Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   X-ray machines fail to detect huge automatic weapons. Still do a great job in finding out whats inside a laptop   (promoinnovations.com) divider line 247
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

19655 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2006 at 2:34 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-28 06:24:43 PM  
FourSKY
I didnt quote it at you in a serious way, thats the funny part.


My sarcasm detector is only equipped with one level of detection on Friday. When you were sarcastic to my sarcasm it slipped though.

Just don't shoot me, ok?

/yeah that was sarcasm
//humor never works in gun threads for some reason
 
2006-04-28 06:28:13 PM  
What would be the point of bringing a .223 weapon on an airplane? If fired on a plane, wouldn't the terrorist risk depressurizing the cabin, destroying the plane, and not getting to paradise?
 
2006-04-28 06:31:58 PM  
Jument
Just don't shoot me, ok?


MN state law required that there is risk of great bodily harm or death before I shoot you, or for it to be done to stop a felony. Knowing this is the difference between me and the bad guys. Your off the hook.

/I would expect someone to have such stong feelings towards the Bible to know it somewhat. Ditto about guns.
 
2006-04-28 06:34:12 PM  
JesusShovel
If fired on a plane, wouldn't the terrorist risk depressurizing the cabin, destroying the plane, and not getting to paradise?


If they destroyed the plane (even by accident) wouldn't that get them to paradise?

Mythbusters says that explosive decompression is a myth. I'm steadily losing respect for them but I think they did a fairly good job on that one.
 
2006-04-28 06:36:48 PM  
JesusShovel

What would be the point of bringing a .223 weapon on an airplane? If fired on a plane, wouldn't the terrorist risk depressurizing the cabin, destroying the plane, and not getting to paradise?


Nope, watch Mythbusters. Basically took shape charges to cause decent damage to a plane.
http://www.mythbustersfanclub.com/html/explosive_decompression.html



/I really do have a life. I am just killing time until the girlfriend comes home so we can go out...
 
2006-04-28 06:43:14 PM  
"Why are you so frightend of a metal rod?"

-I think it's the small lump of lead that's the concern...
 
2006-04-28 06:52:45 PM  
A simple rod? An inanimate carbon rod, perhaps?

content.answers.com
 
2006-04-28 06:58:37 PM  
Time to jump into the fray, but with a serious argument:

Gun control is, and pardon the pun, a very loaded issue. Both sides are passionate, and the potential consequences are enormous. I recognize the legitimate arguments of gun activists, the need for security, the recreational value, the basic rights involved, and others.

However, you simply can not ignore the enormous volume of damage that guns inflict on our society and our world daily. We need look only as far as Columbine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to recognize that a lone gunman can cause a staggering loss of life.

Thus I feel that a moderated approach is best. The Second Amendment is important and I support it, but I strongly believe that the Founding Fathers would have worded it differently if they had the chance to see a machine gun in action or to browse the pages of our present day gun magazines.

My point, simply, is that the line should be drawn somewhere, and I feel automatic or assault weapons might be a good place to start. (I am particularly mad that Congress did not renew the assault weapons ban in 2004.) Above all else, we should be conscious of ballencing private rights and public responsibility.

I am curious if others agree - where do you think we should draw the line? - and I hope the conversation turns more respectful and civil on both sides.


/fantasy violence is healthy and good for you!
images.apple.com
//sarcasm
///but you knew that
////from all the slashies
 
2006-04-28 07:06:26 PM  
usesoap.com
 
2006-04-28 07:11:41 PM  
cosmos_31 The problem is with how we define assault weapon. The assault weapon ban was essentially two things: (1) Hi-capacity magazines. Uncool in my book, but legitimate. (2) Cosmetics - It looks dangerous, and all militray like ban it. Dumb, and illegitimate.

/JM2C
//Gun owner.
///Anti-gun crowd will come looking for us "gun nuts" when the shiat hits the fan.
////Wolverines!!!
 
2006-04-28 07:24:36 PM  
You must understand that these horrific gun crimes that people talk about happen in gun free zones or other places where the weapons used have been banned. Criminals do not follow laws, they break them. If concealed weapons were legal in columbine and one teacher had brought a weapon to school that teacher would have saved people's lives. The only thing gun control does is take weapons out of law abiding citizens hands and make them more vulnerable to criminals.

