Active Topics
-
Is there a section to talk about Java ME? Apps, etc. (5)
to General by teroyk - 4 days, 23 hrs ago -
Extra softwares in Sailfish using CLI, repositories, etc (118)
to SailfishOS by nieldk - 5 days, 4 hrs ago -
Paths (0)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 6 days, 1 hr ago - more...
 |
|
2008-11-10
, 21:26
|
|
Posts: 3,096 |
Thanked: 1,525 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Michigan, USA
|
#92
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
I guess you can just call me nieve. I just don't seem that worried about it. To me that stuff floating around in your head is flat out paranoia. I have seen pot heads that are less paranoid.
A) Uzi's and Mac 10's are fully automatic weapons. Civilian legal AK47's and AR-15's are semi-automatic only weapons. They are not even remotely the same class of firearm (like the politicians would want you to believe.)
B) My wife armed with an AR-15 (low recoil, easily handable firearm in 5.56 NATO), and myself armed with a shotgun and a 1911 sidearm.. barricaded inside a house or a barn or a store.. can hold off a much larger number of attackers than we are.
Yes.. At some point Quantity over comes Quality... but at least I know I have the best possible chance at surviving if the case comes up. If my wife tried firing 6 rounds from a full 12-ga shotgun .. not only would half her shots be all over the bloody place, but her arm would be completely dead and her practically unable to physically defend herself if we become over-run.
With an AR-15 or AK-47.. these weapons are designed for length of combat, easy recoil, easy handling firearms... which is why they are used so heavily in military's.
My wife can hit a target at 100 yards with an ar-15.. Highly Accurate weapon and low recoil. She cannot fire more than 3 rounds from my 12 ga pump before her eyes begin to water.
When the 40 zombies attack my home, I guess I am screwed. I'll take my chances.
__________________
To all my Maemo friends. I will no longer be monitoring any of my threads here on a regular basis. I am no longer supporting anything I did under maemo at maemo.org. If you need some help with something you can reach me at tablethacker.com or www.facebook.com/penguinbait. I have disabled my PM's here, and removed myself from Council email and Community mailing list. There has been some fun times, see you around.
To all my Maemo friends. I will no longer be monitoring any of my threads here on a regular basis. I am no longer supporting anything I did under maemo at maemo.org. If you need some help with something you can reach me at tablethacker.com or www.facebook.com/penguinbait. I have disabled my PM's here, and removed myself from Council email and Community mailing list. There has been some fun times, see you around.
|
|
2008-11-10
, 21:36
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#93
|
And that's fine by me. But my guns are no threat to you - and I wouldn't think you would think you have the right to tell me what I can and can't prepare for .. or whats best for my family.
Some might consider me paranoid.. I consider myself prepared. I took the old boy scout motto to heart.. BE PREPARED. This has saved my life in Iraq in the military.
Is it likely I'll see an apocalypse?? No. Is it possible?? Of course. My "paranoia", as you call it, doesn't interfere with my day - to - day life as a government contractor.. it doesn't cause problems for my neighbors or my neighborhood... and while I am a licensed CCW and carry everywhere except on the military base where I work - I don't run around with my AR cocked and loaded with a crazed look in my eyes like the extreme left would want you to believe.
What I carry is almost always hidden and is kept on my side at all times until a situation is completely beyond hope. Which thank god has not happened (in the states) for me, yet. I am not a big fan of OPEN carry - which is allowed without a permit in most states - because it has a habit of inciting panic or fear in people around you. Even though that isn't the intent.. and the panic and fear is, for the most part, groundless - (what criminal wants you to SEE him coming?)
The fictional "Assault Weapons" described in the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons that expired in 2004 were used in less than 1% of actual crimes in the US even before the ban.. and that hasn't changed since. It is STILL easier for muggers, robbers, rapists, whatever to carry smaller firearms - Handguns.
The only time you'd even see a so-called "assault weapon" is in mass shootings. Yet.. Trolley square in Utah the kid had a shotgun and a hunting rifle.. with handguns in his backpack. In Virginia tech it was two handguns that caused that damage. So even within the very limited areas where an 'assault weapon' may ACTUALLY have been called a problem.. they are a part of a small portion of even that category.
