz is different in that it's an island. but america is a country of "outsiders". each day thousands of people sneek into america illegally. we have no idea who or what their purpose is. so for a country constantly under invasion; it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have. why doesn't anyone jump on the swiss? the last i heard it's swiss law that every head of household MUST own and know how to operate an automatic weapon. YET IT'S AMERICA EVERYONE SHITS ON ABOUT LOOSE GUN LAWS. i guess americans are good targets.
now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
so maybe it is a false sense of security for americans to think we could defend ourselves. it was twice that americans owning guns twarted the queens attempt to take our country. and we won't forget that. nor will we forget hitler and the kaiser taking europe; or musillini taking italy. all in recent history. and that is why we would fight our own government if it tried to disarm us. however misguided; we've learned from other societies. and we learned that a small group of terrorists could attack america and almost take out the pentagon and almost our capital. yes i'm talking about 9/11. so as a country under attack; we'll keep our guns.
oh i'm sorry but all this made me laugh. please don't lecture us about mussolini and hitler, australia was in the war from the get go.
we did not fall to our knees when the Queen arrived on our doorstop. i don't even know where you get that from. and for the record when the colonies were first formed in what was then called new south wales, not australia, there wa a KING on the throne. learn some history and then maybe we can have an infromed discussion about the formation of australia.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies? as for the ability to kill; i have a single shot bolt action. in 2005 i had to kill a deer for food. i killed it with 1 shot from 300 yards. i couldn't have done that with an assault rifle. the bullets are too small for one. assault weapons are made to injure and that's the second reason. in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.
as for hunting; if an animal hears a twig snap; all you'll see is tail for a brief moment.
Huh? Automatics are designed to maim but not kill? That's one of the strangest comments I've heard from you so far.I can't say I've ever been to war, but last time I watched the news I saw plenty of bodies lying on battlefields.
When my sister did her basic training a few years ago, the Australian army was using a .223 automatic rifle. I think its called a Styer. I use a .223 bolt action for shooting roos and pigs, and the projectile is plenty big enough to do the job. The amount of powder behind the projectile is more important than the size of the projectile itself.
Edit: Re-reading your post, it looks like you are actually agreeing with my position, ie that automatic and semi-automatic firearms are not needed for hunting.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
I'm sure someone elese has already corrected you on this one, but you are so far off the mark that its laughable. There are some in Australia who feel that Australia day commemorates the loss of their freedom. Those are the people that were here before europeans arrived, but for the rest of us it just commemorates the day that the first fleet arrived in Sydney, thus marking the beginning of the first european colony in Australia and the birth of our nation as it is today.
What that has to do with gun laws I'm not really sure. . .
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies? as for the ability to kill; i have a single shot bolt action. in 2005 i had to kill a deer for food. i killed it with 1 shot from 300 yards. i couldn't have done that with an assault rifle. the bullets are too small for one. assault weapons are made to injure and that's the second reason. in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.
as for hunting; if an animal hears a twig snap; all you'll see is tail for a brief moment.
What about the murder holes at Omaha Beach? The MG42 killed more than their share of soldiers. And what about .50 cal machine guns? A numerous .50 cal bullets fired at a high rate of fire are going to kill an enemy, not maim them.
If the bayonet was banned by the british, why did they use Lee-enfield No 4 Mk I and M1917 Enfields that had bayonets attached to them during WWII?
British soliders even used a bayonet charge during the iraq war!
didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
Quick history lesson for those in the back row who seem to have missed it!
Actually now that I look at wiki (did I mention I love wiki! ) reckon they've done a pretty good job so here's the link :
And here's another link courtesy of the Australian Government, although I'd be wary of that, they do have a habit of re-writing shit to suit there own purposes.
So anyway England didn't "take" our freedom, it took the freedom of the indigenous population and a large portion of the beaten down and starving population of Ireland and a portion of the poor and downtrodden of it's own country and it mixed us all up here together. And then ground them all down. Inflicting the will of the British Empire as per usual. That was the times.
