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.

(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  
•       •       •

10921 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Aug 2012 at 12:25 PM (3 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 09:09:59 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: MrSteve007: dittybopper: It's even better with the sword bayonet:

I think we have the same carpet . . .

Someone on Fark once noted that all gun photos seem to be taken on the same beige, short-pile carpet.


Well, It's a common color for a carpet.
 
2012-08-09 09:16:08 PM  

FourBlackBars: I read the article for story but clicked tread wondering how long it would farkers would fill it with photos of their penis replacements.


I'm invoking "Markley's Law". You automatically lost the argument.
 
2012-08-09 09:21:41 PM  

dittybopper: FourBlackBars: I read the article for story but clicked tread wondering how long it would farkers would fill it with photos of their penis replacements.

I'm invoking "Markley's Law". You automatically lost the argument.


Has any psychologist yet forwarded a hypothesis to explain the apparent correlation between opposition to civilian firearm ownership rights and obsession with male genitalia?
 
2012-08-09 09:36:02 PM  

tukatz: vpb: TheYeti: Everyone drink every time someone in the media misuses "assault rifle."

OK, but they didn't misuse it. The Sig 716 is an assault rifle.



Any rifle can be an "assault rifle".... if you "assault" with it.

Otherwise it's just a rifle.

(Ugly guns can assault too. It's just a matter of who happens to be using it.)


"Assault Rifle" is defined as any rifle with a select fire capability. I.e. Single, 3-round burst or Single, Full-Auto. A semi-auto only rifle does not meet this definition.
 
2012-08-09 09:47:32 PM  

MrSteve007: MycroftHolmes: 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).

Agreed. Mine:
[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x146]
/has yet to jam
//pew pew pew


You butchered it by putting a scope on that rifle, Bubba. I also would not be surprised to learn that your SKS is not 922(r) compliant.

http://www.tapco.com/section922r/
 
2012-08-09 10:03:09 PM  
FRONT LINE INFANTRY
 
2012-08-09 10:35:27 PM  
Thank you Mr. Horvitz! I now know what my next purchase will be from Amazon!
 
2012-08-09 10:35:58 PM  
Why do you think all the thugs have guns in DC? They order big screen TVs from Amazon.
 
2012-08-09 10:52:41 PM  

FourBlackBars: I read the article for story but clicked tread wondering how long it would farkers would fill it with photos of their penis replacements.


clicked your profile expecting a "smug douchebag" pic
I was not disappointed.

sometimes a (cigar/gun/car/motorcycle) is just a (cigar/gun/car/motorcycle)
 
2012-08-09 11:11:51 PM  
Finally, Horvitz phoned the D.C. police (and made another call, for good measure, bringing the matter to the attention of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)
What a dork.
 
2012-08-09 11:48:03 PM  

FourBlackBars: I read the article for story but clicked tread wondering how long it would farkers would fill it with photos of their penis replacements.


I own a few guns, and have an 8 inch penis. I had no interest in posting pictures. Now what?
 
2012-08-10 12:58:08 AM  

Fish in a Barrel: Amazon doesn't sell guns. This sounds like a UPS screw-up that is only tangentially related to Amazon.


Same thing I thought. I worked very briefly for them, no guns.

This is a UPS screwup.
 
2012-08-10 02:15:18 AM  

redhook: tukatz: vpb: TheYeti: Everyone drink every time someone in the media misuses "assault rifle."

OK, but they didn't misuse it. The Sig 716 is an assault rifle.



Any rifle can be an "assault rifle".... if you "assault" with it.

Otherwise it's just a rifle.

(Ugly guns can assault too. It's just a matter of who happens to be using it.)

"Assault Rifle" is defined as any rifle with a select fire capability. I.e. Single, 3-round burst or Single, Full-Auto. A semi-auto only rifle does not meet this definition.




Not according to the media and the anti-gun people. If it looks "dangerous", it is an assault weapon. They are not to be successfully argued with.... for they know dangerous by simply looking at it from afar. "Ooohhh, that looks evil. It must be one of those assault guns they want to ban."


Scary assault gun cake
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2012-08-10 02:17:33 AM  

dittybopper: I would have been like "Hey, free gun!"

Plus, it was in .308 Winchester (the civilian designation for 7.62x51mm NATO), a very common deer caliber, so not only is it a decent social rifle, you can also use it for hunting deer and black bear, so long as you just use reduced-capacity magazines when hunting. It would probably make an excellent deep woods/swamp deer gun.


He didn't actually get his tv which has to suck.
 
2012-08-10 08:10:37 AM  

Bucky Katt: dittybopper: I would have been like "Hey, free gun!"

