Swagger
Gold Member
Why?Tell me who makes it.
Just curious, I want to look up the specs. I cant Identify it from that photo. looks to me to be .223 or .308, BTW I dont believe in banning any guns.
Tubb 2000 - Wikipedia
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why?Tell me who makes it.
Just curious, I want to look up the specs. I cant Identify it from that photo. looks to me to be .223 or .308, BTW I dont believe in banning any guns.
TubbJust curious, I want to look up the specs. I cant Identify it from that photo. looks to me to be .223 or .308, BTW I dont believe in banning any guns.
ahhh, I know where you are going with this
It's not like I'm hiding anything.TubbJust curious, I want to look up the specs. I cant Identify it from that photo. looks to me to be .223 or .308, BTW I dont believe in banning any guns.
ahhh, I know where you are going with this
It is designed to shoot under a minute at 1000yds.I don't know what it is. But whatever it is I doubt it is any more lethal at any distance than a Remington 700 in 30.06 with an ordinary, well-zeroed, 3-9x scope and a clip-on bipod. The pistol grip is redundant.... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.
Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.
Am I mistaken?
There are SO many people that don't understand what you and I just said.Under a minute? It should only take second plus or minus a FCH at 948 meters/second.It is designed to shoot under a minute at 1000yds.I don't know what it is. But whatever it is I doubt it is any more lethal at any distance than a Remington 700 in 30.06 with an ordinary, well-zeroed, 3-9x scope and a clip-on bipod. The pistol grip is redundant.
Am I mistaken?
If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".Yes, registration is nothing more then the first step to confiscation. The Government has no compelling need to know where LEGALLY obtained and owned weapons are.
Would you support a 6 month period where the Government was free to ignore the Constitution to clean up gangs and their weapons?
And theres the problem typical of many Second Amendment supporters.
You make these highly hyperbolic and inaccurate statements which serve to only undermine an otherwise cogent argument.
Yes, registration does manifest an undue burden to the exercising of ones Second Amendment rights, and there is indeed no evidence that registration reduces gun violence. But it has nothing at all to do with confiscation, as no lawmaker or lawmaking body is proposing any such measure.
If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".And theres the problem typical of many Second Amendment supporters.
You make these highly hyperbolic and inaccurate statements which serve to only undermine an otherwise cogent argument.
Yes, registration does manifest an undue burden to the exercising of ones Second Amendment rights, and there is indeed no evidence that registration reduces gun violence. But it has nothing at all to do with confiscation, as no lawmaker or lawmaking body is proposing any such measure.
... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.
Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.
Is this what you consider a sound argument?I don't want anyone shooting me in the face with it in a movie theater.... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.
Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.
If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".
There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.
What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?
The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.
Is this what you consider a sound argument?I don't want anyone shooting me in the face with it in a movie theater.... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.
Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.
Gun sales are booming, yet it's the same gun owners buying more guns.
How many "assault" rifles do they need to sleep at night?
... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to private property, like your car, for example.If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".
There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.
What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?
The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.
... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.
Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to private property, like your car, for example.If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?
There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.
What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?
The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.
If a robber loses her legal gun during an attempted stick-up, the government has a compelling interest to find that legal gun's owner, Your Honor.
If being shot in the face in a theater is your primary anti-gun concern you should have no apprehensions about this sniper rifle, which no self-respecting psychopath would choose to shoot up a theater with. In terms of impracticality for that purpose it is second only to a longbow.... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.
Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.
I don't want anyone shooting me in the face with it in a movie theater.
I like popcorn..not bullets.