Britain didn't "disarm" us. We weren't particularly armed to begin with. Can't have a whole bunch of Aborigines and convicts getting about with guns. People had enough problems when they got here just trying to survive. No one had time for shoot em up games. And as the country was ostensibly set up by the British to be an outpost and a penal colony then it wouldn't do having too many people other than the military armed. And when people were finally able to settle freely here they did. Although I guess we are just as guilty as the Americans for the anhiliation of the indigenous populations.
Australia Day January 26 is merely a recognition of the landing of James Cook in Botany Bay and the beginning of colonization. And certainly not something celebrated by all Australians. Most of us just enjoy the sleep in on the public holiday.
As to us now still being under the British Sovereign, well you'd need to talk to Johnny about that. He cleverly stacked the odds against us voting for a Republic with the clever use of semantics at the Referendum. Yet again. Even I, as a staunch Republican couldn't vote for what he was proposing.
Eventually Australia will be asked the question again and the next time hopefully it won't be so loaded. It is the minority that supports the monarchy in this country. Many of us can still remember The Dismissal and have no desire to be "ruled" by England.
now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
Our numbers of "invaders" is not small. What is small is our governments ability to police our borders successfully. Our coast line being as big as it is. A practically impossible task. The influx is greater than our governments ability to police it. And they aren't trying that hard anyway, because if they were fair dinkum they'd have had a bit more of a discussion with Indonesia about stopping the people smuggling trade that they got going on.
Hmmm...........now I find our current governments stand on refugees to be appalling, and I will never support them in their efforts as they stand now. But please don't brag to me about Americas stance on human rights. As far as I can see we are fairly much on a par there. Our Detention Centres are a disgrace and a blight on humanity. And America? Well I've got two things to say to you about America and human rights. David Hicks and Guantanemo Bay, and if that doesn't do it for you how bout New Orleans? As far as I can see there is good and bad from both countries when it comes to human rights. Oh and I know that you probably have no idea, us being a itty bitty country of no significance, but we were bombed at least twice to my knowledge by the Japanese during World War 2. Broome and Darwin. Not to mention the subs in Sydney Harbour. So we've had acts of war perpertrated against us too. Not that the world seems to know or even care.
twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it.
To be honest OLS this statement shits me. Australia lost a generation of young men to WW1. Far more than we could afford. And we could have sat it out. It's not like it was even happening on our doorstep.
And as to WW2, well although America likes to conviently forget sometimes, we fought right throughout the Pacific. And lost and ruined many lives that we could ill afford to lose.
Let's face it OLS they were WORLD WARS. EVERYBODY was fighting. And EVERYBODY sacrificed.
Now I have NO desire to dictate to America about it's gun laws, it's gun culture or it's constitution. But we have a very different attitude to guns here in Australia and it works for us. My only question has been, why is it necessary for Americans to own or shoot high powered guns? And I think it's sad, that so many Americans seem so concerned about NOT having them.
But at the end of the day it's your choice. Your country, your culture, your decision. We don't need em here. And it's our choice not to have them.
Now I have NO desire to dictate to America about it's gun laws, it's gun culture or it's constitution. But we have a very different attitude to guns here in Australia and it works for us. My only question has been, why is it necessary for Americans to own or shoot high powered guns? And I think it's sad, that so many Americans seem so concerned about NOT having them.
But at the end of the day it's your choice. Your country, your culture, your decision. We don't need em here. And it's our choice not to have them.
Excellent post Jeanie. All of it. I don't have the energy for this debate anymore. I don't even know what OLS is arguing anymore. I can't even figure out if he agrees with the sentiments of the guy in the original article or not.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Excellent post Jeanie. All of it. I don't have the energy for this debate anymore. I don't even know what OLS is arguing anymore. I can't even figure out if he agrees with the sentiments of the guy in the original article or not.
Awww thanks scott! I'm pretty chuffed about that, considering I think so highly of your opinion.
