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.

(Washington Post)   Washington DC man orders flat screen television from Amazon, gets assault rifle instead   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 331
    More: Scary, Washington DC, Amazon, assault weapons, Westinghouse  
•       •       •

10916 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Aug 2012 at 12:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-09 02:04:35 PM  

GregoryD: I think we should uphold what our forefathers intended.

Ban everything but muzzle loading muskets.


Please reference documentation in support of your claim that "our forefathers" intended to prohibit possession of any firearm that is not a muzzle-loading musket.
 
2012-08-09 02:05:48 PM  

mbillips: . That's the biggest distinction between military and civilian arms today; how many bullets it can shoot without reloading.


So, I can have a M240B as long as I promise to feed short belts through it?

/methinks you don't know of what you speak.
 
2012-08-09 02:07:02 PM  

mbillips: I guess I'm thinking of duck hunting. Capacity in a pump shotgun is limited to three with a plug, and if you don't have it in there, the rangers can give you a ticket. My Remington 870 has a five-round capacity without the limiting plug, and I took it out because I don't hunt.


That's true, and that's a federal regulation that the government imposed on the states, largely to prevent the whole-scale (mostly commercial) slaughter of migratory birds that went on before hunting was seriously regulated in the US.

There is no real equivalent for that for deer, bear, turkey, or upland birds.
 
2012-08-09 02:07:27 PM  
CBS about possession: I was coming in from offshore and my wallet was in my duffel bag in the trunk of the car. I got to a DUI/registration checkpoint and was asked for license and registration. Told policeman I needed to get my license out of the trunk. He said he was going to write me a ticket for not having my license in possession while I was driving. I explained it was in my bag in the trunk, he said it didn't matter, it wasn't in my possession. I asked if it was a bag of weed in the trunk would THAT be in my possession? Then he wanted to check if I had weed, but conceded the point about the possession issue and let me go.
 
2012-08-09 02:08:17 PM  

mbillips: dittybopper: mbillips: It's legal to hunt with that magazine? A lot of states limit you to five rounds, and three in a shotgun.

Most states only limit you to 5 rounds for a semi-automatic firearm. Most don't have a limit for manually operated rifles (lever action, bolt action, pump action). Good thing, too, because a typical Model 94 Winchester in .30-30 holds 7 rounds, and in a caliber like .45 LC or .44 Magnum (both good short range deer rounds) can hold as many as 13 rounds.


True. Why would you want a 10-round magazine on a bolt action while you're hunting, though? Seems unnecessarily heavy. I'd probably just put 3-5 rounds in it, myself, if I hunted. I can see having a 30-round magazine on a Ruger 10/22, because you're generally just screwing around plinking with those, but not with a real rifle.
 
2012-08-09 02:09:04 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: dittybopper: OK, for the terminally clueless who can't put 2+2 together to get 4: A "social rifle" is a rifle that is especially well adapted to allow one to survive in adverse social situations: ie., riots, wars, zombie attacks, alien invasion, etc.

You can't just make up words


You can't grow 'em, you can't mine 'em, you pretty much have to make 'em up.
 
2012-08-09 02:10:14 PM  

kendelrio: CBS about possession: I was coming in from offshore and my wallet was in my duffel bag in the trunk of the car. I got to a DUI/registration checkpoint and was asked for license and registration. Told policeman I needed to get my license out of the trunk. He said he was going to write me a ticket for not having my license in possession while I was driving. I explained it was in my bag in the trunk, he said it didn't matter, it wasn't in my possession. I asked if it was a bag of weed in the trunk would THAT be in my possession? Then he wanted to check if I had weed, but conceded the point about the possession issue and let me go.


Being an asshole, I'd have probably said "Oh, then I'm not possessing the weed that's right next to it in my duffle?".

Then he searches the duffle, finds the license and registration and no weed.

Heh.

/Would do that sort of thing if I was single and had time to burn.
 
2012-08-09 02:10:58 PM  

Click Click D'oh: mbillips: . That's the biggest distinction between military and civilian arms today; how many bullets it can shoot without reloading.

So, I can have a M240B as long as I promise to feed short belts through it?

/methinks you don't know of what you speak.


