Gun contorl advocates are jokes

Well I really want a P-90 but not for hunting. http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm Apparently the rounds that this weapon fires are illegal in the US because they rip through body armor like it's tissue paper.

My house is secure and monitored. If I were to acquire automatic weapons that would be the icing on the cake as far as a deterrent goes.

I guess I could lie about owning one to the neighbors but sooner or later someone would call my bluff. Also, these items do have a bit of "collectible" appeal. One of my friends is a programmer and he collects October Revolution period firearms, antiques if you will.

Well I really want a P-90 but not for hunting. http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm Apparently the rounds that this weapon fires are illegal in the US because they rip through body armor like it's tissue paper.

My house is secure and monitored. If I were to acquire automatic weapons that would be the icing on the cake as far as a deterrent goes.

I guess I could lie about owning one to the neighbors but sooner or later someone would call my bluff. Also, these items do have a bit of "collectible" appeal. One of my friends is a programmer and he collects October Revolution period firearms, antiques if you will.

Bull SH*T, my uncle is an arms 'dealer'- you have to have him give the okay for you to own this gun-its a law- he has sold three p-90`s and one p-2000. this thing looks like the battle rifle out oh halo! i have personally held it, and its wicked. and light- oh, and yes, the ammo is special-something like 7.27 mm or some thing- super pointy and high velcity.

Dude, you are seriously beginning to convince me that I should get one of these!

Well I really want a P-90 but not for hunting. http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm Apparently the rounds that this weapon fires are illegal in the US because they rip through body armor like it's tissue paper.

My house is secure and monitored. If I were to acquire automatic weapons that would be the icing on the cake as far as a deterrent goes.

I guess I could lie about owning one to the neighbors but sooner or later someone would call my bluff. Also, these items do have a bit of "collectible" appeal. One of my friends is a programmer and he collects October Revolution period firearms, antiques if you will.

Bull SH*T, my uncle is an arms 'dealer'- you have to have him give the okay for you to own this gun-its a law- he has sold three p-90`s and one p-2000. this thing looks like the battle rifle out oh halo! i have personally held it, and its wicked. and light- oh, and yes, the ammo is special-something like 7.27 mm or some thing- super pointy and high velcity.

different states have different gun laws.
here in kentucky you can go to store and buy a assault rifle in 20 minutes or less.

Dude, you are seriously beginning to convince me that I should get one of these!

-no im not-if you want wan, but your sig says other wise. i`m just saying its not illegal in the USA(for dummy farquezy-yeh- i said USA not STATES- get some glasses)but no- if want wan-get one. if you dont,dont.

Dude, you are seriously beginning to convince me that I should get one of these!

-no im not-if you want wan, but your sig says other wise. i`m just saying its not illegal in the USA(for dummy farquezy-yeh- i said USA not STATES- get some glasses)but no- if want wan-get one. if you dont,dont.

no you didnt lol.
now im confuzed

Here in Florida you need a living trust to get a license for an automatic and assuming everything goes through with your class III papers you can only get arms built before 1987.

I am thinking I will never be able to own a fully automatic P-90, EVER!!

The second amendment to the US Constitutions states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It seems at least here in Florida by restricting me to a weapon built before 1987, that my rights ARE being infringed.

Where are the NRA lawyers when you need them? It can't be that difficult to present and win this case, seriously.

Where are the NRA lawyers when you need them? It can't be that difficult to present and win this case, seriously.

indeed, these are reasons i wish to be a lawyer

Well I really want a P-90 but not for hunting. http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm Apparently the rounds that this weapon fires are illegal in the US because they rip through body armor like it's tissue paper.

My house is secure and monitored. If I were to acquire automatic weapons that would be the icing on the cake as far as a deterrent goes.

I guess I could lie about owning one to the neighbors but sooner or later someone would call my bluff. Also, these items do have a bit of "collectible" appeal. One of my friends is a programmer and he collects October Revolution period firearms, antiques if you will.

The FN P90 and the civilian version, the PS90 are chambered for 5.7X28 mm. Although a Class III NFA is required for the full auto P90 along with a lot of cash as they are quite expensive. A PS90 can be bought for around $1500-$1700. There is nothing illegal about the 5.7x28mm round. It is the same caliber used in FN's Five-Seven pistol.

PS90


Fiveseven

I confirmed that the ammo is legal. It would cost me $22 a box compared to 7.62x39mm ammo at $7 a box at the gunstore.

My local gunstore has 2 PS90s in stock one all black and another in olive. I like the solid black myself. The sell for about $1600 each.

My own personal belief is that full autmatic fire wastes bullets. A semi automatic is fine for personal use HOWEVER, there is something impressive about sending a lot of hot brass in one direction in a short amount of time. I mean the sound is enough to make the unsuspecting S**t their pants and tear off running and that is the point after all, you know?

Personally I prefer 3 shot burst over full auto. Less muzzle rise, more control, more effective, less waste.

I have been thinking about that these last few days. In a tactical situation I would never go full auto anyways unless I was looking to disable a vehicle.

How are 3 round burst weapons classified anyways?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia:a body of citizens organized for military service

Infringed: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Here is how I understand the the constitution

You want guns? Join the National Guard, then you can have all the guns you want.

Make sense? That is the way it was meant to be but that is not the way it is being ran because people either do not know how to read and interpret the constitution or they do not care.

END OF STORY.

Case and point. The way I see it, only military should have guns or those dedicated to defense of city/ state. It doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" - there's an important line before that which says "being necessary to the security of a free state" - and if you account for the few hundred years that our English language has kind of evolved, that translates to: "If a free state decides to create a militia (National Guard), their right to properly equip their soldiers with firearms will not be taken away from them."

It doesn't mean that anyone who isn't part of the National Guard automatically has the right to keep and bear arms. Ron Paul was our chance to get at this issue though, and he's not the next president.

Even so, military members don't have any special privileges when it comes to gun ownership than anyone else.

Everyone I have ever known that had cool guns was wealthy so if you ask me laws only apply to the poor anyways.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia:a body of citizens organized for military service

Infringed: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Here is how I understand the the constitution

You want guns? Join the National Guard, then you can have all the guns you want.

Make sense? That is the way it was meant to be but that is not the way it is being ran because people either do not know how to read and interpret the constitution or they do not care.

END OF STORY.

Case and point. The way I see it, only military should have guns or those dedicated to defense of city/ state. It doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" - there's an important line before that which says "being necessary to the security of a free state" - and if you account for the few hundred years that our English language has kind of evolved, that translates to: "If a free state decides to create a militia (National Guard), their right to properly equip their soldiers with firearms will not be taken away from them."

It doesn't mean that anyone who isn't part of the National Guard automatically has the right to keep and bear arms. Ron Paul was our chance to get at this issue though, and he's not the next president.

What do you mean it wasnt meant for the people?
Our founding fathers made it VERY clear that it was for the people so they could protect themselves from the government. The sole reason it was introduced was for this reason. Go read what they had to say!

this is what thomas jefferson said about gun control
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."