Dubstepforum.com

esfandyar wrote:i have shot many AR-15s but no grenade launcher lol. but, my friend dan has one on one of the most suped up AR-15s ever with an M203.

Not referring to M203's specifically, just explosions in general. Crazy part is when all the fish come to, and swim back down. DO NOT mention this to RayRay.

ehbrums1 wrote: btw we all do know that he isn't really russian right?

now i do... don't rly care. i still like him. his accent n videos were hilarious

nowaysj wrote:

esfandyar wrote:i have shot many AR-15s but no grenade launcher lol. but, my friend dan has one on one of the most suped up AR-15s ever with an M203.

Not referring to M203's specifically, just explosions in general. Crazy part is when all the fish come to, and swim back down. DO NOT mention this to RayRay.

never really messed with explosives. did some silly shit in some chemistry labs late night but that's about it.

fpsRussia apparently didn't get the message when they blew his partner's face out, they had to raid his house today with over 40 agents looking for illegal explosives. Didn't find anything, but maybe his face is next?

nowaysj wrote:fpsRussia apparently didn't get the message when they blew his partner's face out, they had to raid his house today with over 40 agents looking for illegal explosives. Didn't find anything, but maybe his face is next?

he uses tannerite, the ATF thought it was explosives simple enough imo. dont really understand your hostility....

His partner had his face blown off, the start of my hostility. Over 40 agents raid him, the hostility rising. What basis do they have to believe he is using illegal explosives? If they had a concern from some unknown reason, is this type of raid necessary? Lemme answer for you, no. This is simple harassment and intimidation, it's not like he is selling milk or anything.

nowaysj wrote:His partner had his face blown off, the start of my hostility. Over 40 agents raid him, the hostility rising. What basis do they have to believe he is using illegal explosives? If they had a concern from some unknown reason, is this type of raid necessary? Lemme answer for you, no. This is simple harassment and intimidation, it's not like he is selling milk or anything.

oh i guess i was confused, from what i read i thought you were anti FPSrussia. all good

Wow I can't believe I had not heard about this, just saw it when nowaysj/ehbrums posted and brought this back up top. At first I thought it was the actual host, was kind of sad I actually like that guy.

I can't help but feel like everyone talking about gun control in the US don't understand that the US is so saturated with small arms that even tighter restrictions on purchasing them now would not change anything until the guns currently out on the street start breaking down or being destroyed which could take decades.

I'm actually pro-gun control as a Canadian but the situation in the US is unique. There is no magical answer, even with new laws it would take a long time before murder/violent crime statistics would drop. But i guess all in all if no one makes a move at some point things will never get better. I think a major difference here in Canada is that we do not have conceilled/carry permits and having a firearm in public treated as the threat that it is.

For the record though, I do own several legal firearms and keep them under lock and key. Not because i think they make me safer (they are a huge liability actually) simply because I feel marksmanship and being skilled in precision shooting is a fun and legitimate hobby and I was heavily involved with biathlon and other shooting sports as a teenager. I don't hunt at all however, I live by a grocery store and don't enjoy the feeling of killing things, small or big.

I'll just leave this food for thought here:

dickheads with youtube gun channel get murdered by dickheads with more guns
gutted for them all lol

wnakers can shoot each other up as long as there arent any stnuc going fishing with grenades....ffs

guns are brostep

incnic wrote:guns are brostep

You have offended me for the first time.

===

SR - haha, wanted to post that pic long ago. So jokes because it is so true.

SignalRecon wrote:

you know your argument is weak when you have to resort to posting memes

first of all drug use doesnt have the capacity to harm other people like guns do

then theres the fact that the debate isnt about banning all guns. that's a total strawman. the vice president was even saying "go out and buy shotguns"

it's about measures like universal background checks (which 90% of the public support according to polls) and bans on high capacity magazines (65% support among the public). and then there's the "assault weapons ban", which isn't even a new thing. it was in place in the mid 90s until it was repealed under the bush administration. and even that has 56% support nowadays

im with incnic, guns are very brostep

Phigure wrote:

SignalRecon wrote:

you know your argument is weak when you have to resort to posting memes

first of all drug use doesnt have the capacity to harm other people like guns do

then theres the fact that the debate isnt about banning all guns. that's a total strawman. the vice president was even saying "go out and buy shotguns"

it's about measures like universal background checks (which 90% of the public support according to polls) and bans on high capacity magazines (65% support among the public). and then there's the "assault weapons ban", which isn't even a new thing. it was in place in the mid 90s until it was repealed under the bush administration. and even that has 56% support nowadays

im with incnic, guns are very brostep

You did'nt really read what I said, I just posted that cuz I thought it was funny. Actually has little to do with what I said and my position on the matter. I'm not debating who's right just giving my impression of the general attitude towards guns. No need to work yourself up. Relax man.

what i said applies just the same to the rest of your post

"I can't help but feel like everyone talking about gun control in the US don't understand that the US is so saturated with small arms that even tighter restrictions on purchasing them now would not change anything until the guns currently out on the street start breaking down or being destroyed which could take decades. "

no one is even talking about a small arms ban

ps - im not worked up, you dont need to get offended just because i disagree with you

Phigure wrote:what i said applies just the same to the rest of your post

"I can't help but feel like everyone talking about gun control in the US don't understand that the US is so saturated with small arms that even tighter restrictions on purchasing them now would not change anything until the guns currently out on the street start breaking down or being destroyed which could take decades. "

no one is even talking about a small arms ban

ps - im not worked up, you dont need to get offended just because i disagree with you

^ Aiight, respect. I guess small arms to me is everything that you can carry that isnt normally mounted to a vehicle. I think you thought I meant pistols and regular riffles.

