Obama Sponsors Fingerprint Registry Bill

[ToxicVomit]

Obama Sponsors Fingerprint Registry Bill

Kurt Nimmo

June 9, 2008




It appears Obama and Clinton secretly attended Bilderberg where microchipping the public was on the agenda.

If you want to know what kind of president Barack Obama will be, look no further than his sponsorship of the fingerprint registry bill now wending its way through the Senate. Obama apparently has no reservations when it comes to robbing Americans of their freedom. The corporate media does not believe Obama’s backing of this bill warrants mention, but the Heritage Foundation does:

Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) authored a bill (with 11 co-sponsors, including Sen. Barack Obama) that was incorporated into a housing bill passed by the Senate Banking Committee 19-2 before the Memorial Day recess — a bill that creates a national fingerprint registry.

According to a Martinez press release, the language merely “create[s] national licensing and oversight standards for residential mortgage originators.”

One of the standards, John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, may “require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries — and not suspected of anything — to send their prints to the feds.”

This is a step in the wrong direction — at least for a nation that preserves freedom.

Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein — a member of the globalist Trilateral Commission and also a Bilderberg attendee — parade this bill as consumer protection when in fact it is nothing of the sort. In fact, it is rather odd Feinstein would characterize this bill as such when consumers and the public at large were not to allowed to discuss it. Declan McCullagh writes for CNet:

What’s a little odd is the lack of public discussion about this new fingerprint database. No mention of it appears in the official summary of the revised Senate bill. No fingerprint database requirement is in the House version of the legislation approved earlier this month. No copy of the revised Senate legislation is posted on the Library of Congress’ Thomas Web site, which would be the usual procedure.

As McCullagh notes, there is no indication what will happen with the fingerprints after real estate agents have submitted them to the FBI. But this really is a non-brainer — they will go into a sprawling government database along with all the other biometric data collected from citizens by the government.

If you want to know the government’s opinion on fingerprints, look no further than the comments of DHS honcho Michael Chertoff, who recently stated that “a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.” In other words, you don’t own your fingerprints — or DNA, for that matter — because you leave it around, thus there should be no expectation of privacy.




Obama agrees with this — and when, or if, he becomes president he will be no different than the current crop of underwear drawer snooping fascists spying on phone calls, reading email, and rifling through medical and credit records in the name of the “war on terror,” actually a war on the American people.

As Bilderberg researcher and journalist Jim Tucker told Alex Jones today, the elite are itching to impose their control grid on all of us. According to Tucker’s sources inside Bilderberg — with a solid track record — there was discussion of microchipping the public like so much cattle at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting this past week in Chantilly, Virginia. It will begin with RFID tags in your underwear — I kid you not — and soon enough progress to implantable microchips.

It now appears both Hillary and Obama secretly attended the Bilderberg meeting, thus we can assume both are all for the agenda to microchip the populace like dogs.

No doubt Obama and the elite believe it is “Change We Can Believe In.”

[ChrisJones]

This is stupid. This whole thing.

So when somebody murders your children and leaves his prints all over your house and the FBI can't match the prints to everybody... Oh no, somebody has my finger print on file! The hospital already has your baby prints! Such violations!

Microchips! Sounds like an anti-obama scare tactic again.

[soup is good food]

He voted for the Patriot Act. He supports war in Afghanistan and Pakistan - and I suspect, Iraq, when all is said and done. Why would his support for such legislation be a surprise? An Obama administration would not be qualitatively different than the Bush administration or a McCain administration (or the 8 years under the Clinton administration).

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[ToxicVomit]

This is stupid. This whole thing.

So when somebody murders your children and leaves his prints all over your house and the FBI can't match the prints to everybody... Oh no, somebody has my finger print on file! The hospital already has your baby prints! Such violations!

Microchips! Sounds like an anti-obama scare tactic again.

Just as it is being marketed to "chip" your children in case they get kidnapped, he or she can be located via tracking - and before this gets labelled as anything, it has been marketed on CNN and other news channels........as well as tents set up at various events that are often run by Masons (this has been video'd). But who cares.....right? As long as out children are safe and tracked!

[jonhomeowner]

He voted for the Patriot Act. He supports war in Afghanistan and Pakistan - and I suspect, Iraq, when all is said and done. Why would his support for such legislation be a surprise? An Obama administration would not be qualitatively different than the Bush administration or a McCain administration (or the 8 years under the Clinton administration).
No, he opposes the war in Iraq.

And what politician wouldn't be for war in Afghanistan? It was that country where the Taliban lived, and let Al Qaeda thrive.