There is no civilian equivalent of an M240B, but yes, you can have one if it's converted to semi-auto. I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference. Should have said "military" and "civilian;" I'm describing different categories of guns, not saying who owns them.
 
2012-08-09 02:11:02 PM  
A few years ago, I used to work at one of FedEx Express airport hubs. We would handle 100,000 + packages daily. One of the areas that I worked was in the relabel area. If a label was damaged or unreadable as to where the quick scanners on the conveyor belt couldn't read it, the box would be sent to us (all automated btw, it was really cool how it all worked). What we would do is use a more sensitive scanner to scan the bad label or type in the shipping number and a new label would be printed out and the old label would be covered up.

So I got an idea one day. I ordered something via FedEx, and then I carefully ripped off the shipping label and took it with me to work. When I found a box that looked like it had something valuable in it, I scanned my label instead of the original one on the box, printed my label, and placed it on the box. I got the item shipped to me next morning. I did it for a few days, I got some cool stuff. We lose 100s of items a day (boxes break open, labels get completely removed from boxes on conveyor belts and destroyed, etc), so if I did 1 or 2 a night, no one would notice. I did it for a week then stopped. I didn't want to get caught.

\I never did that, but I thought about it doing before
\\I heard that someone did that before I was hired and eventually was caught, but he was doing it for months before he got caught
\\\I now work for a rental car company and it would be SO FREAKING EASY to steal a car
\\\\Too bad I'm a pansy
 
2012-08-09 02:11:42 PM  

stonicus: MycroftHolmes: It is not really that inconceivable that a catastrophic event could occur that would lead to riots\looting.

Yes, it is...


New Orleans, 2005.
 
2012-08-09 02:12:15 PM  

Deucednuisance: "Control": I thought the complaint was that the dude's a pussy who was too scared of the gun to handle it! He never even took it out of the shrinkwrap, much less out of the crate. How was he "controlling" it? Seriously a few hours of "WTF do I do with this thing?" equals "control" to you lot? Calling the cops and anyone else he could think of to take it away is "control"?


Yes. He should have called the police right away. It doesn't take a genius to know that you shouldn't hold onto something that is very very illegal where you are for several hours while you and your friends gawk and play with it over dinner.

He knew it was illegal and he knew he should call the cops. He just wanted to show it off for his hipster dinner party pals.
 
2012-08-09 02:12:38 PM  

Spade: And plenty of tourists have been arrested and charged because they had a gun while visiting DC. No "criminal intent".


Oddly enough, they were arrested because they owned and intentionally possessed those guns while in the District, and since there was a law against doing that ("I intend to carry my weapon in the District") there's your criminal intent, right there, not "I intend to harm or rob someone".
 
2012-08-09 02:14:07 PM  

mbillips: mbillips: dittybopper: mbillips: It's legal to hunt with that magazine? A lot of states limit you to five rounds, and three in a shotgun.

Most states only limit you to 5 rounds for a semi-automatic firearm. Most don't have a limit for manually operated rifles (lever action, bolt action, pump action). Good thing, too, because a typical Model 94 Winchester in .30-30 holds 7 rounds, and in a caliber like .45 LC or .44 Magnum (both good short range deer rounds) can hold as many as 13 rounds.

True. Why would you want a 10-round magazine on a bolt action while you're hunting, though? Seems unnecessarily heavy. I'd probably just put 3-5 rounds in it, myself, if I hunted. I can see having a 30-round magazine on a Ruger 10/22, because you're generally just screwing around plinking with those, but not with a real rifle.


Some people just like that sort of thing, I guess.

Me, I went the opposite way:

img236.imageshack.us

But that doesn't mean I'm not protective of what others want to do. I like Benjamin Franklin's idea: "We must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang seperately".
 
2012-08-09 02:16:13 PM  

mbillips: Click Click D'oh: mbillips: . That's the biggest distinction between military and civilian arms today; how many bullets it can shoot without reloading.

So, I can have a M240B as long as I promise to feed short belts through it?

/methinks you don't know of what you speak.

There is no civilian equivalent of an M240B, but yes, you can have one if it's converted to semi-auto. I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference. Should have said "military" and "civilian;" I'm describing different categories of guns, not saying who owns them.


