Allowable guns in the US

[westwall]

No, in the real America the normal folks understand that pootin putzes, such as yourself, allow the violence in progressive cities to run rampant so you can cry about gun control.

The problem isn't gun ownership. If it was there wouldn't be millions of brand spanking new gun owners.

No, the problem is opportunistic scum..like you.

Westy, we lock up 2 million people and there are 300 million guns out there, although half of them are in the hands of 3% of the population.

If guns and prisons were the solution, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the Free World, not the highest.

Every other civilized country has figured this out, except ours.

As usual you are wrong. 8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crime in this country. That is the population that you progressives allow to roam free preying on the public.

Those criminals live in progressive hell holes. The top ten progressive run cities account for 90% of the murders in this country. Remove those progressive controlled cities from the USA and our murder rate is less than Europe.

Intelligent people know this.

 

[westwall]

Born in Amarillo, Texas in 1963. I have pics of me and my daughter here, videos of me playing music PLUS I have numerous posters here that are refugees from the old Yahoo news message boards that know me.

I'm sure that your handlers spent good time setting up that profile, but you aren't fooling anyone. Your errors in language and that you don't seem to know English system measurements says a lot.

Well, let's just say that you are typical of the ugly Chicagoan that George Halas was so ashamed of that he had NFL films inject fans from other stadiums because he was embarrassed by his season ticket holders. I envision you as being that "Super Bears fan" played by Chris Farley,

Naw, I get bored with football... and the reason why Papa Bear didn't get fans was because he was too cheap to hire real talent. Which is why the Bears didn't win a super bowl until 1985...

You want a "nanny state" with a "cradle to grave" system in place because you fear failure and having to stand on your own two feet.

Most Americans want that, buddy. The problem is, they want it for themselves and not for the other guy. It's why social security and Medicare are so popular.

Given as to how the police stood down during the riots and allowed your fellow commies run amok? You only proved my assertions that people should look to their own means to protect themselves.

Yeah, here's the thing... Self-defense homicides are non-existant. Only about 200 a year. (Cops managed to kill 900 people last year and there were another 15,000 other homicides)

So the notion that you need a gun is laughable. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

I listened to a documentary series today about how China became a communist country and the oppression the serfs have had to endure while being un-armed.

Really? Funny thing. the actual history. Most Chinese welcomed the Communists, it's why they are still in power today. We dumped tons of money trying to prop up "Cash-my-Check" for decades, and we still couldn't save him.

Chew on that, Joe Blowhard, the card carrying commie......Molon Labe, fuck face....

Questions???

Guy, here's the thing, when the ATF Comes for the gun nuts, the rest of the neighborhood will cheer.. because they were scaring the children.

Your so called facts and figures are all well known lies. No one believes them you imbecile.

And there are lots of clowns like you out there. We call them fascists.

 

[progressive hunter]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

I read a thing a long time ago that said a .22 has killed more people than any other caliber and a 30-30 has killed more deer than any other caliber.

 

[progressive hunter]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

The deadliest gun? The one in the hands of a skilled shooter. The one you practice with the most.

I have several guns. None are particularly deadly unless I hit my target.

There are more hoops to jump thru to own a fully automatic weapon like an M134 Minigun. But as long as it was manufactured before 1986, you can jump thru the hoops and own it.

I've never understood the desire to own a full auto firearm. I've fired a few. And while it is fun, it has limited use as a defensive firearm.

if they are so useless then why does the military depend on them so much???

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, in the real America the normal folks understand that pootin putzes, such as yourself, allow the violence in progressive cities to run rampant so you can cry about gun control.

The problem isn't gun ownership. If it was there wouldn't be millions of brand spanking new gun owners.

No, the problem is opportunistic scum..like you.

Westy, we lock up 2 million people and there are 300 million guns out there, although half of them are in the hands of 3% of the population.

If guns and prisons were the solution, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the Free World, not the highest.

Every other civilized country has figured this out, except ours.

Then, pick one. I will help you pack.

 

[westwall]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

The deadliest gun? The one in the hands of a skilled shooter. The one you practice with the most.

I have several guns. None are particularly deadly unless I hit my target.

There are more hoops to jump thru to own a fully automatic weapon like an M134 Minigun. But as long as it was manufactured before 1986, you can jump thru the hoops and own it.

I've never understood the desire to own a full auto firearm. I've fired a few. And while it is fun, it has limited use as a defensive firearm.

The M134 isn't a machinegun. Anyone who is not a felon, or a loon, can own one. They just cost over 100k to buy, and go through multiple cases of ammunition a minute so are a bit costly to feed.

 

[westwall]

No, in the real America the normal folks understand that pootin putzes, such as yourself, allow the violence in progressive cities to run rampant so you can cry about gun control.

