ALERT!! Poll..Should 'sniper rifles' be banned by

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ALERT!! Poll..Should 'sniper rifles' be banned by

Posted: 2/5/2002 5:47:34 PM EDT

[url=www.vote.com/vote/40986268/index.phtml?cat=10882286]were kicking aese so far.[/url]

Posted: 2/5/2002 6:13:39 PM EDT

[#1]

percent votes

Yes (27)
(2%)
No (1,633)
(98%)

Posted: 2/5/2002 6:36:37 PM EDT

[#2]

[b]IT NEVER F*CKING ENDS WITH THESE PEOPLE![/b][;D]

Can't have rapid-fire guns - too easy to kill lots o'sheeple at once.
Can't have hi-cap mags - too easy kill lot's o'people without reloading.
Can't have handguns - too easy to conceal.
Can't have black rifles - too scary looking.
Can't have bayonet lugs - too many drive by stabbings.
Now we can't have accurate match-rifles because they are "too accurate"?!

I guess the Bradyites are taking the 2nd Amendment WAY more literal than even we do - They must think "the right to bear arms" means only the two arms your born with.

Posted: 2/5/2002 7:02:39 PM EDT

[#3]

Let me start a small discussion here:

Question: Define 'Sniper Rifle'?? Simple?

Me: Any rifle capable of hitting a determined target by the shooter.

Oh, wait a minute. That means ANY RIFLE can be considered a sniper rifle, doesn't it? That mean a .22LR, .22Mag.... everything from .177 cal to .50 + cal. Open sights....... not open sights you say. Yes, under 'my broad' definition, it applies.

A match grade 22LR can shoot 200yds (in the right hands).

If some of you are thinking 'military type', like the Remington Police rifles....... the civilian hunting rifles aren't that far behind. Okay, so it has a detachable mag, no biggy. Longer barrel you say.... 2-4 inches doesn't really matter (some of you would say yes).

Ranting off..........

Posted: 2/5/2002 7:21:07 PM EDT

[#4]

were kicking

View Quote

Were? Looks like we are.z

Posted: 2/5/2002 7:26:41 PM EDT

[#5]

Am I the only one who is suspicious of their wanting my e-mail address so they can send my vote to the proper party? They don't need my e-mail address for that. I wouldn't be surprised if they sold your e-mail address to spammers.

Posted: 2/6/2002 10:23:08 AM EDT

[#6]

I'm not really that suspicious. It matches votes to e-mails so people can't do the trick of clearing cache or other stuff to rig polls(not that I would ever know of such behavior). That's why I keep an account strictly for that purpose - I log in only if I need to authenticate it by replying.

And its:
Yes 1%(31 votes)
NO 99% 2054 VOTES!

Posted: 2/6/2002 10:28:59 AM EDT

[#7]

Done

Posted: 2/6/2002 10:58:21 AM EDT

[#8]

[img]http://www.42.dropbear.id.au/image/snipers.jpg[/img]

Posted: 2/6/2002 11:50:26 AM EDT

[#9]

Actually, I'm all for banning them. My opinion is that it is what is necessary for gun owners in this nation to finally catch on.

Posted: 2/6/2002 12:25:02 PM EDT

[#10]

Done.

After you vote, there's a little box down to the left that I just noticed - you can select "All voters in your state" or even "All voters in your district" to see how the more local vote is going. [bounce]

As of about five minutes ago 'OKLAHOMA' was 100% "NO" (of course my district was also 100% no).

Posted: 2/6/2002 12:30:34 PM EDT

[#11]

ILLINOIS - forgot to mention this but lots of votes concerning Illinois.

Looks as if anyone can vote but you can bet the governor will only look at those voting who live in Illinois !

Posted: 2/6/2002 12:43:03 PM EDT

[#12]

Done.

Posted: 2/6/2002 2:08:13 PM EDT

[#13]

Yes 1% (33 votes)
NO 99% (2220 votes)!