By banning these guns you save absolutely nothing.. and yet prevent law-abiding citizens from a perfectly legitimate hunting rifle (yes, AK47's and AR-15's are good hunting rifles for game up to and including Deer.); a perfectly legitimate plinker firearm, and just an all around fun gun for those of us that like such a thing.
Last edited by fatalsaint; 2008-11-10 at 21:39.
Some might consider me paranoid.. I consider myself prepared. I took the old boy scout motto to heart.. BE PREPARED. This has saved my life in Iraq in the military.
Is it likely I'll see an apocalypse?? No. Is it possible?? Of course. My "paranoia", as you call it, doesn't interfere with my day - to - day life as a government contractor.. it doesn't cause problems for my neighbors or my neighborhood... and while I am a licensed CCW and carry everywhere except on the military base where I work - I don't run around with my AR cocked and loaded with a crazed look in my eyes like the extreme left would want you to believe.
What I carry is almost always hidden and is kept on my side at all times until a situation is completely beyond hope. Which thank god has not happened (in the states) for me, yet. I am not a big fan of OPEN carry - which is allowed without a permit in most states - because it has a habit of inciting panic or fear in people around you. Even though that isn't the intent.. and the panic and fear is, for the most part, groundless - (what criminal wants you to SEE him coming?)
The fictional "Assault Weapons" described in the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons that expired in 2004 were used in less than 1% of actual crimes in the US even before the ban.. and that hasn't changed since. It is STILL easier for muggers, robbers, rapists, whatever to carry smaller firearms - Handguns.
The only time you'd even see a so-called "assault weapon" is in mass shootings. Yet.. Trolley square in Utah the kid had a shotgun and a hunting rifle.. with handguns in his backpack. In Virginia tech it was two handguns that caused that damage. So even within the very limited areas where an 'assault weapon' may ACTUALLY have been called a problem.. they are a part of a small portion of even that category.
By banning these guns you save absolutely nothing.. and yet prevent law-abiding citizens from a perfectly legitimate hunting rifle (yes, AK47's and AR-15's are good hunting rifles for game up to and including Deer.); a perfectly legitimate plinker firearm, and just an all around fun gun for those of us that like such a thing.
__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
Last edited by fatalsaint; 2008-11-10 at 21:39.
|
|
2008-11-10
, 21:48
|
|
Posts: 3,096 |
Thanked: 1,525 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Michigan, USA
|
#94
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
The scarey thing is these weapons are too readily available to nut jobs, not just slightly paranoid X-military. I am completely in agreement that you have the right to defend yourself, but only to the point that your rights do not infringe on my rights to be safe.
And that's fine by me. But my guns are no threat to you - and I wouldn't think you would think you have the right to tell me what I can and can't prepare for .. or whats best for my family.
Some might consider me paranoid.. I consider myself prepared. I took the old boy scout motto to heart.. BE PREPARED. This has saved my life in Iraq in the military.
Is it likely I'll see an apocalypse?? No. Is it possible?? Of course. My "paranoia", as you call it, doesn't interfere with my day - to - day life as a government contractor.. it doesn't cause problems for my neighbors or my neighborhood... and while I am a licensed CCW and carry everywhere except on the military base where I work - I don't run around with my AR cocked and loaded with a crazed look in my eyes like the extreme left would want you to believe.
What I carry is almost always hidden and is kept on my side at all times until a situation is completely beyond hope. Which thank god has not happened (in the states) for me, yet. I am not a big fan of OPEN carry - which is allowed without a permit in most states - because it has a habit of inciting panic or fear in people around you. Even though that isn't the intent.. and the panic and fear is, for the most part, groundless - (what criminal wants you to SEE him coming?)
The fictional "Assault Weapons" described in the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons that expired in 2004 were used in less than 1% of actual crimes in the US even before the ban.. and that hasn't changed since. It is STILL easier for muggers, robbers, rapists, whatever to carry smaller firearms - Handguns.
