Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    CICERO FAN CLUB MEMBER prefect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,652

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Quote Originally Posted by SurferJoe46 View Post
    Do I think you said that amateur bilabial fricative emitters could be forced to be gummermint-licensed and possibly be charged with an inappropriate emission if it weren't used for good?

    This is how youse guys lost your Upsidedown Land, Constitutional Second Amendments Rights to own and carry firearms. Youse guys are on a very slippery slope here......



    Today: Firearms! Tomorrow: Farts!
    We have rights to own firearms just need a licence first. I think we own more firearms per population in the world beaten by Finland. When I was at High school it was compulsory for boys to go down to the police station and sit the test.
    Its amazing how Potatoes give us chips,fries and Vodka.

    Get your s*** together every other vegetable.

  2. #12
    VoidMaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,550

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Think Joe's comment wooshed overhead there prefect, but I have come to agree with you that in the light of recent developments all over the world, citizens should be competent with and have arms available and ready for use.

    Too bad if a few innocents get blasted, there are bigger issues at stake like freedom of speech and individuals protecting their own property against intruders.
    It's not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable. The hundred-times-refuted theory of "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it - Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #13
    amateur expert dugimodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7,491

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    On the topic of gun control this guy is amusing and I tend to agree with him https://vimeo.com/219338338
    Warning, if bad language offends you don't click on it.

    As far as the sound wave fire extinguisher goes, seems very cool.
    Ryzen 2700X, 16Gb DDR4RAM, 512GB M.2 NVME SSD, MSI GTX1070

  4. #14
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,092

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Quote Originally Posted by prefect View Post
    We have rights to own firearms just need a licence first. I think we own more firearms per population in the world beaten by Finland. When I was at High school it was compulsory for boys to go down to the police station and sit the test.
    Quote Originally Posted by zqwerty View Post
    Think Joe's comment wooshed overhead there prefect, but I have come to agree with you that in the light of recent developments all over the world, citizens should be competent with and have arms available and ready for use.

    Too bad if a few innocents get blasted, there are bigger issues at stake like freedom of speech and individuals protecting their own property against intruders.
    Quote Originally Posted by dugimodo View Post
    On the topic of gun control this guy is amusing and I tend to agree with him https://vimeo.com/219338338
    Warning, if bad language offends you don't click on it.

    As far as the sound wave fire extinguisher goes, seems very cool.

    Interesting comments there.

    First I have to qualify my purpose in owning any firearm I want - within reason of course - no nukes, no Claymores and no B.A.R.s.
    I only carry when I am fishing as a possible defense against bears who want to eat, maul or play with me.
    I have to sneak up on trout - I also find I am sneaking up on bears.
    I decided for myself to not keep a loaded weapon at home although there are no children in the house.
    My wife was previously married to a police lieutenant in SoCal.
    She had to 'carry' when they were out in public together.
    My wife is very familiar with firearms and does not have any worries about them in the house or car.
    I do not intend to use any of my firearms against a human.
    That is very distasteful to me.

    • I also believe that I should be able to purchase any weapon I want - for any reason that I may or may not state.
    • I should be able to own any weapon and store it on my person, in my home or in/on any vehicle.
    • I also believe that I don't actually have to utilize this right to keep it in effect.
    • It should stand as a prima-facia truth.


    Having said that - I don't have to 'register' for myself as the future or currently being transacted new ownership to possess any firearm. [*]I MAY register if I want to - but I'm not even sure where to do that in the state in which I currently live.

    California with it's Draconian firearm laws, allows citizens to own an unregistered firearm and for the average non-felonious persons, they can have a surprisingly different armory of all sorts of unregistered and otherwise lethal weapons.
    • Machine guns and silencers (suppressors) are OUT as are belt-fed automatic weapons or pistols that carry more than 10 rounds.
    • CCW in California is nearly impossible to get and Open Carry is strictly forbidden except for military (active) and police agents sworn to the court.
    • Person-to-person (private) sales of firearms is illegal without FFL intervention. Gun show sales are through FFL Agents too.
    • All commercial and private sales are registered - although as far as owning a firearm, the owner himself is not registered.
    • Police officers are not allowed to carry more than 10 round capacity weapons when off duty.