(Wiki - Small arms is a term of art used by armed forces to denote infantry weapons an individual soldier may carry.)

^ This includes assault weaponry and millitary grade firearms. We just have different definitions of small arms, you missunderstood what I meant. All good tho

EDIT: btw I'm not saying people are talking about a small arms ban either, I'm saying even with tighter restrictions on purchasing (BG checks, monthly/yearly purchase limits, longer waiting periods etc..) violent crime statistics would not drop for a considerable amount of time and I guess i'm just trying to express my annoyance with people who think that its just a matter of having the restriction in place and that things will change magically over night.

Phigure wrote:first of all drug use doesnt have the capacity to harm other people like guns do

Say that to the children of drug users. You cannot make this argument. Drugs do far far more harm. The rate of alcohol related deaths dwarfs gun deaths, drunk driving deaths, and the overall degenerative effects of drug use on families and the resultant effect on the moral character of our society at large. Most of our firearm deaths are related in some way to drug use or drug trade.

Phigure wrote:then theres the fact that the debate isnt about banning all guns. that's a total strawman. the vice president was even saying "go out and buy shotguns"

Just all guns that would be useful in resisting government authority, guns that don't even register statically in gun violence. Crazy Joe says buy a double barrel shotgun for home defense. Stupid. Do not listen to such things. If this was a valid defensive weapon, the police would use it. They do not. Do not be so easily lied to. It was clear just a few days after Obama's election to a second term that gun restriction was a major issue. The massacres that ensued were not surprising and their exploitation less so.

Phigure wrote:it's about measures like universal background checks (which 90% of the public support according to polls)

Almost all gun purchases go through background checks as is. The reason they want background checks is because they want to start openly creating a database of gun owners which is illegal under current law. This registration process is the first step in the incremental process of gun confiscation. Again, almost all gun purchases go through background checks, this is a non-issue.

Phigure wrote:and bans on high capacity magazines (65% support among the public).

You mean standard capacity magazines, I think.

Phigure wrote:and then there's the "assault weapons ban", which isn't even a new thing. it was in place in the mid 90s until it was repealed under the bush administration. and even that has 56% support nowadays

The only people buying assault weapons are the DHS. Almost all Americans cannot buy assault weapons. The so called assualt weapons ban expired during the bush presidency, and congress did not renew it.

I think your views on gun control are very future garage.

nowaysj wrote:

Phigure wrote:first of all drug use doesnt have the capacity to harm other people like guns do

Say that to the children of drug users. You cannot make this argument. Drugs do far far more harm. The rate of alcohol related deaths dwarfs gun deaths, drunk driving deaths, and the overall degenerative effects of drug use on families and the resultant effect on the moral character of our society at large. Most of our firearm deaths are related in some way to drug use or drug trade.

was gonna say this.

im fairly certain that drunk driving deaths alone (in the US) is around the same number as gun related homicides.
so add everything else on top of it and you're gonna have a pretty large number.

nowaysj wrote:

Phigure wrote:first of all drug use doesnt have the capacity to harm other people like guns do

Say that to the children of drug users. You cannot make this argument. Drugs do far far more harm. The rate of alcohol related deaths dwarfs gun deaths, drunk driving deaths, and the overall degenerative effects of drug use on families and the resultant effect on the moral character of our society at large. Most of our firearm deaths are related in some way to drug use or drug trade.

fair point, i was talking more in refernce to that picture he posted about pot

nowaysj wrote:Just all guns that would be useful in resisting government authority, guns that don't even register statically in gun violence. Crazy Joe says buy a double barrel shotgun for home defense. Stupid. Do not listen to such things. If this was a valid defensive weapon, the police would use it. They do not. Do not be so easily lied to. It was clear just a few days after Obama's election to a second term that gun restriction was a major issue. The massacres that ensued were not surprising and their exploitation less so.

im sorry, that argument that people need guns to overthrow the government if it were to become tyrannical is so silly. sure, okay, maybe if we're talking a couple hundred years ago like with the american revolution... but nowadays, the military has aircraft carriers and hellfire missiles. good luck

nowaysj wrote:Almost all gun purchases go through background checks as is. The reason they want background checks is because they want to start openly creating a database of gun owners which is illegal under current law. This registration process is the first step in the incremental process of gun confiscation. Again, almost all gun purchases go through background checks, this is a non-issue.

false. 40% of guns are sold without a background check. this whole "omg theyre making a database" is just absurd paranoia. i mean you said it yourself, they already exist! all that would be done would be to make them more thorough and close loopholes that allow people to avoid them.