[ToxicVomit]

No, he opposes the war in Iraq.

And what politician wouldn't be for war in Afghanistan? It was that country where the Taliban lived, and let Al Qaeda thrive.

In that case, America should attack America for allowing Al Qaeda to thrive.......

[xdipsomaniacx]

Just as it is being marketed to "chip" your children in case they get kidnapped, he or she can be located via tracking - and before this gets labelled as anything, it has been marketed on CNN and other news channels........as well as tents set up at various events that are often run by Masons (this has been video'd). But who cares.....right? As long as out children are safe and tracked!

My bf and I argue about this. I am against microchipping kids, very much against it. It definitely crosses a line. But I am okay for fingerprinting kids and keeping their hair for DNA them for kidnapping's sake. I don't worry about the fingerprints being used later, mostly because if my kid grows up to be a criminal, well, he will have to face the music one way or another. My bf is totally against fingerprinting, DNA, chips, all of it. We choose to not discuss it anymore, there is no way to agree on it.

[ChrisJones]

As long as out children are safe and tracked!

"chipping people" is a scare tactic! It isn't even remotely based in reality.

Your response to my post makes me wonder if you did not understand what I was saying.

[ToxicVomit]

"chipping people" is a scare tactic! It isn't even remotely based in reality.

Your response to my post makes me wonder if you did not understand what I was saying.

Chipping people is a reality and has been used for a bit now. Pets and other animals have been chipped........then some criminals have been chipped.......CNN covered chipping in a lengthy story about numerous individuals volunteering to be chipped out of convenience in society (ie. banking, access to home, access to computer, etc).......commercials regarding keeping your children sagfe and within reach.........Mason booths video'd at festivals in the Midwest marketing chipping as a safety measure for children. This has been used for some time now and little by little marketed as something to be used for safety and convenience.

I do understand your view on wanting to know someone's fingerprints if they murdered your family......of course I would want them to be caught - but this is another so-called "scare tactic" to put the population in fear so they volunteer to be categorized.

[soup is good food]

"Acting quickly after securing his party’s presidential nomination, Barack Obama picked a well-known representative of Bill Clinton’s economic policies as his economic policy director and signaled this week that the major players from the Clinton economics team were now in his camp — starting with Robert E. Rubin.

Senator Obama, Democrat of Illinois, hired Jason Furman, a Harvard-trained economist closely associated with Mr. Rubin, a Wall Street insider who served as President Clinton’s Treasury secretary. Labor union leaders criticized the move, and said that “Rubinomics” focused too much on corporate America and not enough on workers. "

NY Times Article on Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/business/12econ.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin)

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[ChrisJones]

Chipping people is a reality and has been used for a bit now. Pets and other animals have been chipped........then some criminals have been chipped.......CNN covered chipping in a lengthy story about numerous individuals volunteering to be chipped out of convenience in society (ie. banking, access to home, access to computer, etc).......commercials regarding keeping your children sagfe and within reach.........Mason booths video'd at festivals in the Midwest marketing chipping as a safety measure for children. This has been used for some time now and little by little marketed as something to be used for safety and convenience.

I do understand your view on wanting to know someone's fingerprints if they murdered your family......of course I would want them to be caught - but this is another so-called "scare tactic" to put the population in fear so they volunteer to be categorized.

This is more like a scare tactic to not vote for democrats.

[tomthegreat]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo this explains quite a bit.

[batter10456]

This is more like a scare tactic to not vote for democrats.

Voting for Obama in this election could be called foolish. Hooray, third party!

[jonhomeowner]

Voting for Obama in this election could be called foolish. Hooray, third party!
Hooray Obama easily winning!

[Jersey Jake]

So when somebody murders your children and leaves his prints all over your house and the FBI can't match the prints to everybody... Oh no, somebody has my finger print on file! The hospital already has your baby prints! Such violations!


First, if someone murders your children, its not going to be the FBI investigating. unless its suspected its something larger than just regular ol' murder. It will probably the local PD, or mabey state PD. the FBI would only get involved if he crossed state lines.

Second, don't expect the feds to always do the right thing.

Third, the war in Iraq was a mistake, but I'd be damned if the Taliban in Afghanistan wasn't the most fucked up regime since pol pot and the khmer rouge.

fourth, this sort of human tracking could lead us to a state like china, which uses surveillance to crack down on civil liberties.

edit: five, the democratic party is just as bad as the republicans, they just have the co-operation of the media to keep their shit under wraps. Speaking of Bill Clinton, does anyone remember the money he took from China during the 1996 elections, or the cybercrime security act of the same year(with much of the meat of the patriot act in it).

[ChrisJones]

First, if someone murders your children, its not going to be the FBI investigating. unless its suspected its something larger than just regular ol' murder. It will probably the local PD, or mabey state PD. the FBI would only get involved if he crossed state lines.

I don't know much about the investigative field. I can't imagine how having prints on file would hurt an investigation(whomever the hell conducts said investigation).


Second, don't expect the feds to always do the right thing.
Idealistically I hope that they always catch their guy but yes, they fail the credibility factor.


Third, the war in Iraq was a mistake, but I'd be damned if the Taliban in Afghanistan wasn't the most fucked up regime since pol pot and the khmer rouge.

I'd rank them with saudi arabia, Iran, syria, and the gangster of the UAE. Again, something that the US shouldn't be involved in. Violence is in their culture, sucks, but that's how it is. Anyways that would take up another thread if you wish.


fourth, this sort of human tracking could lead us to a state like china, which uses surveillance to crack down on civil liberties.

Placing microchips in every human being would certainly be madness. It's so far fetched to think that a bill like that would ever pass.

edit: five, the democratic party is just as bad as the republicans, they just have the co-operation of the media to keep their shit under wraps. Speaking of Bill Clinton, does anyone remember the money he took from China during the 1996 elections, or the cybercrime security act of the same year(with much of the meat of the patriot act in it).

I'm a liberal, not a conservative by any stretch. I believe in common sense, decency and trust in society. I will believe in a person promotes that promotes these things. No matter what party they are a part of. Everybody makes mistakes. I can tolerate that to a degree.

[batter10456]

Hooray Obama easily winning!

How do you figure? Honestly, if Obama cannot switch the statistics of white working class people not voting for him, then he could be in serious trouble. They represent quite a bloc in the Democratic Party. I am not sure which way, collectively, they will vote... which could pose a serious threat to Obama.

[Jersey Jake]

Idealistically I hope that they always catch their guy but yes, they fail the credibility factor.

While I will argue the federal government does some good, more power just opens the door for more corruption. Power given to the federal government must include checks and balances to ensure they don't have unlimited use, oversight is nessecary. Just because we have a democratic system today, doesn't mean we'll have one tomorrow. Also, democracy is only preserved when the government is prevented from taking it away.


I'd rank them with saudi arabia, Iran, syria, and the gangster of the UAE. Again, something that the US shouldn't be involved in. Violence is in their culture, sucks, but that's how it is. Anyways that would take up another thread if you wish.

in theory, no, but they use their land to train militias that fight wars, and prop up similar repressive regimes in other countries with weak governments. I could go on, but your right, its a different thread. Short answer, we need to use force to stop all al-qaeda sponsored states, before they gain a foothold. Iraq is a completely different can of worms.


Placing microchips in every human being would certainly be madness. It's so far fetched to think that a bill like that would ever pass.

would have said the same thing about the patriot act in the 1990s.


I'm a liberal, not a conservative by any stretch. I believe in common sense, decency

me too, and I think terms like "liberal" and "conservative", "left" and "right" I think are growing increasingly useless in my opinion. I don't care for either major party because they've both got the same goals, achieve power at any cost, and care little who they step on to get it.


...and trust in society.

You lost me, I have little trust in modern society. Most people trust some voice on the radio or television for cultural and social cues than the person next to them. An increasing amount of people I know can't differentiate between a fictional movie, and reality. None of these people are around the punk/HC scene. Depictions of society in media are being forced down are throat as models for behavior. Part of it is that they tell 'em that people outside this nonsense are somehow trouble makers and no-good-nicks of all sorts.


I will believe in a person promotes that promotes these things. No matter what party they are a part of. Everybody makes mistakes. I can tolerate that to a degree.
yeah, I've yet to see a candidate that will promote real change.

[ChrisJones]

You lost me, I have little trust in modern society. Most people trust some voice on the radio or television for cultural and social cues than the person next to them. An increasing amount of people I know can't differentiate between a fictional movie, and reality. None of these people are around the punk/HC scene. Depictions of society in media are being forced down are throat as models for behavior. Part of it is that they tell 'em that people outside this nonsense are somehow trouble makers and no-good-nicks of all sorts.

I mean I believe that a society must have a level of trust in it in order to work. Unwritten and written rules in combinations to create an environment of open-ness and safety. Like you can wait in line at a gas station and know that the guy behind you isn't going to kick you in the back of the legs and steal your wallet. There's absolutely NOTHING physically stopping him from doing so. That's a basic value of trust that some societies do not possess.

[xdipsomaniacx]

I mean I believe that a society must have a level of trust in it in order to work. Unwritten and written rules in combinations to create an environment of open-ness and safety. Like you can wait in line at a gas station and know that the guy behind you isn't going to kick you in the back of the legs and steal your wallet. There's absolutely NOTHING physically stopping him from doing so. That's a basic value of trust that some societies do not possess.

I was just thinking about this exact subject today. It's the same reason why Anarchy or no police state is okay in theory but just can't work. People are not inheritently good. The only thing that stops a lot of people from slitting your throat just to take $5 from you is law - the rules. Sad but true.

[spacemonkeypunx]

Since I have been gone, doesn't anyone bother to read or do research? The Fingerprint Registry is part of a housing bill. Keyword: "Housing." In other words, the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008.

The federal fingerprint registry is NOT related to national security and does NOT require you to give your fingerprints. The legislation would require thousands of individuals working in the mortgage and real estate industries to send their prints to the newly created Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry.

Basically, anyone who takes a residential loan application and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain, needs to be fingerprinted. Since many jobs in both real estate and mortgage lending are part-time and seasonal, even some of the most minor players in the mortgage market may have to submit their prints.

the purpose for this part of the bill is to increased accountability and tracking of loan originators, enhance consumer protection, and facilitating responsible behavior in the market. In other words, protect your asses from mortgage fraud. Anyone one remember one of the reasons why the economy is fucked up the way it is? Think about it. So unless you're working in those industries, stop your bitching because it has nothing to do with you and your "freedom".


I mean I believe that a society must have a level of trust in it in order to work. Unwritten and written rules in combinations to create an environment of open-ness and safety. Like you can wait in line at a gas station and know that the guy behind you isn't going to kick you in the back of the legs and steal your wallet. There's absolutely NOTHING physically stopping him from doing so. That's a basic value of trust that some societies do not possess.

And this is why people get taken advantage of a lot of the times. This is one of the things that I notice growing up in America, it's a society that places so much emphasis on the unwritten rule and idea of trust: "Love thy neighbor" and have trust and faith in each other.

We all know that people are not kind and honest, but too often we live as if they were. It's funny to see as a nation we built this concept into our ideals of freedom.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with trust, but I believe people in this country are too trusting.

[ChrisJones]

I believe people in this country are too trusting.

Hmm I disagree with this statement. I believe people are too paranoid actually. Gun crazy(no reason to own an assault rifle for "defense"), showing off penis-driven cars, body builders. All signs of intimidation. Gated communities. This is fortress america!(great book by the way)

A common theme behind the arguments that "folks hide behind the anonymity internet" is the idea of physical safety? Perhaps it's the underlying idea? We allow our fears to exist through walls we put up around them instead of confronting them dead on.

[spacemonkeypunx]

Hmm I disagree with this statement. I believe people are too paranoid actually. Gun crazy(no reason to own an assault rifle for "defense"), showing off penis-driven cars, body builders. All signs of intimidation. Gated communities. This is fortress america!(great book by the way)

A common theme behind the arguments that "folks hide behind the anonymity internet" is the idea of physical safety? Perhaps it's the underlying idea? We allow our fears to exist through walls we put up around them instead of confronting them dead on.

I see your point and it's true that there are some people that are paranoid. However even the paranoid easily give out their trust when they doubt themselves. Seriously, that's how I was able to get inside a heavily guarded gate community that wouldn't allow anybody in without an appointment from one of the residents.

It's so easy to get information from anyone nowadays and get into any place as long as you know the lingo and look the part. Why do you think identity theft is one of the fastest going crime? From experience, I can tell you, people are too trusting and believe anything you tell them as long as you look the part, talk the lingo, and be nice.

Fear is just barrier with a gate that can be easliy opened if you know how to open it. Trust is something that should be cherished and given to those that earned it.

Now I'm not saying be paranoid and not trust anybody. Just be what I call "cautious trust".

[sr113]

I believe people are too paranoid actually. Gun crazy(no reason to own an assault rifle for "defense")

My choice of an AR15 to defend my home is because of the fragmentation of the .223 cartridge on impact. I may have to shoot an intruder where the backdrop might be the wall my daughter is hiding behind & I'd like to lesson the chances of the bullet penetrating & possibly killing her. My closest neighbor is over a quarter mile away, so they won't even hear gunshots, let alone cries for help. A little over HALF of America's population lives in a rural setting like this. If I call the cops on Sunday night saying someone's breaking into my home, they might get there by morning (if I'm lucky & it's a slow night), long after the assailant(s) have left. Home invasions are happening more & more frequently in Oregon (crime does tend to jump when the economy sucks), and in the cities they end badly for the victim, but out here in the sticks it always ends badly for the intruder. I'm not paranoid. I'm not losing sleep staying up all night with my rifle pointed at the door. I'm just prepared. (ironically, my gunsafe springs open by reading my fingerprint)

[Jersey Jake]

Hmm I disagree with this statement. I believe people are too paranoid actually. Gun crazy(no reason to own an assault rifle for "defense"), showing off penis-driven cars, body builders. All signs of intimidation. Gated communities. This is fortress america!(great book by the way)

I'm a firm believer in the second amendment. There is plenty reason to own an assault rifle in self defense. You presume all defense will be against common criminal, and not an invasive government. The 2nd amendment was written to keep the physical power of the government in check by the people. Not that its needed right this very second, but by the time its needed, it'd be too late. Assault Rifles are generally not owned by people in gated communities.

Macho cars, and steroid abusing body builders are a different matter altogether. Its to do with the fact in school kids are virtually stripped of all self esteem and made dependent on the system. Since they have nothing, they need something to fill the void to give them personality. See my rant on "posers". Its the same thing. Just as we rant about fakes here. If you ever read a motorcycle forums, you'll hear the same thing about "wild hogs", yuppies with harleys who think a bike turns them into an instant bad-ass.

What happens to you in school stays with you the rest of your life. Its true lots of people break the mold and succeed in spite, but most don't.


A common theme behind the arguments that "folks hide behind the anonymity internet" is the idea of physical safety? Perhaps it's the underlying idea? We allow our fears to exist through walls we put up around them instead of confronting them dead on.
Perhaps in this surveillance culture they actually have real threats of reprisals. Hence the argument "you can't say that on the street". Mabey you can't, and mabey there is a reason for it.

for the record, I'm pro-gun, anti-surveillance. Power to the people. If fascists didn't intimidate people into their line of thinking, no one would buy it. People always assume that oppression would come in form of the government, not true. Gangs and the mafia, have shown they are equally if not more committed to striking down opposition than the government, often in a much more violent manner. Oppression from the government is possible, and we all need to keep a watchful eye, and raise our voices during election times to keep politicians honest.

The problem is this culture of fear is pervasive throughout both major political parties in this country. Truth has become relevant to which party you follow. The system is built not on rational arguments but how many of the base of the lowest common denominator you can bring to election night. The type who'd vote for you no mater what sort of bullshit you pull, who'd more than happily bend facts before he bends his faith in his ideology, or party. Most politics isn't based around getting intelegent people to vote, but convincing the lowest common denominator their critics aren't even worthy enough to comment.

With all the political mudslinging you see in european politics, nothing quite matches the efforts of command and control you see American powers excersize over their subjects.

edit: once you start taking weapons away from law abiding citizens you give more and more power to the police. You can't take the police always being on your side for granted, cause they're not. Once the police have a monopoly on defense, they can selectively stop enforcing crimes committed against people they don't like. This is what happened to blacks in the south during segregation. This would be very hard to prove, and could easily be used as a tool to silence critics. This could be expanded to even more corrupt cops accepting bribes for not enforcing laws with certain people.

Even where I live, if you report a cop for doing something, this is pretty much what happens to you, for a very long time.

[Jersey Jake]

My choice of an AR15 to defend my home is because of the fragmentation of the .223 cartridge on impact. I may have to shoot an intruder where the backdrop might be the wall my daughter is hiding behind & I'd like to lesson the chances of the bullet penetrating & possibly killing her. My closest neighbor is over a quarter mile away, so they won't even hear gunshots, let alone cries for help. A little over HALF of America's population lives in a rural setting like this. If I call the cops on Sunday night saying someone's breaking into my home, they might get there by morning (if I'm lucky & it's a slow night), long after the assailant(s) have left. Home invasions are happening more & more frequently in Oregon (crime does tend to jump when the economy sucks), and in the cities they end badly for the victim, but out here in the sticks it always ends badly for the intruder. I'm not paranoid. I'm not losing sleep staying up all night with my rifle pointed at the door. I'm just prepared. (ironically, my gunsafe springs open by reading my fingerprint)

a 5.56mm NATO (or .223 remmington), will NOT fragment on impact. It will tumble, something completely different. Not every projectile in that class does that either. Be careful when selecting ammo. More notable a 55 grain round,(m185) will tumble and not over penetrate, but a 65 grain round will act like a regular bullet.

The main thing of an assault rifle class of firearms is that its able to act as a rifle or a submachinegun, thus making one weapon good for urban combat and open terrain in the hands of a solider. However unless you plan at shooting people outside your house, and AR15(or the m16 which its based) or any assault rifle is not the best choice for home defense. Its long, takes to long to swing around, and requires both hands to shoot.

I don't know if you've ever practiced urban combat before. a full size m16 takes a lot of training to handle in urban combat, in the day, with little obstacles, as part of a team, in optimal conditions. the shorter m4 is much better, but still, not what you'd want in the dark, in an obstacle prone room, at 3am, half asleep.

the best for home invasion would be either a shotgun with buckshot, or a pistol. much faster to point, much more stopping power at close range, and the case of a pistol, much less penetration to go through a wall.

personal recommendation: get an old m1911 .45 pistol. great stopping power, low over penetration, common former military side arm. I'm pretty sure you can pick one up cheap.

shotgun: 500 Remington, solid, cheap, reliable.

Also, make sure you shoot regularly, and keep good weapons saftey.

[sr113]

Sorry... should have been more specific. M4 configuration with a PVS14. Zero'd at 10 yards, which is the length from my bedroom to the front door & back door, both being within the classic "funnel of death" configuration you would prefer to have in that situation. I like the 1911, but my sidearm is an HK .45 compact which fits my hand better. The sacrifice I make on stopping power is the reason why I need a higher capacity magazine. Unless all those Hollywood movies are true, and you drop dead on one shot, in which case I'll trade it all in for a Dillinger. Just remember kids... say NO to "assault weapons"...mmm guns are bad m'kay?

[Jersey Jake]

Sorry... should have been more specific. M4 configuration with a PVS14. Zero'd at 10 yards, which is the length from my bedroom to the front door & back door, both being within the classic "funnel of death" configuration you would prefer to have in that situation. I like the 1911, but my sidearm is an HK .45 compact which fits my hand better. The sacrifice I make on stopping power is the reason why I need a higher capacity magazine. Unless all those Hollywood movies are true, and you drop dead on one shot, in which case I'll trade it all in for a Dillinger. Just remember kids... say NO to "assault weapons"...mmm guns are bad m'kay?

you might not kill someone no the first shot with a .45 pistol, but very few people are gonna get up after taking a .45 round. Same thing with a shotgun.

[EDogg]

all this talk about legal guns is making me jealous, its rare to come across a gun in UK now, although ive come across a few of them. theres one buried in a park near me cos some guy i knew bought a .44 revolver for around £20 and later realised that the deal was too good to be true.

[ChrisJones]

Sorry... should have been more specific. M4 configuration with a PVS14. Zero'd at 10 yards, which is the length from my bedroom to the front door & back door, both being within the classic "funnel of death" configuration you would prefer to have in that situation. I like the 1911, but my sidearm is an HK .45 compact which fits my hand better. The sacrifice I make on stopping power is the reason why I need a higher capacity magazine. Unless all those Hollywood movies are true, and you drop dead on one shot, in which case I'll trade it all in for a Dillinger. Just remember kids... say NO to "assault weapons"...mmm guns are bad m'kay?

I'm not exactly anti-weapons here. Don't get me wrong(boy I fired this thread up in a good way...yay!)

I just see assault rifles having as much point as owning a bazooka or home missile defense system. I just draw the line a little further back.

The idea that something like 80 percent(double check this please) of all gun murders(that don't involve the police) occur between folks that knew each other prior to the incident, makes me not want to own a gun. On the other hand, a home invasion is rather scary and I would use a flamethrower if necessary to defend my family. But at the same time what are my chances of being invaded?

Some people do drop dead from a seemingly non-lethal(no chest, major arteries, or headshots) shots due to shock, percussion waves, or acute allergic reaction(to bullet or clothing material in wound). A headshot is not a guaranteed kill.(unless you are playing Call of Duty)

[sr113]

"Assault rifle" means that the rifle is black, which makes it way more deadly than say, a pink one. It also means that it's less powerful than a hunting rifle (in most cases - I don't want to turn this thread into people bringing up AR-10s, FALs, etc. when most people say assault rifle, they mean AR-15 or AK-47), which means even though it can't shoot a round that can penetrate body armour, it's more deadly than one that can, because it is, well, you know, black.