The problem isn't gun ownership. If it was there wouldn't be millions of brand spanking new gun owners.

No, the problem is opportunistic scum..like you.

Westy, we lock up 2 million people and there are 300 million guns out there, although half of them are in the hands of 3% of the population.

If guns and prisons were the solution, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the Free World, not the highest.

Every other civilized country has figured this out, except ours.

Then, pick one. I will help you pack.

Me too.

 

[Flash]

Probably the "deadliest" gun a non FFL citizen can own is .50 cal machine gun or a mini gun. There are a few of each on the NFA Register.

.50 cal semi autos and bolts are very common.

 

[Captain Caveman]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

Even without an FFL one can own just about any weapon his or her heart desires, based both on state and federal laws and one's own good character. Beyond that, one can build all sorts of firearms legally, again depending on state regulations. Why not hop on over across the pond and check it out for yourself.

I've been four times, only saw one handgun and that was in the holster of a cop.

 

[Dick Foster]

Citizens with a Federal Firearms License, can own any pistol, rifle, or machine gun they want. So, you could own a minigun, but you have to have that license to do so. How deadly any firearm is, depends on who has it.

IMHO even that license requirement is unconstitutional. In fact ALL guns laws are unconstitutional and so are illegal from a strictly constitutional viewpoint. "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Arms encompasses any weapon therefore including any type or caliber of gun while infringed means restricted, limited, denied or regulated in any manner whatsoever.
Remember the British marched on Lexington and Concord in order to seize weapons including cannon and shot which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. When the founders penned the constitution they had Concord and Lexington fresh on their minds and any idiot can easily conclude that the events of Lexington and Concord was precisely the type of event or circumstance the 2nd was penned to prevent. Of course the militia referred to in the second were the minutemen, or the rebels of the day standing against the then recognized government authority and its armed forces.
The real purpose of the 2nd is to put the people on a more equal footing as far as weaponry against a government run amok.
Anyone who can't see that much is a simple minded fool who just doesn't want to see it and is likely feigning ignorance.

 

[progressive hunter]

Citizens with a Federal Firearms License, can own any pistol, rifle, or machine gun they want. So, you could own a minigun, but you have to have that license to do so. How deadly any firearm is, depends on who has it.

IMHO even that license requirement is unconstitutional. In fact ALL guns laws are unconstitutional and so are illegal from a strictly constitutional viewpoint. "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Arms encompasses any weapon therefore including any type or caliber of gun while infringed means restricted, limited, denied or regulated in any manner whatsoever.
Remember the British marched on Lexington and Concord in order to seize weapons including cannon and shot which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. When the founders penned the constitution they had Concord and Lexington fresh on their minds and any idiot can easily conclude that the events of Lexington and Concord was precisely the type of event or circumstance the 2nd was penned to prevent. Of course the militia referred to in the second were the minutemen, or the rebels of the day standing against the then recognized government authority and its armed forces.
The real purpose of the 2nd is to put the people on a more equal footing as far as weaponry against a government run amok.
Anyone who can't see that much is a simple minded fool who just doesn't want to see it and is likely feigning ignorance.

simply put you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect you from deciding what you can or cant own,,,

the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

The deadliest gun? The one in the hands of a skilled shooter. The one you practice with the most.

I have several guns. None are particularly deadly unless I hit my target.

There are more hoops to jump thru to own a fully automatic weapon like an M134 Minigun. But as long as it was manufactured before 1986, you can jump thru the hoops and own it.

I've never understood the desire to own a full auto firearm. I've fired a few. And while it is fun, it has limited use as a defensive firearm.

if they are so useless then why does the military depend on them so much???

They have very important uses for the military. Less so for home defense.

A fully automatic rifle is not nearly as accurate as a semi auto, and is far less controllable. In a military situation, killing people around the enemy is good. In defending your home it is not. Not to mention the increased regulations of owning one, and having to submit to inspections anytime the feds wish.

 

[WinterBorn]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

I read a thing a long time ago that said a .22 has killed more people than any other caliber and a 30-30 has killed more deer than any other caliber.

I think a big part of the reasons .22s have killed more people, is the same as why the 30-30 has killed so many deer. Both were extremely popular and easy to use/shoot. The .22 is also quieter than other big bore rounds, and the ammo is far cheaper.

 

[progressive hunter]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

The deadliest gun? The one in the hands of a skilled shooter. The one you practice with the most.

I have several guns. None are particularly deadly unless I hit my target.

There are more hoops to jump thru to own a fully automatic weapon like an M134 Minigun. But as long as it was manufactured before 1986, you can jump thru the hoops and own it.

I've never understood the desire to own a full auto firearm. I've fired a few. And while it is fun, it has limited use as a defensive firearm.

if they are so useless then why does the military depend on them so much???

They have very important uses for the military. Less so for home defense.