I think I should be able to own any firearm produced in the world. Make me jump through hoops. Sign papers. Go to classes. Whatever. As long as I can show that I'm a sane, competent, responsible adult, I should be able to own any firearm I want.

BTW: I live in California. The closes thing I have to an assault weapon is an SKS. We can't even own a .50 cal out here anymore.
 
2006-04-28 08:04:03 PM  
Jument

1) Says who? God?

2) Are you saying the right to bear arms is one of those rights? That's a new twist...


1) If you believe in some supreme being, sure. I meant it as I stated it. Since you are a human being, you have rights; self-defense being one of them.

2) Not new at all. Are you saying human beings do not have a right to defend themselves?
 
2006-04-28 08:17:37 PM  
dude noone ever better try to take my shiat away. it's all family heirlooms.

and by the way, bullets DO cost allot of money.
 
2006-04-28 08:17:56 PM  
Perhaps a lot of (ignorant) people here are confusing the term "auto-loading" with "automatic". If you are one of those people, please, STFU and learn up on the subject.

/did someone say gun thread??????
images.google.com
 
2006-04-28 08:21:31 PM  
hahahah, tkirby!!

"...not YOUR dildo."
 
2006-04-28 09:27:45 PM  
PFFFTT. I want a p90 baby and a F2000 ! Screw any AR variants. There's a reason many countries use FN Herstal and HK products and very few comparitivly use anything based on the AR-15/M-16 variants. Sorry when my life is on the line I dont want a fragile jam prone maintenance intensive design. And yes the most reliable design in the AK-47 and its spin offs but the accuracy isint that great.

/the sheriff is a moran
//typical third grade education level cop
/// I am positve I have made many grammar mistakes and spelling errors and I don't care
 
2006-04-28 09:57:16 PM  
An armed society is a polite society.
 
2006-04-28 10:06:41 PM  
"This a nasty weapon," he said. "That's the ammunition we're using in Iraq. If we're not alert, this could go right past security."

"We're not alert" should be the motto of the TSA. In an airline terminal with 20 TSA goons at the gate, there won't be more than 200 IQ points amoung the entiregroup.
 
2006-04-28 10:09:49 PM  
Wow - what a completly ignorant article!

" Joseph Green, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said federal law requires firearms be made with sufficient metal content to be detectable at security checkpoints."

Uh - the bolt and barrel, screws, gas tube, and magazine are all metal. No way it wont set off a metal detector. Ive seen those xray machines and you can see all kinds of plastic items outlined. Whoever had this pass through either had a faulty machine or was not paying attention.

" He said the weapon's .223-caliber ammunition travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second, fast enough to penetrate a bullet-proof vest.

"This a nasty weapon," he said. "That's the ammunition we're using in Iraq. If we're not alert, this could go right past security.""

What crap. The 5.56 is a weak rifle round at best. And ANY rifle round can peirce a bullet proof vest. Vests are made to stop hand gun rounds. Even then, some of them wont stop .44 mag and .357 mag.

This is actually a PISTOL - not a rifle (though it shoots rifle rounds). Its a wierd gun - I wouldnt want one - but various forms of it have been around for years. I am not sure how long this particular carbonfiber body one has been out, but its been several years. This is old news. The fact that a CRIMINAL tried to sneak one on is the only issue. Assuming the guy had a felony conviction and could not own such a gun. Or perhaps that style is not allowed in NJ.

Otherwise, you, I, or anyone over 21 could board a plane with that safely stored in a locked case that was checked in at the front desk.
 
2006-04-28 10:15:43 PM  
I too will go for the FN P90 over a CAR-15s or M4s.
Strike that, I have a 7mm Rem. Mag sniper cannon that I bring on the plane all the time. And I take the full limit of 11lbs of ammunition with me as well.
/checked
//oversized Baggage


"This a nasty weapon," he said. "That's the ammunition we're using in Iraq. If we're not alert, this could go right past security."

Thanks Cpt. Obvious. Just because the military uses it, it doesnt mean it's any more dangerous than other civilian ammo. I've got lots of .30-06, 7mm Rem Mag, 7.62x54R.
Any of those will outshoot a .223 for distance and penetration.
///Penetration
////Penetration...
 
