EVE Search - From a gunowners view

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

From a gunowners view

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.08 23:22:00 - [1] Go to the Link and click on the slideshow. Very well done I think. ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
Gojyu Gallente Ever Flow FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.08 23:34:00 - [2] The number of military grade weaponry in that aside, I was slightly disturbed by the family that named their kid uzi.
The Pointless Gallente Plastic Toys	Posted - 2007.08.08 23:39:00 - [3] That's... just... ... scary. ----------------------------------------------- "Breaking News! The Pointless hates GIFs!"
Frezik Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.08.08 23:51:00 - [4] This thread will create a reasonable, level-headed discussion without resorting to loaded phrases and cherry-picked statistics. It will also flare out naturally, as opposed to be locked by the mods. Yup, definitely.
Tarquin Tarquinius Gallente Escorts of Eve	Posted - 2007.08.08 23:52:00 - [5] Edited by: Tarquin Tarquinius on 08/08/2007 23:53:42 My dad's collection puts all those to shame. He probably has over $100,000 in guns. My brother is coming up at about $5,000 worth, and my personnel collection only contains 3 guns. ...and most of those the guns in there are civilian versions of military weapons, and not the actual military version. Even in Texas full auto weapons are illegal without an expensive permit. On a related note my brother just bought a FN P90 ....and I don't see why that would be scary. ------
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.08 23:55:00 - [6] Ugh...don't get me started (ok, you did). The most common refrain you hear in those clips are people wanting the ability to defend themselves. If you look at the statistics you find that guns in a home cause more injury (via accidents, your child flips and nukes the family, dad catches mom in bed with another guy, burglar finds the weapon and uses it on owner...the list goes on). I'm a US citizen and I have friends that are die-hard gun owners. I just do not get it. The ones I know who own guns are good people and not the sort you'd expect to have a gun and despite generally seeing eye-to-eye with them on most issues they, like every other gun owner I have met, are fanatical about keeping them. As for the US Constitution in allowing firearms it says, in the same sentence the "right" is granted that it is for the purposes of a "well regulated militia". Where is the militia in all this (not to mention a regulated one)? And hunters...well I try to keep an open mind but every time I think about it this scene from My Cousin Vinny pops into my head.
Tarquin Tarquinius Gallente Escorts of Eve	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:01:00 - [7] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h As for the US Constitution in allowing firearms it says, in the same sentence the "right" is granted that it is for the purposes of a "well regulated militia". Where is the militia in all this (not to mention a regulated one)? That means that the citizens have the right to keep arms to protect themselves from that well regulated milita. As long as we have an army there is an imminant risk that a General (Caesar or Napolean for example) will use the army to seize power. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history. ------
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:04:00 - [8] I have to say, why does one need to own such an inordinate amount of firearms? I don't see how every one could be practical enough to justify owning more than one or two guns...but hey, I'm a carebear though. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 25 Million SP in Forum Warfare.