The only time you'd even see a so-called "assault weapon" is in mass shootings. Yet.. Trolley square in Utah the kid had a shotgun and a hunting rifle.. with handguns in his backpack. In Virginia tech it was two handguns that caused that damage. So even within the very limited areas where an 'assault weapon' may ACTUALLY have been called a problem.. they are a part of a small portion of even that category.
By banning these guns you save absolutely nothing.. and yet prevent law-abiding citizens from a perfectly legitimate hunting rifle (yes, AK47's and AR-15's are good hunting rifles for game up to and including Deer.); a perfectly legitimate plinker firearm, and just an all around fun gun for those of us that like such a thing.
__________________
To all my Maemo friends. I will no longer be monitoring any of my threads here on a regular basis. I am no longer supporting anything I did under maemo at maemo.org. If you need some help with something you can reach me at tablethacker.com or www.facebook.com/penguinbait. I have disabled my PM's here, and removed myself from Council email and Community mailing list. There has been some fun times, see you around.
To all my Maemo friends. I will no longer be monitoring any of my threads here on a regular basis. I am no longer supporting anything I did under maemo at maemo.org. If you need some help with something you can reach me at tablethacker.com or www.facebook.com/penguinbait. I have disabled my PM's here, and removed myself from Council email and Community mailing list. There has been some fun times, see you around.
|
|
2008-11-10
, 21:57
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#95
|
Originally Posted by penguinbait
And we are in somewhat agreement here. (I am still one of the gun-nuts that want the .gov to 'hands off' the 2A.. but for the sake of propelling the debate forward I'll loosen a tad.)
The scarey thing is these weapons are too readily available to nut jobs, not just slightly paranoid X-military. I am completely in agreement that you have the right to defend yourself, but only to the point that your rights do not infringe on my rights to be safe.
These laws already exists. We do not need new laws to reiterate what we've already made. (not to mention; these laws should be STATE guided.. NOT federally mandated).
The NFA law makes it a serious PITA to get my hands on an actual assault rifle. (<- note, rifle; not weapon). M-16's are still legal for me to own if I have 15k saved up in a bank, want to wait 6 months for permit, pay a $200 tax, register it with every nook and cranny up and down the government chain, and even then promise to shackle myself to my bedroom to ensure I never leave the house.
So now that the issue of an actual assault rifle (read: Fully Automatic) is out of the hands of all but the richest of crazies.. we focus on the more practical of guns and laws.
Most states already require background checks, already require proof of ID, clean mental health history, no felons, no history of domestic violence..
Hell - If I just yelled at my wife one night; the neighbors called the cops.. and I got a report on it.. my damn CCW would disappear faster than I could protest.
The fact that people get around these laws isn't cause to put up a demand for more arbitrary and mostly un-related NEW laws.. but a demand for the current laws in effect to be more efficient and/or enforced better.
 |
|
2008-11-10
, 23:15
|
|
Posts: 3,220 |
Thanked: 326 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
|
#96
|
Originally Posted by penguinbait
There is no right to be "safe".
The scarey thing is these weapons are too readily available to nut jobs, not just slightly paranoid X-military. I am completely in agreement that you have the right to defend yourself, but only to the point that your rights do not infringe on my rights to be safe.
__________________
Watch out Nokia, Pandora's box has opened (sorta)...
I do love explaining cryptic sigs, but for the impatient: http://www.openpandora.org/
Watch out Nokia, Pandora's box has opened (sorta)...
I do love explaining cryptic sigs, but for the impatient: http://www.openpandora.org/
|
|
2008-11-10
, 23:16
|
|
Posts: 322 |
Thanked: 28 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
|
#97
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
Ok, we have a chance to get back to one of my original points in starting this thread.
.. but for the sake of propelling the debate forward I'll loosen a tad.)
These laws already exists. current laws in effect to be more efficient and/or enforced better.