A fully automatic rifle is not nearly as accurate as a semi auto, and is far less controllable. In a military situation, killing people around the enemy is good. In defending your home it is not. Not to mention the increased regulations of owning one, and having to submit to inspections anytime the feds wish.

the 2nd isnt about home defense,,,and all regs violate the 2nd,,,

as for home defense there is a selector switch to make it semi auto,,
problem solved and you can defend both the country and your home,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

I read a thing a long time ago that said a .22 has killed more people than any other caliber and a 30-30 has killed more deer than any other caliber.

I think a big part of the reasons .22s have killed more people, is the same as why the 30-30 has killed so many deer. Both were extremely popular and easy to use/shoot. The .22 is also quieter than other big bore rounds, and the ammo is far cheaper.

most likely,,,

 

[Ringel05]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

I read a thing a long time ago that said a .22 has killed more people than any other caliber and a 30-30 has killed more deer than any other caliber.

I think a big part of the reasons .22s have killed more people, is the same as why the 30-30 has killed so many deer. Both were extremely popular and easy to use/shoot. The .22 is also quieter than other big bore rounds, and the ammo is far cheaper.

Supposedly the .22 was a favorite of mob assassins, walk up behind a person, stick the barrel up to that person's head and pull the trigger. The round goes in one side and bounces around inside the brain........... And it's quiet.

 

[miketx]

What is the most deadliest gun can you own in the US? Can you own a M134 Minigun to protect your property?

Yes.

 

[miketx]

I don't need "da gubermint" to grant me their blessing on what I may or may not have in order to defend my home and country. Commie fucks like candyporn would love to have a totally disarmed public because marxists like her fear an armed populace. They stand in the way of their hopes of a commie utopia.

Comrade Dmitri Smirnov trying to convince us he's an American... too funny. Come on, we know Putin doesn't let you have guns, Comrade.

When did you suddenly care about "your country"? I thought you didn't participate in the system and you think it's all a conspiracy by the Jesuits/Bilderbergers

Anyway, out here in the REAL WORLD of America, most of us are sick and tired of the gun fetishists and how we all have to shape our lives around them.

Come get mine shit weasel.

 

[Dick Foster]

Citizens with a Federal Firearms License, can own any pistol, rifle, or machine gun they want. So, you could own a minigun, but you have to have that license to do so. How deadly any firearm is, depends on who has it.

IMHO even that license requirement is unconstitutional. In fact ALL guns laws are unconstitutional and so are illegal from a strictly constitutional viewpoint. "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Arms encompasses any weapon therefore including any type or caliber of gun while infringed means restricted, limited, denied or regulated in any manner whatsoever.
Remember the British marched on Lexington and Concord in order to seize weapons including cannon and shot which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. When the founders penned the constitution they had Concord and Lexington fresh on their minds and any idiot can easily conclude that the events of Lexington and Concord was precisely the type of event or circumstance the 2nd was penned to prevent. Of course the militia referred to in the second were the minutemen, or the rebels of the day standing against the then recognized government authority and its armed forces.
The real purpose of the 2nd is to put the people on a more equal footing as far as weaponry against a government run amok.
Anyone who can't see that much is a simple minded fool who just doesn't want to see it and is likely feigning ignorance.

simply put you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect you from deciding what you can or cant own,,,

the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,

Exactly right! Finally someone with the lights on. The true purpose of the second amendment isn't for protection from snakes, injuns or even home invaders. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is so the people can protect themselves from the government.

 

[miketx]

Citizens with a Federal Firearms License, can own any pistol, rifle, or machine gun they want. So, you could own a minigun, but you have to have that license to do so. How deadly any firearm is, depends on who has it.

IMHO even that license requirement is unconstitutional. In fact ALL guns laws are unconstitutional and so are illegal from a strictly constitutional viewpoint. "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Arms encompasses any weapon therefore including any type or caliber of gun while infringed means restricted, limited, denied or regulated in any manner whatsoever.
Remember the British marched on Lexington and Concord in order to seize weapons including cannon and shot which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. When the founders penned the constitution they had Concord and Lexington fresh on their minds and any idiot can easily conclude that the events of Lexington and Concord was precisely the type of event or circumstance the 2nd was penned to prevent. Of course the militia referred to in the second were the minutemen, or the rebels of the day standing against the then recognized government authority and its armed forces.
The real purpose of the 2nd is to put the people on a more equal footing as far as weaponry against a government run amok.
Anyone who can't see that much is a simple minded fool who just doesn't want to see it and is likely feigning ignorance.

simply put you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect you from deciding what you can or cant own,,,

the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,

Exactly right! Finally someone with the lights on. The true purpose of the second amendment isn't for protection from snakes, injuns or even home invaders. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is so the people can protect themselves from the government.

Like it says - being necessary to the security of a free State.