    Arizona is much looser in defining a 'bad' or 'illegal' weapon.
    • CCW permits are easy to obtain.
    • Open carry is legal almost everywhere - there are a few limitations.
    • Private sales are not registered and are not required to go through an FFL Agent.
    • I don't know much more about Arizona as I haven't really lived there for long before I moved to Montana.



    Montana is a 'must issue' CCW - in less than 45 days.
    • The fee is $45.00 and either a pistol (only in this case) class by an accredited personal firearms (pistol) instructor.
    • This class can be eliminated if the applicant has a DD-214 - or a US Military discharge paper (at least Under Honorable Conditions).
    • Any US Citizen can 'Open Carry' - except in US Federal reservations (military bases, VA buildings and certain courts and governing agency buildings, airports and train stations.
    • City and-or county dedicated parks are questionable ordinances as far as OC being permitted or not.
    • This is usually left up to the local governing authority.
    • I can carry a concealed, loaded, non-registered pistol in my auto in any city, county or governance in Montana.
    • I can CCW anywhere in Montana withing the physical limits of the state, but not in Federal courts, Federal buildings (the IRS and Social Security offices come to mind), airports, train stations, post offices, some schools, some city-by-city banks and city-by-city dedicates parks.
    • I am not sure now about CCW in a mining camp.
    • I believe I knew it is illegal to if you do not have a CCW permit, but I now do and I'm not sure if I am now allowed to enter a mining camp, carrying.
      This won't come up very often I think.
    • Gun Shows are not regulated by FFL requirements.
    • Sales via a dealer at a gun show are exempt of FFL transactions, and 'hook-ups' to circumvent FFL registration or personal sales are discouraged in gun shows, but are not really illegal - just frowned upon.
    • Machine guns are legal in Montana.
    • Suppressors (silencers) are legal in Montana.
    • These last two are to help keep bears from hearing a gunshot and come running to snack on a gut pile. Many times a slow hunter is the blue plate special for bears this way.


    @zqwerty: I'm not too sure that I agree with the peripheral death to innocents in the pursuit of the rights as you outline them. I am sure that people hide behind these ideas, but loss of life is all too too serious. At my 73 years now, I cannot understand death at any younger age. What a waste.

    OTOH - there are times when it is decreed - not by me - that anyone who gets killed in an act of declared war - is OK in and for the greater number.

    If I could have one of these: 與輪子和馬的中國古色古香的決鬥教規 --- I'd have everything I need.

    NOTE: I think I have this edited correctly - there may be a typo or so - lessee what happens next.


    May your screen door of life not swing in the winds of bad choices


    I have no idea what that means - I just think it sounds erudite, that's all.


  5. #15
    amateur expert dugimodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7,491

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Yeah you've mentioned the bears before and I have to say, it's the best reason for carrying a gun I've heard to date.
    There are definitely situations where it's a reasonable practice but I think Jim Jeffries makes some very good points.

    I can't agree with the right to purchase any weapon you want for any reason though, there are many weapons nobody needs to own and it only takes one psychopath getting their hands on them for a tragedy to occur.
    The only way to prevent that is to stop anyone having them. A high calibre weapon with a small to medium size magazine is all the "protection" anyone can realistically need, a weapon that can kill and injure hundreds in a short period of time should not be in the hands of the public IMHO.
    Ryzen 2700X, 16Gb DDR4RAM, 512GB M.2 NVME SSD, MSI GTX1070

  6. #16
    CICERO FAN CLUB MEMBER prefect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,652

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Quote Originally Posted by SurferJoe46 View Post
    Interesting comments there.

    First I have to qualify my purpose in owning any firearm I want - within reason of course - no nukes, no Claymores and no B.A.R.s.
    I only carry when I am fishing as a possible defense against bears who want to eat, maul or play with me.
    I have to sneak up on trout - I also find I am sneaking up on bears.
    I decided for myself to not keep a loaded weapon at home although there are no children in the house.
    My wife was previously married to a police lieutenant in SoCal.
    She had to 'carry' when they were out in public together.
    My wife is very familiar with firearms and does not have any worries about them in the house or car.
    I do not intend to use any of my firearms against a human.
    That is very distasteful to me.

    • I also believe that I should be able to purchase any weapon I want - for any reason that I may or may not state.
    • I should be able to own any weapon and store it on my person, in my home or in/on any vehicle.
    • I also believe that I don't actually have to utilize this right to keep it in effect.
    • It should stand as a prima-facia truth.