Again, we just spent around a trillion dollars in Iraq for whatever reason. How about we spend some of the next trillion on enforcing the gun laws that are on the books. I have no idea what it costs, but we do know that law enforcement can be pretty expensive, right? We have files and files of cold cases we can't afford to follow up on. How about at least stream lining the laws so that they are more uniform and not different in each state. What I'm saying is that there are things like that that can make law enforcement more affordable.
I'm not sure, I haven't read every word of this thread, but did anyone ever address the gun show loop hole? Isn't it possible for just about anyone to go to a gun show and buy a gun?
fatal-we don't want to take your gun(s) We want to make it much tougher for criminals to get them and far easier for law enforcement to deal with the guns criminals possess and traffic. Ya, I think it's getting pretty scarry with the gangs running some neighborhoods the way they do.
One thing I do wonder about though. Ultimately, what sort of country do we want? Do we really want all these guns around? I just think it's a very tiring frightening thing to have to live with. But it does seem it could be manageable if we could at least agree on some good processes to deal with the proliferation problems. This is where it gets frustrating dealing with gun owners. You fight so hard to defend the right to own a gun when what we want is to be able to more efficiently and cost effectively manage the situation. I thought geneven had a great point about those bank robbers and the fire power they had. I saw video of those guys. They could shoot through just about anything and it made the police feel powerless. They said they felt like they had pee shooters compared to those guys.
Neil
|
|
2008-11-10
, 23:57
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#98
|
Those individuals are a bad point.. They had home-made body armor; were doped on some serious drugs that minimized the pain they felt..
Do you think a few more laws on the books was going to stop these guys from getting what they wanted? Do you really think they would have said "Oh crap.. I didn't know there was to be a federal background check for this gun... Nevermind - Let's just go home Bob.. it's not worth it."
Seriously.. lets be more realistic on who we are dealing with here.
The problem here is; the methods the politicians are using to accomplish this goal makes it more difficult/ni impossible for us law abiding citizens to get guns too.
This is state specific (as it should be, IMHO). Some states allow it; some states do not. In some states what is called "Face to Face" transfers do not require any sort of check or verification. It's still illegal to sell to a minor.. so proper identification is prudent.. but for the most part the requirements are loose.
Some would say these are the last truly "free" places for pro-gun advocates that hasn't yet been hampered down by the bureaucrats.
Again.. The problem with firearm registration, and things like that is that when/if the government ever does get the sought after "100% ban" on all guns.. they very first people who will be visited are those that followed the law to begin with - and registered their guns. And many of us are not prepared to accept the theft of our legally purchased property - just because they said so.
Any time you enact a law or a restriction of any right.. it is a very slippery slope that can easily snowball.
Should you have to register for your right to free speech? What about a permit? Should they issue permits for the right to speak your mind? If they do.. and the last place you could get a permit was a "free speech show".. wouldn't you want to fight to protect it?
Look at the columbine high kids.. one of the most publicized school shootings and everyone was outraged at... the guns?? WTF? What about the kids? The parents? And of course the kids were pretty clear the reason why they did it.. the jocks and the cheerleaders and the other kids made these kids feel worthless.. pathetic.. and so they fought back.
You say we should have kept the guns out of their hands - I'll just shoot back we should have revoked those jocks rights to be dicks and say what they wanted. After all.. if everyone was happy go lucky to those two kids their entire lives - they likely never would have needed the guns to begin with.
Let rethink our angle here people. Ignore guns. Look at all crime and death .. stabbings, beatings, rapes, whatever. ALL crime. And instead of focusing on one particular tool with which they use.. why not instead look at the criminals. What makes a criminal tick? Why did they do what they did? How can we prevent someone from even getting to the point that they want to purchase the gun, or knife, for whatever crime they are planning on committing.
It's easy for you to attack my tool that can be used by both good and evil... but I'll just shoot back at you that sometime, somewhere, along the line - someone said something that tipped this madman/criminal/psychotic/gangster off.. if we would just can our First Amendment right.. make every be nice everyone else... then we wouldn't even need the other laws because hate wouldn't be allowed to spread at all.
Again... be careful where you tread when attacking our rights.
Last edited by fatalsaint; 2008-11-11 at 00:00.
