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.

(Slate)   Hey, look: a $369 modification that lets your AR-15 fire 900 rounds a minute. You know, for hunting   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, assault weapons ban, semi-automatic rifle, National Firearms Act, trigger fingers  
•       •       •

16520 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2013 at 11:17 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



579 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-08 04:17:48 PM  
i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...
 
2013-01-08 04:23:23 PM  

FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...


Nah, you can't hit the side of a school from the inside using one of those.
 
2013-01-08 04:24:32 PM  
Wouldn't it be easier (& cheaper) to just learn how to aim guns? You'd have to stop waving them above your head while you pontificate to do it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 04:28:47 PM  

oldfarthenry: Wouldn't it be easier (& cheaper) to just learn how to aim guns? You'd have to stop waving them above your head while you pontificate to do it.


Nah.  Not macho enough for the little Rambos.

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...

Nah, you can't hit the side of a school from the inside using one of those.


It would be great for a flock of first graders though.
 
2013-01-08 04:35:43 PM  

vpb: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...

Nah, you can't hit the side of a school from the inside using one of those.

It would be great for a flock of first graders though.


We're going to hell.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 04:38:03 PM  

R.A.Danny: vpb: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...

Nah, you can't hit the side of a school from the inside using one of those.

It would be great for a flock of first graders though.

We're going to hell.


I am informed of that on a regular basis.
 
2013-01-08 04:39:25 PM  
Well, how else should one be expected to hunt clouds of gnats?
 
2013-01-08 04:40:56 PM  
I"m cool with it if you guys want to ban 900-round magazines.
 
2013-01-08 04:44:12 PM  

violentsalvation: I"m cool with it if you guys want to ban 900-round magazines.


looks like it was belt-fed to me.
 
2013-01-08 04:46:12 PM  
You can get Gatling-esque systems too where you mount multiple guns into them and use a crank to rotate them around and pull the triggers.  Since you're turning the crank it isn't a machine gun.

Put a drill on the crank, though, and now it's a machine gun.
 
2013-01-08 04:46:32 PM  

duppy: Well, how else should one be expected to hunt clouds of gnats?


Ok i lol'd.

Hard.
 
2013-01-08 04:49:02 PM  

duppy: Well, how else should one be expected to hunt clouds of gnats?


www.oxitec.com

approve
 
2013-01-08 04:50:52 PM  

FlashHarry: violentsalvation: I"m cool with it if you guys want to ban 900-round magazines.

looks like it was belt-fed to me.


Oh, I didn't watch the videos.
 
2013-01-08 05:09:16 PM  
Damn, if each of those kids took multiple rounds there would have been nothing but bloody giblets left of them
 
2013-01-08 05:17:39 PM  

R.A.Danny: Nah, you can't hit the side of a school from the inside using one of those.


I've tried one out. It's fun but a serious waste of $ on ammo.
 
2013-01-08 05:25:54 PM  
But don't you dare take those modifications away.  the founding fathers clearly intended for these devices to be available.

/snark
 
2013-01-08 05:29:44 PM  
i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-08 05:42:44 PM  
images55.fotki.com
 
2013-01-08 05:59:09 PM  

Dinjiin: [images55.fotki.com image 450x720]


i50.tinypic.com

FTFY
 
2013-01-08 06:24:19 PM  

FlashHarry: FTFY


You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?
 
2013-01-08 06:27:34 PM  
There was another video on YouTube of the slide fire modification, and it appeared that the shooter was having a lot of issues with his rifle jamming.  Hard to tell if the spent cartridge wasn't ejecting properly or if his magazine wasn't feeding smoothly.

I wonder how well some of the cheaper AR-15 clones out there [not manufactured by Colt] hold up.
 
2013-01-08 07:19:35 PM  
I'll accept a ban on slidefire stocks if we repeal the Hughes Amendment.

/how many crimes have slidefire-style stocks been used in again?
 
2013-01-08 07:24:06 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


cdn-ugc.cafemom.com

Bushmaster seems to think a gun substitutes for a cock.
 
2013-01-08 07:39:54 PM  
cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2013-01-08 07:51:25 PM  
i236.photobucket.com

You libs think it's really that easy to take a bunch of these down?
 
2013-01-08 07:54:41 PM  
i.imgur.com
I believe I've seen those on farkingmachines.com.  They're recoil-powered assvibrators.
 
2013-01-08 07:55:01 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

[cdn-ugc.cafemom.com image 364x500]

Bushmaster seems to think a gun substitutes for a cock.


To be fair, I DO refer to my penis as "Bushmaster."

Although my penis has never killed anyone that I'm aware of.
 
2013-01-08 08:22:15 PM  
I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).

Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.

The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).

So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.
 
2013-01-08 08:23:13 PM  

dahmers love zombie: I believe I've seen those on farkingmachines.com. They're recoil-powered assvibrators.


Modified wooden toilet roll holder? Wow. Just wow.
 
2013-01-08 08:26:08 PM  

dahmers love zombie: [i.imgur.com image 450x720]
I believe I've seen those on farkingmachines.com.  They're recoil-powered assvibrators.


Ordered a pair, didn't you?
 
2013-01-08 08:49:35 PM  
Why don't I need to fire 900 rounds a minute?
 
2013-01-08 08:52:05 PM  

Nabb1: dahmers love zombie: [i.imgur.com image 450x720]
I believe I've seen those on farkingmachines.com.  They're recoil-powered assvibrators.

Ordered a pair, didn't you?


I dunno. I don't think dahmers is a Republican politician. It's the internet, though. Crazier things happen.
 
2013-01-08 09:00:36 PM  

t3knomanser: A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable-


Not to me....I already have a 9.2% sales tax where I live.
 
2013-01-08 09:03:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


It's easy to figure out. We use the Lenny Scale.

If you are exactly like me -- that is, if you are me -- you have precisely the perfectly sized penis. It is so large that it satisfies all women without appearing to be the result of plastic surgery or Satanic pacts. Therefore, everything I own represents that perfect penis.

If you own something slightly more macho than what I have, it is because your penis is too small.

If you own something slightly less macho than what I have, it is because you are gay.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both gay and have a small penis, depending on your consumer choices. For example, you own both a 4x4 3/4-ton pick-up AND a Mazda Miata.
 
2013-01-08 09:09:20 PM  
I have two of them.  They work great.  (one on an AR15, one on an AK74)  And they've been out for about a year now.  But unless Uncle Sam is providing the ammo--they're too expensive to use all day at the range.  Fortunately, there's a little lever you can turn and easily put it back into single shot mode.
 
2013-01-08 09:09:22 PM  
We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread. FlashHarry peniswinned the thread.
 
2013-01-08 09:11:45 PM  

violentsalvation: We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread. FlashHarry peniswinned the thread.


He "Flashed Henry."
 
2013-01-08 09:19:51 PM  

t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.


I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?
 
2013-01-08 09:22:17 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Bushmaster seems to think a gun substitutes for a cock.


I would not be displeased if a lot of people aimed their cocks at Madison Avenue.
 
2013-01-08 09:22:32 PM  

Shostie: violentsalvation: We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread. FlashHarry peniswinned the thread.

He "Flashed Henry."


Oooo that has my vote.

Anybody else have a suggestion for what we should call this gun thread debate curiosity?? Use the funny button to vote.
 
2013-01-08 09:25:44 PM  

fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?


Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.
 
2013-01-08 09:31:47 PM  

violentsalvation: Shostie: violentsalvation: We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread. FlashHarry peniswinned the thread.

He "Flashed Henry."

Oooo that has my vote.

Anybody else have a suggestion for what we should call this gun thread debate curiosity?? Use the funny button to vote.


Actually, that should be "Flashed Harry," I guess.

Stupid typos.
 
2013-01-08 09:33:19 PM  

violentsalvation: We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread.


Just say, "I'm sensitive about that."
 
2013-01-08 09:42:14 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.


15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?
 
2013-01-08 09:43:11 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: violentsalvation: We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread.

Just say, "I'm sensitive about that."


"My penis makes Nina_Hartley's_Ass sensitive" ... o_O Okaaay. Not bad, but I think we can do better. I'm still liking Shostie's "Flashed Harry" .
 
2013-01-08 09:46:58 PM  

fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?


Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.
 
2013-01-08 10:00:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com
Because FlashHarry is supposed to be recoiling in horror at the suggestion that he might be a homosexual.
 
2013-01-08 10:13:34 PM  

t3knomanser: I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).

Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.

The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).

So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.


The problem with a tax is that you would be forcing the costs of guns illegally used and, for the most part, illegally acquired onto those who would acquire them legally. And how would the insurance work? Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired. If they will not or can not acquire them legally, what is the likelihood that they will insure them?
 
2013-01-08 10:23:34 PM  

fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?


Depending on the state, this is already covered by homeowners/renters insurance.  Rates vary by locality and company.
 
2013-01-08 10:24:44 PM  

ArkAngel: The problem with a tax is that you would be forcing the costs of guns illegally used and, for the most part, illegally acquired onto those who would acquire them legally.


Again, we're addressing an externality. I would imagine such a tax would actually be absurdly low, on a per fire-arm basis. The purpose isn't to punish gun owners, it's to address the negative externality created by having weapons commonly available. The tax serves two purposes- it depresses demand for firearms (thus shrinking the negative externality) and creates a fund that can be used to fund law enforcement and first responders, as well as firearm safety programs (reducing the risks).

ArkAngel: Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired


Most used in accidents, suicides, and domestic violence are legally acquired. Again, on an actuarial basis, I imagine the costs to the user would be very low. This has the added purpose of creating a financial incentive to reduce the risks associated with firearms.
 
2013-01-08 10:29:34 PM  

fusillade762: You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?


Insurance is only required when you are driving on public roads.  You're generally free to go without it when driving on private property, unless you have a loan/lease and the titleholder requires it.

The same standard for firearms would require safety and proficiency testing in addition to carrying insurance when carrying a loaded firearm in public.  But you could transport your unloaded firearm across public property and discharge it on private property sans testing or insurance.  As long as the insurance and testing requirements were sane, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  But there are a few states I wouldn't trust to keep such things sane.
 
2013-01-08 10:39:31 PM  
Meh, they've had modifications that do this for years. I had a Hellfire for my MAK-90, back in the early '90s, that did the same thing...just worked a little differently. So, all you pants-wetters out there can stop urinating on yourself, this technology has been readily and legally available for 20 years.
 
2013-01-08 10:49:15 PM  
I hug shiate out a lot.
Like, rapidly even.
I don't know what your carrying in the yambaggal region but I'm rapid fire and on heavy repeat if you know what I mean.  In a spermal sense.

- I have no idea what I'm talking about and fear that I have wandered into a room full of choloform.
 
2013-01-08 10:52:02 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

It's easy to figure out. We use the Lenny Scale.

If you are exactly like me -- that is, if you are me -- you have precisely the perfectly sized penis. It is so large that it satisfies all women without appearing to be the result of plastic surgery or Satanic pacts. Therefore, everything I own represents that perfect penis.

If you own something slightly more macho than what I have, it is because your penis is too small.

If you own something slightly less macho than what I have, it is because you are gay.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both gay and have a small penis, depending on your consumer choices. For example, you own both a 4x4 3/4-ton pick-up AND a Mazda Miata.


Now that was a really well thought out retort. Maybe too well thought out.
 
2013-01-08 10:54:08 PM  

t3knomanser: ArkAngel: The problem with a tax is that you would be forcing the costs of guns illegally used and, for the most part, illegally acquired onto those who would acquire them legally.

Again, we're addressing an externality. I would imagine such a tax would actually be absurdly low, on a per fire-arm basis. The purpose isn't to punish gun owners, it's to address the negative externality created by having weapons commonly available. The tax serves two purposes- it depresses demand for firearms (thus shrinking the negative externality) and creates a fund that can be used to fund law enforcement and first responders, as well as firearm safety programs (reducing the risks).

ArkAngel: Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired

Most used in accidents, suicides, and domestic violence are legally acquired. Again, on an actuarial basis, I imagine the costs to the user would be very low. This has the added purpose of creating a financial incentive to reduce the risks associated with firearms.


Again, though, you blame the gun instead of the owner. This especially makes no sense with suicide.
 
2013-01-08 10:58:36 PM  
Sassypants.

You can't argue with sassypants.  They are slacks that are sassy.   They really manage to dance around the dominant paradigm, whilst being both sassy and pantaloonish.
 
2013-01-08 11:00:29 PM  
Seriously.  The 2nd Amendment is not to guarantee that we can hunt.  Stop trying to insinuate this.
 
2013-01-08 11:02:27 PM  

fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?


The cost of administration for the payments, legal consulting, marketing, and normal insurance claims investigation/payment -- the normal costs of running an insurance program -- would be more than the actual cost of the liability when spread across 270,000,000 firearms.
 
2013-01-08 11:08:05 PM  

t3knomanser: ... a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"


I know I don't have the answers, but it would be so helpful if we could actually have the discussion. It seems that it does always boil down to "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

I'm in favor of the rulings in both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago, but that doesn't mean that aren't things that can be done. Maybe there isn't anything that can be done, but it would sure be nice to have that conversation. Things that could either get the guns out of the hands of criminals/insane people or that could keep them in the hands of the lawful owners. Perhaps something to do with gun storage, failing to report stolen firearms, or insurance against having your firearm stolen.
 
2013-01-08 11:08:17 PM  

duppy: Well, how else should one be expected to hunt clouds of gnats?


With the Bug-A-Salt, of course!
 
2013-01-08 11:19:35 PM  
So, basically, it soups up your bump-firing? Wouldn't one of those crank devices be a little cheaper and practical?
 
2013-01-08 11:19:37 PM  
Great! I can't wait to get my hands on the Colt Sandy Hook special!
 
2013-01-08 11:21:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts


I'm a Christian and a Republican! Of course I'm a penis expert!
 
2013-01-08 11:25:22 PM  

Dinjiin: [images55.fotki.com image 450x720]


You realize the M4 is not legally available to civilians, of course.
 
2013-01-08 11:26:22 PM  
This is getting really f*cking tiresome. We get it. Most Farkers and most Fark suits don't like guns. Can we move on? There must be a big boob thread out there waiting to be greenlit.
 
2013-01-08 11:26:32 PM  
Or for, you know, burning up your barrel, wasting ammo and missing anything you're trying to aim at.
 
2013-01-08 11:27:10 PM  
Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
 
2013-01-08 11:28:04 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Let me know eh?


Well, I have a large penis.

I spend my time deep stroking my curly red-haired bubble butt equipped wife.
You go out with your gun and kill defenseless animals with a substitute penis.

Guess that makes you a better man than me, huh?
 
2013-01-08 11:28:26 PM  
Wouldn't that be like a 50% increase in the cost of the gun? Seems kinda steep.
 
2013-01-08 11:28:29 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Seriously.  The 2nd Amendment is not to guarantee that we can hunt.  Stop trying to insinuate this.


I'm starting to believe it was an eighteenth century practical joke
 
2013-01-08 11:28:40 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


Bravo!
 
2013-01-08 11:29:25 PM  
Anti-gun people are like creationists.

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant."
 
2013-01-08 11:29:48 PM  

Mangoose: Why don't I need to fire 900 rounds a minute?


Well, you'll empty a 30 round magazine in about 2 seconds. With ammo prices you could blow $50 in ammo in less than a minute. If I'm blowing that much money for that little bit of fun time... my money won't be the only thing getting blown.
 
2013-01-08 11:29:50 PM  
Does it upgrade the barrel too, because at 900 rounds a minute an AR-15 barrel isn't going to last long.

/crappy rifle to begin with anyways.
 
2013-01-08 11:30:25 PM  
Number of times used in a crime?
...none?
Ok, back to not caring.
 
2013-01-08 11:30:54 PM  
up-ship.com
 
2013-01-08 11:31:31 PM  
(hotlinked like a herd of lynx that are coming right for us!)
 
2013-01-08 11:31:39 PM  
stupid is thick - this "adaptation" has been around for decades. If it had been used in any crime or psuedo crime - it would have been noted.

Fark on guns - screaming Goebbel lil pussies reverse compensating about some guys dick size!
 
2013-01-08 11:32:27 PM  
Pro-gun people are like creationists:

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant and truly believe I'll be Rambo"
 
2013-01-08 11:32:31 PM  

FlashHarry: Dinjiin: [images55.fotki.com image 450x720]

[i50.tinypic.com image 450x720]

FTFY


Only 886 greenlit links = you have a small penis. You need 1000.

Just as valid a theory as the bullshiat you're spouting
 
2013-01-08 11:32:57 PM  

t3knomanser: high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply.


So it's all about how fast that 1 round is fired for each trigger pull? Since this is about semi-automatic weapons, don't you really need to be taxing people's trigger finger, since that's the main thing that will determine the fire rate?
 
2013-01-08 11:34:16 PM  

violentsalvation: We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread. FlashHarry peniswinned the thread.


I think the easiest term would be 'reality.'
 
2013-01-08 11:34:23 PM  

violentsalvation: "My penis makes Nina_Hartley's_Ass sensitive" ... o_O Okaaay. Not bad, but I think we can do better.


Now that's funny, right there, I don't care who you are!
 
2013-01-08 11:36:03 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity)


Ya know, making up blatant and easily disproven lies just makes all your other arguments look weaker. Automobile insurance regularly pays out for your illegal acts If you hit and injure someone driving drunk, it is common for you insurance to pay and many states require you to carry such liability insurance. Fanatical liars like you are going to lose the gun rights debate faster than any of the usual suspects on the left everyone has already tuned out - we know their crazy, but you sound crazy and stupid. Do we really want you armed?
 
2013-01-08 11:36:58 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: [i236.photobucket.com image 540x380]

You libs think it's really that easy to take a bunch of these down?


What are those things?
 
2013-01-08 11:37:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


It's not complicated: The more firepower you need, the smaller your penis is. Those of us with giant wangs care less about guns than shtupping.
 
2013-01-08 11:37:30 PM  

Tyranicle: Or for, you know, burning up your barrel, wasting ammo and missing anything you're trying to aim at.


Yep. Came to say what you said.

I don't own any of the AR15 descendants, but I'd like to. Granted, that's because I'd prefer to go to the range and become more proficient with my service weapon. Greater proficiency/accuracy reduces the chance of casualties (both civilian and military).

This bump thing... while it works... does not do anything for accuracy, that's for sure. Honestly, I think it is a mediocre product that is a plastic penis enlargement alternative. Autos are great for suppression, but honestly not very good for a "sole gunman" scenario. Especially the AR platform which will burn up the barrel something awful.
 
2013-01-08 11:39:47 PM  

Ghastly: Does it upgrade the barrel too, because at 900 rounds a minute an AR-15 barrel isn't going to last long.

/crappy rifle to begin with anyways.


I still want to see .22 miniguns. I don't even think you could overheat it. It would be physically impossible to damage that gun from firing. Imagine, 1,000,000 consecutive little rounds. PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. Perfect for area denial and covering fire. Just get one of those turned on a position like a hose and enemies will have to take cover. A single marine could carry 10 minutes worth of ammunition. It would be like Predator, but much smaller.
 
2013-01-08 11:40:18 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Pro-gun people are like creationists:


Anti-gun people are even more like creationists.
They have a theory they've never seen work in America but will gladly provide unrelated examples from other nations as proof.

/specific nations anyway.
/the moment we start pulling up the full list they go Bevets on your arse.
 
2013-01-08 11:40:32 PM  

doglover: Anti-gun people are like creationists.

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant."


They would no longer be anti-gun people if they would take the time to learn about the guns that they are so very afraid of, the existing gun laws, and the blah weapons sparse appearance in violent crime.
 
2013-01-08 11:41:26 PM  
What a ripoff! You can accomplish the same thing with one or two heavy duty rubber bands. I would rather blow the money on ammo.
 
2013-01-08 11:41:47 PM  

BravadoGT: fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.


Yet when we have dozens of people maybe abusing cash assistance from welfare out of 200 million everyone wants to change the system.
 
2013-01-08 11:42:48 PM  

Ghastly: Does it upgrade the barrel too, because at 900 rounds a minute an AR-15 barrel isn't going to last long.

/crappy rifle to begin with anyways.


That is what I was wondering, how long until the barrel ruptures.
 
2013-01-08 11:44:43 PM  

BravadoGT: Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.


There are over 250 million cars privately registered in the US. Based on current trend lines, deaths by guns will surpass deaths from automobile accidents in the US by 2015. Homicide by gun is not in the top 15 yet, but it's getting closer (mostly because the other causes are actually being actively addressed and are dropping) - 11,500 gun homicides a year. It takes about 16,500 to crack the top 15. Add in accidental shooting and suicides and it's what most rational folks would consider a leading cause of death.

There will be more massacres of school kids in the US by NRA trained crazies shooting up schools and now the press is going to report every one; it sells. You need better arguments than your personal maths if you want to convince anyone other than fellow gun enthusiasts.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
 
2013-01-08 11:45:04 PM  

FlashHarry: Dinjiin: [images55.fotki.com image 450x720]

[i50.tinypic.com image 450x720]

FTFY


I'll be damned - it looks like the small penises are going to inherit the earth.
 
2013-01-08 11:45:06 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: You libs think it's really that easy to take a bunch of these down?


Hey, if they're coming right for you...
 
2013-01-08 11:45:13 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Pro-gun people are like creationists:

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant and truly believe I'll be Rambo"


As an atheist who doesn't wet their bed over guns, I find your post highly illogical.
 
2013-01-08 11:46:19 PM  
If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions:- Why ban cosmetic features?- Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?- Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?- Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?- How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?- How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban's expiration?And most importantly:After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?
 
2013-01-08 11:46:39 PM  

way south: They have a theory they've never seen work in America


Go American exceptionalism! Even with a higher prison rate than any other nation on Earth (even if you consider those summarily executed as a possible skewing factor), gotta have those guns!
 
2013-01-08 11:46:54 PM  
Maybe I've just spent too much time in these threads. But I need to know - is it bad if, when someone attempts to make a correlation between any particular thing and someone's genital size, I feel a pressing need to punch that person in the face? It's gotten as bad as Obama hatred or people who studman69 and are serious about it (especially if it's the wrong person).
 
2013-01-08 11:46:56 PM  

violentsalvation: doglover: Anti-gun people are like creationists.

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant."

They would no longer be anti-gun people if they would take the time to learn about the guns that they are so very afraid of, the existing gun laws, and the blah weapons sparse appearance in violent crime.


But they won't do that anymore than creationists will pass a science class.

You can lead a fool to water, but you can't make him think.
 
2013-01-08 11:47:49 PM  

t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.


say what? what am i being ask to insure against? my guns are locked up, i can pass a background check and in 40+ years of gun ownership have yet to have an accident. not just no shooting people or myself but no broken anythings i didn't aim at. no accidental discharges ever.

so please tell my what this insurance will cover and cost.
 
2013-01-08 11:47:53 PM  

way south: Princess Ryans Knickers: Pro-gun people are like creationists:

Anti-gun people are even more like creationists.
They have a theory they've never seen work in America but will gladly provide unrelated examples from other nations as proof.

/specific nations anyway.
/the moment we start pulling up the full list they go Bevets on your arse.


And just like Creationists, their idiocy and/or ignorance does not automatically make the other side sane.
 
2013-01-08 11:48:09 PM  
Here is an idea for you lib gun haters out there.
We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned on
one side of the country. Put the gun lovers on the other side. Then erect a 100 FOOT
wall. 50 feet high, and 50 feet deep. NO ONE is allowed to move from one side or
the other. Then, in a few years we see how many people on the gun lovers side end up
dead from "bad guys", versus how many anti gun lovers are still alive, have any of their
property etc. In a few years, the pro gun lovers can then come tear down the wall, and
have the fun of shooting up the bad guys on the anti gun lovers side, because, once
the bad guys find out there is absolutely NO WEAPONS on the anti gun side, they will
have a field day raping and destroying everything on the anti gun side.
 
2013-01-08 11:48:32 PM  

way south: Prince


But we have seen the pro-gun theory work.. in Somalia!
 
2013-01-08 11:48:47 PM  

Surpheon: Lenny_da_Hog: (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity)

Ya know, making up blatant and easily disproven lies just makes all your other arguments look weaker. Automobile insurance regularly pays out for your illegal acts If you hit and injure someone driving drunk, it is common for you insurance to pay and many states require you to carry such liability insurance. Fanatical liars like you are going to lose the gun rights debate faster than any of the usual suspects on the left everyone has already tuned out - we know their crazy, but you sound crazy and stupid. Do we really want you armed?


Uh-huh. Rant away.

There are some cases where an insurer must pay out when an illegal act was in action. They are not intentionally criminal cases -- things like DUI aren't considered intentionally criminal. If you intentionally murder someone with your car, the insurer won't take on the liability, any more than they'd pay you for torching your own house. Insurers will never accept the liability for armed robbery injuries or gang violence under a firearms liability insurance program.

They may pay out for shooting your firearm while drunk and accidentally hurting someone. They won't pay out if you just shoot someone.

You may now return to your childish name-calling. It's all you have.
 
2013-01-08 11:49:13 PM  

Surpheon: Based on current trend lines, deaths by guns will surpass deaths from automobile accidents in the US by 2015.


Yeah. That'll happen.
 
2013-01-08 11:50:21 PM  

Without Fail: I spend my time deep stroking my curly red-haired bubble butt equipped wife.


i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-08 11:50:27 PM  
I see no sense in banning or taxing guns. First, unreasonable taxation as a means if societal control was the reason America started in the first place. Second, weapon technology has been the primary driver of human success since we were smart enough to use then. Denial of any part of human essence, and yes I am claiming that weaponry is an inalienable part of human nature, is a waste of time. The 2nd amendment was not a mistake nor was it wrong at the time nor is it wrong today. It's the basic right of a person to be able to equip themselves with the most efficient individual weaponry that humans have been able to mass produce so far. However, we are hundreds of years away from the time it was written and somehow we are less civilized. Guns are not new technology but we have lost respect and understanding of what it means to use lethal force. Education and discipline are the tools we need to use to stim irrational violence. It is not a problem that can ever be eliminated but focusing on the tools and not the human wielding them is the wrong approach.

Also how close are we to ray guns? I'm tired of bullets.
 
2013-01-08 11:50:47 PM  

FlashHarry: Dinjiin: [images55.fotki.com image 450x720]

[i50.tinypic.com image 450x720]

FTFY


Penis reference in a gun thread! Drink!
 
2013-01-08 11:51:32 PM  

aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.


Lately I've been reading that it's a response to when the Brits tried to ban gun ownership in the Colonies, so I guess it's also like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-01-08 11:51:43 PM  
Oh look, it's this thread.
 
2013-01-08 11:51:53 PM  

DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns?


Ray guns don't work in atmosphere.
 
2013-01-08 11:52:06 PM  

duffblue: If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions


Holy shiat. I think I briefly dated you in college.

If you want to protect gun rights, you need to suggest why they are worth protecting even at the cost of kindergarterners being literally blown to pieces by a crazy guy with a military assault weapon (one with excellent gun control - he put in range time from the reports) .

Sorry, 20 dead kindergartners puts the ball in your court a hell of a lot more than a black teen armed with a pack of Skittles. If you don't comprehend how, you have completely lost the battle. It's just a matter of time before you lose your gun rights. Welcome to a meritocracy. Stupid tends to lose in the long run.
 
2013-01-08 11:53:49 PM  

neenerist: Without Fail: I spend my time deep stroking my curly red-haired bubble butt equipped wife.

[i48.tinypic.com image 450x505]


I admit that the hair is about the same. Everything else in that picture is horribly different.
 
2013-01-08 11:54:10 PM  

p51d007: We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned on
one side of the country.


Why not just split off the states that have the toughest gun control laws now rather than dividing it 50/50? With the exception of Texas, you'll have just made a third world nation with an economy smaller than Mexico's. But I'm sure it's just coincidence those lib states have higher average income, property values, industry, education level, etc...
 
2013-01-08 11:54:21 PM  

FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...


I doubt it.. now Nancy on the other hand probably had 2 already in transit.
 
2013-01-08 11:55:50 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


Here we have lucked out and been granted a glimpse into the mind of the ever-petulant internet gun jockey. When presented with a clearly juvenile but ultimately harmless jab at the "stereotypical gun owner"'s penis size he does not ignore. He does not resort to internet tough guy speak (initially at least). He immediately jumps into a diatribe about cocks in an attempt - in his mind - to 1) showcase the perceived obsession with male genitalia that gun control advocates display and 2) hopes to belittle the offending party by implying that they have a predilection to penis, hoping this will be taken as a slight to their manhood. What the internet gun jockey fails to realize is that in his own post he has mentioned penis far more than the initial offender ever did and at the same time he has sunk to a level of debate equivalent to, "No you're gay!" In short, the internet gun jockey has not only embarrassed himself to anyone other than those who would react upon hearing his speech in a manner not unlike, "You tell um Skeeter!" but also has not succeeded in enlarging the size of his microphallus. And the sad March of the Derp continues with us only able to be witnesses.
 
2013-01-08 11:56:00 PM  

Surpheon: military assault weapon


AR-15 = millitary assault weapon

1-media-cdn.foolz.us

My sides are killing me! Keep talking. I haven't heard anyone this dumb since... well yesterday when that idiot they dug up for Piers Morgan to yell at was on TV, but you're even dumber than he is. It's great!
 
2013-01-08 11:57:09 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: They are not intentionally criminal cases -- things like DUI aren't considered intentionally criminal. If you intentionally murder someone with your car,


What happened to the arguement that the majority of guns used to kill people are stolen? Adam Lanza's mom was intentionally criminal when she stockpiled military grade hardware and didn't properly secure it from her crazy son?

Seriously, do you think this is a winning argument you're making? It's like you're a Mormon in Utah.
 
2013-01-08 11:57:41 PM  
 
2013-01-08 11:57:45 PM  

doglover: Anti-gun people are like creationists.

So this is a Linux versus Microsoft versus Google versus Apple thread?
 
2013-01-08 11:59:18 PM  
Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:50 AM  
Wait until these bedwetters learn there's nothing stopping you from buying a fighter jet or tank. Well, other than the shipping costs, but that's what Amazon Prime is for.
 
2013-01-09 12:01:36 AM  
what the fark is wrong with people, why would you need or want that? I'm sorry but that's excessively stupid and can only result in bad things
 
2013-01-09 12:01:51 AM  

anarchy_x: Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.


Not when they use some of what they grow to support a proper military under civilian control. But that's just reality.

Off to bed for me. The Internet Tough Guys sure showed me good.

/Actually support gun rights, but just barely now I'm getting a feel for the depth of idiocy on this side
 
2013-01-09 12:03:52 AM  

doglover: DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns?

Ray guns don't work in atmosphere.


Aw man really? Well why the hell not? I'm just antsy for the next step forward in personal weapon technology. And no strapping a computer to a bullet firing gun doesn't count. I'm talking lasers or electromagnetic manipulation or deatomization or something we don't even have words for yet.
 
2013-01-09 12:07:20 AM  

vpb: oldfarthenry: Wouldn't it be easier (& cheaper) to just learn how to aim guns? You'd have to stop waving them above your head while you pontificate to do it.

Nah.  Not macho enough for the little Rambos.

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...

Nah, you can't hit the side of a school from the inside using one of those.

It would be great for a flock of first graders though.


Not really. After the first five rounds or so the recoil would have you shooting over them and into the wall.

I own one of these and it's incredibly fun, but expensive to shoot.
 
2013-01-09 12:08:16 AM  

Taxcheat: Wait until these bedwetters learn there's nothing stopping you from buying a fighter jet or tank. Well, other than the shipping costs, but that's what Amazon Prime is for.


Don't you have to disable the weapons on those if you buy them? And if that ids the case they will be screaming that their rights have been violated because they had to do that.
 
2013-01-09 12:08:17 AM  

Surpheon: duffblue: If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions

Holy shiat. I think I briefly dated you in college.

If you want to protect gun rights, you need to suggest why they are worth protecting even at the cost of kindergarterners being literally blown to pieces by a crazy guy with a military assault weapon (one with excellent gun control - he put in range time from the reports) .

Sorry, 20 dead kindergartners puts the ball in your court a hell of a lot more than a black teen armed with a pack of Skittles. If you don't comprehend how, you have completely lost the battle. It's just a matter of time before you lose your gun rights. Welcome to a meritocracy. Stupid tends to lose in the long run.


What military uses a semiautomatic ar-15? The US is a nation that suffers 75,000 alcohol related deaths a year. A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions due to imperialism. Nice treyvon reference, I bet you think it's okay to assault somebody for following you down the street.
 
2013-01-09 12:09:08 AM  

p51d007: Here is an idea for you lib gun haters out there.
We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned on
one side of the country. Put the gun lovers on the other side. Then erect a 100 FOOT
wall. 50 feet high, and 50 feet deep. NO ONE is allowed to move from one side or
the other. Then, in a few years we see how many people on the gun lovers side end up
dead from "bad guys", versus how many anti gun lovers are still alive, have any of their
property etc. In a few years, the pro gun lovers can then come tear down the wall, and
have the fun of shooting up the bad guys on the anti gun lovers side, because, once
the bad guys find out there is absolutely NO WEAPONS on the anti gun side, they will
have a field day raping and destroying everything on the anti gun side.


EXCEPT there is a big giant flaw in your hypothetical scenerio which you didn;t take into account. I would assume said bad guys are also 'gun lovers' therefore most if not all of them would be on your side. Have fun dealing with all the gun lovers who are members of MS-13, Bloods, Crips and your paranoid racist anti govermment militia types.
I myself am not anti gun but in your 'experiment' I think I would rather go to the no-gun side of the fence since as you said no one from each side can cross over.
 
2013-01-09 12:09:41 AM  

aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.


It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?
 
2013-01-09 12:10:52 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog:
It's easy to figure out. We use the Lenny Scale.

If you are exactly like me -- that is, if you are me -- you have precisely the perfectly sized penis. It is so large that it satisfies all women without appearing to be the result of plastic surgery or Satanic pacts. Therefore, everything I own represents that perfect penis.

If you own something slightly more macho than what I have, it is because your penis is too small.

If you own something slightly less macho than what I have, it is because you are gay.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both gay and have a small penis, depending on your consumer choices. For example, you own both a 4x4 3/4-ton pick-up AND a Mazda Miata.


Ford 1 ton dually and a wheezy little Honda Accord. Crap.

/guess I better go break the bad news to D1vwife...
 
2013-01-09 12:11:17 AM  

Without Fail: neenerist: Without Fail: I spend my time deep stroking my curly red-haired bubble butt equipped wife.

[i48.tinypic.com image 450x505]

I admit that the hair is about the same. Everything else in that picture is horribly different.


Oh, ok. You ARE married to Ronald McDonald.
 
2013-01-09 12:12:18 AM  
I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...
 
2013-01-09 12:12:39 AM  

Surpheon: Lenny_da_Hog: They are not intentionally criminal cases -- things like DUI aren't considered intentionally criminal. If you intentionally murder someone with your car,

What happened to the arguement that the majority of guns used to kill people are stolen? Adam Lanza's mom was intentionally criminal when she stockpiled military grade hardware and didn't properly secure it from her crazy son?

Seriously, do you think this is a winning argument you're making? It's like you're a Mormon in Utah.


Uh. I don't know who you're arguing with, but I didn't say any of that.
 
2013-01-09 12:13:04 AM  

duffblue: A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions due to imperialism.


Please give me the names and addresses of a few American kids who don't matter.
Maybe some young relatives of yours?

Just 20 for now. A drop in the barrel.

Thanks.
 
2013-01-09 12:13:16 AM  

Stratohead: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?


Have you ever purchased a firearm or are you just going off of the piers morgan version of reality?
 
2013-01-09 12:13:48 AM  

DubtodaIll: doglover: DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns?

Ray guns don't work in atmosphere.

Aw man really? Well why the hell not? I'm just antsy for the next step forward in personal weapon technology. And no strapping a computer to a bullet firing gun doesn't count. I'm talking lasers or electromagnetic manipulation or deatomization or something we don't even have words for yet.


Well we have ray weapons. The navy has laser guns that can blow a missile in flight. But the reason only the navy has that is because only the nave has floating multi-ton weapons platforms with nuclear reactors generating infinite electricity. Scaled up, rays work.

But anything you can carry? It's too little oomph to be effective. The best you can do is a laser that break optics.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:02 AM  

Skyd1v: Ford 1 ton dually and a wheezy little Honda Accord. Crap.


(Shh. Don't tell anyone, but there's a reason that 3/4-ton 4x4 and Mazda Miata were handy in my brain for examples. Shhh.)
 
2013-01-09 12:14:14 AM  

Stratohead: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?


Being that prescription drug abuse is an exponentially more fatal and epidemic problem than gun violence, I'd say it's ok.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:23 AM  

lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...


bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that "add-on" is accurate.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:48 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


Too much.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:59 AM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Oh, ok. You ARE married to Ronald McDonald.


Actually, she used to mime and juggle at the Renaissance Festival. Does that count?
 
2013-01-09 12:16:43 AM  

Der Poopflinger: lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that add-on is "accurate".


Not really.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:04 AM  

Without Fail: duffblue: A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions due to imperialism.

Please give me the names and addresses of a few American kids who don't matter.
Maybe some young relatives of yours?

Just 20 for now. A drop in the barrel.

Thanks.


Why? are you going to murder some kids to prove a point? How progressive of you.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:50 AM  
cdn.ebaumsworld.com
themainland.net

Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killings.
 
2013-01-09 12:19:21 AM  

Der Poopflinger: lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that "add-on" is accurate.


Although not this particular device, I've seen a few similar things at the range over the years. They usually make things pretty inaccurate and not very reliable.
 
2013-01-09 12:20:00 AM  

GungFu: Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killings.


Now THAT would make for a highly rated news cycle.
 
2013-01-09 12:20:21 AM  

Bucky Katt: Eddie Adams from Torrance: [i236.photobucket.com image 540x380]

You libs think it's really that easy to take a bunch of these down?

What are those things?


Tasty.
 
2013-01-09 12:21:49 AM  

GungFu: [cdn.ebaumsworld.com image 500x350]
[themainland.net image 850x532]

Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killings.


The 9/11 score is pretty high. I don't think you can top it alone.
 
2013-01-09 12:22:51 AM  
No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

I'm from Kansas. My family has hunted for years. I own over 50 firearms myself. We have over 6000 acres of land that people hunt on every year. We have hunting lodges that house hundreds of hunters every season that come to hunt game. In the last 30 years, not a single hunter has ever come to hunt game and brought an AR-15 as their weapon of choice. None of them has ever brought a magazine that holds 30 rounds.

To pretend that every tom dick and harry needs an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is just stupid. If your government wanted to destroy you, they will do it from 50,000 feet in the sky with unmanned drones. Your stupid little AR-15 will do nothing to stop it you fat slob.
 
2013-01-09 12:23:06 AM  

doglover: DubtodaIll: doglover: DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns?

Ray guns don't work in atmosphere.

Aw man really? Well why the hell not? I'm just antsy for the next step forward in personal weapon technology. And no strapping a computer to a bullet firing gun doesn't count. I'm talking lasers or electromagnetic manipulation or deatomization or something we don't even have words for yet.

Well we have ray weapons. The navy has laser guns that can blow a missile in flight. But the reason only the navy has that is because only the nave has floating multi-ton weapons platforms with nuclear reactors generating infinite electricity. Scaled up, rays work.

But anything you can carry? It's too little oomph to be effective. The best you can do is a laser that break optics.


Well we started with bombards and eventually got to derringers yeah? Time invents all things.
 
2013-01-09 12:23:27 AM  

fusillade762: 15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?


Compared to the number of car accidents that result in injuries, sure. From a quick Google searach 16,000 children (200,000 people) a year are accidentally injured by lawnmowers.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:18 AM  
people that own gun got small penis lol
 
2013-01-09 12:24:37 AM  

simkatu: To pretend that every tom dick and harry needs an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is just stupid. If your government wanted to destroy you, they will do it from 50,000 feet in the sky with unmanned drones. Your stupid little AR-15 will do nothing to stop it you fat slob.


But imagine the fun of 100 ketchup-filled barbie dolls and a high-speed video camera....
 
2013-01-09 12:24:57 AM  

FlashHarry: violentsalvation: I"m cool with it if you guys want to ban 900-round magazines.

looks like it was belt-fed to me.


Good way to convert a rifle into a puddle of molten slag.
 
2013-01-09 12:25:33 AM  
No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

They're excellent for taking down a whole herd of feral hogs though, so I don't think they're quite as useless as you make out.
 
2013-01-09 12:25:54 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: simkatu: To pretend that every tom dick and harry needs an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is just stupid. If your government wanted to destroy you, they will do it from 50,000 feet in the sky with unmanned drones. Your stupid little AR-15 will do nothing to stop it you fat slob.

But imagine the fun of 100 ketchup-filled barbie dolls and a high-speed video camera....


I think I'd almost rather use a lawnmower for that.
 
2013-01-09 12:26:01 AM  
I've been to a few 'gun shows' over the years and discovered that, apparently, nearly any semiautomatic rifle can be 'modified' to full auto or close to it.

Usually, you can buy kits to do this from other dealers who legally sell them separate from the weapon. Back then, you could. Not now -- at least while identified as a conversion kit. Call them spare parts and sell away. Another booth will sell you the printed installation instructions.

All of this under the eyes of cops, who patrol the shows.

The 'duh' item I saw was a lever-like addition for a .22 rifle. Kind of like the lever on a lever action Winchester. You clipped it in place, a nob fit next to the trigger, cocked the gun and worked the lever with your fingers, while shouldering it. It never let the trigger fully return, meaning the gun was half cocked at all times, so as you pumped the lever, the weapon fired. The nob acted like a cam. The .22 went off like a machine gun.

The next legal gun I saw was a home built .22 machine gun, complete with tripod. It was legal because, like a gatling gun, you had to turn a crank on the side. The thing was fitted with an enormous barrel magazine -- like a Thompson submachine gun.

It just got rather creepy wandering around those shows because every vendor had a carry permit and was armed. Even old grandma sitting and knitting as grandpaw sold his assortment of high caliber pistols and big, heavy duty plastic bags of shiny new cartridges or reloads.

One thing about owning a gun, especially a high caliber, semiauto one, is you want to shoot it. The power to kill and injure at a distance is a strong lure. I've been to many a bar where drunk patrons got false courage because they were packing and folks got hurt.

TV and movies have brought the abilities of military weapons to our attention and, naturally, certain folks just gotta have one. If they could get their hands on RPG's, they'd stock up on 'em. (To be used for hunting, of course. Rabbits.)

Game wardens are forever confiscating military weapons from hunters who tried to sneak them into hunting grounds. Miss that deer on the first shot, and you just keep on spraying until you get it.

It's kind of like those folks who insist on going fishing with dynamite or hand grenades.

IMO, you don't need military weapons. The best shots I know of started out with and still use bolt action weapons. Many used single shot types, which made you take time to aim because your prey could be in the next county by the time you reloaded.

I know a guy who owns a .50 automatic. He's a collector. Each shot costs him $5.00 and he has a couple of cases of ammo. Big shells.

I also knew folks who bought these 'burglar traps', a cylinder with a cocking mechanism that chambered a shotgun shell. A clamp was welded to it. No trigger. Just a ring you attached a string to, pulled and cocked the thing. You fixed it out of sight to door frames or whatever, ran the string low through eye rings and waited. Anyone walking past who hit the string, got a load of buckshot at close range.

Some farmers who had these old houses full of antiques on their lands got tired of them being broken into by antique hunters and wired them up with these things. A few farmers went to jail when their traps crippled folks who thought the houses were abandoned.

Militants used them to booby trap trails to their bunkers. You could buy camouflaged wire and cord for them.

I own guns, but no military types.

I used to be a courier in another city. I'd arrive early, as manager, to open up the station. It wasn't unusual to find a spent shell or two in the parking lot. Sometimes I could find where they hit the cement walls. They were fired from at least a mile away.

In the same city I worked in a psychiatric institution on the outskirts of a high crime area. Every New Years Eve we had to keep the patients confined to the inner rooms, away from the windows because it sounded like a war out there at night. We could hear spent shells hitting the roof.

Unfortunately, the Right to bear arms means morons and psychopaths can get them also.
 
2013-01-09 12:26:48 AM  

Taxcheat: Wait until these bedwetters learn there's nothing stopping you from buying a fighter jet or tank. Well, other than the shipping costs, but that's what Amazon Prime is for.


Full Auto PPSh 41 for about $300? I'll take a dozen!

Serious Czech Gun Porn, prices listed!
 
2013-01-09 12:26:49 AM  

juvandy: No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

They're excellent for taking down a whole herd of feral hogs though, so I don't think they're quite as useless as you make out.


Not to mention coyote, an extremely intelligent pack animal.
 
2013-01-09 12:27:54 AM  

Turbo Cojones: Taxcheat: Wait until these bedwetters learn there's nothing stopping you from buying a fighter jet or tank. Well, other than the shipping costs, but that's what Amazon Prime is for.

Full Auto PPSh 41 for about $300? I'll take a dozen!

Serious Czech Gun Porn, prices listed!


Link
 
2013-01-09 12:28:38 AM  
Finger through your belt loop AND the trigger, eh?

Hollywood brilliant.
 
2013-01-09 12:30:07 AM  

Surpheon: Why not just split off the states that have the toughest gun control laws now rather than dividing it 50/50? With the exception of Texas, you'll have just made a third world nation with an economy smaller than Mexico's. But I'm sure it's just coincidence those lib states have higher average income, property values, industry, education level, etc...


Any tips on how best to be born on third base?

Almost all the top states in income have been the top states in income from long before they became blue strongholds. But good job on inheriting the high standard of living. Must have been real tough to pull off.
 
2013-01-09 12:30:37 AM  

Rik01: We could hear spent shells hitting the roof.


Wait, what?
 
2013-01-09 12:30:52 AM  
I'm not going to waste my time explaining what bump fire means.

Ps: just because something fires 900 rpm doesn't mean it has a 900 round capacity.
 
2013-01-09 12:32:27 AM  
 
2013-01-09 12:32:29 AM  
I only paid 300 USD for my slide fire. Best gun accessory evar, complete blast to to rinse a 75 round drum with.
 
2013-01-09 12:36:07 AM  

Government Fromage: Der Poopflinger: lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that "add-on" is accurate.

Although not this particular device, I've seen a few similar things at the range over the years. They usually make things pretty inaccurate and not very reliable.


Just too darn expensive. Bump firing was fun the first few times, but after like two mags your kinda bored with not being able to hit anything. Plus bump firing 30_06 is retard levels of expensive. Also this is getting news and will most likely get banned. Actually being used in a crime or not doesnt matter, just like .50 bmg here in california. It scary, for some reason.
 
2013-01-09 12:38:54 AM  

duffblue: Surpheon: duffblue: ...

What military uses a semiautomatic ar-15? The US is a nation that suffers 75,000 alcohol related deaths a year. A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel

HERP in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions A DERP (millions?) due to imperialism. Nice treyvon reference, I bet you think it's okay to assault somebody for following you down the street. A DERP

Everything you said is retarded, illegal, or both.

9/10
 
2013-01-09 12:39:56 AM  

imthefonze: Government Fromage: Der Poopflinger: lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that "add-on" is accurate.

Although not this particular device, I've seen a few similar things at the range over the years. They usually make things pretty inaccurate and not very reliable.

Just too darn expensive. Bump firing was fun the first few times, but after like two mags your kinda bored with not being able to hit anything. Plus bump firing 30_06 is retard levels of expensive. Also this is getting news and will most likely get banned. Actually being used in a crime or not doesnt matter, just like .50 bmg here in california. It scary, for some reason.


Yep. Fun once or twice. Then you have to load your magazines, and you start realizing how much money you just wasted for a couple seconds of "woohoo" time. Every time I've ever seen someone show up at the range with one of these types of things, it's been "for sale" by the time they leave.

lol on the .50. I have yet to ever hear of one of them being used in a crime.
 
drp
2013-01-09 12:40:26 AM  
The 2nd Amendment is about killing people, not hunting.

Don't like that, repeal the Amendment. Don't pretend it says something it doesn't.

I don't understand why gun control advocates always fixate on hunting as the gun-related activity they're OK with. Last I looked, deer or ducks aren't mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-09 12:40:32 AM  

Mrbogey: Surpheon: Why not just split off the states that have the toughest gun control laws now rather than dividing it 50/50? With the exception of Texas, you'll have just made a third world nation with an economy smaller than Mexico's. But I'm sure it's just coincidence those lib states have higher average income, property values, industry, education level, etc...

Any tips on how best to be born on third base?

Almost all the top states in income have been the top states in income from long before they became blue strongholds. But good job on inheriting the high standard of living. Must have been real tough to pull off.


Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.
 
2013-01-09 12:41:10 AM  

KidneyStone: I hope this is the Fark Gun Thread that solves everything. Dammit, I'm sure of it this time.

/off to clean a 1948 Enfield
//And yeah, an AR15 Bushmaster kiddie death merchant.
///The 2013 flu has already killed more people than any of my guns...BAN THE FLU


Hell yeah! Love my no4 mk1! Take it over an ar any day. .303 ftw!
 
2013-01-09 12:41:58 AM  

violentsalvation: I"m cool with it if you guys want to ban 900-round magazines.


Why do you hate America?
 
2013-01-09 12:42:39 AM  
I've got one on the way for my AR15 thanks OP!
 
2013-01-09 12:44:02 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.


You are high. The red states currently take far more money from the federal government than they put in. The blue states pay for your welfare in Louisana, Missippia, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Red states are all takers, sipping off the federal teat to stay alive.
 
2013-01-09 12:45:00 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: [i236.photobucket.com image 540x380]

You libs think it's really that easy to take a bunch of these down?


2.bp.blogspot.com
Not so cute and fuzzy when they get a little older.
 
2013-01-09 12:46:44 AM  

drp: The 2nd Amendment is about killing people, not hunting.

Don't like that, repeal the Amendment. Don't pretend it says something it doesn't.

I don't understand why gun control advocates always fixate on hunting as the gun-related activity they're OK with. Last I looked, deer or ducks aren't mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.


I don't understand why they won't just say this. They'll try all these sneaky semantic stuff to try to legislate guns away, but they will never just come out and say, "The Second Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced by a milder set of rights," or anything like that, when that's really the simplest way to achieve what most of them want.

There's no crime or dishonor in wanting the change the Constitution. It's just unpopular because people think it's a holy scroll of some kind.
 
2013-01-09 12:47:07 AM  
Der Poopflinger
what the fark is wrong with people, why would you need or want that?

Fun as fark at the range, and achieve suppression just in case, for under $400.

Rik01
The power to kill and injure at a distance is a strong lure.

Maybe you should, uhh, not own guns. I own a few, and the idea of killing or injuring someone with one is absolutely repugnant... not a pleasant thought at all, ever. I know full well that if I ever shot someone even in self defense, it would leave serious lasting scars on my psyche. But I balance that against either being dead or helplessly watching innocent people being murdered, and so... I'm a gun owner.
 
2013-01-09 12:47:19 AM  

simkatu: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.

You are high. The red states currently take far more money from the federal government than they put in. The blue states pay for your welfare in Louisana, Missippia, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Red states are all takers, sipping off the federal teat to stay alive.


I haven't researched it but there was a lengthy discussion on the local talk radio this morning about how Georgia could be self sufficent if it were an island unti itself. I'm not saying I want that, because I don't and it was a stupid conversation, but the way I figure it, you dummies are so quick to hand out money and happy to pay your taxes I mean, why the hell not ask for it?
 
2013-01-09 12:48:23 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mrbogey: Surpheon: Why not just split off the states that have the toughest gun control laws now rather than dividing it 50/50? With the exception of Texas, you'll have just made a third world nation with an economy smaller than Mexico's. But I'm sure it's just coincidence those lib states have higher average income, property values, industry, education level, etc...

Any tips on how best to be born on third base?

Almost all the top states in income have been the top states in income from long before they became blue strongholds. But good job on inheriting the high standard of living. Must have been real tough to pull off.

Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.


Yeah im in california and have to spend over half my income just to have a roof over my head. Not even a great one at that. I mean, it has a washer and dryer, so thats cool i guess. Oh yeah and gas is almost $4 a gallon. So actually that kinda blows. I wanna move out of cali.
 
2013-01-09 12:48:27 AM  

drp: The 2nd Amendment is about killing people, not hunting.


It's about a "well regulated militia" hunting people with muskets.

That means a militia and that means with lots of regulations.

That doesn't mean any old weapon that any old individual can carry.

/Unless you're one of the dumbasses that believes our founders believed that stinger missiles, rpgs, and tactical nukes in everyone's home were what our founders intended by a "well regulated militia".
 
2013-01-09 12:48:39 AM  

simkatu: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.

You are high. The red states currently take far more money from the federal government than they put in. The blue states pay for your welfare in Louisana, Missippia, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Red states are all takers, sipping off the federal teat to stay alive.


And? I never said they didn't.
 
2013-01-09 12:49:29 AM  
The article was totally worth reading just for this line:

"the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb's version of Linux"
 
2013-01-09 12:49:32 AM  

oakleym82: duffblue: Surpheon: duffblue: ...

What military uses a semiautomatic ar-15? The US is a nation that suffers 75,000 alcohol related deaths a year. A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel HERP in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions A DERP (millions?) due to imperialism. Nice treyvon reference, I bet you think it's okay to assault somebody for following you down the street. A DERP

Everything you said is retarded, illegal, or both.

9/10


Nice rebuttal.
 
2013-01-09 12:53:43 AM  

drp: The 2nd Amendment is about killing people, not hunting.

Don't like that, repeal the Amendment. Don't pretend it says something it doesn't.

I don't understand why gun control advocates always fixate on hunting as the gun-related activity they're OK with. Last I looked, deer or ducks aren't mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.


These are people who evidently believe there were grocery stores and refrigerators in the 18th century.
 
2013-01-09 12:53:57 AM  
Thrag
The article was totally worth reading just for this line:
"the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb's version of Linux"


AR-15:Linux as ???:Mac.

PS-90, because of the form factor and lack of third party accessories? AK-47 because "it just works"? Hmm.
 
2013-01-09 12:54:14 AM  
Who the hell needs a full auto weapon anyway? Waste ammo much?

I need on that shoots 1, 2 or 3 shots per trigger squeeze, selectable.

I see no need for anything else in a rifle.

If the deer are about to overrun my campground, I can suppress them with claymore mines from Costco.
 
2013-01-09 12:54:27 AM  

mrexcess: Der Poopflinger
what the fark is wrong with people, why would you need or want that?

Fun as fark at the range, and achieve suppression just in case, for under $400.

Rik01
The power to kill and injure at a distance is a strong lure.

Maybe you should, uhh, not own guns. I own a few, and the idea of killing or injuring someone with one is absolutely repugnant... not a pleasant thought at all, ever. I know full well that if I ever shot someone even in self defense, it would leave serious lasting scars on my psyche. But I balance that against either being dead or helplessly watching innocent people being murdered, and so... I'm a gun owner.


The idea of shooting someone is an awful one. Ive had three separate occasions where people were trying to break in (we have a horrible meth problem here in northern california) and stopped them with my gun (mosin nagant). Im glad the sound of a bolt being thrown scared em off.
 
2013-01-09 12:55:34 AM  

simkatu: drp: The 2nd Amendment is about killing people, not hunting.

It's about a "well regulated militia" hunting people with muskets.

That means a militia and that means with lots of regulations.

That doesn't mean any old weapon that any old individual can carry.

/Unless you're one of the dumbasses that believes our founders believed that stinger missiles, rpgs, and tactical nukes in everyone's home were what our founders intended by a "well regulated militia".


It would help if you knew what a colonial era militia was.
 
2013-01-09 12:56:17 AM  
I think ive also found the solution: now thay i live on the second story in an apartment i havent had a single problem. Apparently tweakers are terrified of heights.
 
2013-01-09 12:58:20 AM  

Fark It: /how many crimes have slidefire-style stocks been used in again?


You mean other than against common sense and taste?
It's a new invention. Give it time.
 
2013-01-09 12:58:55 AM  
for hunting tyrants
 
2013-01-09 01:00:23 AM  

juvandy: No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

They're excellent for taking down a whole herd of feral hogs though, so I don't think they're quite as useless as you make out.


Oh yeah! I'm sure that's what all 100,000 of the fat ass 55 year old slobs standing in line for 4 hours last week at Cabelas were planning on doing with their AR-15s when they got them. I'm sure they were deeply concerned about the feral hog population in Georgia and how those hogs were threatening their very livelihoods in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. I'm sure all of them already booked their flights to Georgia to hunt down this horrible hog menace that can be stopped by no other means than by a bunch of fat assed slobs from out-of-state wearing camo pretending they are John Rambo while hunting from their hoverounds.

Get real.

The solution to feral hogs doesn't need a bunch of overweight overaged insane retards with 100 round magazines in Kansas.
 
2013-01-09 01:00:39 AM  

R.A.Danny: We're going to hell.


The best thing about Hell is that all our friends will be there.
 
2013-01-09 01:02:26 AM  
imthefonze
The idea of shooting someone is an awful one.

Exactly... I'm all for gun rights, but if someone is the kind of person who looks forward to shooting people, or feels tempted or lured to do so merely because they have a gun, I'll be the first person to say that they should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. That's some psychopathic shiat and one of the most disturbing examples of psychological projection that I've ever read here.

Im glad the sound of a bolt being thrown scared em off.

I'm glad you were armed. Thank you, Second Amendment.
 
2013-01-09 01:03:30 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Fark It: /how many crimes have slidefire-style stocks been used in again?

You mean other than against common sense and taste?
It's a new invention. Give it time.


It's not new, though.
 
2013-01-09 01:03:34 AM  

GungFu: Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killing


Fill a super soaker with gas and you can make an adhoc one of those pretty darned quickly
 
2013-01-09 01:04:41 AM  
simkatu: Not so many feral hogs, but lots of varmints in those states you mentioned. An AR-15 is not at all the worst choice for such game. Although again, the 2nd is not there primarily to secure our hunting rights.
 
2013-01-09 01:04:54 AM  
What happened to one shot, one kill?
 
2013-01-09 01:05:59 AM  

Oh yeah! I'm sure that's what all 100,000 of the fat ass 55 year old slobs standing in line for 4 hours last week at Cabelas were planning on doing with their AR-15s when they got them. I'm sure they were deeply concerned about the feral hog population in Georgia and how those hogs were threatening their very livelihoods in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. I'm sure all of them already booked their flights to Georgia to hunt down this horrible hog menace that can be stopped by no other means than by a bunch of fat assed slobs from out-of-state wearing camo pretending they are John Rambo while hunting from their hoverounds.

Get real.

The solution to feral hogs doesn't need a bunch of overweight overaged insane retards with 100 round magazines in Kansas.


Hyperbole much? I never said that this was the only reason people buy AR-15s, just that there ARE legitimate uses of them in the animal control/sporting world, which you (and many igorant in the media) have claimed is false. For the record, hogs are a HUGE problem throughout the southeast US, including Texas and Oklahoma, not just Georgia.
 
2013-01-09 01:06:09 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

The cost of administration for the payments, legal consulting, marketing, and normal insurance claims investigation/payment -- the normal costs of running an insurance program -- would be more than the actual cost of the liability when spread across 270,000,000 firearms.


They could also educate people on the 4-basic rules of gun safety. How many accidents would that prevent? And how serious is society about funding that education, given the extreme danger of guns? Apparently the 1-hour lecture is not worth a few thousand lives.
 
2013-01-09 01:07:05 AM  

mrexcess: imthefonze
The idea of shooting someone is an awful one.

Exactly... I'm all for gun rights, but if someone is the kind of person who looks forward to shooting people, or feels tempted or lured to do so merely because they have a gun, I'll be the first person to say that they should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. That's some psychopathic shiat and one of the most disturbing examples of psychological projection that I've ever read here.

Im glad the sound of a bolt being thrown scared em off.

I'm glad you were armed. Thank you, Second Amendment.


I am too, and im happier i got to go back to bed. I let the cops know what happened, gave them a description, and went back to sleep.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:39 AM  

Satan's Dumptruck Driver: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

The cost of administration for the payments, legal consulting, marketing, and normal insurance claims investigation/payment -- the normal costs of running an insurance program -- would be more than the actual cost of the liability when spread across 270,000,000 firearms.

They could also educate people on the 4-basic rules of gun safety. How many accidents would that prevent? And how serious is society about funding that education, given the extreme danger of guns? Apparently the 1-hour lecture is not worth a few thousand lives.


Hell, i dont even know hpw many hours of gun safety were drilled into me by my papa. But im glad they were (papas a retired cop). To date have never had an accidental discharge or other accident with a firearm and have never shot someone.
 
2013-01-09 01:11:46 AM  
Guns have pretty much replaced Jesus and Mister Rogers here in America. I just want the right to gun down once of yours if one of mine gets fragged because somebody had a bad day.
 
2013-01-09 01:13:16 AM  

Coelacanth: Guns have pretty much replaced Jesus and Mister Rogers here in America. I just want the right to gun down once of yours if one of mine gets fragged because somebody had a bad day.


I dont even understand what you just wrote. Try again?
 
2013-01-09 01:15:26 AM  
imthefonze
I am too, and im happier i got to go back to bed. I let the cops know what happened, gave them a description, and went back to sleep.

Yep... the best ending. *high-five*

/and on that note... until tomorrow, ladies and gents
 
2013-01-09 01:16:54 AM  
What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend
 
2013-01-09 01:19:22 AM  

imthefonze: I wanna move out of cali.


As do I. It's just getting too damn expensive to afford even my anything-but-luxurious current standard of living.

/And the gun laws blow goats.
 
2013-01-09 01:19:49 AM  

fluffytuff: What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend


IMO it's because the guy who did it killed himself. We can't lash out at him, so we blame the gun.
 
2013-01-09 01:19:52 AM  
I like how the headline specifically says "COMPLETELY LEGAL", yet it's in the "Crime" section...

No bias, though, just straight reporting of the facts.

/Op-Ed belongs in the Op-Ed section...

Too bad for Slate that you can't find a 900 round magazine, otherwise this might mean something. At 900 rounds per minute, that's a mag in 2 seconds. You can't hit anything when it's that fast and hand-held, no matter how much you want it to "matter" after about 5 rounds, he'd be shooting into the ceiling.
 
2013-01-09 01:20:00 AM  

fluffytuff: What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend


Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?
 
2013-01-09 01:20:06 AM  

mrexcess: imthefonze
I am too, and im happier i got to go back to bed. I let the cops know what happened, gave them a description, and went back to sleep.

Yep... the best ending. *high-five*

/and on that note... until tomorrow, ladies and gents


G`night, sir!
 
2013-01-09 01:22:48 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Bushmaster seems to think a gun substitutes for a cock.


Your name is 'Bushmaster' now? I agree, I don't get your guys' obsession with Dickinson. Are you not getting enough, or something? You people can't go three posts without it popping up, so to speak.
 
2013-01-09 01:24:15 AM  
OMG 900 ROUND A MINUTE!!

Hurr Durr FPSRussia!!!

Slidefire stocks are novelty. Cheap peices of composite crap.

Most AR's are built for semi auto fire and firing at a false auto rate is a great way to lose a non-auto spec hammer, bolt or a firing pin.
 
2013-01-09 01:26:14 AM  

Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?


Does a Ferrari? A race car? An SUV where a minivan would work perfectly well? The whole argument of "why do you need xxx" is flawed because we don't need half the crap that we have. We could get by perfectly well in a log cabin with dirt roads and a volkeswagon beetle. Guns, even assault weapons, have other legitimate uses other than killing things. An AR-15 can be used as a recreational device (target shooting), just like that is basically the only purpose of a car like a ferrari.
 
2013-01-09 01:26:22 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?


So do guns.
 
2013-01-09 01:27:43 AM  

BravadoGT: fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.


Is that 15k per year? If so, then yes, that's absurdly low. At least compared to the 10,800,000 auto accidents (with about 35,900 fatalities) per year (numbers are for 2009). Drunk drivers kill someone roughly every 48 minutes.
 
2013-01-09 01:29:29 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: fluffytuff: What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend

Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?


That loud noise? That was his point going over your head. You don't hang sheetrock with a stick welder.
 
2013-01-09 01:29:51 AM  
In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.
 
2013-01-09 01:30:51 AM  

GoldSpider: You realize the M4 is not legally available to civilians, of course.


Right, but Colt does manufacture some civilian legal carbines that are part of the AR15/M4/M16 family under the MT6xxx and LE6xxx series.  There are a number of accessories that are compatible with both civilian and military variants, as well as large market specifically for civilian models.

If I had an AR15 version of that poster, I would have used it.  But that's all I had.  It is still valid in that there are a crapton of accessories for the AR15, and in that way, it is still like Barbie for men.
 
2013-01-09 01:31:19 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.


Wait, California has low property values and industry? Oh, you mean the red parts of the state? Yeah, I guess the red areas drag down the blue.
 
2013-01-09 01:31:37 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Pro-gun people are like creationists:

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant and truly believe I'll be Rambo"


See, turning the statement around just makes you look stupid. Guns owners DO know about their guns, not from something they saw online heard on the radio, but because they actually own the guns, maintain the guns, and take them out shooting.

Try again...
 
2013-01-09 01:31:42 AM  

mrexcess: Thrag
The article was totally worth reading just for this line:
"the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb's version of Linux"

AR-15:Linux as ???:Mac.

PS-90, because of the form factor and lack of third party accessories? AK-47 because "it just works"? Hmm.


H&K PSG-1 or Walther WA2000 because they're so over priced?
 
2013-01-09 01:33:42 AM  
You guys know that the BATFE determined that a 14" shoestring is a "machine gun", right?

Same setup/effect as this stupid gimmick.

BATFE Ruling letter on shoestring machinegun
 
2013-01-09 01:35:52 AM  

t3knomanser: I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable


That's fine, because that isn't the logic of gun-banning.

The logic of gun-banning goes like this: Does society gain more in safety/health/whatever by getting rid of X than it does by granting the freedom to have X? If so, get rid of X.

In that regard, it does matter how useful X is.

This is the basis of pretty much every law and regulation we have (which doesn't mean I always agree with the lawmakers that we are better off with a law, but rather that THEY have looked at it and decided we are).
 
2013-01-09 01:35:52 AM  

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Hurr Durr FPSRussia!!!



BTW, if you want to see some great educational shooting videos, I highly recommend Hickok45:

https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45
 
2013-01-09 01:36:07 AM  

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.


Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-09 01:36:54 AM  

Surpheon: BravadoGT: Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.

There are over 250 million cars privately registered in the US. Based on current trend lines, deaths by guns will surpass deaths from automobile accidents in the US by 2015. Homicide by gun is not in the top 15 yet, but it's getting closer (mostly because the other causes are actually being actively addressed and are dropping) - 11,500 gun homicides a year. It takes about 16,500 to crack the top 15. Add in accidental shooting and suicides and it's what most rational folks would consider a leading cause of death.

There will be more massacres of school kids in the US by NRA trained crazies shooting up schools and now the press is going to report every one; it sells. You need better arguments than your personal maths if you want to convince anyone other than fellow gun enthusiasts.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf


So in other words, despite the hand wringing and wailing, guns aren't even in the top 15? Hell, to hear you talk, gun homicides are 10 times more than all others combined.

Thanks for clearing that up, I couldn't figure out why people weren't dropping like flies all over town. Turns out that people are just making this up as they go along. Makes more sense now.
 
2013-01-09 01:36:57 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's grabber's mind is the scenario where there are exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

Gun owners actually know how guns work.



FTFY
 
2013-01-09 01:39:03 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Here we have lucked out and been granted a glimpse into the mind of the ever-petulant internet gun jockey. When presented with a clearly juvenile but ultimately harmless jab at the "stereotypical gun owner"'s penis size he does not ignore. He does not resort to internet tough guy speak (initially at least). He immediately jumps into a diatribe about cocks in an attempt - in his mind - to 1) showcase the perceived obsession with male genitalia that gun control advocates display and 2) hopes to belittle the offending party by implying that they have a predilection to penis, hoping this will be taken as a slight to their manhood. What the internet gun jockey fails to realize is that in his own post he has mentioned penis far more than the initial offender ever did and at the same time he has sunk to a level of debate equivalent to, "No you're gay!" In short, the internet gun jockey has not only embarrassed himself to anyone other than those who would react upon hearing his speech in a manner not unlike, "You tell um Skeeter!" but also has not succeeded in enlarging the size of his microphallus. And the sad March of the Derp continues with us only able to be witnesses.


So, in other words, you have no idea where your obsession with the hot cauk comes from, either?
 
2013-01-09 01:39:09 AM  

base935: You guys know that the BATFE determined that a 14" shoestring is a "machine gun", right?

Same setup/effect as this stupid gimmick.

BATFE Ruling letter on shoestring machinegun


I thought there was some clause like that. Thanks for sharing, cause I sure as hell didn't care enough to Google it. This thread has been so full of lulz and stupid that I honestly didn't want to spoil it with details.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:35 AM  

davidphogan: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.

Wait, California has low property values and industry? Oh, you mean the red parts of the state? Yeah, I guess the red areas drag down the blue.


Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get.

Now low, but lower. As in, a downward trend. Eventually it will be low, if the trend continues.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:41 AM  

simkatu: juvandy: No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

They're excellent for taking down a whole herd of feral hogs though, so I don't think they're quite as useless as you make out.

Oh yeah! I'm sure that's what all 100,000 of the fat ass 55 year old slobs standing in line for 4 hours last week at Cabelas were planning on doing with their AR-15s when they got them. I'm sure they were deeply concerned about the feral hog population in Georgia and how those hogs were threatening their very livelihoods in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. I'm sure all of them already booked their flights to Georgia to hunt down this horrible hog menace that can be stopped by no other means than by a bunch of fat assed slobs from out-of-state wearing camo pretending they are John Rambo while hunting from their hoverounds.

Get real.

The solution to feral hogs doesn't need a bunch of overweight overaged insane retards with 100 round magazines in Kansas.


My five buddy's and I are all slim to average and went hunting hogs last month because of property destruction.

Three carried AR's incase of a rush, which one did.

Most were taken out at range with my .30-06

The AR is a great little suppression weapon when it works.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:59 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.


"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?
 
2013-01-09 01:40:06 AM  

doglover: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's grabber's mind is the scenario where there are exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

Gun owners actually know how guns work.


FTFY


You got me there, tough guy.
 
2013-01-09 01:40:48 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get.


That could have nothing to do with traditionally blue states being located in cold climates that have significantly lost population since the invention of air conditioning, or anything like that, could it? Because NYC is pretty farking blue, yet it's not a cheap place to live and has some of highest wages in the country.
 
2013-01-09 01:43:47 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.


Can you point me in the direction of a weapon capable of firing 900-1100 RPM and the magazine that goes with it? I'm interested in purchasing one.
 
2013-01-09 01:44:10 AM  

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?
 
2013-01-09 01:45:14 AM  

The_Sponge: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Hurr Durr FPSRussia!!!


BTW, if you want to see some great educational shooting videos, I highly recommend Hickok45:

https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45


I know ALL about Hickok.

Because my dad lurvs him.
 
2013-01-09 01:47:08 AM  

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?


I believe its that second word that gets blurred somehow. Also by people who now are yelling that the constitution is outdated and should be gotten rid of. I think i just want my own island where people cant bug me. Ill just boat to work
 
2013-01-09 01:48:04 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?


According to SCOTUS it's an individual right.

So your brain can stop trying to process that paragraph.
 
2013-01-09 01:49:17 AM  

imthefonze: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

I believe its that second word that gets blurred somehow. Also by people who now are yelling that the constitution is outdated and should be gotten rid of. I think i just want my own island where people cant bug me. Ill just boat to work


shiate that means i have to be rich. Which im not. Well balls to that plan i suppose.
 
2013-01-09 01:49:36 AM  
"Bump" firing has been around since my grandfather's time. So let's suddenly panic about it now, since violent crime has been dropping so dramatically for decades. Ready....panic!!!!
 
2013-01-09 01:49:58 AM  

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?

According to SCOTUS it's an individual right.

So your brain can stop trying to process that paragraph.


Dude, I'm not trying to take away your guns. But the argument that "cars kill people, but we don't ban cars!" is pretty silly.
 
2013-01-09 01:50:00 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: "Bump" firing has been around since my grandfather's time. So let's suddenly panic about it now, since violent crime has been dropping so dramatically for decades. Ready....panic!!!!


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
 
2013-01-09 01:50:41 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.


Nope, that's what anti-gun people project onto gun owners. And it's somewhat due to ignorance, but mainly it's due to wanting to demonize someone they don't agree with. Kind of like how I think people like you are pants-wetters. You know, the kind of people that piss all over themselves in abject terror when presented with a piece of technology, that's been around for at least 20 years that I know of, because they think it's scary.

But I know that isn't accurate of all anti-gun people, but it is true about some of them. Just like some gun owners have Rambo/Dirty Harry fantasies, but most don't.
 
2013-01-09 01:54:29 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: doglover: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's grabber's mind is the scenario where there are exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

Gun owners actually know how guns work.


FTFY

You got me there, tough guy.


If there were 900 feds coming for you, your best bet is to not have started a cult called "The United Church of Commies Who Want to Rape The Following List of Current Politicians to Death: (list of current g'vt staff)" and then placed an order through the undercover FBI guy for 10,000 guns, 1,000,000 bullets 1,000 Armored Cars, 10,000 suits of body armor, and one set of lawn darts. I mean the guns and the armor, okay, but those lawn darts could really hurt someone!

Seriously though, I don't think there were even 900 feds during the Waco siege. That's a LOT of feds.

Also, you can't hit shiat with automatic fire. Go on youtube and you'll see all kinds of Marine helmet cam footage from Iraq and Afghanistan. The only time they use full auto is when they're taking fire and they need to buy some time to get to cover. With an actual machine gun designed to fire rapidly and lots of professional military training spraying out bullets still doesn't hit ANYTHING. An AR-15 is not designed to fire very quickly. It would be less accurate.

Then consider that real machine guns need the barrel swapped out fairly frequently during sustained use. There's all kinds of stories about soldiers in every war since WW1 melting their barrels. Why? Barrels absorb a lot of heat. That's why mini-guns have SIX of them. Even if you could fire 900 rounds through an AR-15 in a minute, the weapon would probably be destroyed before you were out of ammo. It ain't healthy for the gun to be treated like that.
 
2013-01-09 01:55:36 AM  

juvandy: I never said that this was the only reason people buy AR-15s, just that there ARE legitimate uses of them in the animal control/sporting world, which you (and many ignorant in the media)


The funny thing about that is that the same author wrote this BS opinion piece shrouded in the guise of journalism Link

I mean, when I go to learn about a certain gun and its capabilities, I don't go to this guy.

www.slate.com

Who admits he doesn't own a gun because the laws in New York were a hindrance to his rights. But he's an expert now.
 
2013-01-09 01:55:52 AM  

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?


A well regulated Militia
 
2013-01-09 01:57:31 AM  

duffblue: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.

Can you point me in the direction of a weapon capable of firing 900-1100 RPM and the magazine that goes with it? I'm interested in purchasing one.


Here you go.
 
JVD
2013-01-09 01:57:48 AM  
2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.
 
2013-01-09 01:58:59 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


Sorry about your penis.
 
2013-01-09 01:59:02 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia


I'd say not being able to buy RPGs and tactical nuclear weapons as well regulated. You cant even buy a hand grenade or CS gas.
 
2013-01-09 02:01:17 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post.


You hurtin for an exam?
 
2013-01-09 02:01:57 AM  
I keep writing responses to people and think "ho ho! You clever dog, this will show them!" Then right as i get ready to hit enter i stop and think "wait a tick, this is the internet! Nobody has ever been persuaded to change their opinion in the history of EVER on here!" So i delete it and keep reading.
 
2013-01-09 02:03:22 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?

According to SCOTUS it's an individual right.

So your brain can stop trying to process that paragraph.

Dude, I'm not trying to take away your guns. But the argument that "cars kill people, but we don't ban cars!" is pretty silly.


I would disagree because the anti-gun movement is largely based on "military style" firearms.

My AR's are much less "deadly" than most of the rest of my firearms.

Jeeps, Hummers, etc. are all "military style" style vehicles.

Knowing guns I fail to see the good from an AWB.
 
2013-01-09 02:04:12 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?


The amendment says nothing about a militia being a per-requisite to owning weapons. It's the reason. See that comma? Look:

You should exercise and eat vegetables because a healthy body is important.

A healthy body being important, you should exercise and eat vegetables.


Recognize the sentence structure? The REASON we should not infringe the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is because they will one day need a well regulated militia. It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.
 
2013-01-09 02:04:19 AM  

FlashHarry: Dinjiin: [images55.fotki.com image 450x720]

[i50.tinypic.com image 450x720]

FTFY


DRINK!
 
2013-01-09 02:04:28 AM  
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.
 
2013-01-09 02:05:29 AM  

violentsalvation: juvandy: I never said that this was the only reason people buy AR-15s, just that there ARE legitimate uses of them in the animal control/sporting world, which you (and many ignorant in the media)

The funny thing about that is that the same author wrote this BS opinion piece shrouded in the guise of journalism Link

I mean, when I go to learn about a certain gun and its capabilities, I don't go to this guy.

Who admits he doesn't own a gun because the laws in New York were a hindrance to his rights. But he's an expert now.


Jesus, does everyone go out of their way to look like a goddamn charicature? Seriously, you couldn't ask for a better visual depiction of a clueless NY liberal Blogger.
 
2013-01-09 02:06:31 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.


I would say that is rude and i disagree.
 
2013-01-09 02:06:59 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: "Bump" firing has been around since my grandfather's time. So let's suddenly panic about it now, since violent crime has been dropping so dramatically for decades. Ready....panic!!!!


i284.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 02:07:42 AM  

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?

The amendment says nothing about a militia being a per-requisite to owning weapons. It's the reason. See that comma? Look:

You should exercise and eat vegetables because a healthy body is important.

A healthy body being important, you should exercise and eat vegetables.


Recognize the sentence structure? The REASON we should not infringe the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is because they will one day need a well regulated militia. It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.


That's a very helpful explanation. Thanks.
 
2013-01-09 02:08:33 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia


Which is not possible without the individual right to own guns. I'm sorry you are still stuck on the wording and have ignored all the other writings by the founding padres and have decided their intent based on four words and none of the words after it, or any context at all. If you don't like it you'll have to amend it. If that is what you want, go at it.
 
2013-01-09 02:09:06 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia


It says because so and so, the right of the people shall not be infringed. Why does the reason given make it a qualifier, and not what it later clearly states, that it shall not be infringed? If it said that because a healthy and vibrant press is essential to our liberty, freedom of speech shall not be infringed, I suppose you'd be arguing that it was intended that you have a press card to speak freely? Of course you wouldn't, because that obviously wrong interpretation doesn't fit your agenda.
 
2013-01-09 02:10:22 AM  

JVD: 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.


Who mentioned the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-01-09 02:10:42 AM  
My training always said-aim for anyone firing full auto, and aim for anyone firing single shots. We used three round bursts. Shrug. Was a while back though. Anyways the idea was-anyone firing full auto was going to be out of ammo pretty darn quick, and an easy target after most likely not hitting anything. Don't let that be you.

On the other hand...I want one of these. Not for their killing potential..but just because it looks FUN.
 
2013-01-09 02:11:08 AM  
What most people seems to convieniently forget when spouting the gun death stats is that the stats include the suicides, accidents, murders, death by cops killing criminals, ect.

The anti-gun lobby wants you to ignore the fact that most of the gun deaths are not standard suburban or rural incidents. Most of the gun deaths are to young black males by young black males in poor areas of large concentrations of young black males. Now this is not a troll. This is just the way it really is. If you really want to follow the formula for banning things using the standards of the antis, you would have to ban young black males.

The real answer to all of the crime that you see every day on the news is to stop treating the criminals like they are some sort of special, misunderstood royalty and make prison as miserable as possible. We need to make it tough on criminals, not make it better to be in prison than home. Most of the criminals have records a mile long. Why do we keep putting these people back on the street? They are the ones doing the majority of the crime, not stupid assed kids with mental issues. Although that raises another important issue. Nut cases shoot more people at one time (most of the time) career criminals spread the killing around more.
 
2013-01-09 02:11:26 AM  

duffblue: demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia

I'd say not being able to buy RPGs and tactical nuclear weapons as well regulated. You cant even buy a hand grenade or CS gas.


And I say that this and this constitute a well regulated Militia.
 
2013-01-09 02:11:53 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


I really only want to see the pics if he's considering a .22 or smaller, thanks.
 
2013-01-09 02:12:04 AM  

doglover: Recognize the sentence structure? The REASON we should not infringe the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is because they will one day need a well regulated militia. It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.


Or, I could have just said THIS. Oh well.
 
2013-01-09 02:12:04 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.


Is this sarcasm? I'm not really pro or anti-gun, more gun-neutral, but the pro-2nd amendment folks always seem much more intelligent and articulate in these threads, at least in relation to firearms and the law. The anti-gun people constantly use numerous logical fallacies and misleading terminology to make their points. They may be more education overall (who the fark knows) but it certainly isn't demonstrated by their participation in gun threads.
 
2013-01-09 02:12:53 AM  

doglover: It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.


No, it's the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with the right.
 
2013-01-09 02:14:11 AM  

imthefonze: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I gotta say this after reading these gun control threads: the pro-gun people are clearly less educated and less intelligent than the anti-gun people. Weird.

I would say that is rude and i disagree.


You have not persuaded me to change my opinion.
 
2013-01-09 02:14:50 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: doglover: It's not a prerequisite, merely the reasoning behind the right.

No, it's the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with the right.


Well call us up when you need a militia.
 
2013-01-09 02:15:35 AM