Posted: 2/6/2002 2:22:24 PM EDT

[#14]

Voted, got the email to register and confirm the vote. The link took me back to the voting site - nothing to register... did my vote count or should I try again?

EDITED to say that it must have counted. just checked mail and there was a confirmation. I already have 2 junk mails in that account now.... geez...

Posted: 2/6/2002 2:57:11 PM EDT

[#15]

2248:34 [:D]

Posted: 2/6/2002 3:01:16 PM EDT

[#16]

percent votes

Yes (34)
(1%)
No (2,258)
(99%)

Done

Posted: 2/6/2002 3:04:22 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Voted, got the email to register and confirm the vote. The link took me back to the voting site - nothing to register... did my vote count or should I try again?

EDITED to say that it must have counted. just checked mail and there was a confirmation. I already have 2 junk mails in that account now.... geez...

View Quote

Let us remember this is (I believe) a site belonging to "Little Dick Morris" - as I'm sure most of us remember "Little Dick" is so good at polling ex clinton hired him although the guy is a Republican !

Dick is also making a 'buck' or so off his site; hence your recent flurry of "junk mail."

Posted: 2/6/2002 4:02:41 PM EDT

[#18]

Next it will be spud guns.

Posted: 2/6/2002 4:18:50 PM EDT

[#19]

Yes (34)
(1%)
No (2,319)
(99%)

Utah 100% agin.

Posted: 2/6/2002 4:22:42 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Voted, got the email to register and confirm the vote. The link took me back to the voting site - nothing to register... did my vote count or should I try again?

EDITED to say that it must have counted. just checked mail and there was a confirmation. I already have 2 junk mails in that account now.... geez...

View Quote

Let us remember this is (I believe) a site belonging to "Little Dick Morris" - as I'm sure most of us remember "Little Dick" is so good at polling ex clinton hired him although the guy is a Republican !

Dick is also making a 'buck' or so off his site; hence your recent flurry of "junk mail."

View Quote

Lil' dick is just below klinton on my "wanna smash in the mouth" scale.

Posted: 2/6/2002 4:49:19 PM EDT

[#21]

If it can kill a man, you must vote BAN.

Posted: 2/6/2002 7:17:12 PM EDT

[#22]

Wouldn't there be a huge public health problem opened up if guns could no longer be accurate enough to hit a man? Think about it...people would intend on shooting something and hit nothing or even better yet...something they didn't intend on hitting. I've never heard of anything being banned other than .50bmg's, so I wouldn't worry too much. I don't even think the .50 ban will fly. Just another word the liberal mo fo's are afraid of. OOOOOO SNIPER RIFLE! Lets see them come up with a definition for sniper rifle. HA! That'll be the day!

Posted: 2/6/2002 7:25:01 PM EDT

[#23]

Ah yes, vote.com.
Everyone who voted, get ready for some really great investment tips to start landing in your inbox.

Posted: 2/6/2002 7:34:04 PM EDT

[#24]

I voted...........from the rooftops!

Posted: 2/6/2002 7:40:43 PM EDT

[#25]

2419: yes
34: no

Posted: 2/6/2002 7:46:26 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I voted...........from the rooftops!

View Quote

[b]YEAH, BABY!!![/b] [X]
[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/BusMaster007%2FREMINGTON%2520700P%2520PSS%2520ROOFTOP%2Ejpg[/img]

The REDCOATS are coming!!!

Posted: 2/7/2002 5:52:58 AM EDT

[#27]

[b]COOL[/b]
[heavy]

Posted: 2/7/2002 6:15:42 AM EDT

[#28]

[sniper]

that reminds me, i really should put a mil-dot scope on my snip- 'er uh, deer rifle!

Posted: 2/7/2002 6:19:55 AM EDT

[#29]

Done!
Yes (35)
(1%)
No (2,534)
(99%)

Posted: 2/7/2002 7:49:52 AM EDT

[#30]

What dumb bastards! The operator is the skill behind the rifle anyway. So, that would make any rifle a "sniper rifle".