I suspect that onelongsong is having a bit of a lend of us! :eek:
Reckon he's just trying to get a bite! Which I'm happy to supply for the time being. Look, I'm taking it that he likes and collects guns and that he's a bit of a sharp shooter. I also think that he maybe agrees with the guy in the article. But it's made my head hurt to try to sort through all the other stuff just to arrive at that conclusion. But I think he's agreed with you more often than not. And I think that tomorrow when he reads this post I'm probably in for some more shit!
The funny thing is that I think he has a lot more in common with me than he realises. One thing that we don't have in common is the ability to shoot matchsticks. That I would like to see if its true. Sounds like a cool party trick.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
The funny thing is that I think he has a lot more in common with me than he realises. One thing that we don't have in common is the ability to shoot matchsticks. That I would like to see if its true. Sounds like a cool party trick.
I suspect so too scott! I've been noticing some commonalities you seem to share.
Hopefully he will notice too.
And I would LOVE to see if he could shoot matchsticks!! That would be an awesome party trick!!
I suspect so too scott! I've been noticing some commonalities you seem to share.
Hopefully he will notice too.
And I would LOVE to see if he could shoot matchsticks!! That would be an awesome party trick!!
You're up late tonight. Supposed to be studying?
Trying to write a paper before friday. If I don't have something to show my supervisor she's going to kill me (In the figurative sense. I don't mean she would literally whip out a gun and kill me like she would have every right to do if I was trying to steal her wallet :rolleyes: )
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Trying to write a paper before friday. If I don't have something to show my supervisor she's going to kill me (In the figurative sense. I don't mean she would literally whip out a gun and kill me like she would have every right to do if I was trying to steal her wallet :rolleyes: )
:D LMAO!!! Too funny!! So who's the shit stirrer now?
So how far in have you got with the paper? I hate having shit like that hanging over my head.
Better hope she hasn't learned trick shooting from onelongsong or your screwed!!
The funny thing is that I think he has a lot more in common with me than he realises. One thing that we don't have in common is the ability to shoot matchsticks. That I would like to see if its true. Sounds like a cool party trick.
i think you have a lot more in common with ols than you think. after working with a marine biologist for several years; i came west to make a difference in the food chain. just as man is destroying the oceans; man is destroying the food chain. i stand corrected on many points. and i stand firm on some of my points. the .223 round cannot be used here for hunting anything larger than varments. it is not sufficient to kill say a deer without the animal suffering. it will only wound the deer. our M-16 uses the .223 round. changed from the .308 round which is deadly to humans. the .223 does not have the weight behind it and the extra powder makes it more likely to pass through the human body.
yes; i agreed with you on almost everything. i'll be begging jeanie's forgiveness for a long time i bet. i grew up in a state where the schools were closed for deer hunting season. everyone hunted for food because most of us were poor. every high school bloke owned a gun. back then it wasn't a problem because everyone was taught respect and saftey. in fact; students would come to school with their rifles still in the back window of their pick-up trucks. unloaded of course. guns never really became a problem until meth did.
yes i am a shit stirrer. but i think my biggest problem is communication. in trying to save typing time i shorten explainations which makes me misunderstood. but i also lean towards the extreme to stress points and get people talking. some are not worth commenting on like the bloke that considered a .50 caliber maching gun an assault rifle. but i like a good debate and if you're going to make a stand; you can't be wishy washy. i chose 1 side of the debate and i stuck with it. i learned some things and taught some things.
if hillary clinton gets elected we'll be neighbors next year. he/she/it scares the hell out of me. i almost moved to sydney in the '70s and i have great respect for the aussies. jeanie gave me the vehicle to express the need for americans to be able to defend themselves. i wasn't taking a poke at you.
have a good day and i look forward to future debates. this was fun.
ols
Comments
Why go the to the zoo when you've already seen the monkeys?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I guess you don't have any evidence otherwise you'd just show me a link, a title, something to further prove your point. I'll do some research.
naděje umírá poslední
If you don't have anything interesting to say or wont partake in the debate, just leave instead of resorting to childish behaviour.
naděje umírá poslední
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
thank you. i'm working 2 computers back to back so i can be here and run my business. if i had the time i'd gladly look for you but i'm swamped. sorry.