2006-04-28 10:26:04 PM  
Chibisuke: I wouldn't be surprised if it were illegal for me to purchase a bullet proof vest for myself at some point in the future, though for now at least, that is in fact, legal, so long as one is not a convicted felon.

I think in most states it is already illegal to wear a vest in public. Something along the lines of it precipitating a violent crime or some such nonsense. DMX and 50 Cent (I think) have been charged with it after various incidents involving police.

/could just be NY/NJ
 
2006-04-28 10:44:43 PM  
[quote]I too will go for the FN P90 over a CAR-15s or M4s.
[/quote]

You check out the price on that 5.7mm ammunition lately?? $20-25 for 50 rounds? Hell, that's twice as much as .45 ACP. And reloading for it has barely begun (and probably isn't much cheaper). I'll stick with the .223, thanks.
 
2006-04-28 10:47:30 PM  
I don't know what gun-grabbers know less about, the Constitution or firearms themselves.
 
2006-04-28 11:02:25 PM  
That's what I get for taking Goldfinger to heart.
 
2006-04-28 11:10:34 PM  
The fire-arm in question is an all out piece of crap that you usually find in the hands of rednecks who think it looks cool, or kids from the ghetto who think it looks cool. They usually store it right next to their Hi-Point 9mm's and .25 hand guns. I was out at the range shooting my Mini-14 and my Springfield .45ACP when some jack-ass from out of the ghetto came up with one of those things and a shiatty third-hand tech-9 knock-off. The Type-97 was probably the most un-controlable piece of crap I had ever seen in my life. Aside from holding onto the box mag (which fits VERY loosely), there isn't anything to hold onto aside from using the standard 2-hand pistol stance or the classic WWI-style dueling stance. The thing is almost too big to be called a pistol. The barrel length is excessive, the fire-ball it spits out completely hides the target if you are looking through the sights, and the recoil is just plain stupid. It's a novelty fire-arm that some jack-ass thought up years ago. I'll keep my .223 ammo for my mini, thank-you-very-much.
 
2006-04-28 11:23:03 PM  
ltwesjanson - Your welcome to all the AR variants. Even the colt built ones are the same jam prone design Eugene Stoner came up with. My M-14 is much heavier and carries fewer rounds but doesn't jam. The AR....not so much. The P90 and PS90 are both amazingly reliable and are also a good design. So keep your .223 i'll take the more expensive ammo and be able to contine shooting while you clear jams. Btw since the weight issue will come up....F2000 by FN. Much lighter though I can't vouch for the reliability of it. And that is my main concern in a firearm.
 
2006-04-28 11:24:14 PM  
It's really annoying to hear arguments from people who are unwilling to listen to the other side of the situation.

I'm personally neither for nor against guns or gun control. I don't appreciate that people will go around in public using a gun to overpower someone else. However I don't feel that it would make sense for me to carry a gun in order to "balance the equasion" or whatever.

Rezinball's argument, "If concealed weapons were legal in columbine and one teacher had brought a weapon to school that teacher would have saved people's lives."

Is delusional self-supporting thinking at its finest. That's like trying to argue that if making home-made explosives was legal, someone could've blown up Timothy McVeigh before Oaklahoma City, or some tripe like that.

Not to say that gun-banners have their heads on straight either. To use Rezinball's context, Stronger gun-control laws wout NOT have prevented Columbine from happening, nor any other "horrific and terrible" shootings that happen however often they do.

shiat happens. Where there's a will, there's a way. If you really want to do something, illegal or not, you will eventually find a way to do it. And if you still really want to do it after you've found out how to do it, you're still gonna do it.

If you think you can't feel safe without a firearm on your person, or on hand somewhere, then I think that points to a deep-seated problem in the way our country and society are run in general. Not that you're just some wacko gun-crazed yokel. Feeling safe and secure is your perogative.

I feel safe enough without a personal firearm.
 
2006-04-28 11:27:47 PM  
tallen702
I dunno if I would wave a Mini14 around and call other people rednecks too much ;o) Then again - it was the gun of choice for the ATEAM!