Do you think a few more laws on the books was going to stop these guys from getting what they wanted? Do you really think they would have said "Oh crap.. I didn't know there was to be a federal background check for this gun... Nevermind - Let's just go home Bob.. it's not worth it."
Seriously.. lets be more realistic on who we are dealing with here.
fatal-we don't want to take your gun(s) We want to make it much tougher for criminals to get them and far easier for law enforcement to deal with the guns criminals possess and traffic.
gun show loop hole? Isn't it possible for just about anyone to go to a gun show and buy a gun?
Some would say these are the last truly "free" places for pro-gun advocates that hasn't yet been hampered down by the bureaucrats.
Again.. The problem with firearm registration, and things like that is that when/if the government ever does get the sought after "100% ban" on all guns.. they very first people who will be visited are those that followed the law to begin with - and registered their guns. And many of us are not prepared to accept the theft of our legally purchased property - just because they said so.
Any time you enact a law or a restriction of any right.. it is a very slippery slope that can easily snowball.
Should you have to register for your right to free speech? What about a permit? Should they issue permits for the right to speak your mind? If they do.. and the last place you could get a permit was a "free speech show".. wouldn't you want to fight to protect it?
Look at the columbine high kids.. one of the most publicized school shootings and everyone was outraged at... the guns?? WTF? What about the kids? The parents? And of course the kids were pretty clear the reason why they did it.. the jocks and the cheerleaders and the other kids made these kids feel worthless.. pathetic.. and so they fought back.
You say we should have kept the guns out of their hands - I'll just shoot back we should have revoked those jocks rights to be dicks and say what they wanted. After all.. if everyone was happy go lucky to those two kids their entire lives - they likely never would have needed the guns to begin with.
Let rethink our angle here people. Ignore guns. Look at all crime and death .. stabbings, beatings, rapes, whatever. ALL crime. And instead of focusing on one particular tool with which they use.. why not instead look at the criminals. What makes a criminal tick? Why did they do what they did? How can we prevent someone from even getting to the point that they want to purchase the gun, or knife, for whatever crime they are planning on committing.
It's easy for you to attack my tool that can be used by both good and evil... but I'll just shoot back at you that sometime, somewhere, along the line - someone said something that tipped this madman/criminal/psychotic/gangster off.. if we would just can our First Amendment right.. make every be nice everyone else... then we wouldn't even need the other laws because hate wouldn't be allowed to spread at all.
Again... be careful where you tread when attacking our rights.
__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
Last edited by fatalsaint; 2008-11-11 at 00:00.
 |
|
2008-11-11
, 00:38
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#99
|
As to what specifically the "gun show loophole" is:
For now, consider "gun" to mean an ordinary gun, not a Title II weapon such as a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, or the like.
If I'm a licensed dealer (specifically FFL, Federal Firearms License), with a place of business, and you walk in and want to buy a gun, I have to run a background check to make sure you're not a convicted felon, etc. and so forbidden from buying that gun.
If I'm a normal person (not an FFL), and I sell you a gun from my private collection, there's no background check involved. I can still wind up in trouble if I did know you're disallowed from buying that gun, but if you're clean as far as I know, that's good enough.
Now if I'm an FFL dealer, and I rent a table at a gun show, I have to run the same background check if I sell you a gun, just as though we were at the counter in my gun store.
OTOH, if I'm not an FFL dealer, but I brought a gun, or a bunch of guns, to the gun show, I can sell them to other people with no background check, just as though we were on my front porch (or wherever else we might make a private sale).
This is termed a "loop-hole" because someone could potentially be a de facto gun dealer, but only do business at gun shows (selling a few guns from my "collection" that I brought along), and not do background checks because I'm not an FFL. Of course, I can do the same from my house, and I'll probably get caught sooner or later either way, so it's not much of a loop-hole in my view, it's just a consistent avoidance of an onerous burden on everyone who has a gun they no longer want.
And face-to-face sales or dealer sales for Title II weapons, of course, are still heavily restricted, with paperwork and a transfer tax, so AFAIK nobody claims there's a gun-show loophole for them...