nowaysj wrote:You mean standard capacity magazines, I think.

imo ban 1 round and above capacity magazines

nowaysj wrote:The only people buying assault weapons are the DHS. Almost all Americans cannot buy assault weapons. The so called assualt weapons ban expired during the bush presidency, and congress did not renew it.

well i can't say that i remotely support anything about the department of homeland security, but i just dont think anyone has a use for guns like this.

nowaysj wrote:I think your views on gun control are very future garage.

okay now im really offended

Saw about this raid and had a chuckle, classic positioning for media bs, BATF knew they had no case and lately they've been seeing legal backlash.
So since this site leans a bit left view wise and didn't see it in the printing thread, (I posted about it previously in it to no real replies) did anyone see the new VICE docu/vid on printing guns?


What I don't get is why people pro say rifles etc are so anti "assault weapons" as these assault weapons are just semi auto rifles shaped like a military styled casing, but without the auto or burst capacity.
That's one issue that always gets me, that all of a sudden if you add a pistol grip or handle rail to a rifle it's an assault rifle.
It's a different caliber of ammo, and has nowhere near the capacity of auto/burst like a mil weapon without heavy mods.

Phigure wrote:

nowaysj wrote:Just all guns that would be useful in resisting government authority, guns that don't even register statically in gun violence. Crazy Joe says buy a double barrel shotgun for home defense. Stupid. Do not listen to such things. If this was a valid defensive weapon, the police would use it. They do not. Do not be so easily lied to. It was clear just a few days after Obama's election to a second term that gun restriction was a major issue. The massacres that ensued were not surprising and their exploitation less so.

im sorry, that argument that people need guns to overthrow the government if it were to become tyrannical is so silly. sure, okay, maybe if we're talking a couple hundred years ago like with the american revolution... but nowadays, the military has aircraft carriers and hellfire missiles. good luck

Then why do they want to ban AR-15's? They account for practically NO gun violence, and yet a foundational constitutional right is to be tossed aside to ban them. Does not compute. The taliban, in a small undeveloped desert country, beat us with all our hellfire missiles, drones, and aircraft carriers. The resistance in the US will be headed by former and current armed forces personnel with US military equipment and tactics. These people know how the military works, and know how to cripple it.

Phigure wrote:

nowaysj wrote:Almost all gun purchases go through background checks as is. The reason they want background checks is because they want to start openly creating a database of gun owners which is illegal under current law. This registration process is the first step in the incremental process of gun confiscation. Again, almost all gun purchases go through background checks, this is a non-issue.

false. 40% of guns are sold without a background check. this whole "omg theyre making a database" is just absurd paranoia. i mean you said it yourself, they already exist! all that would be done would be to make them more thorough and close loopholes that allow people to avoid them.

But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer.

Go buy a gun Phig, and tell me if you have to get a background check, seriously, try it.

Phigure wrote:

nowaysj wrote:You mean standard capacity magazines, I think.

imo ban 1 round and above capacity magazines

From my cold dead hands, phig.

Phigure wrote:

nowaysj wrote:The only people buying assault weapons are the DHS. Almost all Americans cannot buy assault weapons. The so called assualt weapons ban expired during the bush presidency, and congress did not renew it.

well i can't say that i remotely support anything about the department of homeland security, but i just dont think anyone has a use for guns like this.

The people that founded this country against the exact type of government that is being instituted again here thought we needed these guns as a fail-safe and ensured it in our foundational document. I very firmly agree.

And let me say, along another axis, was taking my girl home from school the other day and my car broke down in the GHE TOE. I haven't lived in the ghetto for some time, but I've never seen so many facial tattoos, easily over 50% of the people I saw had them. Like seriously, you are going to get a 1/4 scale tattoo of a face on your face? wtf? Shit was a little hectic and I'm greatly offended that I couldn't do anything to provide any degree of security for my self and my child, while someone like Dianne Feinstein is free to carry a concealed handgun for her safety. Fuck that hypocrisy. These people are putting the life of my child at risk. I'm telling you right now, as a parent, there is NOTHING that motivates me more than the welfare of my child.

Phigure wrote:

nowaysj wrote:I think your views on gun control are very future garage.

okay now im really offended

deadly habit wrote:Saw about this raid and had a chuckle, classic positioning for media bs, BATF knew they had no case and lately they've been seeing legal backlash.
So since this site leans a bit left view wise and didn't see it in the printing thread, (I posted about it previously in it to no real replies) did anyone see the new VICE docu/vid on printing guns?

I personally know of over a thousand lower receiver jigs that have been sold here in cali. These are jigs, each one can produce hundreds of AR's. And that is just what I've seen. No exotic printing technology necessary. Though I think this is an incredible development, and I wish them great success.

deadly habit wrote:It's a different caliber of ammo

Whatchyou talking bout deadly? 5.56 for all intents and purposes is identical to 223, and many if not most AR's are sold in 5.56. And for that matter, just about any caliber upper can be bolted to an AR lower, hell they can even be shot as black powder rifles!