But you are right. Its a novelty. Like the S&W500, its for people who want a big bang for their buck. Rifle rounds belong in a rifle. Well - maybe the occasional Thompson Contender/Encore.
 
2006-04-28 11:32:23 PM  
Late to the game, I know.

I've skimmed the thread and feel like contributing a few things.

First "huge automatic weapon":
"Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians."

Unless this person illegally modified the weapon or bought a legal conversion device, a drop in auto sear which is considered to be the same thing as a machinegun legally, and as of November 2003 sell in the $7500 - 8500 price range and require an additional $200 transfer tax to own. most likely this is not a machinegun and if he did illegally modify this weapon he's looking at 10 years in PMITA Federal prison.

The ammo issue:
"He said the weapon's .223-caliber ammunition travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second, fast enough to penetrate a bullet-proof vest.

"This a nasty weapon," he said. "That's the ammunition we're using in Iraq. If we're not alert, this could go right past security.""

Nearly all centerfire rifle cartridges except the .22 can defeat Level II or IIIA body armor as Kevlar vests are designed to stop handgun rounds.

Realistically, they're Bullet-Resistant Vests not Bullet-Proof.
 
2006-04-28 11:36:11 PM  
"gluestickralph"

While I too love the M-14 design, I dont hold the M-16/AR-15 in such contempt. I know A LOT of people who shoot thousands of rounds through their weapons with no jams. Jams happen, but in my experiance its usually a shiatty made gun, operator error, shiatty ammo, or neglect.

Are there more rugged designs out there? Sure. But its not the "jam-o-matic" the navy seal selling beef jerky at the gun show will have you believe.

Though I too am interested in the P90. I think I'd get the FiveseveN first, to try the round out. Then invest in the P90 and a $200 SBR tax stamp. Of course - they are different guns made for a bit different of uses.
 
2006-04-28 11:49:53 PM  
Did anyone else notice how, in the picture of the weapon in question, the 30 round magazine had been placed so as to make the gun seem far more menacing? It looks like a 40 or 50 rd AK mag. There is no way a 30 rounder would stick that far out from the bottom of any AR type weapon
 
2006-04-29 12:04:42 AM  
Teehee. You silly Americans and your weapons.
 
2006-04-29 12:06:47 AM  
Mister.44 - I own a Fiveseven USG there great pistols. Very accurate and almost zero recoil. As for the AR series I base my opinion on The AR and Garand variants I have owned not whacko gun show seals lol. I fired a solid 10,000 rounds out of my AR variant when I had it then sold it once I was fed up with the jams. Bought another M-14 with the money. No jams after Many MANY cases of ammo.
 
2006-04-29 12:56:28 AM  
wingnut-screwloose:

It's really annoying to hear arguments from people who are unwilling to listen to the other side of the situation.


I havent heard arguments for the other side. All I have heard is that I dont like guns, so that should all be banned.

I'm personally neither for nor against guns or gun control. I don't appreciate that people will go around in public using a gun to overpower someone else. However I don't feel that it would make sense for me to carry a gun in order to "balance the equasion" or whatever.

Who have you seen do this? Have you been to a line at McDonalds where someone says "let me buy my shiat before you or I will cap your ass?" Please give examples where you have seen people use guns in public to overpower people.

Rezinball's argument, "If concealed weapons were legal in columbine and one teacher had brought a weapon to school that teacher would have saved people's lives."

Is delusional self-supporting thinking at its finest. That's like trying to argue that if making home-made explosives was legal, someone could've blown up Timothy McVeigh before Oaklahoma City, or some tripe like that.


Um, actually this situation played out in Pearl, Miss in 1997. The principal went to his car, got his gun.

Not to say that gun-banners have their heads on straight either. To use Rezinball's context, Stronger gun-control laws wout NOT have prevented Columbine from happening, nor any other "horrific and terrible" shootings that happen however often they do.

Gun banners do not have their head on straight. The 94' AWB banned guns that were not used un crimes, just because they looked scarry. It was tagged with a sunset because it was so unpopular, and it was the only way it could get passed. The law sunset, and the world didnt explode. It had no neglegable difference in crime during that 10 year period. "Assault weapons" were only making less than 2% of the gun violence before and after the ban. If they did have their heads on straight, they would look to things that would reduce crime instead of make a blanket coment that if all guns are gone, all of our problems will go away.