For now, consider "gun" to mean an ordinary gun, not a Title II weapon such as a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, or the like.
If I'm a licensed dealer (specifically FFL, Federal Firearms License), with a place of business, and you walk in and want to buy a gun, I have to run a background check to make sure you're not a convicted felon, etc. and so forbidden from buying that gun.
If I'm a normal person (not an FFL), and I sell you a gun from my private collection, there's no background check involved. I can still wind up in trouble if I did know you're disallowed from buying that gun, but if you're clean as far as I know, that's good enough.
Now if I'm an FFL dealer, and I rent a table at a gun show, I have to run the same background check if I sell you a gun, just as though we were at the counter in my gun store.
OTOH, if I'm not an FFL dealer, but I brought a gun, or a bunch of guns, to the gun show, I can sell them to other people with no background check, just as though we were on my front porch (or wherever else we might make a private sale).
This is termed a "loop-hole" because someone could potentially be a de facto gun dealer, but only do business at gun shows (selling a few guns from my "collection" that I brought along), and not do background checks because I'm not an FFL. Of course, I can do the same from my house, and I'll probably get caught sooner or later either way, so it's not much of a loop-hole in my view, it's just a consistent avoidance of an onerous burden on everyone who has a gun they no longer want.
And face-to-face sales or dealer sales for Title II weapons, of course, are still heavily restricted, with paperwork and a transfer tax, so AFAIK nobody claims there's a gun-show loophole for them...
__________________
World's first inductively-charged N900!
World's first inductively-charged N900!
|
|
2008-11-11
, 00:51
|
|
Posts: 322 |
Thanked: 28 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
|
#100
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
Funny, I've kinda been trying to do that occasionally throughout this thread which I started by saying we needed to widen our frame of reference as it relates to safety issues.
Let rethink our angle here people. Ignore guns. Look at all crime and death .. stabbings, beatings, rapes, whatever. ALL crime. And instead of focusing on one particular tool with which they use.. why not instead look at the criminals. What makes a criminal tick? Why did they do what they did? How can we prevent someone from even getting to the point that they want to purchase the gun, or knife, for whatever crime they are planning on committing.
.
Still, I think eventually what is going to need to happen in part is that gun folks are going to need to realize that their stubborn insistance on allowing 0 changes in order to protect their rights is ultimately tending to put us all at risk because we need to have some slack to work out how to deal effectively with resolving the problems. And then we will need to be willing to pay the cash to set up the better systems and law enforcement techniques. In return, as a gun control advocate, I am willing to absolutely set in concrete your right to own a gun. You then don't have to so vigorously defend it all the time like you are doing here.
I know, I can hear you thinking," wait, I already have that right. I've been saying it over and over and showing you." But don't we all ultimately know that the vagueness of the way the constitution is worded plus the fact that eventually political support can change, judges can change. More liberal Presidents can be elected that put supreme court judges in place that can interpret the gun ammendment differently.
But, hey, like I said before, it comes down to what kind of country we want to live in. I recall seeing a show one time about a small village where the main industry is gun making. The place is awash in guns. ( Somewhere in Backbeyondistan I think ) Hmm.. All those guns so little time.
Neil
B) My wife armed with an AR-15 (low recoil, easily handable firearm in 5.56 NATO), and myself armed with a shotgun and a 1911 sidearm.. barricaded inside a house or a barn or a store.. can hold off a much larger number of attackers than we are.
Yes.. At some point Quantity over comes Quality... but at least I know I have the best possible chance at surviving if the case comes up. If my wife tried firing 6 rounds from a full 12-ga shotgun .. not only would half her shots be all over the bloody place, but her arm would be completely dead and her practically unable to physically defend herself if we become over-run.
With an AR-15 or AK-47.. these weapons are designed for length of combat, easy recoil, easy handling firearms... which is why they are used so heavily in military's.
My wife can hit a target at 100 yards with an ar-15.. Highly Accurate weapon and low recoil. She cannot fire more than 3 rounds from my 12 ga pump before her eyes begin to water.
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!