Ohio Ordnance Works makes a semi auto M240. It's about $10k.

If you're more of the M60 type, Desert Ordnance makes those.
 
2012-08-09 02:17:20 PM  
Personally, I think that television has done far more harm to American society than have firearms.

Discuss.
 
2012-08-09 02:17:54 PM  

mbillips: Click Click D'oh: mbillips: . That's the biggest distinction between military and civilian arms today; how many bullets it can shoot without reloading.

So, I can have a M240B as long as I promise to feed short belts through it?

/methinks you don't know of what you speak.

There is no civilian equivalent of an M240B, but yes, you can have one if it's converted to semi-auto. I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference. Should have said "military" and "civilian;" I'm describing different categories of guns, not saying who owns them.


You can own a for-real M240B, in most states, provided it was manufactured before May 19th, 1986, and you've got the scratch. A quick google shows the asking price for a transferable M240B is around $175,000.
 
2012-08-09 02:18:45 PM  

Dimensio: GregoryD: I think we should uphold what our forefathers intended.

Ban everything but muzzle loading muskets.

Please reference documentation in support of your claim that "our forefathers" intended to prohibit possession of any firearm that is not a muzzle-loading musket.


Do you actually think they had in mind current technology when they wrote up the amendment? How many 6 year olds loaded up their fathers musket and shot themselves in 1797? How many mass shootings did they have when it took 2 minutes to load a round?

So in the future when they invent laser guns that you can hold in your hand that has the ability to take out a stadium full of people, are you still going to support your 2nd amendment rights?

You need to consider the past when making decisions and think ahead of the future on what consequences your decisions have.

When and where do we draw the line?
 
2012-08-09 02:20:36 PM  
who buys a 39" TV? Who buys a new TV under 50" anymore?
 
2012-08-09 02:21:08 PM  

mbillips: MycroftHolmes: mbillips: dittybopper: Tat'dGreaser: dittybopper: OK, for the terminally clueless who can't put 2+2 together to get 4: A "social rifle" is a rifle that is especially well adapted to allow one to survive in adverse social situations: ie., riots, wars, zombie attacks, alien invasion, etc.

You can't just make up words

I didn't make up any words. Neither social nor rifle is my invention, and I didn't even invent the term "social rifle".



Oh, for fark's sake. That's really a thing? People admit to owning ARs and whatnot to use in self-defense during the coming apocalypse?

I will bet anything you like that 99.9 percent of social rifles are owned by people who live in the suburbs and are at zero risk for a riot.

It is not really that inconceivable that a catastrophic event could occur that would lead to riots\looting. A full blown collapse of civilization is not as likely, but having the correct equipment to defend you home and family against the possibility that the police\military were unavailable for a short period of time (for example two weeks) is not an unreasonable or paranoid thing to do. It does not require a ton of money, either. An SKS and 500 rounds of 7.62x39 could be had for under $500. Not unreasonable for insurance (plus an SKS is pretty fun to shoot).

Show me one, one instance of rioting in a suburb in America after a natural disaster, ever. You don't even get a lot of looting outside of built-up urban areas. If you lived in the French Quarter or the Bronx, maybe it would make sense, but I'd prefer a) staying indoors and b) carrying a 12 gauge if anything.

/Have an SKS and an AK, but just for giggles/investment. Not sure how much ammo I have around; probably 100-200 rounds.
//Live in the 'burbs, but the inner burbs with lots of po immigrant folk around. Not skeered of them rioting.


You mentioned the most recent, relevant example. In New Orleans, after the public infrastructure broke down, anyone staying in their own homes or businesses basically had to defend themselves. Based on some anecdotal accounts, a single handgun would leave you vastly underarmed. This was not confined to the French quarter.

In the London Riots in 2011, looting and violence broke out in many cities, towns, and suburbs.

While not likely, rioting and looting caused by natural disaster\economic collapse\social unrest is not unthinkable.

I am not going to tell anyone who doesn't have an arsenal that they are stupid, but I am likewise not going to think it unreasonable or paranoid if someone has a battle rifle (an AK, AR, or SKS) and a few hundreds of rounds of ammo.

And I bought 500 rounds for my SKS because it was cheaper that way at Cabelas.
 