Superbus Maximus Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:09:00 - [9] Edited by: Superbus Maximus on 09/08/2007 00:10:59 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Ugh...don't get me started (ok, you did). The most common refrain you hear in those clips are people wanting the ability to defend themselves. If you look at the statistics you find that guns in a home cause more injury (via accidents, your child flips and nukes the family, dad catches mom in bed with another guy, burglar finds the weapon and uses it on owner...the list goes on). I'm a US citizen and I have friends that are die-hard gun owners. I just do not get it. The ones I know who own guns are good people and not the sort you'd expect to have a gun and despite generally seeing eye-to-eye with them on most issues they, like every other gun owner I have met, are fanatical about keeping them. As for the US Constitution in allowing firearms it says, in the same sentence the "right" is granted that it is for the purposes of a "well regulated militia". Where is the militia in all this (not to mention a regulated one)? And hunters...well I try to keep an open mind but every time I think about it this scene from My Cousin Vinny pops into my head. I own 4 firearms. 1 handgun and 2 rifles and a shotgun. I use to be an avid hunter mainly because I like game meat, but I just cant bring myself to kill an animal just for sport. Also that well regulated militia point can be argued. The national guard what you would consider a militia is commanded by state government, and several other national commanders appointed by the keyword here "federal government." Now when the constitution was written a militia was a group of people usually from one town. The dictionary gives four definitions of what a militia is now, but this one is closest to what it was back when the constitution was written. "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government." The national guard has commanders appointed by the federal government and can be called for duty by the federal government hence not a militia any more.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:09:00 - [10] Originally by: Tarquin Tarquinius Originally by: Imperator Jora'h As for the US Constitution in allowing firearms it says, in the same sentence the "right" is granted that it is for the purposes of a "well regulated militia". Where is the militia in all this (not to mention a regulated one)? That means that the citizens have the right to keep arms to protect themselves from that well regulated milita. As long as we have an army there is an imminant risk that a General (Caesar or Napolean for example) will use the army to seize power. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history. While I have heard the argument that people keeping firearms protects them from the state going nuts that is NOT what the US Constitution says. Here's the relevant bit: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The supreme law of the US was not spelling out keeping firearms to protect you from the state. Indeed it was written that way because back then there was not really a professional, standing army. A militia was a means to have people with their own guns ready to call upon should the need arise. And as for protecting yourself versus a crazed general with modern firearms and armor and helicopters and trained soldiers versus your .38...well forget it. You'll just be the first against the wall.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:14:00 - [11] Originally by: Superbus Maximus The dictionary gives four definitions of what a militia is now, but this one is closest to what it was back when the constitution was written. "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government." Which dictionary is that? Quote: Main Entry: mi+li+tia Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh& Function: noun Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service SOURCE: Merriam -Webster Online
Tarquin Tarquinius Gallente Escorts of Eve	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:15:00 - [12] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h And as for protecting yourself versus a crazed general with modern firearms and armor and helicopters and trained soldiers versus your .38...well forget it. You'll just be the first against the wall. Tell that to the Iraqis or the Maquis. Just because a battle looks hopeless doesn't mean we should give up and appoint Bush King. Don't take this the wrong way, I am by no means a right wing milita nut. I just think that a government that disarms its citizens is tyrannical. ------
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:21:00 - [13] Originally by: Tarquin Tarquinius Originally by: Imperator Jora'h And as for protecting yourself versus a crazed general with modern firearms and armor and helicopters and trained soldiers versus your .38...well forget it. You'll just be the first against the wall. Tell that to the Iraqis or the Maquis. Just because a battle looks hopeless doesn't mean we should give up and appoint Bush King. Don't take this the wrong way, I am by no means a right wing milita nut. I just think that a government that disarms its citizens is tyrannical. Agreed. As much as the thought of some crazy guy owning an entire closet full of firearms weirds me out, the advantages of making gun ownership illegal are dubious at best. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 25 Million SP in Forum Warfare.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:22:00 - [14] everybody knows that the only guns you'll ever need are a rocket launcher, and some very well seasoned tacos. ...tacos can be deadly gas weapons. --- truth about EVE: Quote: "Guns are fine, boost players" Quote: "Players are fine, boost guns"
Superbus Maximus Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:24:00 - [15] This thread is surprisingly more civil than anything in caod lol... keeps waiting for someone to muck it up.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Tarminic Don't take this the wrong way, I am by no means a right wing milita nut. I just think that a government that disarms its citizens is tyrannical. Agreed. As much as the thought of some crazy guy owning an entire closet full of firearms weirds me out, the advantages of making gun ownership illegal are dubious at best. Great Britain, Japan, any number of modern western civilizations seem to do just fine with highly restrictive gun ownership laws in place. I have yet to see a modern democracy go foom and have its government oppress the people and the people being screwed because they had no access to weapons. As for advantages IIRC in the first Iraq War (the one in the 1990's) I believe more people were killed in New York by firearms than US soldiers were killed in the war.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:33:00 - [17] Guns are a tool, a tool used to kill other human beings or game animals for eating. No one will ever argue, straight faced, that they need an assault rifle or automatic shotgun to kill a deer and/or ducks. If you cannot kill the animal in one shot, do it a favour and find another pass time. If you are looking for self defense, get a stungun or can of pepperspray; purchasing a firearm for the same purpose is neigh unto bombing for peace.