Plus, it was in .308 Winchester (the civilian designation for 7.62x51mm NATO), a very common deer caliber, so not only is it a decent social rifle, you can also use it for hunting deer and black bear, so long as you just use reduced-capacity magazines when hunting. It would probably make an excellent deep woods/swamp deer gun.

He didn't actually get his tv which has to suck.


Didn't get $300 TV, got $1,500 gun instead.

Yeah, that must suck. That's like being given a bacon-wrapped filet mignon at McDarn-old-hamburgers instead of the Big Mac you ordered and paid for.
 
2012-08-10 09:12:56 AM  

dittybopper: Well, It's a common color for a carpet.


Sure.

In cheap, one bedroom walk-up apartments.

This is America, folks are free to spend their money however they like, but...

Seems to me that a lot of folks could improve their circumstances if they chose to use their limited funds for something other than buying piles of shootin' irons.

Says the guy with eight guitars, two electric basses, a house PA and drum set, and a traveling PA, trombone, sousaphone, and various hand percussion items, four doumbeks and a cajon.

"Honey, they aren't toys, they're tools!"
 
2012-08-10 10:14:25 AM  

The_Original_Roxtar: FourBlackBars: I read the article for story but clicked tread wondering how long it would farkers would fill it with photos of their penis replacements.

clicked your profile expecting a "smug douchebag" pic
I was not disappointed.

sometimes a (cigar/gun/car/motorcycle) is just a (cigar/gun/car/motorcycle)



oh....wow.
 
2012-08-10 11:06:21 AM  

Click Click D'oh: 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.


I didn't create it. It's an obvious distinction that anyone who's not an idiot can see at a glance, and it was the law of the land from 1994 to 2004. Claiming that there's no clear "military-style" look and function in these civilian arms is disingenuous:

upload.wikimedia.org
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

The first one looks like an assault rifle and the second looks like a submachine gun. The fact that they have large-capacity magazines makes them functionally different from weapons most civilians owned up until the 1980s. I'm not saying we should (or could) ban them, but claiming they're just plain old civilian weapons like Americans have always owned is a load of crap. THESE are clearly civilian arms:

images.wikia.com
media.liveauctiongroup.net
 
2012-08-10 11:29:19 AM  
FTA - "German manufactured rifle"

Sigs are Swedish.
 
2012-08-10 12:15:09 PM  

speedycat: FTA - "German manufactured rifle"

Sigs are Swedish.


i.imgur.com

Someone should tell SIG they are in the wrong country then
 
2012-08-10 12:40:47 PM  
Perfect. The recipients of this snafu just had to be ultra bedwetting anti-gun liberals. That evil gun scared them so much that they had to make a call to the Brady gun-grabbers too. "Aren't you guys supposed to be working on banning these things?!" I'll bet they will need therapy just to rejoin society after this.
 
2012-08-10 12:45:07 PM  

mbillips: Click Click D'oh: 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.

I didn't create it. It's an obvious distinction that anyone who's not an idiot can see at a glance, and it was the law of the land from 1994 to 2004. Claiming that there's no clear "military-style" look and function in these civilian arms is disingenuous:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x107]
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 640x480]

The first one looks like an assault rifle and the second looks like a submachine gun. The fact that they have large-capacity magazines makes them functionally different from weapons most civilians owned up until the 1980s. I'm not saying we should (or could) ban them, but claiming they're just plain old civilian weapons like Americans have always owned is a load of crap. THESE are clearly civilian arms:

[images.wikia.com image 850x536]
[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 850x517]


There's a word for your attitude - Fudd.

Weapons technology advances, and civilian gun owners in America have always kept pace with it. That's the way it is. Nothing magical happened when polymer and black anodized aluminum began replacing walnut and blued steel.

You may think of "traditional" civilian weapons as having a certain look, but that look was first and foremost a matter of form following function and it was state-of-the-art when it was introduced. There's no historical basis for thinking that the look of civilian weapons shouldn't continue to evolve with the current technology and materials.

There's nothing disingenuous about that. Quite the opposite. Your attitude is rooted in political ideologies that aren't comfortable with the fact that civilian arms serve the same primary purpose as military ones, and that purpose isn't pheasant hunting.
 
2012-08-10 01:22:33 PM  

Deucednuisance: dittybopper: Well, It's a common color for a carpet.

Sure.

In cheap, one bedroom walk-up apartments.

This is America, folks are free to spend their money however they like, but...

Seems to me that a lot of folks could improve their circumstances if they chose to use their limited funds for something other than buying piles of shootin' irons.

Says the guy with eight guitars, two electric basses, a house PA and drum set, and a traveling PA, trombone, sousaphone, and various hand percussion items, four doumbeks and a cajon.