The one thing Clinton did do right was sponsor a buyback program in high risk neighborhoods. The crime rates plummeted in those areas like a piece of cake down Rossie O'donnells throat.. C'mon people, look at what works and work that angle for a while!

shiat happens. Where there's a will, there's a way. If you really want to do something, illegal or not, you will eventually find a way to do it. And if you still really want to do it after you've found out how to do it, you're still gonna do it.

A-Men

If you think you can't feel safe without a firearm on your person, or on hand somewhere, then I think that points to a deep-seated problem in the way our country and society are run in general. Not that you're just some wacko gun-crazed yokel. Feeling safe and secure is your perogative.

I feel safe without a gun around me. I feel safer knowing that I have more options available to me, should a threat arise. There is a problem, but it has been around since the begiining of time. Basically, there are people that have the notion that they should be able to take things that do not belong to them. That is the true problem, not a lifeless gun. If you punish the people doing things like this, it should correct the overall practice eventually. Do not rehabilitate, it is too costly and doesnt work. If you are caught stealing, remove a hand, they will only do it twice. If you are caught stealing with a gun, remove their life, they will only do it once. Why punish my purchasing ability because some tuckfard wants to rob a store with a gun?

I feel safe enough without a personal firearm.

Thats great.
 
2006-04-29 01:12:41 AM  
"My point, simply, is that the line should be drawn somewhere, and I feel automatic or assault weapons might be a good place to start. (I am particularly mad that Congress did not renew the assault weapons ban in 2004.) Above all else, we should be conscious of ballencing private rights and public responsibility.

I am curious if others agree - where do you think we should draw the line? - and I hope the conversation turns more respectful and civil on both sides."


Automatic weapons are almost extinct due to the 1934 NFA, and 1986 ban. This is 99.9% not an issue at the moment, but Why would you have a problem with a machine gun in capable hands? I would be fine with an ATF inspection periodically if it meant I could buy one.

The AWB did nothing for crime. Look at the stats, I have written many papers on this subject, so I looked at them closely. Why are you mad about it? Why should assault weapons as classified be banned? Because it has a lug on it that you can attach a bayonet to? Because the hommie in the hood will use the flash hider to hide his position? Because the colapsable stock makes the gun 6" shorter???? The AWB was based on looks and was a token of goodwill for clinton to make it look like he was doing somethign about gun violence to the dems.

I think there should also be a line, but I think the line has already been crossed. If I saw a rational discussion on the topic, I would discuss this line. So far today, all I have seen is "I feel that guns are bad" "something has to be done, so lets just ban them" "nobody has a need for guns so lets ban them" and "the only reason for guns are to kill people".

Thomas Jefferson also did say that a new constitution should be written every 20 years... Think we could get a majority to go either way??? Don't have the quote with me, but I have to go to bed with a hot Chinese girl....
 
2006-04-29 01:33:03 AM  
interesting reading for those interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
 
2006-04-29 01:34:04 AM  
FourSKY

Thomas Jefferson also did say that a new constitution should be written every 20 years...

Actually...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy
 
2006-04-29 01:40:26 AM  
I don't understand the mentality that we need guns to protect us from a facist or socialist government. "Lol hitler banned guns" is the worst argument i've ever heard. Are you asserting that you should revolt against our current government using personal firearms?

And I like guns! shiat I want guns to be legal, but with registration, mandatory safeties, background checks, limits on ammunition size, and a ban on assault weapons. That leaves full hobby/hunting use open and allows us our constitutional right to guns.

Remember, our constitution also "protects us" from searches and quartering, but the government can still evict you for any economic reason, and search your car for any suspicion.
 
2006-04-29 01:47:01 AM  
By the way 72% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans were for the renewal of the assault weapons ban according to Pollingreport.com in the days before it was up for renewal.
 
2006-04-29 02:03:13 AM  
Why is the fact that this weapon is being used in Iraq used as a qualifier? What added info does that actually give us?

"Oh man, a weapon that we're using to blow the fark out of Iraqis could blow the fark out of us! Fine as long as we use it over there, but not here thanks"
 
2006-04-29 02:38:00 AM  
Riotcow
I don't understand the mentality that we need guns to protect us from a facist or socialist government. "Lol hitler banned guns" is the worst argument i've ever heard. Are you asserting that you should revolt against our current government using personal firearms?

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone here advocating armed revolt.

Registration
Many are affraid, and probably not without good reason that the first step towards a total ban of firearms would be a national registration program.

Background Checks
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 requires federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) to perform a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a firearm.

Mandatory Safeties
It's my understanding that the vast majority of firearms do have safeties on them, of some form or another.

Limits on Ammunition Size
Do you mean caliber restrictions or limitations on the ammount of ammunition an individual can own?

Either way this just does not make sense.

Ban on Assault Weapons
Last time I checked the FBI reported that assault weapons were used in 2% of violent crime in the united states before the ban, that seems to illustrate that the venerable assault weapon is not in fact the preferred weapon of violent criminals.

"72% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans were for the renewal of the assault weapons ban"

Wasn't there an amendment to a popular piece of gun legislation at the time that would have renewed the assault weapon ban permanently?

If the ban was so popular why would this bill get voted down?
 
2006-04-29 03:10:15 AM  
Riotcow
And I like guns! shiat I want guns to be legal, but with registration, mandatory safeties, background checks, limits on ammunition size, and a ban on assault weapons. That leaves full hobby/hunting use open and allows us our constitutional right to guns.

Mandatory Safeties

As KTZF already mentioned, you'd be hard-pressed to find a new gun lacking any sort of safety system whatsoever. A good safety system can be transparent, as is the case with Glock or the majority of the system Springfield Arms uses, while still being effective.

Or are you going more after "mandatory trigger locks"?

Limits on Ammunition Size
Caliber or powder load?

If caliber, then how do we determine the maximum "appropriate" size? How do I take down a deer? An elk? A moose? A bear? Any good hunter will tell you the goal is to take an animal down quickly and effectively without suffering. It's why you aim for the vitals and use appropriately weapons. I certainly can't stop an angry bear in a reasonable time period with a 9mm, nor can I reliably offer a deer a quick, humane end.

If powder load, again, how do you come to the allowable figure? And moreover, how are you going to stop home reloaders -- which many gun owners are -- from creating stronger loads?

Ban on Assault Weapons
"Assault weapon" has been and will continue to be a loaded, meaningless term that is another case of the government knowing it when the government sees it.

And it's no big secret that the ban didn't magically pull weapons off the streets, nor that almost no crimes involved weapons that were classifiable as "assault weapons." Despite punditry protesting the sunset of the previous assault weapon ban, we still haven't seen "a horrific crime committed without an assault weapon ban," and we still don't have every member of Congress asking where they were on the issue of renewing it (Shays, R-Connecticut).
 
2006-04-29 03:17:35 AM  
I've got a machine shop. I've got welding equipment. I've got plenty of stock for you to mangle. Come on somebody. Bring a stoner pattern rifle over (read ar-15/m-16) and I'll let you use every toy I have and modify for me your semi-auto into a useful reliable full-auto. I request you pay the tax first and have somebody as a legal buyer in law enforcement or the military though as I don't wish to be a felon or aide and abet one.

Show me just how farking easy it is.


I'm so farking sick of this bullshiat.

I suppose you also take your Pentium Is and do a little bit of backyard magic and make Pentium 4 chips and make water into wine in your spare time when not walking on water or posting ridiculous bullshiat to fark and craigslist. If it wasn't for OPEC your car would run on water and celery.
 
2006-04-29 08:27:04 AM  
I'm glad all you farkers are learning the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. The semi refers to auto loading, in contrast to continuously firing automatically. I wish newcasters would learn the difference, and so would not refer to "automatic" pistols, when they're reporting on an auto-loading pistol.
 
2006-04-29 05:23:05 PM  
Riotcow said:
"I don't understand the mentality that we need guns to protect us from a facist or socialist government. "Lol hitler banned guns" is the worst argument i've ever heard. Are you asserting that you should revolt against our current government using personal firearms?"

Well - that is one of the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Bill or Rights. They were fresh coming out of a an armed rebellion. They had no idea if the new gov. would be worth a shiat or not. It could have been worse than King Georges rule. If so - an armed revolt was absolutely what would have been called for.

Now - fast forward to 2006. I can not imagine America becoming a Facist state or a Communist nation. Sure, it COULD happen, but its unlikely. Even so - I completely appreciate the notion that an armed citizenship is something the government should respect. While the US has been stable for years, coups, rebellions, genocide, and dictators rule all over the world. I dont lay awake at night worrying about if I would ever have to rebel or defend my nation against a rebellion - but I respect the original notions of the 2nd Amendment.

Aside from that, I am a huge supporter of guns for personal protection, and above all - entertainment!

"And I like guns! shiat I want guns to be legal, but with registration, mandatory safeties, background checks, limits on ammunition size, and a ban on assault weapons. That leaves full hobby/hunting use open and allows us our constitutional right to guns."

Its nice you like guns - but you need to educate yourself abour a few things. First off nearlly ALL guns have "safeties" of some sort. Not all of them are the manual switches (ie revolvers, most glocks), but they all have saftey measures of some sort.

The term "assault weapon" is bullshiat. An assualt weapon is any weapon used in assault. Other than that, its a political tool to demonize "scary" looking guns. The AWB was BS. It annoyed AR15/AK47 ethusiests (sp) - but it didnt stop anyone from buying one - it just couldnt have some of the fun toys you can get now. This bill targeted mainly private citizens. Most of the guns affected by the ban were not the weapons being used in crimes.

They already check to make sure that convicted felons can not purchase guns. That, I think, is all the background checks we need. I do not support registration. Its just more beaucratic BS that the citizens would have to deal with and something new for the Gov to abuse.

"Remember, our constitution also "protects us" from searches and quartering, but the government can still evict you for any economic reason, and search your car for any suspicion."

Yeah - I agree that many of the "drug laws" have totally farked citizens with searches etc. If the gov wanted to turn into some orwellian nightmare - many of the laws are in placed to allow them to do so. They can search your house of a cop walking by "smells" weed. How the fark do you prove a smell or not?

Anyway... nuff rambling.
 
2006-04-29 05:29:00 PM  
oops - for got to comment on the caliber loads. They already have one in place I believe - with the .50 cal being the largest we can shoot (well - unless you are making a canon - but thats a different hobby all together).

I guesss I aggree with this limit - but that means I cant ever try out the new 20mm round that Barrett is making for the military.

Other than that - caliber limits is bullshiat - and I wouldnt stand for it. Every bullet, from a .22 to a .50cal is deadly. Limiting calibers is silly.

I remember Kennedy RAVING about how we needed to ban "armor peircing" bullets to protect cops. Never mind that fact that nearly every commercial rifle round used to hunt everything from prairie dogs to bears can pierce vest - he wanted a sweeping ban.

BTW - I heard that arguement between him and the senator from ND. Like a typical liberal he was literally screaming about how we have to "protect cops". While the other Senator calmly explained why this bill wouldnt really help, and it would severarly hamper LEGITIMATE shooters and their activities. Kennedy had no arguement - just unabrided emotion.
 
2006-04-30 09:54:05 PM  
Keep Texas Zombie Free: ""72% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans were for the renewal of the assault weapons ban"

Wasn't there an amendment to a popular piece of gun legislation at the time that would have renewed the assault weapon ban permanently?

If the ban was so popular why would this bill get voted down?"


Two words: Gun Lobby. The NRA is powerful, rich, organized, and extremely effective at putting preasure on politicians.

Foursky: My objection to the AWB is on principle, as is my objection to any instrument of widespread destruction. However I respect your statistics, that assault weapons only appeared in 2% of armed crimes, and that the ban did not affect this. Mister.44 raises an excellent point: Most of the guns affected by the ban were not the weapons being used in crimes. Perhaps "the weapons being used in crimes" are exactly what we should focus on. We must be careful not to oversimplify the problems by using "blanket" bans, and we must also find ways to reduce crime and unnecessary gun deaths successfully.

It is a complicated issue, made all the more difficult by the passionate ideologies on both sides. I wish there were a simple solution.
 
Displayed 47 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report