Unfortunately, this is a message board with posting guidelines, which you agreed with.
naděje umírá poslední
I'll take things that are anal retentive for $1000 Alex...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No problem. I actually have a ton of work to do too, so I won't be looking it up any time today. I doubt I'll find anything when I do and it all seems so futile anyway, I think we can establish that we disagree on this issue.
naděje umírá poslední
ps don't take it personally but your user name gives me the heebie jeebies, I know what it is but it reminds me of MAN Roland printing machines, which I hate with a passion.
naděje umírá poslední
i think we can. i took a gunsmithing class in the '80s and we had an entire chapter on ballistics. frankly i didn't believe it either. my favourite gun is the thompson 1927 (A1) and i thought it would have out-killed any other. but because of muzzle jump it's hard to hang on to. i'm still looking for one so if anyone has one for sale; PM me.
anyway; i'll try to find it when i have time. the point of the chapter was to explain why snipers use single shot weapons. and also how to determine proper bullet design for it's intended purpose. for example; the perfect bullet for hunting deer is one which will mushroom and be found on the opposite side inside the hide. this varies with conditions. out west where most shots are 100 yards plus; a different bullet is used as compared to close range shots in wooded areas like michigan or wisconsin.
this is getting to be more info than you care to know but i'll find the stats.
forgive me if i sounded disrespectful when i told you to look it up yourself.
No problem.
naděje umírá poslední
I've seen documentaries about the gangster era talking about how some of those guys were so accurate with the tommy gun, they could shoot their initials into something with one clip. They showed footage of them being pretty damned accurate too, so what gives?
By the way, i found a site that's selling them for 1450. I have no idea if thats a good price or not, I dont buy guns. But how come you're having such a hard time finding one?
MAN Roland printing machines? There might be a support group out there somewhere for that.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well not just Man Rolands, Heidelberg, Ryobi... printing machines in general.
Great, now I'm going to have nightmares!
naděje umírá poslední
i think it's the same as in police shoot-outs. a cop can qualify on the range but you can watch these police video shows and see a cop empty a 17 round glock without hitting the suspect at 15 feet away. first; it's a moving target. second; it's hard to be accurate when you're being shot at.
as to shooting initials; i'd like to see that. i'm sure it's true. i can shoot a wooden match because i have over 40 years practice. annie oakley was deadly accurate shooting over her shoulder with a mirror. she traveled the country shooting cigarettes out of her husband's mouth. i recently saw a guy throw 7 clay pigeons in the air himself and shoot every one before they hit the ground. i guess i should have worded my remark as "the average person".
1450 is about twice the going rate. i heard some company bought the patent and will start making them again. i think i'll wait to buy one made with modern technology. i don't want it for shooting. i'm a collector.
A) Because it can hit a target 2000 yards away.
and perhaps most importantly...
C) Because it strikes fear in the heart of every liberal hippie douchebag on the planet.
You are right about it not being for hunting! It's an anti-material weapon! Last time I checked, the constitution didn't have a "for hunting use only" clause attached to the 2nd Amendment. However, you could use it to hunt and many do.
Guess how many of these weapons have been used to commit a crime in the US....
Answer....
ZERO!
actually no onelongsong england didn't take our freedom. january 26 commemorates the establishment of the first english penal colony at sydney cove. it's the date when the english basically stole the land from the indigenous population through a faulty precedent called terra nullius. australia has never been 'disarmed' by the english as you so quaintly put it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
oh i'm sorry but all this made me laugh. please don't lecture us about mussolini and hitler, australia was in the war from the get go.
we did not fall to our knees when the Queen arrived on our doorstop. i don't even know where you get that from. and for the record when the colonies were first formed in what was then called new south wales, not australia, there wa a KING on the throne. learn some history and then maybe we can have an infromed discussion about the formation of australia.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Huh? Automatics are designed to maim but not kill? That's one of the strangest comments I've heard from you so far.I can't say I've ever been to war, but last time I watched the news I saw plenty of bodies lying on battlefields.