2012-08-09 02:21:25 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: You can't just make up words


Then where did they all come from?
 
2012-08-09 02:21:39 PM  

mbillips: I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference.


I wouldn't say that at all. Civilian arms generally have parity in that regard, unless you live in California. The principle differences I see are that military arms tend to allow some form of full auto. You might also include larger calibers since there are relatively few .50 caliber and 20+mm arms in civilian ownership.
 
2012-08-09 02:21:41 PM  

Spade: Oh, just one more for "criminal intent"


Sigh, bringing the gun into the District intentionally WAS the criminal intent.

Are you really this dense?

Spade: Yes. He should have called the police right away.


Apparently the DC Police disagree with you and found his actions unworthy of arrest.

Spade: play with it


Citation needed, unless you'll just admit to making shiate up.

This is so weird: you guys hate unreasonable authoritarian laws, so to demonstrate that the law is unreasonable, you demand that the law be applied unreasonably and in an authoritarian manner.

Get off that merry-go-round, you'll make yourself sick!
 
2012-08-09 02:21:52 PM  

GregoryD: Dimensio: GregoryD: I think we should uphold what our forefathers intended.

Ban everything but muzzle loading muskets.

Please reference documentation in support of your claim that "our forefathers" intended to prohibit possession of any firearm that is not a muzzle-loading musket.

Do you actually think they had in mind current technology when they wrote up the amendment?


I will bet you $500 that the founders knew about semi automatic weapons when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
 
2012-08-09 02:23:04 PM  

GregoryD: Dimensio: GregoryD: I think we should uphold what our forefathers intended.

Ban everything but muzzle loading muskets.

Please reference documentation in support of your claim that "our forefathers" intended to prohibit possession of any firearm that is not a muzzle-loading musket.

Do you actually think they had in mind current technology when they wrote up the amendment? How many 6 year olds loaded up their fathers musket and shot themselves in 1797? How many mass shootings did they have when it took 2 minutes to load a round?

So in the future when they invent laser guns that you can hold in your hand that has the ability to take out a stadium full of people, are you still going to support your 2nd amendment rights?

You need to consider the past when making decisions and think ahead of the future on what consequences your decisions have.

When and where do we draw the line?


Do you actually think the founding fathers had the Internet or high-capacity printing presses in mind?
 
2012-08-09 02:23:25 PM  

mbillips:

There is no civilian equivalent of an M240B, but yes, you can have one if it's converted to semi-auto. I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference. Should have said "military" and "civilian;" I'm describing different categories of guns, not saying who owns them.


So...then the biggest difference between a R15 and a M-16A4 is the size of the magazine arbitrarily stuck in the bottom... even though they are completely interchangeable?... How does that work?
 
2012-08-09 02:23:29 PM  

dittybopper: mbillips: Click Click D'oh: mbillips: . That's the biggest distinction between military and civilian arms today; how many bullets it can shoot without reloading.

So, I can have a M240B as long as I promise to feed short belts through it?

/methinks you don't know of what you speak.

There is no civilian equivalent of an M240B, but yes, you can have one if it's converted to semi-auto. I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference. Should have said "military" and "civilian;" I'm describing different categories of guns, not saying who owns them.

You can own a for-real M240B, in most states, provided it was manufactured before May 19th, 1986, and you've got the scratch. A quick google shows the asking price for a transferable M240B is around $175,000.


If I were going to drop that much, I'd opt for the M134. Of course, I'm assuming that someone would actually be willing to sell me one of the dozen privately owned ones and money would never be an object
 
2012-08-09 02:24:16 PM  

dittybopper: kendelrio: CBS about possession: I was coming in from offshore and my wallet was in my duffel bag in the trunk of the car. I got to a DUI/registration checkpoint and was asked for license and registration. Told policeman I needed to get my license out of the trunk. He said he was going to write me a ticket for not having my license in possession while I was driving. I explained it was in my bag in the trunk, he said it didn't matter, it wasn't in my possession. I asked if it was a bag of weed in the trunk would THAT be in my possession? Then he wanted to check if I had weed, but conceded the point about the possession issue and let me go.