    Having said that - I don't have to 'register' for myself as the future or currently being transacted new ownership to possess any firearm. [*]I MAY register if I want to - but I'm not even sure where to do that in the state in which I currently live.

    California with it's Draconian firearm laws, allows citizens to own an unregistered firearm and for the average non-felonious persons, they can have a surprisingly different armory of all sorts of unregistered and otherwise lethal weapons.
    • Machine guns and silencers (suppressors) are OUT as are belt-fed automatic weapons or pistols that carry more than 10 rounds.
    • CCW in California is nearly impossible to get and Open Carry is strictly forbidden except for military (active) and police agents sworn to the court.
    • Person-to-person (private) sales of firearms is illegal without FFL intervention. Gun show sales are through FFL Agents too.
    • All commercial and private sales are registered - although as far as owning a firearm, the owner himself is not registered.
    • Police officers are not allowed to carry more than 10 round capacity weapons when off duty.




    Arizona is much looser in defining a 'bad' or 'illegal' weapon.
    • CCW permits are easy to obtain.
    • Open carry is legal almost everywhere - there are a few limitations.
    • Private sales are not registered and are not required to go through an FFL Agent.
    • I don't know much more about Arizona as I haven't really lived there for long before I moved to Montana.



    Montana is a 'must issue' CCW - in less than 45 days.
    • The fee is $45.00 and either a pistol (only in this case) class by an accredited personal firearms (pistol) instructor.
    • This class can be eliminated if the applicant has a DD-214 - or a US Military discharge paper (at least Under Honorable Conditions).
    • Any US Citizen can 'Open Carry' - except in US Federal reservations (military bases, VA buildings and certain courts and governing agency buildings, airports and train stations.
    • City and-or county dedicated parks are questionable ordinances as far as OC being permitted or not.
    • This is usually left up to the local governing authority.
    • I can carry a concealed, loaded, non-registered pistol in my auto in any city, county or governance in Montana.
    • I can CCW anywhere in Montana withing the physical limits of the state, but not in Federal courts, Federal buildings (the IRS and Social Security offices come to mind), airports, train stations, post offices, some schools, some city-by-city banks and city-by-city dedicates parks.
    • I am not sure now about CCW in a mining camp.
    • I believe I knew it is illegal to if you do not have a CCW permit, but I now do and I'm not sure if I am now allowed to enter a mining camp, carrying.
      This won't come up very often I think.
    • Gun Shows are not regulated by FFL requirements.
    • Sales via a dealer at a gun show are exempt of FFL transactions, and 'hook-ups' to circumvent FFL registration or personal sales are discouraged in gun shows, but are not really illegal - just frowned upon.
    • Machine guns are legal in Montana.
    • Suppressors (silencers) are legal in Montana.
    • These last two are to help keep bears from hearing a gunshot and come running to snack on a gut pile. Many times a slow hunter is the blue plate special for bears this way.


    @zqwerty: I'm not too sure that I agree with the peripheral death to innocents in the pursuit of the rights as you outline them. I am sure that people hide behind these ideas, but loss of life is all too too serious. At my 73 years now, I cannot understand death at any younger age. What a waste.

    OTOH - there are times when it is decreed - not by me - that anyone who gets killed in an act of declared war - is OK in and for the greater number.

    If I could have one of these: 與輪子和馬的中國古色古香的決鬥教規 --- I'd have everything I need.

    NOTE: I think I have this edited correctly - there may be a typo or so - lessee what happens next.
    Montana allows machine guns, how cool is that?
    Its amazing how Potatoes give us chips,fries and Vodka.

    Get your s*** together every other vegetable.

  7. #17
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,092

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    @dugimodo:

    I've been watching a lot of videos and reading a lot of printed material on what the rest of the world may not understand: The US Constitution Bill Of Rights and especially the 2nd Amendment.

    That Amendment (hereafter called: 2A) in wording that is somewhat 'dated' says that the formation of a well regulated civilian militia. I have to post a rather long and perhaps tedious law as it was written with some editorializing to boot.

    From this point on, my posts and comments are in BLUE.