When my sister did her basic training a few years ago, the Australian army was using a .223 automatic rifle. I think its called a Styer. I use a .223 bolt action for shooting roos and pigs, and the projectile is plenty big enough to do the job. The amount of powder behind the projectile is more important than the size of the projectile itself.
Edit: Re-reading your post, it looks like you are actually agreeing with my position, ie that automatic and semi-automatic firearms are not needed for hunting.
-C Addison
I'm sure someone elese has already corrected you on this one, but you are so far off the mark that its laughable. There are some in Australia who feel that Australia day commemorates the loss of their freedom. Those are the people that were here before europeans arrived, but for the rest of us it just commemorates the day that the first fleet arrived in Sydney, thus marking the beginning of the first european colony in Australia and the birth of our nation as it is today.
What that has to do with gun laws I'm not really sure. . .
-C Addison
What about the murder holes at Omaha Beach? The MG42 killed more than their share of soldiers. And what about .50 cal machine guns? A numerous .50 cal bullets fired at a high rate of fire are going to kill an enemy, not maim them.
If the bayonet was banned by the british, why did they use Lee-enfield No 4 Mk I and M1917 Enfields that had bayonets attached to them during WWII?
British soliders even used a bayonet charge during the iraq war!
Quick history lesson for those in the back row who seem to have missed it!
Actually now that I look at wiki (did I mention I love wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia
And here's another link courtesy of the Australian Government, although I'd be wary of that, they do have a habit of re-writing shit to suit there own purposes.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/australianhistory/
So anyway England didn't "take" our freedom, it took the freedom of the indigenous population and a large portion of the beaten down and starving population of Ireland and a portion of the poor and downtrodden of it's own country and it mixed us all up here together. And then ground them all down. Inflicting the will of the British Empire as per usual. That was the times.
Britain didn't "disarm" us. We weren't particularly armed to begin with. Can't have a whole bunch of Aborigines and convicts getting about with guns. People had enough problems when they got here just trying to survive. No one had time for shoot em up games. And as the country was ostensibly set up by the British to be an outpost and a penal colony then it wouldn't do having too many people other than the military armed. And when people were finally able to settle freely here they did. Although I guess we are just as guilty as the Americans for the anhiliation of the indigenous populations.
Australia Day January 26 is merely a recognition of the landing of James Cook in Botany Bay and the beginning of colonization. And certainly not something celebrated by all Australians. Most of us just enjoy the sleep in on the public holiday.
As to us now still being under the British Sovereign, well you'd need to talk to Johnny about that. He cleverly stacked the odds against us voting for a Republic with the clever use of semantics at the Referendum. Yet again. Even I, as a staunch Republican couldn't vote for what he was proposing.
Eventually Australia will be asked the question again and the next time hopefully it won't be so loaded. It is the minority that supports the monarchy in this country. Many of us can still remember The Dismissal and have no desire to be "ruled" by England.
Our numbers of "invaders" is not small. What is small is our governments ability to police our borders successfully. Our coast line being as big as it is. A practically impossible task. The influx is greater than our governments ability to police it. And they aren't trying that hard anyway, because if they were fair dinkum they'd have had a bit more of a discussion with Indonesia about stopping the people smuggling trade that they got going on.
Hmmm...........now I find our current governments stand on refugees to be appalling, and I will never support them in their efforts as they stand now. But please don't brag to me about Americas stance on human rights. As far as I can see we are fairly much on a par there. Our Detention Centres are a disgrace and a blight on humanity. And America? Well I've got two things to say to you about America and human rights. David Hicks and Guantanemo Bay, and if that doesn't do it for you how bout New Orleans? As far as I can see there is good and bad from both countries when it comes to human rights. Oh and I know that you probably have no idea, us being a itty bitty country of no significance, but we were bombed at least twice to my knowledge by the Japanese during World War 2. Broome and Darwin. Not to mention the subs in Sydney Harbour. So we've had acts of war perpertrated against us too. Not that the world seems to know or even care.