Being an asshole, I'd have probably said "Oh, then I'm not possessing the weed that's right next to it in my duffle?".

Then he searches the duffle, finds the license and registration and no weed.

Heh.

/Would do that sort of thing if I was single and had time to burn.


A driver is pulled over by a policeman. The police man approaches the driver's door.
"Is there a problem Officer?"
The policeman says, "Sir, you were speeding. Can I see your license please?"
The driver responds, "I'd give it to you but I don't have one."
"You don't have one?"
The man responds, "I lost it four times for drink driving."
The policeman is shocked. "I see. Can I see your vehicle registration papers please?"
I'm sorry, I can't do that."
The policeman says, "Why not?"
"I stole this car."
The officer says, "Stole it?"
The man says, "Yes, and I killed the owner."
At this point the officer is getting irate. "You what!?"
She's in the boot if you want to see."
The Officer looks at the man and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within minutes, five police cars show up, surrounding the car. A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half drawn gun.
The senior officer says "Sir, could you step out of your vehicle please!"
The man steps out of his vehicle. "Is there a problem sir?"
"One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and murdered the owner."
"Murdered the owner?"
The officer responds, "Yes, could you please open the boot of your car please?"
The man opens the boot, revealing nothing but an empty boot.
The officer says, "Is this your car sir?"
The man says "Yes," and hands over the registration papers.
The officer, understandably, is quite stunned. "One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving licence."
The man digs in his pocket revealing a wallet and hands it to the officer. The officer opens the wallet and examines the license. He looks quite puzzled. "Thank you sir, one of my officers told me you didn't have a license, stole this car, and murdered the owner."
The man replies, "I bet you the lying bastard told you I was speeding, too!"
 
2012-08-09 02:24:33 PM  

dittybopper: notatrollorami: dittybopper: notatrollorami: I agree that's weird, but WTF is with "assault rifle" either?

The term was invented by Adolf Hitler, in a military context.

I very much appreciate your much more polite rebutall of my statement and understand the point you're making. My point was different and about the inappropriateness of the descriptor. I guess it's too politicized a subject to turn into a semantic discussion. And I was trying to be a bit funny.

Wrong place, wrong time I guess.

C'est la vie. Enjoy the gun thread.

I always do...

But on your point, "social rifle" is a euphemism, and kind of a half-snide recognition that it's purpose is to shoot people. I would just point out that shooting people isn't always wrong. It's *USUALLY* wrong, and something to be discouraged generally, but there are rare times when it's necessary, and when it is necessary, you want to have the best tool available for the job.


Hmm, ok thanks for the definition. I was in the infantry a long time ago and picked up a lot of gun info (as well as a lot of guns) at the time but haven't really since. I never heard that term used back then. I somehow incorrectly surmised from its use in threads that it implied a skeet shooting gun or target gun i.e. its primary utility was for "social" shooting events. Thanks for disabusing me of the notion.

And I live in Texas. While I don't agree with a lot of Texas politics I certainly believe that, at times "He needed shootin" is the appropriate murder defense.

(Please no one sidetrack this into jury nullification or some other legal murder tangent; I just mean there are people in circumstances where shooting them is the only option)
 
2012-08-09 02:25:55 PM  

Spade: mbillips: Click Click D'oh: mbillips: . That's the biggest distinction between military and civilian arms today; how many bullets it can shoot without reloading.

So, I can have a M240B as long as I promise to feed short belts through it?

/methinks you don't know of what you speak.

There is no civilian equivalent of an M240B, but yes, you can have one if it's converted to semi-auto. I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference. Should have said "military" and "civilian;" I'm describing different categories of guns, not saying who owns them.

Ohio Ordnance Works makes a semi auto M240. It's about $10k.

If you're more of the M60 type, Desert Ordnance makes those.


Naw, all I want is a full-auto PPsh receiver and a Soviet-made, select-fire AKM. Fricking ban on conversions after 1986 is a buncha bullshiat; considering the storage requirements and background checks you need to hold a Class III weapon, they should recognize that some crook cranking out full-auto Mac 10s is not gonna happen any more than it does now if they let legitimate collectors buy reactivated C&R parts kits. But not even the NRA can get politicians to "vote for machine guns;" it's just too easy an issue to demagogue.
 
