Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
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]
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 6:13:39 PM EDT
percent votes Yes (27) (2%) No (1,633) (98%)
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 6:36:37 PM EDT
[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.
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:02:39 PM EDT
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..........
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:21:07 PM EDT
were kicking
View Quote
Were? Looks like we are.z
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:26:41 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 10:23:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2002 10:24:18 AM EDT by geek4guns]
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!
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 10:28:59 AM EDT
Done
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 10:58:21 AM EDT
[img]http://www.42.dropbear.id.au/image/snipers.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 11:50:26 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 12:25:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2002 12:26:32 PM EDT by 5subslr5]
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).
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 12:30:34 PM EDT
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 !
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 12:43:03 PM EDT
Done.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 2:08:13 PM EDT
Yes 1% (33 votes) NO 99% (2220 votes)!
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 2:22:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2002 2:26:31 PM EDT by Shadowblade]
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 2:57:11 PM EDT
2248:34 [:D]
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 3:01:16 PM EDT
percent votes Yes (34) (1%) No (2,258) (99%) Done
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 3:04:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Shadowblade: 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."
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 4:02:41 PM EDT
Next it will be spud guns.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 4:18:50 PM EDT
Yes (34) (1%) No (2,319) (99%) Utah 100% agin.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 4:22:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By Shadowblade: 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.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 4:49:19 PM EDT
If it can kill a man, you must vote BAN.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 7:17:12 PM EDT
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!
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 7:25:01 PM EDT
Ah yes, vote.com. Everyone who voted, get ready for some really great investment tips to start landing in your inbox.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 7:34:04 PM EDT
I voted...........from the rooftops!
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 7:40:43 PM EDT
2419: yes 34: no
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 7:46:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jboze: 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!!!
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 5:52:58 AM EDT
[b]COOL[/b] [heavy]
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 6:15:42 AM EDT
[sniper] that reminds me, i really should put a mil-dot scope on my snip- 'er uh, deer rifle!
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 6:19:55 AM EDT
Done! Yes (35) (1%) No (2,534) (99%)
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 7:49:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:01:28 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:13:48 AM EDT
Yes (36) (1%) No (2,580) (99%)
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:19:52 AM EDT
1% yes 99% no I can live with that margin.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:20:24 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:24:17 AM EDT
Imbroglio wrote:
If it can kill a man, you must vote BAN.
View Quote
Jesse Jackson, is that you? Are you Imbroglio?z
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:26:39 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:56:02 AM EDT
Currently 99% of the voters agree with the Second Amendment [thinking]
Link Posted: 2/9/2002 1:29:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ECS: Currently 99% of the voters agree with the Second Amendment [thinking]
View Quote
yeah but will they be willing to fight for it?
Link Posted: 2/9/2002 4:00:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [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....
Link Posted: 2/12/2002 8:59:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Energizer:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [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.......
Link Posted: 2/12/2002 9:36:21 AM EDT
yes 40 no 3211
Link Posted: 2/12/2002 9:42:19 AM EDT
uno mas [b]NO[/b] Mike
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 3:31:18 PM EDT
BTT for those who might have missed it.
Top Top