To be honest OLS this statement shits me. Australia lost a generation of young men to WW1. Far more than we could afford. And we could have sat it out. It's not like it was even happening on our doorstep.
And as to WW2, well although America likes to conviently forget sometimes, we fought right throughout the Pacific. And lost and ruined many lives that we could ill afford to lose.
Let's face it OLS they were WORLD WARS. EVERYBODY was fighting. And EVERYBODY sacrificed.
Now I have NO desire to dictate to America about it's gun laws, it's gun culture or it's constitution. But we have a very different attitude to guns here in Australia and it works for us. My only question has been, why is it necessary for Americans to own or shoot high powered guns? And I think it's sad, that so many Americans seem so concerned about NOT having them.
But at the end of the day it's your choice. Your country, your culture, your decision. We don't need em here. And it's our choice not to have them.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Excellent post Jeanie. All of it. I don't have the energy for this debate anymore. I don't even know what OLS is arguing anymore. I can't even figure out if he agrees with the sentiments of the guy in the original article or not.
-C Addison
Awww thanks scott!
I suspect that onelongsong is having a bit of a lend of us! :eek:
Reckon he's just trying to get a bite! Which I'm happy to supply for the time being. Look, I'm taking it that he likes and collects guns and that he's a bit of a sharp shooter. I also think that he maybe agrees with the guy in the article. But it's made my head hurt to try to sort through all the other stuff just to arrive at that conclusion. But I think he's agreed with you more often than not. And I think that tomorrow when he reads this post I'm probably in for some more shit!
I also think that he's a bloody big shit stirrer!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
No doubt about that
The funny thing is that I think he has a lot more in common with me than he realises. One thing that we don't have in common is the ability to shoot matchsticks. That I would like to see if its true. Sounds like a cool party trick.
-C Addison
I suspect so too scott! I've been noticing some commonalities you seem to share.
Hopefully he will notice too.
And I would LOVE to see if he could shoot matchsticks!! That would be an awesome party trick!!
You're up late tonight. Supposed to be studying?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Trying to write a paper before friday. If I don't have something to show my supervisor she's going to kill me (In the figurative sense. I don't mean she would literally whip out a gun and kill me like she would have every right to do if I was trying to steal her wallet :rolleyes: )
-C Addison
So how far in have you got with the paper? I hate having shit like that hanging over my head.
Better hope she hasn't learned trick shooting from onelongsong or your screwed!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i think you have a lot more in common with ols than you think. after working with a marine biologist for several years; i came west to make a difference in the food chain. just as man is destroying the oceans; man is destroying the food chain. i stand corrected on many points. and i stand firm on some of my points. the .223 round cannot be used here for hunting anything larger than varments. it is not sufficient to kill say a deer without the animal suffering. it will only wound the deer. our M-16 uses the .223 round. changed from the .308 round which is deadly to humans. the .223 does not have the weight behind it and the extra powder makes it more likely to pass through the human body.
yes; i agreed with you on almost everything. i'll be begging jeanie's forgiveness for a long time i bet. i grew up in a state where the schools were closed for deer hunting season. everyone hunted for food because most of us were poor. every high school bloke owned a gun. back then it wasn't a problem because everyone was taught respect and saftey. in fact; students would come to school with their rifles still in the back window of their pick-up trucks. unloaded of course. guns never really became a problem until meth did.
yes i am a shit stirrer. but i think my biggest problem is communication. in trying to save typing time i shorten explainations which makes me misunderstood. but i also lean towards the extreme to stress points and get people talking. some are not worth commenting on like the bloke that considered a .50 caliber maching gun an assault rifle. but i like a good debate and if you're going to make a stand; you can't be wishy washy. i chose 1 side of the debate and i stuck with it. i learned some things and taught some things.
if hillary clinton gets elected we'll be neighbors next year. he/she/it scares the hell out of me. i almost moved to sydney in the '70s and i have great respect for the aussies. jeanie gave me the vehicle to express the need for americans to be able to defend themselves. i wasn't taking a poke at you.
have a good day and i look forward to future debates. this was fun.
ols