    Here goes:


    (ibid) ..... there are several opinions as to what the meaning of "well regulated militia" actually means. Some think that this means the Army or the Army National Guard in each State, which is regulated basically by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Others however, believe that this refers to the Militias of the Several States which are made up of all the people within them, citizen soldiers who are well prepared and organized for the exercise of their duty to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

    These varying opinions represent the views of American society on this question. However we would like to simplify at least the historic context of the term when it was ratified by the States as the Second Amendment.

    First, none of us could disagree that the term "well" means simply "good". Second, while some disagree as to whether all people or certain volunteers in the National Guard are the "militia", all can accept the fact that this is some assembly of citizen soldiers.

    Finally, this leaves us with the ambiguation regarding the word "regulated". We know that this is basically a verb or an action that is in the past, meaning it has been completed or has been done. In the context of the protected right, its safe to say that "A well [blank] militia" is the resulting act completed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Hence, we must ask which definition of "regulate" would be the effect of the people bearing arms?

    Here are some definitions for the word, "regulate":

    regulate - Merriam Webster's Dictionary (a transitive verb)

    a : to govern or direct according to rule
    b : (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
    (2) : to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)
    to bring order, method, or uniformity to (regulate one's habits)
    to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)

    So, how could the people being armed cause the militia to be governed or directed according to rule or law? Well, I guess you could simply say that since the people are the enforcers of law, that the fact that they armed, would enforce that the militia is governed by the rules that they make, since they have the guns. You might also say that we should read only that everybody should have arms in order to meet the obligations necessary should you be called forth according to the rules governing the militia, which makes it good.

    If we consider the second definition, its quite plain to see how everyone having arms would mean the militia would be in good order and in fact brought into uniformity, as to what makes a good fighting force, being one which has the effective means to conduct militant actions.

    The third definition could also leave you to assume that everyone being armed fixes the time as while the Constitution is in force, and the amount being everyone constitutes what it means for a militia to be well regulated.

    In every one of these definitions however, there is no doubt that it involved the people being armed, making it hard for any common sense evaluation of the clause that the government can pick and chose who can or can not be armed. In fact, the words "shall not infringe" could never be more clear as to the intent of the Amendment. Simply, that the government can not break this law.

    So, if the government broke this law, the militia would not be well regulated, and the States would not be able to secure freedom. Since the Second Amendment is well known to have the purpose of protecting rights, its practical to assume that those rights would have the intent and the design to secure those rights, and that rights are freedoms. This Amendment therefore says that this freedom is protected by all of the people who can bear arms in order to secure this liberty, providing them with the capability to doing so. This capability is what makes the militia in good proper order and uniformity, thus the riddle behind the meaning is fully resolved.

    A "Well Regulated" American Militia is the entire population free to possess arms in order to secure the liberty of the place in which they live, in their own homes, in their communities across each State and ultimately encompassing the entire nation.

    Without any Amendment to the contrary, this means that the militia must contain every person capable of bearing arms. Just who is capable or authorized? The people, which are every individual which make up each one of these United States, who in accordance with the rights granted by the laws of nature and force of arms may fully execute their sovereign authority over their domain to secure liberty, period!
    Here's me again:

    The way I see this, the militia has to have the opportunity to possess arms at least equal to the US Military branches, inthat: these would be on an equal playing field and there should be no superiority to one side or the other.

    I don't know what to say about atomic bombs, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. That IS a quandary.

    In the World History classes that I attended before the Socialists indoctrination of latter students in the US Public school system c. 1960 or so: it was well understood that there was a tremendous volume of potential awareness that any governmental oppression such as had been with the British King George III and his satellite cronies, that this should NOT happen again.

    If this posts all OK - I'll start another panel for the rest of this 2A information that all the world seems to think has everyone in the US, armed to the teeth and looking for a gun fight....


    May your screen door of life not swing in the winds of bad choices


    I have no idea what that means - I just think it sounds erudite, that's all.


  8. #18
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,092

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Page 2 of US Revolutionary War and 2A Rights discussion.

    WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT TO "BEAR ARMS"
    STEPHEN P. HALBROOK*

    INTRODUCTION
    In 1775, General Gage ordered that all private arms in Boston be deposited with the magistrates, supposedly to be stored temporarily and eventually returned to the owners. Those citizens naive enough to comply with the general's edict turned in 1778 muskets, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses.