Tarquin Tarquinius Gallente Escorts of Eve	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:43:00 - [18] Edited by: Tarquin Tarquinius on 09/08/2007 00:45:44 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Great Britain, Japan, any number of modern western civilizations seem to do just fine with highly restrictive gun ownership laws in place. I have yet to see a modern democracy go foom and have its government oppress the people and the people being screwed because they had no access to weapons. What about Germany, Chilie, Panama, and Spain. There's also the Hungarian and Czech revolts during the cold war. Switzerland and Israel also seem to do fine with very liberal gun laws, and in the US states with the most liberal gun laws tend to have lower crime rates. In 2004 Texas has a murder rate of 5.1 per 100k, while California (the most restrictive) has a murder rate of 6.7. Population density has much more to do with crime than access to guns. New York City has a population of about 10 million, so I wouldn't be surprised if more people were killed by feral cats than died in the Gulf War. New York also has some of the most restrictive gun laws, so what does that say for the effectivness of gun control in preventing crime EDIT: added year to crime statistics ------
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:51:00 - [19] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Guns are a tool, a tool used to kill other human beings or game animals for eating. Aye it is a tool but that minimizes it I believe. For instance knives are ubiquitous. They are everywhere. Truly in every household in the US and probably the world. You cannot say the same of guns. Yet guns account for FAR more deaths than knives do (cite). Heck, doesn't even have to be a knife. You could stab someone with a pencil. I think guns enable a sort of less personal violence. Sounds silly but if you think about it getting up close and stabbing someone is probably harder to contemplate for most people than standing back and shooting them. Further, guns serve few useful purposes. Knives have many mundane and legitimate uses. A gun has one purpose...violence. You can argue there are times violence may be called for and that may be but nevertheless they are tools of violence almost exclusively (except perhaps target shooting).
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 01:10:00 - [20] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 09/08/2007 01:11:08 Originally by: Tarquin Tarquinius What about Germany, Chilie, Panama, and Spain. There's also the Hungarian and Czech revolts during the cold war. Those countires when? Germany today is quite stable. When did those other countires have a democratic government that was well established then imploded? Remember calling themselves democratic did not make it so. **** ***** (good grief....THAT is censored!....read former Iraqi dictator) held elections. Big deal...Iraq was not a democracy under him and his winning was a foregone conclusion. East Germany during the Cold War was properly titled Deutsche Demokratische Republik (translated meaning German Democratic Republic). They were anything but democratic though. It was just marketing. Quote: Switzerland and Israel also seem to do fine with very liberal gun laws, The Swiss and Israelis are extremely homogenous societies for one thing. The Swiss seem fine as they have little push and pull between various internal groups. Basically they are all on the same page. The Israelis similarly but they also have a siege mentality. Everyone around them wants to kill them. That makes more of a sense of "we really need to stand together here". Quote: and in the US states with the most liberal gun laws tend to have lower crime rates. In 2004 Texas has a murder rate of 5.1 per 100k, while California (the most restrictive) has a murder rate of 6.7. Population density has much more to do with crime than access to guns. With you on population density. Do you have statistics for crime rates in California cities vs. Texas cities with similar population densities? Really asking here...I don't but that would be more telling I think. Quote: New York City has a population of about 10 million, so I wouldn't be surprised if more people were killed by feral cats than died in the Gulf War. New York also has some of the most restrictive gun laws, so what does that say for the effectivness of gun control in preventing crime The problem with New York having restrictive policies is places like New Jersey do not. It is simplicity for those who want guns to dive 20 minutes and go get one. With loop holes so big it is not surprising New York still has issues. Only a national restriction would really suffice. If one state had permissive firearm laws and the rest didn;t a whole industry of people driving to that state to stock up would arise and guns would still get disseminated.