"Honey, they aren't toys, they're tools!"


Actually, the distaffbopper and I picked that. When we had the house built, we had them put in a moderately decent quality Berber carpet. Nothing really fancy, but not the cheapest we could have gone either. That was 14 years ago. It doesn't look as good as it did back then, but it's still not too bad, because we enforce a "no shoes in the house" rule.

/Still have to clean up the occasional hairball though.
 
2012-08-10 02:51:14 PM  

VTGremlin: Marine1: As for that thing being shipped, someone farked up, because you can't get weapons through mail order.

FFL holders can. And any individual can ship a weapon to someone with an FFL.


True, though you can't do that for your own personal collection. That's what C&R licenses are for.

I agree with you Farkers though... what's this guy whining about? Piston-operated AR-10 for $400? That's the greatest deal ever.

The thing I dislike most about that guy... "I've never even touched a gun, but my companions and I think they should be banned."

Idiot.
 
2012-08-10 03:18:37 PM  

mbillips: I didn't create it. It's an obvious distinction that anyone who's not an idiot can see at a glance, and it was the law of the land from 1994 to 2004. Claiming that there's no clear "military-style" look and function in these civilian arms is disingenuous:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x107]
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 640x480]

The first one looks like an assault rifle and the second looks like a submachine gun. The fact that they have large-capacity magazines makes them functionally different from weapons most civilians owned up until the 1980s. I'm not saying we should (or could) ban them, but claiming they're just plain old civilian weapons like Americans have always owned is a load of crap. THESE are clearly civilian arms:

[images.wikia.com image 850x536]
[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 850x517]


I see what you did there.
 
2012-08-10 03:21:23 PM  

Marine1: VTGremlin: Marine1: As for that thing being shipped, someone farked up, because you can't get weapons through mail order.

FFL holders can. And any individual can ship a weapon to someone with an FFL.

True, though you can't do that for your own personal collection. That's what C&R licenses are for.

I agree with you Farkers though... what's this guy whining about? Piston-operated AR-10 for $400? That's the greatest deal ever.

The thing I dislike most about that guy... "I've never even touched a gun, but my companions and I think they should be banned."

Idiot Ignorant.


FTFY.

The man and his companions are ignorant about guns, that's why they feel that way. Fear of the unknown. They have no experience with them, outside of gauche Hollywood action pictures and seeing various mugshots of criminals on TV.

We can fix ignorance, if the person is willing to learn, and we make the effort to reach out to them and show them that lawful gun ownership is a positive thing.

Idiocy is much harder to fix. A person who, when given the (sincerely and politely offered!) opportunity to see the other side out of actual willful ignorance is indeed an idiot. I can't say this person falls into that category.
 
2012-08-10 04:04:39 PM  

dc0012c: groppet: The DC govt lost a court case a year back and now people can own a handgun for protection IIRC. I know this freaked the shiat out of the DCPD and they attached all kinds of rules to it like it had to be a revolver and not any handgun with a magazine cause those are booga booga scary. I like living close to DC but I doubt I could ever live there.

Lived there for 10 years, it wasn't that bad as far as guns were concerned. Yeah, handguns were illegal to own, but they did have rules for ownership of other weapons, many quite suitable for home defense purposes. Case in point, for my 40th birthday, I got a Mossburg 590 Mariner, a 12 gauge 7-shot pump shotgun, with a pistol-grip stock. All legal by DC standards. If I had wanted to do the paperwork, all of my other long arms would have been just fine (most were WWII collectibles).

The worst part was that the good ranges were quite a hike from downtown.


I guarantee you weren't keeping that Mossberg according to DC law - I know, I looked into it when I wanted to bring my own in. You had (under the pre-Heller law) to keep it unloaded and disassembled. The gun that you bought for home protection. I think business owners could keep it loaded and assembled, but I'm not sure of it.
Had MPD decided to be a dick, you could have been arrested for keeping an assembled, unloaded gun in your own home. Of course they'd have to have a reason to see the gun, first.

Now we just need to have the right to carry.

/DC resident
//Why is it places with the best *other* civil liberties/quality of life stuff (gay marriage, free museums, great food, freedom to be weird) have to be the places with the worst gun laws? Looking at you, DC/NYC/Boston/Chicago.
 
2012-08-10 04:45:09 PM  

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

So much this.

Dude ordered a cheapass $300 TV and instead got a really fine $1,500 rifle.

That's a day full of win even if he didn't want to keep it for himself.

You really wanna be the guy screwing over whoever really ordered that?...

/or the people who made it...

Valid point. I'd still consider it a good day just to show it off to my friends until things got straightened out.


Might be a good way to get out of a bad marriage..

*Ring... ring* "Amazon Customer service how can we help you"

"Yes, I purchased a new TV from you recently, I put the small batteries into the remote and tried to use it but I think it killed my wife instead... "
 
2012-08-11 10:42:31 AM  

HeFixesTheCable: Why is it places with the best *other* civil liberties/quality of life stuff (gay marriage, free museums, great food, freedom to be weird) have to be the places with the worst gun laws? Looking at you, DC/NYC/Boston/Chicago.


You mean civil liberties like being able to buy a 32 oz soda if you want one? Or choosing to eat saturated fats if you want? The right to take pictures on a public transit system? Stuff like that?

Go to http://www.nyclu.org for an eye-opener. Many of the places you think are "good" aren't as good as you think. They've just made concessions to special interest groups, while steadily increasing their control over every aspect of their citizen's lives. So you get gay marriage, which is good, but the flip side is that it takes $431.50 in fees, plus required time off of work to process the paperwork, and quite likely the necessity of hiring a lawyer to fill out the paperwork, just to exercise an *ENUMERATED* constitutional right. Oh, and even if you aren't a felon or other prohibited person, if they don't like how you filled out the forms, they can deny you the permit. For example, if you want a carry permit because you've been gay-bashed, they'll deny it, because in NYC the only valid reasons seem to be "carry tons of cash on a regular basis", or "very well connected politically". Those two generally mean the same thing, btw: That you've greased the palm of an influential politician. And if they deny you? They get to keep the fees.

Or say you want to take pictures in the subway: Oops, you must be a terrorist. Why else would you do that?

All major cities are like that. It's not just guns. It's everything, it's just that guns are sort of the canary in the coal mine, the first to go.
 
2012-08-11 12:59:26 PM  

dittybopper: HeFixesTheCable: Why is it places with the best *other* civil liberties/quality of life stuff (gay marriage, free museums, great food, freedom to be weird) have to be the places with the worst gun laws? Looking at you, DC/NYC/Boston/Chicago.

You mean civil liberties like being able to buy a 32 oz soda if you want one? Or choosing to eat saturated fats if you want? The right to take pictures on a public transit system? Stuff like that?

Go to http://www.nyclu.org for an eye-opener. Many of the places you think are "good" aren't as good as you think. They've just made concessions to special interest groups, while steadily increasing their control over every aspect of their citizen's lives. So you get gay marriage, which is good, but the flip side is that it takes $431.50 in fees, plus required time off of work to process the paperwork, and quite likely the necessity of hiring a lawyer to fill out the paperwork, just to exercise an *ENUMERATED* constitutional right. Oh, and even if you aren't a felon or other prohibited person, if they don't like how you filled out the forms, they can deny you the permit. For example, if you want a carry permit because you've been gay-bashed, they'll deny it, because in NYC the only valid reasons seem to be "carry tons of cash on a regular basis", or "very well connected politically". Those two generally mean the same thing, btw: That you've greased the palm of an influential politician. And if they deny you? They get to keep the fees.

Or say you want to take pictures in the subway: Oops, you must be a terrorist. Why else would you do that?

All major cities are like that. It's not just guns. It's everything, it's just that guns are sort of the canary in the coal mine, the first to go.


Ditty, I love you, man. Always like your posts. And yes, you are right. Even in DC, if you're not rich, you will never legally own a gun. As you said, you get "rights" that are purposefully made as hard-to-get as possible.

I guess what I like more about city living is that, even if you can't be gay and get married, you can be gay, period. I've had too many friends from small towns who were "different" in some way (gay, liked classical music, wanted to eat vegan, or just didn't fit in) that felt compelled to hide, lie, or leave. I spend my childhood in a mix of city and rural, and there *is* a difference. You'll find bigots and hateful people everywhere, but at least with a larger population center, you can find folks like you. I'm as "rural" as they come. I have hunted, camp regularly (spent a week in AK stumbling across bear leavings), worked on a farm, love classic rock, and can play any country tune you put before me on the guitar. But I don't subscribe (as I know you don't) to the "fit in to git in" mentality of smaller communities. There is a sociological reason this behavior exists in these small communities, but doesn't fit me.

But yes, you are absolutely right about the "liberties" being hard to get. As MLK said (paraphrasing), there's nothing wrong with disobeying a law that you believe is morally wrong. F*** 'em. :) I know otherwise law-abiding people who kept guns in their home, and carried them, in disobeyance of the law, because they believed it was right.
 
2012-08-11 07:00:37 PM  
Well, I don't really "fit in" either. I've always been different, but if you don't take yourself too seriously you can be yourself in any almost any environment.
 
Displayed 31 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 »
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