If only.same as being hit with a pillow case of soap
If only.same as being hit with a pillow case of soap
I'd sleep fine if they were available. But you're equating small arms to ordnance built under contract for sale exclusively to the DOD.Really? So you support RPGs for civilian use? Apache helicopters with the full compliment of weapons? There’s no line you would draw?
How about full auto? You opposed to that ban on civilian manufacture and sales? The point is, there is obviously a reasonable line to be drawn, the only question is where.I'd sleep fine if they were available. But you're equating small arms to artillery built under contract for sale exclusively to the DOD.
Should be legal without all the NFA happy horse.How about full auto? You opposed to that ban on civilian manufacture and sales?
I would argue the equivalent of standard equipped infantry at minimum.The point is, there is obviously a reasonable line to be drawn, the only question is where.
I'd say it's completely on topic.
Should be legal without all the NFA happy horse.
I would argue the equivalent of standard equipped infantry.
"60 Minutes" did a segment on AR-15 ammo. It's designed to break up inside a body to do the maximum amount of damage. If someone shoots into a crowd with standard ammo unless they hit a vital organ the victims are likely to live. But those same victims shot into otherwise non-lethal areas of their body are much more likely to die from AR-15 ammo.
No, saw the lab results testing it. And remember reading an article about what the ammo did many years ago when they first started selling AR-15's. I'm 100% for the 2nd Amendment. But don't think they should have ever let these weapons into the general population. Would love to see just police have them to fight drug dealers.
That can’t be the intent of the framers if we are to have the right and might to overthrow the government.In my opinion the right to bear arms implies weapons you are able to carry around.
Sure ... Lots of things.Is there anything that is Trump’s fault? Serious question.
That sounds like BS to me."60 Minutes" did a segment on AR-15 ammo. It's designed to break up inside a body to do the maximum amount of damage. If someone shoots into a crowd with standard ammo unless they hit a vital organ the victims are likely to live. But those same victims shot into otherwise non-lethal areas of their body are much more likely to die from AR-15 ammo.
"Common sense" and "reasonable" gun control. Lmfao. Let's call it what it is. Gun prohibition, because ultimately that is the goal.
Less than two weeks ago there was an arson in Japan that killed 35 people. More than twice as Parkland and not too short of New Zealand. Did you even know about it? I didn't read about or see it on a single mainstream news source. Seems to already be under the rug. Had it been a shooting the media would still be bawling their eyes out. I guess since a gun wasn't used in the commission of the murders it doesn't matter.
Not exactly.That sounds like BS to me.
The 223 is a NATO specified round and any round approved for war would not be designed to do that.
A smaller round is more likely to tumble which is most likely what they misinterpreted.
PS - 60 Minutes was one of the early fake news shows. They never had my respect.
I must've missed it when I blinked.Dude, the arson in Japan was all over the media.
I tend to believe you more than most on here.Not exactly.
5.56x45mm in the NATO round. .223 is similar but not identical.
Its generally safe to shoot .223 in a 5.56 chamber but the reverse is not true. You can usually chamber a 5.56 in a .223 and can usually shoot it but the pressure will be higher and can border on unsafe.I tend to believe more than most on here.
I'll still research this.
CANT TAKE THE HEAT!