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.08.09 01:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Aye it is a tool but that minimizes it I believe. It minimializes nothing, a gun is a tool. It does not become a murder weapon until its put into a murder's hands and fired at an innocent. And keep in mind I'm a Canadian, our laws are much more liberal than those of the US in terms of what one can own as a firearm. Quote: For instance knives are ubiquitous. They are everywhere. Truly in every household in the US and probably the world. You cannot say the same of guns. Yet guns account for FAR more deaths than knives do (cite). Heck, doesn't even have to be a knife. You could stab someone with a pencil. These are statistics for the US alone, I want to see stats for nations like the UK where only long guns are owned by citizens and firearms are not carried as regular police kit. I can guarantee you that knives and blunt instraments will take the place of firearms when firearms are not readily available to make murder easier. Humans are violent, frightened, territorial animals, and given the proper tools we do very stupid things. As for firearms, I would say that outside of Western society where we depend on the state for protection for each other that firearms are actually more common than here. Take for instance Africa, there is undoubtedly knives in peoples houses, but villages have been known to stock automatic weapons and RPG's to defend themselves against competeing tribes. Quote: I think guns enable a sort of less personal violence. Sounds silly but if you think about it getting up close and stabbing someone is probably harder to contemplate for most people than standing back and shooting them. Its human nature, nothing more. The detachment from the deed makes it that much easier to commit, just like war is much easier to agree to now-a-days because there is no one currently alive and in power who lived during the two Great Wars to know that there is always a better way. Quote: Further, guns serve few useful purposes. Knives have many mundane and legitimate uses. A gun has one purpose...violence. You can argue there are times violence may be called for and that may be but nevertheless they are tools of violence almost exclusively (except perhaps target shooting). By the same argument, I say we outlaw all pickaxes. They are only good for digging holes in the ground, and there is no reason that shovels can't do the same job in a much safer way. Ever heard of someone mis-swinging a shovel and lodging it in someones head? I think not. BAN PICKAXES! BAN BATTERY OPERATED POWERSAWS! BAN PNUEMONIC AIR NAILERS! etc. I am not attempting to argue that firearms are not deadly implements of destruction and mayhem, but rather they are inanimate objects that do nothing until put into a persons hands. This person decides what they do with this tool, and should be accountable for all actions taken. None of this nanny-state nonsense, hand holding gibberish.
Tullaris Iceblade Caldari Crimson Fists	Posted - 2007.08.09 01:20:00 - [22] I live in britain and as mentioned before we get along perfectly without guns, the argument here is whether police should be allowed guns lol, personal ownership doesnt even enter the picture, i have never had the choice of buying a gun and to be honest i have never missed that liberty. Besides i can think of very few cases in which the use of a gun could be condoned, say someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in fright, for the rest of your life you have to live with that death on your hands. also cant remember the last time there was a school massacre in england. Guns are designed and made for killing, and i dont want some guy with the IQ of 10 and the moral viewpoint of a 5 year old to have his hands on something that could snuff my life out with 1 pull of the trigger.
Tarquin Tarquinius Gallente Escorts of Eve	Posted - 2007.08.09 01:34:00 - [23] Edited by: Tarquin Tarquinius on 09/08/2007 01:38:24 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h With you on population density. Do you have statistics for crime rates in California cities vs. Texas cities with similar population densities? Really asking here...I don't but that would be more telling I think. This Is a cool little tool for comparing crime rates. I have it on Oklahoma City and Sacramento. Oklahoma is just as permissive as Texas and is a better gauge since the statistic for Houston and Dallas have been thrown off in the past few years because of Katrina. Houston alone absorbed about 100,000 to 200,000 homeless people. Our murder rate was about the same as NYC's before the storm, but now its doubled. Without using Houston or Dallas (which both have murder rates of about 16 or so in 2005) there's no city that can be compared to LA, but Austin, San Antiono, and El Paso can compare pretty well to Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco. ------
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.09 01:52:00 - [24] I have: And AK-47 with 4 30rd clips. This gun is simply for fun on the field. British Infield WW2 .308. Heavy gun and one of my hunting rifles. It fires like a cannon though and almost always leaves a bruise on my shoulder. M1 Carbine. I received this from my dad. .305 This is a newer version from the .308 of mine. Much much lighter 30-06 with scope. My main hunting rifle .22 marlyn long rifle w/ scope. This was my first gun that I got for my 10th birthday. I use this to hunt whistlepigs. .45 pistol .22 pistol Both are those I also received from my dad. They're made by the same company and are identical in looks. Navy Colt (blackpowder replica)Being the cowboy that I really am I had to have a six shooter and I've always loved the colts. This is on my hip when I'm horseback riding. In case some wild animal waltzes on out and threatens my horse and I, I can fire off a shot and try to scare it off. (and the horse is gun trained) Remington 12guage semi auto shotgun. My Bird gun. I love my guns and take good care of them. I believe in gun safety and I believe in firearm training. I keep all of these locked in a gunsafe back in a closet with the exception of the .308 because it is simply too long but even then it has a trigger lock on it. Around here we have a issue with coyotes. They breed about as fast as the whistlepigs and when they get the large packs going they get brave. My firearms keep them at bay. Personally I'm not planning on any revolution taking place. I'm not worried about some criminal breaking in. I live in the middle of nowhere. I keep my doors unlock. I'm sure my dogs bark would be more than enough to scare of any would be thief. And if it isn't I've got plenty of close combat training to lay someone out. Like I said I like my guns. If someone doesn't like guns and refuses to own them I fine with that. It's their thing. And I've got my thing. ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 01:58:00 - [25] Originally by: Derovius Vaden It minimializes nothing, a gun is a tool. It does not become a murder weapon until its put into a murder's hands and fired at an innocent. I know the old refrain, "Guns do not kill people, people kill people." Nonetheless tool though it may be it is a tool with few "good" (put that in quotes because I am not sure it is the right word but hopefully you take my meaning) uses. Quote: These are statistics for the US alone, I want to see stats for nations like the UK where only long guns are owned by citizens and firearms are not carried as regular police kit. I can guarantee you that knives and blunt instraments will take the place of firearms when firearms are not readily available to make murder easier. Humans are violent, frightened, territorial animals, and given the proper tools we do very stupid things. You seem to be correct that other weapons take the place of guns in places where guns are not available. Stands to reason really. I had a difficult time tracking down statistics but I found this for Scotland: (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/11/17112458/1. What you should also note from that though is the MUCH lower incidence of violent crime compared to the US. Granted they are not as populous but still the numbers are very low which I think goes to my point of guns enabling viloence in ways knives (or heavy objexts or whatever) do not. Quote: As for firearms, I would say that outside of Western society where we depend on the state for protection for each other that firearms are actually more common than here. Take for instance Africa, there is undoubtedly knives in peoples houses, but villages have been known to stock automatic weapons and RPG's to defend themselves against competeing tribes. Yeah and they have staggering violence of a sort that would even make an American queasy (Rwanda comes to mind but there are many places in Africa with horrific violence). I guarantee if I lived there I'd have as big an arsenal as I could manage. Just a whole different creature than what we are on about here I think. Quote: Its human nature, nothing more. The detachment from the deed makes it that much easier to commit, just like war is much easier to agree to now-a-days because there is no one currently alive and in power who lived during the two Great Wars to know that there is always a better way. Agreed. Which is why I think it is a good thing to remove that detachment wherever possible. If you could magically make every gun in the whole world disappear overnight would there still be violence and murder? Sure there would. But there'd be a lot less of it. In my life I can think of two occasions where I found myself in a situation that if I had a gun handy I would have pulled it (read scary situation). I did not however and had to find another means to get out of the predicament. In my case both situations resolved well and had I pulled a gun I can only think things would have been worse. Quote: By the same argument, I say we outlaw all pickaxes. They are only good for digging holes in the ground, and there is no reason that shovels can't do the same job in a much safer way. Ever heard of someone mis-swinging a shovel and lodging it in someones head? I think not. BAN PICKAXES! BAN BATTERY OPERATED POWERSAWS! BAN PNUEMONIC AIR NAILERS! etc. Most anything can be lethal if you mean it to be. The point is a pickaxe has a useful, non-violent purpose. Further it is hard to conceal. As an instrument of mayhem it just is not terribly efficient. Guns are efficient killers. They are not efficient at much else.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.09 02:06:00 - [26] If we must do the gun debate thing: If I cut someone up at a roundabout (by accident, mark you) in the UK, the guy can jump out of his car and whack me squarely on the nose in a fit of excitement. In the US, that guy (perfectly lawful guy, barely got a speeding ticket to his name) might have a gun in his glove compartment, and the fit of excitement might drive him to fire off a shot or two before he catches himself. Perfectly lawful citizen becomes murderer, slightly dodgy driver moves out of his apartment and in to an urn. Copy with the guy who catches his girlfriend snogging another bloke. Or the drunk guy who swears you're giving him funny looks. Or even the punk kid who tries to mug me in the street- I'd rather he not have access to guns (and in the UK, odds are he doesn't) and have to resort to threatening me with a pen knife than have him simply need to reach in to daddies gun drawer to have access to INSTANT DEATH STICKS. Thus, I like there being no guns. --------
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 02:10:00 - [27] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I love my guns and take good care of them. I believe in gun safety and I believe in firearm training. I keep all of these locked in a gunsafe back in a closet with the exception of the .308 because it is simply too long but even then it has a trigger lock on it. I wish all gun owners were as responsible as you seem to be. It is not you as a gun owner that worries me. If there were some way to ensure everyone was as careful as you then there'd not be much issue. And that's the rub. Restrictive gun laws put in place due to a bunch of goofs affects the responsible people as well. Not to mention out riding your horse fending off wild animals (although I lived in Arizona and we had plenty of coyotes and I never found them to be very menacing to myself) makes sense but in New York its not so much of an issue. How society balances your needs versus New York's needs is where the problem lies. You have some legitimate uses for your gun...New Yorkers not so much. Although I have to wonder if a gun is the only tool you could use in your case. Seems a fire*****er would do as well if all you mean to do is scare stuff off with a bang.
Epoch	Posted - 2007.08.09 02:13:00 - [28] Edited by: Epoch on 09/08/2007 02:13:07 Originally by: Tarquin Tarquinius On a related note my brother just bought a FN P90 the FN P90 or the FN PS90? If it is the FN P90, does he have a licence to own the firearm? Like you said, even in Texas - the laws are quite restrictive on owning fully automatic weapons. Especially ones that are capable of firing 15 armor peircing rounds/second. Was just curious. I own the FN Five-SeveN USG myself.
Tarquin Tarquinius Gallente Escorts of Eve	Posted - 2007.08.09 02:13:00 - [29] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I have: M1 Carbine. I received this from my dad. My dad bought me an M1 Carbine as my first gun a long time ago. Unfortunatly it was damaged by water during Hurrican Rita back 2005. ------
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.09 02:16:00 - [30] Originally by: Epoch Edited by: Epoch on 09/08/2007 02:13:07 Originally by: Tarquin Tarquinius On a related note my brother just bought a FN P90 the FN P90 or the FN PS90? If it is the FN P90, does he have a licence to own the firearm? Like you said, even in Texas - the laws are quite restrictive on owning fully automatic weapons. Especially ones that are capable of firing 15 armor peircing rounds/second. Was just curious. I own the FN Five-SeveN USG myself. Asking here as I really do not know... I have read that modifying a semi-auto weapon into full auto is rather easy. Disassemble the gun...file down some part or other and re-assemble. Maybe a bit more to it but supposedly not a terribly difficult process. Is this true?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.