2012-08-09 02:26:01 PM  
I found a video of the dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTNLysd4Wfo&noredirect=1

He's very much what I picture farkers to be like.
 
2012-08-09 02:27:27 PM  

MycroftHolmes: And I bought 500 rounds for my SKS because it was cheaper that way at Cabelas.



That's a lot of ammo. Obviously, we should all be afraid of you and the government should be able to track you after you made that purchase.
 
2012-08-09 02:28:14 PM  

stonicus: dittybopper: kendelrio: CBS about possession: I was coming in from offshore and my wallet was in my duffel bag in the trunk of the car. I got to a DUI/registration checkpoint and was asked for license and registration. Told policeman I needed to get my license out of the trunk. He said he was going to write me a ticket for not having my license in possession while I was driving. I explained it was in my bag in the trunk, he said it didn't matter, it wasn't in my possession. I asked if it was a bag of weed in the trunk would THAT be in my possession? Then he wanted to check if I had weed, but conceded the point about the possession issue and let me go.

Being an asshole, I'd have probably said "Oh, then I'm not possessing the weed that's right next to it in my duffle?".

Then he searches the duffle, finds the license and registration and no weed.

Heh.

/Would do that sort of thing if I was single and had time to burn.

A driver is pulled over by a policeman. The police man approaches the driver's door.
"Is there a problem Officer?"
The policeman says, "Sir, you were speeding. Can I see your license please?"
The driver responds, "I'd give it to you but I don't have one."
"You don't have one?"
The man responds, "I lost it four times for drink driving."
The policeman is shocked. "I see. Can I see your vehicle registration papers please?"
I'm sorry, I can't do that."
The policeman says, "Why not?"
"I stole this car."
The officer says, "Stole it?"
The man says, "Yes, and I killed the owner."
At this point the officer is getting irate. "You what!?"
She's in the boot if you want to see."
The Officer looks at the man and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within minutes, five police cars show up, surrounding the car. A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half drawn gun.
The senior officer says "Sir, could you step out of your vehicle please!"
The man steps out of his vehicle. "Is there a problem sir?"
"One of my officers told me that you ...


Nice
 
2012-08-09 02:28:15 PM  
Great, now where is he supposed to go to watch the Batman trilogy?...
 
2012-08-09 02:31:45 PM  

GregoryD: Dimensio: GregoryD: I think we should uphold what our forefathers intended.

Ban everything but muzzle loading muskets.

Please reference documentation in support of your claim that "our forefathers" intended to prohibit possession of any firearm that is not a muzzle-loading musket.

Do you actually think they had in mind current technology when they wrote up the amendment? How many 6 year olds loaded up their fathers musket and shot themselves in 1797? How many mass shootings did they have when it took 2 minutes to load a round?

So in the future when they invent laser guns that you can hold in your hand that has the ability to take out a stadium full of people, are you still going to support your 2nd amendment rights?

You need to consider the past when making decisions and think ahead of the future on what consequences your decisions have.

When and where do we draw the line?


You did not address my request.

Please reference documentation in support of your claim that "our forefathers" intended to prohibit possession of any firearm that is not a muzzle-loading musket.
 
2012-08-09 02:32:38 PM  
Came for the gun pr0n.

/haz a sad
 
2012-08-09 02:33:19 PM  

Amos Quito: Was a lack of sense of humor and sense for sarcasm a prerequisite for the J.D., or did yours simply atrophy in the process?


Why don't you ask Dimensio, he started it, well before you.

But he wasn't kidding. And there's plenty more who are serious about it all through the thread.

Sorry if your question, almost word-for-word the same as his, contained some clue that I missed to indicate its jocular intent.

Poe's Law laid bare, I suppose.
 
2012-08-09 02:33:24 PM  

mbillips: True. Why would you want a 10-round magazine on a bolt action while you're hunting, though? Seems unnecessarily heavy. I'd probably just put 3-5 rounds in it, myself, if I hunted. I can see having a 30-round magazine on a Ruger 10/22, because you're generally just screwing around plinking with those, but not with a real rifle.


For me, it's because my rifle isn't just for hunting. I'm doing my best to have it be a jack-of-all-trades rifle.