    1 As the Declaration of Causes of Taking up Arms passed by the Continental Congress stated: "They accordingly delivered up their arms; but in open violation of honour, . . . the govenour ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid . . . to be seized by a body of soldiers . . . .

    -2 One newspaper published a poem entitled "Tom Gage's Proclamation":

    That whoseoe'er keeps gun or pistol,
    I'll spoil the motion of his systole; . . .
    But every one that will lay down
    His hanger bright, and musket brown,
    Shall not be beat, nor bruis'd, nor bang'd,
    Much less for past offenses, hang'd;
    But on surrendering his toledo,
    Go to and fro unhurt as we do;-
    Meanwhile let all, and every one
    Who loves his life, forsake his gun . .. .


    In a recent article, Professor Don Kates acknowledged that the second amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" protects an individual right to keep arms in the home for self-defense.

    4 He contends, however, that the amendment serves "to guarantee the right to carry them outside the home only in the course of militia service."

    5 In that article and in this dialogue Professor Kates argues that the following arms may be completely banned from private ownership: "Saturday Night Specials," [Copyright 1986 by Law and Contemporary Problems]
    * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1978; Ph.D. (Philosophy), Florida State University, 1972. A practicing attorney with offices in Fairfax, Virginia, the author is a member of the bars of Virginia, the Distict of Columbia, and various federal courts.
    i. R. FROTItiNGHAM, HISTORY OF THE SEIGE OF BOSTON 95 (6th ed. 1903)
    .

    2. The Declaration, passed on July 6, 1775, is reprinted, among other places, in Connecticut Courant, July 17, 1775, at 2 (quote taken from col. 3).

    3.

    4. Id. at 4, col. 1.
    Kates, Hiandgun Prohibition and the Oiginal Mleaning of the Second Anmendmient. 82 MicH. L. REV. 204, 267 (1983).

    5.
    Id.LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS
    6. [Vol. 49: No. 1 "gangster weapons" (brass knuckles, switchblade knives, and short-barreled shotguns), purely offensive military weapons, 6 and "the urban possession of rifles, shotguns and highly penetrative handgun bullets."

    7. Lastly, Professor Kates contends that "permissive" licensing and registration for gun ownership is constitutional.

    8 Did the framers of the second amendment (as well as those of the fourteenth) intend constitutional protection of the right to "bear" arms to encompass the private carrying of arms for self-defense? What "arms" are protected under that guarantee? May licenses and registration be required for exercise of a constitutional right per se? The following analysis seeks to resolve-or at least clarify-these queries.

    9 II THE RIGHT TO "BEAR" ARMS
    Did the framers intend the second amendment to encompass a right to carry guns for self-protection? Professor Lawrence Cress, who speaks for himself when he claims that "we know little about the Second Amendment's reception in the States," has recently argued that the Founding Fathers would have been shocked by the idea that citizens could bear firearms for self-defense.'

    0 Professor Kates bases his similar argument that there is no right to bear arms outside of militia service on an unpublished thesis of a law student.'' Yet Cress and Kates are well aware 12 that the first state Declaration of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was that of Pennsylvania in 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State."

    3.1.
    3.2.
    3.3.

    6. Id. at 260-61; Kates, The Second Amendment: A Dialogue, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Winter 1986, at 143, 147-48 & n.25.

    7. Kates, supra note 4, at 261.

    8. Id. at 265; Kates, supra note 6, nn.26-28 and accompanying text. Kates also argues that laws prohibiting felons from owning or carrying firearms are consistent with the second amendment. While generally true of common law offenses, which were violent, this principle is sometimes suspect in this age of strict criminal liability, victimless crimes, and over-criminalization of previously legal conduct. For instance, a relative who gives a gun to a family member in another state commits a felony. 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5), 924(a) (1982).

    9. This author treats some of these issues in much greater detail in S. HALBROOK, THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED: THE EVOLUTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (1984).

    10. Cress, An Armed Community, 71 J. AM. HIST. 22, 38 (1984). Cress was apparently unaware ofthe comprehensive evidence presented in Halbrook, To Keep and Bear Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment, 1787-1791, 10 N. Ky. L. REV. 13 (1982).

    Cress concluded: "No one argued that the individual had a right to bear arms outside the ranks of the militia. To the contrary, bearing arms outside the framework of the established militia structure immediately provoked fears for the constitutional stability of the Republic."