Posted: 2/7/2002 8:01:28 AM EDT

[#31]

35 people think they should be banned.

The scary part is NOT that there are 35 people intent on demonstrating their stupidity via an internet poll, but that they will all likely be operating a motor vehicle tonite, possibly on the same roads that I use.

Posted: 2/7/2002 8:13:48 AM EDT

[#32]

Yes (36) (1%)
No (2,580) (99%)

Posted: 2/7/2002 8:19:52 AM EDT

[#33]

1% yes
99% no

I can live with that margin.

Posted: 2/7/2002 8:20:24 AM EDT

[#34]

My guess is it would be more like this.

(40) The term "sniper firearm" shall mean --

(A) any rifle regardless of caliber or action having one or more of the following feature --

(i) Scope;
(ii) Reflex Sight;
(iii) Red Dot Sight; or
(iv) any similar optical sight.

(B) any firearm capable of firing a round with a muzzle velocity greater than 1000 fps.

(C) any handgun with a barrel length greater than 10 inches.

(D) any rifle with a barrel length greater than 24 inches.

(E) any rifle with a bore greater than .3 inches in diameter

Posted: 2/7/2002 8:24:17 AM EDT

[#35]

Imbroglio wrote:

If it can kill a man, you must vote BAN.

View Quote

Jesse Jackson, is that you? Are you Imbroglio?z

Posted: 2/7/2002 8:26:39 AM EDT

[#36]

My guess would be that they will start by using the ATF's power to ban so called "Sniper Rifles" from import. This is what was done with Machine Guns and "Assault Weapons" before domestic production was banned.

Posted: 2/7/2002 8:56:02 AM EDT

[#37]

Currently 99% of the voters agree with the Second Amendment [thinking]

Posted: 2/9/2002 1:29:33 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Currently 99% of the voters agree with the Second Amendment [thinking]

View Quote

yeah but will they be willing to fight for it?

Posted: 2/9/2002 4:00:42 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
[b]IT NEVER F*CKING ENDS WITH THESE PEOPLE![/b][;D]

Can't have rapid-fire guns - too easy to kill lots o'sheeple at once.
Can't have hi-cap mags - too easy kill lot's o'people without reloading.
Can't have handguns - too easy to conceal.
Can't have black rifles - too scary looking.
Can't have bayonet lugs - too many drive by stabbings.
Now we can't have accurate match-rifles because they are "too accurate"?!

I guess the Bradyites are taking the 2nd Amendment WAY more literal than even we do - They must think "the right to bear arms" means only the two arms your born with.

View Quote

Well, first they tell us that they want to ban Saturday-night specials, since they are "junk guns" that are not accurate and very inexpensive, therefore there is no reason they should exist... Now they want to take the other approach....

Posted: 2/12/2002 8:59:02 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[b]IT NEVER F*CKING ENDS WITH THESE PEOPLE![/b][;D]

Can't have rapid-fire guns - too easy to kill lots o'sheeple at once.
Can't have hi-cap mags - too easy kill lot's o'people without reloading.
Can't have handguns - too easy to conceal.
Can't have black rifles - too scary looking.
Can't have bayonet lugs - too many drive by stabbings.
Now we can't have accurate match-rifles because they are "too accurate"?!

I guess the Bradyites are taking the 2nd Amendment WAY more literal than even we do - They must think "the right to bear arms" means only the two arms your born with.

View Quote

Well, first they tell us that they want to ban Saturday-night specials, since they are "junk guns" that are not accurate and very inexpensive, therefore there is no reason they should exist... Now they want to take the other approach....

View Quote

Well, if they want to ban expensive guns, let's repeal the ban on cheap guns, make them leagal again. Then lets make the price of the Barret about 100 bucks.......