Fortunately, I've taken other measures to keep the weight down. It's 6.6 lbs unloaded and a full 20 rounds adds just a hair under 1 lb.

7.5 lbs is about the unloaded weight of a wood stocked Remington 700 before it's got the scope that most people will put on it.
 
2012-08-09 02:33:54 PM  
Of course this gun was sent to some pu&&y who wants guns banned. I call BS on this whole story.
 
2012-08-09 02:37:11 PM  

89 Stick-Up Kid: Of course this gun was sent to some pu&&y who wants guns banned. I call BS on this whole story.


Do not attribute to malice what is as easily attributed to incompetence. Representative Darrel Issa made such a mistake.
 
2012-08-09 02:39:15 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: mbillips: I didn't say ammo capacity was the ONLY difference, just the biggest difference.

I wouldn't say that at all. Civilian arms generally have parity in that regard, unless you live in California. The principle differences I see are that military arms tend to allow some form of full auto. You might also include larger calibers since there are relatively few .50 caliber and 20+mm arms in civilian ownership.


I'm not talking about actual military weapons vs. civilian weapons. I'm talking about military-style weapons (black guns) vs. civilian-style weapons. A lot of gun owners claim there is no such distinction, but I think ammo capacity is one of the few functional, non-aesthetic differences. Now, obviously, there's no really good way to legally define a difference (see the ridiculous "assault weapons" "ban,"), but if you wanted to effectively ban what makes black guns different, magazine-capacity limits would do that.

Straight-line stock-to-muzzle design, intermediate cartridge size and pistol grips are part of it, too, as they reduce muzzle climb and recoil to allow higher rates of fire. But those are more nebulous to define.

Of course, to make a REAL ban on "assault weapons," you'd have to go house to house and confiscate all the EXISTING hi-cap mags, so it's not a practical (or constitutional) thing to try to do, but that doesn't mean there's no real, functional difference between, say, a SIG716 and a Remington Woodsmaster. Or a Smith J-frame and a Tec-9.

A lot of gun control advocates actually think the aesthetic difference is important, too, because military-style guns supposedly appeal to crazoids with revenge fantasies (thus the bayonet lug ban), but I think that's more than a bit of a stretch.
 
2012-08-09 02:43:25 PM  

mbillips: I'm not talking about actual military weapons vs. civilian weapons. I'm talking about military-style weapons (black guns) vs. civilian-style weapons. A lot of gun owners claim there is no such distinction, but I think ammo capacity is one of the few functional, non-aesthetic differences.


You can create that distinction by legal fiat, but considering how many guns in civilian hands already have magazines identical to the military ones I'm not sure I understand the claim that "civilian-style weapons" don't have them.
 
2012-08-09 02:44:34 PM  

VTGremlin: If I got a SIG instead of a TV I'd consider it the best day ever. And probably never tell a soul.


But the guy who didn't get the SIG he ordered would tell, and they'd figure it out (because it's a riffle, they wouldn´t just shrug their shoulders and mail another one).
 
2012-08-09 02:47:18 PM  

mbillips: I'm not talking about actual military weapons vs. civilian weapons. I'm talking about military-style weapons (black guns) vs. civilian-style weapons. A lot of gun owners claim there is no such distinction, but I think ammo capacity is one of the few functional, non-aesthetic differences. Now, obviously, there's no really good way to legally define a difference (see the ridiculous "assault weapons" "ban,"), but if you wanted to effectively ban what makes black guns different, magazine-capacity limits would do that.


So wait... you create the Black Guns vs Civilian-Style guns distinction... then admit that there's no real way to define that distinction... apparently other than a set of nebulous qualities in your own head... meaning there is no actual distinction at all and it's just you arbitrarily dictating what guns are military and which are civilian... never mind many guns have crossed back and forth through history.

The 870 and 700 are sitting in a corner very confused right now.
 
2012-08-09 02:47:57 PM  

spawn73: VTGremlin: If I got a SIG instead of a TV I'd consider it the best day ever. And probably never tell a soul.

But the guy who didn't get the SIG he ordered would tell, and they'd figure it out (because it's a riffle, they wouldn´t just shrug their shoulders and mail another one).


How would they figure it out? The pansies label got accidentally transferred to the other shipment in transit, there would be no way to backtrace it.
 
2012-08-09 02:49:52 PM  

mbillips: notatrollorami: mbillips: notatrollorami: Barfmaker: dittybopper: a decent social rifle

Social rifle?

I agree that's weird, but WTF is with "assault rifle" either? Assault is an action, a felony, an intent, any number of things but not a descriptor of a type of a class of weapon. If I go pick up one of the pavestones in my front garden and smash my next door neighbor with it it has become an assault stone, but it wasn't beforehand. If I take a Light Antitank Weapon and stick in in an elephants vagina it has become a dildo. But neither was until utilized as such.

Any 100 year old bolt action .22 can become an assault rifle. I don't know, it's just weird.

Call it a semiautomatic .762 rifle.

Go be lazy somewhere else.

Lazy about what jackhole? It's an inappropriate use of verbiage regardless of your politics. Screw off.

No. No, it isn't. Assault rifle is a legitimate term for a particular type of military firearm, as you would have seen at the link. Adolph Hitler coined the term, and it's been in use pretty much ever since. Wondering about what it could possibly mean, and bringing up completely ludicrous examples of what your madeup definition would fit is just trolling.


Actually, the military doesn't use the term "assault rifle". One of the first things I learned in Parris Island was that we were to be issued M16A2 SERVICE rifles, and anyone who was stupid enough to call them an "assault rifle" would pay dearly.
 
2012-08-09 02:53:38 PM  

devildog123: Actually, the military doesn't use the term "assault rifle". One of the first things I learned in Parris Island was that we were to be issued M16A2 SERVICE rifles, and anyone who was stupid enough to call them an "assault rifle" would pay dearly.


At the levels where new rifles are selected, approved, and procured I'm sure they use terms like "assault rifle" to describe what they're looking for when they're not referring to a specific weapon.

Similarly when the type of armaments fielded by an opposing force are under discussion.
 
2012-08-09 03:00:01 PM  

devildog123: Actually, the military doesn't use the term "assault rifle". One of the first things I learned in Parris Island was that we were to be issued M16A2 SERVICE rifles, and anyone who was stupid enough to call them an "assault rifle" would pay dearly.


Yeah, but you Marines are just kinda weird. ;-D

Seriously, though, those are not contradictory terms. The M-16 (or some A variant thereof) is the service rifle of the Marines, but it is also an assault rifle. The US Army has defined and used the term "assault rifle" so the term is used to some extent in the military.
 
2012-08-09 03:01:09 PM  

Giltric: North African and Mediterranean cuisine


These guys sound extremely pretentious. Its $1.50 couscous with $2.00 worth of vegetables. You are trying too hard.
 
2012-08-09 03:01:56 PM  

stonicus: MycroftHolmes: It is not really that inconceivable that a catastrophic event could occur that would lead to riots\looting.

Yes, it is...


New orleans after katrina ring any bells?
 
2012-08-09 03:03:18 PM  

GregoryD: Do you actually think they had in mind current technology when they wrote up the amendment?


So can we limit freedom of the press to technology used back then also?

How many 6 year olds loaded up their fathers musket and shot themselves in 1797?


Probably more, on a per capita basis.

Boobiesols were common back then, so it wasn't just long guns like rifles, muskets, and fowling pieces.

Second, in 2007 (last year CDC has records) precisely 3 6-year old kids died in gun accidents. Three. One two three. That's it. And some of them were most likely due to an adult mishandling the firearm. In a country with 300 million people. Even extending it from age 0 to 11 year olds (12 is a common age to start hunting, so this would exclude most hunting accidents with teens and tweens), the number is still only 47, and again, some significant fraction, if not most, have to be due to adult mishandling.

Third, guns were commonly kept loaded back then, because it *WAS* a pain in the ass to load them when you really, really needed it. So modern firearms are actually safer because they are more convenient to load.

How many mass shootings did they have when it took 2 minutes to load a round?


It doesn't take 2 minutes to load a round. More like 20 seconds.

But yes, massacres did happen back then, and they happen now in places where guns are banned. But you don't care about mass killings, so long as they weren't done with a gun, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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