    Cress, supr at 4 1. Not surprisingly, he was unable to cite a single original source to substantiate this assertion. At a time when most Americans thought that pistols on the field of honor according to the code duello provided a test of virtue, only a Quaker might object to bearing arms for self-defense against robbers and highwaymen.

    11. See Kates, supra note 4, at 267.

    12. Cress, stipia note 10, at 29; Kates, supra note 4, at 244 n.169.

    OK - Me again - this is tedious - right?

    I'll post the site where this is all available - but I'm tired of cropping. c&p and generally making this readable in this format.

    Here's the link for those who want to know more.


    May your screen door of life not swing in the winds of bad choices


    I have no idea what that means - I just think it sounds erudite, that's all.


  9. #19
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,092

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Quote Originally Posted by prefect View Post
    Montana allows machine guns, how cool is that?
    Oh yeah - but the machine gun must be manufactured in Montana (they are) and that it cannot be taken across a state line - IOW: not out of Montana.

    There is a 'must issue' permit for a machine gun --- the 'must issue' part states that the county sheriff MUST pass the applicant to permission to own --- pending his clearing of a US Federal records check for legal abuses, felony convictions, mental hospital admissions for psychiatric problems, etc.

    I have no intentions of buying or owning a machine gun. Not my style to 'spray-n-pray'.

    My next purchase is a 10mm carbine by Hi-Point - not a terrifically great firearm company, but they really stood up at the plate for this one: LINK

    This long gun fires the same ammo as my Glock 20. That's a big beni, but 10mm ammo is pretty expensive!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Hi-Point-10mm-2.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	22.1 KB 
ID:	9277

    I've fired it in an indoor range and it really 'cheeks' well in that it instantly is at my cheek with no fumbling and moving around to be able to look down the sights. It is just a natural-good feeling rifle - I admit it looks a lot er, 'military' but that's the style and at 10mm it really is a great firearm for deer and elk hunting.

    I might try hunting next season - maybe.
    Last edited by SurferJoe46; 30-12-2018 at 07:06 PM.


    May your screen door of life not swing in the winds of bad choices


    I have no idea what that means - I just think it sounds erudite, that's all.


  10. #20
    CICERO FAN CLUB MEMBER prefect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,652

    Default Re: Extinguishing fire with sound

    Quote Originally Posted by SurferJoe46 View Post
    Oh yeah - but the machine gun must be manufactured in Montana (they are) and that it cannot be taken across a state line - IOW: not out of Montana.

    There is a 'must issue' permit for a machine gun --- the 'must issue' part states that the county sheriff MUST pass the applicant to permission to own --- pending his clearing of a US Federal records check for legal abuses, felony convictions, mental hospital admissions for psychiatric problems, etc.

    I have no intentions of buying or owning a machine gun. Not my style to 'spray-n-pray'.

    My next purchase is a 10mm carbine by Hi-Point - not a terrifically great firearm company, but they really stood up at the plate for this one: LINK

    This long gun fires the same ammo as my Glock 20. That's a big beni, but 10mm ammo is pretty expensive!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Hi-Point-10mm-2.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	22.1 KB 
ID:	9277

    I've fired it in an indoor range and it really 'cheeks' well in that it instantly is at my cheek with no fumbling and moving around to be able to look down the sights. It is just a natural-good feeling rifle - I admit it looks a lot er, 'military' but that's the style and at 10mm it really is a great firearm for deer and elk hunting.

    I might try hunting next season - maybe.
    How much for a box of 10mm?

    I live for my hunting especially duck shooting, as we say at the mai mai if it flies it dies. I am very envious of your US gun laws wish we had them. I especially like the stand your ground law.
    Its amazing how Potatoes give us chips,fries and Vodka.

    Get your s*** together every other vegetable.

Similar Threads

  1. Electric fire: "there is no risk of fire"
    By Agent_24 in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20-06-2015, 04:18 PM
  2. Fire Fox 3.0.9
    By ianhnz in forum PressF1
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25-04-2009, 12:29 PM
  3. Fire Fox 3 Available
    By wainuitech in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 19-06-2008, 01:05 PM
  4. Put another log on the fire.
    By Sweep in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23-05-2007, 08:18 AM
  5. For Fire-and-Ice
    By merlin-nz in forum PressF1
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2003, 10:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •