***Official SF Bay Area Sightings/General Thread***

Originally Posted by albeee

Yeah, I like it better with leather:

[IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/jw1954/jw1954-2/DSC_0023-2.jpg[/IMG

I think many watches both work and function better with a leather or fabric strap.

Originally Posted by B_Cyrus

I am hungover

no hangovers for me this weekend I'll try again tomorrow night

Originally Posted by Devious21

I'd have contention with these two. California already has stricter laws than the US so we're already subject to the 10 round limitation. This means that many pistols that come with 14 round and 16 round magazines (pretty much all polymer handguns) need to have special California versions that are limited to 10 rounds. Besides being a PITA, I can't see what actual safety it provides.

I can see why people wouldn't want extended magazines (such as the 33 round glock mag for full auto) or drum magazines (50+), but the arbitrary 10 number seems lame to me.


The 2nd part being required and inspected gun storage. I'm not sure what you were implying with that. But if you're implying a need for an official to come into your home for onsite inspection, that is probably going to fall under unconstitutional as well as be generally economically unrealistic. If you mean you have to show that you've purchased an approved storage method, than that's fine but you wouldn't be able to enforce it's use and seems like it would be mostly ineffective.

Also not a big fan of the BMG .50 ban. I don't really see why it was introduced or what it solves.

On the other points though - Background checks (including gun show loopholes), 10 day wait, etc. I agree.

I don't understand the .50 ban either. How many people are actually murderded with something that size.

What is the gunshow loophole?

1k posts in this thread for me

Originally Posted by Solidjake

I haven't seen that in a long time.

Originally Posted by 325inthe510

Well, that doesn't really fit under "bear arms".

They're also quite expensive. There's nothing stopping people from buying tanks and flamethrowers

Sent in 3D with Bimmer App

The Cold War is often described as a nuclear _ _ _ _ race between the United States and Soviet Union.

I think nuclear bombs are arms. They are expensive but not horribly so. People spend more on cars.


I don't think there is anything wrong with people have tanks or flamethrowers. A can of WD-40 and a lighter is a flamethrowers and a Ford Excursion is essentially a tank. Neither are particularly dangerous or easy to kill with in many situations.

A mounted gun on the tank that is functional doesn't go well with me and is why I had my .XX caliber and up rule.

Originally Posted by 325inthe510

Heh I've had a broken window regulator for 4 months.

Sent in 3D with Bimmer App

+1 front driver

Originally Posted by XKxRome0ox

not impressed
if you had a front window regulator broken for several months, then that's one thing
i remember having to constantly tell my passengers to not open the window
and the time i was driving up and down from VA to NY with my driver side front window one broken ... having to stop at the toll booths and opening my door or opening the moonroof to pay

I roll my seat back and do everything through the rear window

Originally Posted by B_Cyrus

why do you always bring up the most extreme examples? No-one needs nuclear arms. Thus the reason, which is publicly noted, as to why the dominant nations of the world cannot force other nations, albeit even the radical ones, to not create nuclear arms because they are deemed as such. It's hypocritical.

So please stop using that example.

You sound just like the people wanting to ban assault rifles. Go hug a tree you smelly hippy and give me back my second amendment you tried to steal before you leave.

Originally Posted by king kong

Originally Posted by cyberkaa

that's just embarrassing.

Both of the passenger side regulators in the sedan are broken from women slamming the doors. They're making that dreadful clicking noise that makes me cringe.
The passenger side regulator in the m3 is also dying a slow death.
Meanwhile, the e30 is still going strong.

Originally Posted by xkxrome0ox

kalim with women ... Must see to believe

+1

Originally Posted by hizhinezz

Wow, lots of chatter the last two days, took me like 45 mins to catch up, thank god I was slightly constipated.

i know that feel bro

Originally Posted by king kong

Make me some brackets to turn my spare seats into office chairs

Sure, I could do that. What are you looking to spend?

Originally Posted by albeee

mkodrama = arrogant prick

Originally Posted by mkodama

My rules are based around changes that have a high ratio of possible bad compared to gun owner inconvenience.

-The exact number is open for debate, but a set magazine capacity to keep regulation simple, and the reason for a limited magazine capacity is to for the same reason as my reason for banning automatics; to reduce high fire rates for sustained amounts of time, purposeful or accidental. Magazines are also cheap and simple to modify. I guess I should also add I'd want belt fed banned.

-Not sure about the details of gun storage, but I think it's a pretty big deal. The concept is just based on preventing anyone form picking up a gun or the case it is in without any deterrents or delays, whether it's a small child that doesn't know how dangerous a gun is, a drunk person, a suicidal teenager, or a smash and grab burglary. Inspection is the best way but pretty invasive of privacy, but even just requiring proof of purchase and proper installation would do tons for gun related deaths in my opinion.

-The .50 BMG ban by itself is pretty stupid in my opinion because it affects so few, but I think banning anything .50 and up is reasonable as that's getting to a caliber where you have excessive amounts of power for stopping any living creature, hand gun accuracy becomes compromised, and rifles/cannons get enough power to cause very fast and serious damage to structures and vehicles. This is pretty much at the size I think rifles start turning into artillery. Also up for debate what the exact caliber should be.

I have a rifle legally in my posession that has a capacit of 15+1 and is capable of holding more if I were to switch the type of rounds I'm running

Originally Posted by mkodama

Yes, because we should let everyone have the right to own nuclear missiles, lol.

Joking aside, why should a normal person have what someone in the military shouldn't have?

If you really want to go that route, then we can show examples of when the military acted against their own people?

Originally Posted by cyberkaa

I'll beef frank with you, I never sausage a disappointing post before.

Originally Posted by mkodama

You sound just like the people wanting to ban assault rifles. Go hug a tree you smelly hippy and give me back my second amendment you tried to steal before you leave.

Well since you skirt around questions, I have more guns than you.

Originally Posted by king kong

I have a rifle legally in my posession that has a capacit of 15+1 and is capable of holding more if I were to switch the type of rounds I'm running

k.