for troughs that are interested this is what a big high power air rifle looks

like today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ClVbIS3r3-g

---

Speaking of 1950's, still happening today.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/03/6th-white-suspect-pleads-guilty-in-attacks-on-blacks-in-mississippi-that-ended/

---

With the way the executive branch operates, it may be not even be sufficient.

You live there I don't, so I will bow to your better knowledge. With the recent Presidential elections setting 50% of America against the other 50% politically, now this pro/anti gun lobby fracas, it just seems to us over the pond that you guys really are heading for another Civil War.

I'm old enough to still remember Little Rock Arkansas in the mid 1950's. We couldn't believe what was happening in supposedly the most civilised nation in the world. And we cannot believe it now, for different reasons

That was the executive branch doing its thing. Well, executive branch of local government. Nothing has changed to their power since then. Perhaps the second amendment makes more sense in light of this.

---

With the way the executive branch operates, it may be not even be sufficient.

You live there I don't, so I will bow to your better knowledge. With the recent Presidential elections setting 50% of America against the other 50% politically, now this pro/anti gun lobby fracas, it just seems to us over the pond that you guys really are heading for another Civil War.

I'm old enough to still remember Little Rock Arkansas in the mid 1950's. We couldn't believe what was happening in supposedly the most civilised nation in the world. And we cannot believe it now, for different reasons.

If you look at the second amendment and the right to bear arms, as I understand it, it was introduced in 1791 because the Founding Fathers were genuinely worried at the time that the population didn't have the means defend itself, against enemies who would take their freedom, be they foreign, or their own government grown too full of itself. Might have been a necessary safeguard back then, but how relevant is that today with the might of the American Armed forces, and the way that Congress operates?

With the way the executive branch operates, it may be not even be sufficient.

However until Congress and 3/4 of the States agree, the people shall be allowed arms. Note "arms" isn't just firearms.

---

Even David was handy with a sling as in Goliath! And what about those pointed throwing stars you see in Kung Fu films? How about a piece of inanimate rope used as a noose to hang someone, shall we ban rope? The point is that any heavy enough or sharp enough projectile can be lethal, if it is launched fast enough by hand or explosive power.

Maybe what is needed is for a Congressional Committee to sit down with the NRA and other representative bodies,and discuss what sort of firearms are considered to be "reasonable" for general public ownership, and what controls over that ownership can be practically enforced, without infringing the Constitutional right to bear arms. Perhaps a limit on calibre, clip size, muzzle velocity and the like, with other stuff like assault weapons only allowed to official gun clubs and licenced collectors.

If you look at the second amendment and the right to bear arms, as I understand it, it was introduced in 1791 because the Founding Fathers were genuinely worried at the time that the population didn't have the means defend itself, against enemies who would take their freedom, be they foreign, or their own government grown too full of itself. Might have been a necessary safeguard back then, but how relevant is that today with the might of the American Armed forces, and the way that Congress operates?

There are those that are calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and others who are backing the introduction of a 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. 150 years later, instead of the Union Vs the Confederates over slavery, the USA is more in danger of starting a new Civil war between the pro and anti gun lobbies, if it doesn't get a grip on this. Meanwhile Schoolkids die while people argue.

Any item that fires projectiles by whatever means is capable of killing people, even a catapult.

that is the point.

That includes a rock using hand and arm.

---

Any item that fires projectiles by whatever means is capable of killing people, even a catapult.

that is the point.

---

There are so called professional catapults that are classed as "stunning weapons" Catapults

TNX for the link as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult is obviously not what you had in mind.

Yes, we need to ban "Y" shapes and rubber bands as being dangerous precursors to deadly weapons!

What about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_%28weapon%29? We will have to outlaw rope as well!

<ed>Gosh forbid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet

---

There are so called professional catapults that are classed as "stunning weapons" Catapults

There are laws to prevent hunting at various times. Hunting laws.

The shooting of game at night (between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise) is not permitted. Ground game (rabbit and hare) may be shot at night by an occupier of land or one other person authorised by the occupier, with the permission of the holder of the shooting rights under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 7, unless the occupier has the exclusive rights.

There are no laws to ban professional catapults as far as I know, but there should be. How many innocent animals have been partially stunned, to crawl away and die an agonising death due to brain injury. I think they should be banned.

Any item that fires projectiles by whatever means is capable of killing people, even a catapult.

Maybe we need catapult control laws?

Over here the catapults with an arm brace are classed as a prohibited "weapon".

T.A.

Any item that fires projectiles by whatever means is capable of killing people, even a catapult.

Maybe we need catapult control laws?

---

#resist

Any item that fires projectiles by whatever means is capable of killing people, even a catapult.

High power air rifles have been around since before the Lewis and Clark

expedition their not new the popularity is just back.

as an economical alternative to the high cost of

convectional rounds for actual fire arms.

---

And this is why BB guns are now treated as deadly weapons. Good work guys.
Tim the Toolman Tailor at work.

Bigger. Badder. Dumber.

---

Janice

some of them have clip some have magazines some are single shot

some can launch a 1 1/2 oz. projectile at over 1200 ft.per second.

some run on 3600 psi air so 4200 psi some 6000 psi.

these aren't paint guns any more.

---

high power air over the last few years have become what they were for Lewis and

Clark a good way to hunt and a better way to protect themself's.

modern air such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlxcFSq5k8c

can be used for hunting or target practice and differs only in two

distinct way form a conventional rife 1 it is quieter and 2 it does not

use chemical burning to expel the bullet so BTAF HAS NO JURIDICTION.

I thought it might be interesting to see here peoples views on these.

So, now we have a 5 thread clip? .... er magazine? ... magazine clip, maybe? ... for discussing these issues?!?

One thread should suffice.

one thread said this was off topic.

---

high power air over the last few years have become what they were for Lewis and

Clark a good way to hunt and a better way to protect themself's.

modern air such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlxcFSq5k8c

can be used for hunting or target practice and differs only in two

distinct way form a conventional rife 1 it is quieter and 2 it does not

use chemical burning to expel the bullet so BTAF HAS NO JURIDICTION.

I thought it might be interesting to see here peoples views on these.

So, now we have a 5 thread clip? .... er magazine? ... magazine clip, maybe? ... for discussing these issues?!?

One thread should suffice.

high power air over the last few years have become what they were for Lewis and

Clark a good way to hunt and a better way to protect themself's.

modern air such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlxcFSq5k8c

can be used for hunting or target practice and differs only in two

distinct way form a conventional rife 1 it is quieter and 2 it does not

use chemical burning to expel the bullet so BTAF HAS NO JURIDICTION.

I thought it might be interesting to see here peoples views on these.

---