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.

(New York Senate)   The actual new & crazy legislation from NYS. Fark might have to create a New York tag   (open.nysenate.gov) divider line 231
    More: Asinine, New York, aggravated murder, order of protection, for sale by owner, revocations, minimum sentence, third degree, registered owner  
•       •       •

3611 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jan 2013 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-15 01:27:51 PM
Democratically-elected representatives passing legislation that further regulates items that are already regulated is so crazy!
 
2013-01-15 01:37:40 PM
I'm all for it.

/NYS resident
 
2013-01-15 01:46:46 PM
I'm not going to read this. I'm just going to PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANIC!
 
2013-01-15 01:48:59 PM
Can someone bottom line this for me - will I still be able to kill my friends and neighbors when I've decided they're tyrannical?
 
2013-01-15 01:49:18 PM
How is the State Rights thing working out for you Tea Party...... and here you thought it would only be used to discriminate against gays and pregnant women.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 01:49:31 PM
Until subby or anyone else can give me lucid points as to why this is crazy, I shall have to insist that any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering.

/NYS resident
 
2013-01-15 01:50:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Can someone bottom line this for me - will I still be able to kill my friends and neighbors when I've decided they're tyrannical?



Yes... but you'll have to reload after seven shots instead of ten.
 
2013-01-15 01:50:24 PM

DGS: Until subby or anyone else can give me lucid points as to why this is crazy, I shall have to insist that any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering.

/NYS resident


Can't it be both?
 
2013-01-15 01:50:34 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm not going to read this. I'm just going to PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANIC-buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of rifles, handguns, ammo, and tactical gear!


Because someday they might enact new Federal Law. I've been ascairt of it since Reagan (PBUH) first warned me, but I just KNOW this Kenyan fella wants my armory.
 
2013-01-15 01:51:06 PM
I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.
 
2013-01-15 01:51:06 PM

Blues_X: HotWingConspiracy: Can someone bottom line this for me - will I still be able to kill my friends and neighbors when I've decided they're tyrannical?


Yes... but you'll have to reload after seven shots instead of ten.


Well, better start killing people now.

/Please don't start killing people now
 
2013-01-15 01:51:24 PM

Citrate1007: How is the State Rights thing working out for you Tea Party...... and here you thought it would only be used to discriminate against gays and pregnant women.


+1
 
2013-01-15 01:52:13 PM

Blues_X: HotWingConspiracy: Can someone bottom line this for me - will I still be able to kill my friends and neighbors when I've decided they're tyrannical?


Yes... but you'll have to reload after seven shots instead of ten.



I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 01:52:40 PM

Tarl3k: DGS: Until subby or anyone else can give me lucid points as to why this is crazy, I shall have to insist that any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering.

/NYS resident

Can't it be both?


It isn't unfair to change the or to and/or, I suppose. It's hardly unrealistic.
 
2013-01-15 01:54:17 PM
So I can keep my 10-30 round magazine, but I break the law if I put more than 7 rounds in it. GOT IT.

/So f*cking dumb....
 
2013-01-15 01:56:33 PM

thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.


Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.
 
2013-01-15 01:56:36 PM

Lumpmoose: Democratically-elected representatives passing legislation that further regulates items that are already regulated is so crazy!


According to Subby, it's exactly as crazy as requiring brown people to have zheir paperz in order at all times, outlawing abortion OR redefining rape!
 
2013-01-15 01:58:20 PM
This reminds me of the time my state outlawed shotguns that can hold more than three shells.
 
2013-01-15 01:58:44 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.

Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.


That sounds fun. I have some hand sanitizer we can drink. It's not very toxic.
 
2013-01-15 02:00:08 PM

make me some tea: I'm all for it.

/NYS resident


This.

Also gun-owner.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 02:02:34 PM
(VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...
 
2013-01-15 02:02:58 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.

Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.


Can I join? Panicking is kind of my thing.
 
2013-01-15 02:06:08 PM
This legislation will protect New Yorkers by reducing the availability
of assault weapons and deterring the criminal use of firearms while
promoting a fair,


Because laws stop people from doing things that are against the law.
 
2013-01-15 02:06:17 PM

PanicMan: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.

Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.

Can I join? Panicking is kind of my thing.


Panicking gets exponentially more effective the more people that do it. Of course you can!
 
2013-01-15 02:07:17 PM

wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...


I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.
 
2013-01-15 02:07:58 PM

jst3p: This legislation will protect New Yorkers by reducing the availability
of assault weapons and deterring the criminal use of firearms while
promoting a fair,

Because laws stop people from doing things that are against the law.


So we should have no laws. Better to have no laws than have recourse to prosecute people who do bad things, right?
 
2013-01-15 02:08:54 PM

queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.


Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.
 
2013-01-15 02:08:55 PM

queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.


And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?
 
2013-01-15 02:09:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jst3p: This legislation will protect New Yorkers by reducing the availability
of assault weapons and deterring the criminal use of firearms while
promoting a fair,

Because laws stop people from doing things that are against the law.

So we should have no laws. Better to have no laws than have recourse to prosecute people who do bad things, right?


Not at all, I just think including that wording is silly.
 
2013-01-15 02:10:40 PM
Went through the New York Post article for this. Here's my take for each provision mentioned in the article. If my understandings of each provision are inaccurate, please find me the accurate source. NYP article

"The legislation, called the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, or NYSAFE, now defines an assault weapon as any having detachable magazines and one military-style feature, instead of two."

-Not particularly meaningful, as "military-style features" are more often than not effective measures of a weapon's "lethality".

"It also includes a ban on all magazines that hold more than seven rounds, and bans direct Internet ammunition sales. "

-Seven round magazines are very difficult to find for any weapon, "military style" or not. Most Internet ammunition suppliers did not ship to New York state before this law, so the effect of this legislation remains to be seen.

"The bill calls for universal background checks for all gun sales, as well as real-time background checks of ammunition purchases in order to alert State Police to high-volume buyers. "

-This would be a change, albeit a minor one. Federal law already maintains a background check system, which must be filled out in-store at a gun shop with a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Falsification of said form is prosecutable as perjury.

I have yet to see the specific number that would indicate "high-volume" ammunition purchases, which could be an editorial omission. If not, it leaves open the possibility of arbitrary decisions by the government as to what constitutes such a purchase, which is never a good thing. Furthermore, many marksmen and hunters make large purchases before hunting seasons in order to practice. The State Police in New York would probably be catching more false alarms with this technique than actual problems.

"Individuals who already own assault weapons will be required to register them within a year and be recertified every five years."

This is not yet mandated by Federal law. In my opinion, it makes the rather tacky assumption that people who own such firearms are, by their very nature, mentally ill. If evaluations are to be made, they should be on the scale of the entire population.

"There is also a "Webster provision," which calls for a life-without-parole sentence for killers of first responders. The measure was inspired by the Christmas Eve shooting in upstate Webster that killed two firefighters responding to a blaze."

- Fair enough.

"If the bill passes, mental-health professionals would be required to report potentially dangerous patients - who could then have their guns yanked - and mentally ill inmates would have to undergo review before being released from prison. Mandatory treatment for potentially dangerous mentally ill individuals would be broadened to a year, up from the current six months. "

-Arguably the most useful provision of this bill. It's already illegal to sell a weapon to a dangerously unstable person, but there was no real way to report this.

"Also under the bill, the state would develop an electronic gun- permit database to identify individuals disqualified from owning guns. Private gun transfers would require background checks, except for immediate family. "

The electronic database would be useful, but people who are criminals usually ignore sources that would require background checks. This won't change with the immediate family provision.

"Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn) said the bill also strengthens penalties for guns used in gang activities and allows prosecution of each gang member who uses a so-called "community gun.""

-Again, fair enough.

"The legislation included provisions pushed for by Republicans, including making it a felony to possess a firearm on school grounds or a school bus and allowing pistol-permit holders to request their personal information not be made public. "

-It's already a felony to possess a firearm on school grounds or a school bus, and has been for quite a while at the national level. Such laws have had little effect in blocking people who intend to use weapons to harm those on school grounds.

The removal of pistol-permit owner information from the public record is a good thing. A New York newspaper recently published the addresses of many such permit holders in Manhattan, making these individuals targets for burglaries and discrimination.

"Politicians from both sides of the aisle noted that Cuomo, who was planning to waive a three-day aging period for bills and allow lawmakers to vote on the gun legislation immediately, would beat the White House with the nation's first gun-control package."

-Forcing legislation is never a good thing, Governor.
The bill is a mixture of some measures that could have some chance of working and pure superstitious garbage, shoved through by a legislature that is made of people who know little or nothing about what they care to legislate.
 
2013-01-15 02:11:13 PM
(A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: (I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK; (II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON; (III) A THUMBHOLE STOCK; (IV) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE NON-TRIGGER HAND; (V) A BAYONET MOUNT; (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; (VII) A GRENADE LAUNCHER; ORSo they just made pretty much every match grade target shooting rifle used by olympians illegal....
 
2013-01-15 02:11:15 PM
Bans of cosmetic or superfluous firearm features are completely useless and an egregious trampling of our liberty.
 
2013-01-15 02:11:15 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


Feral hog sniper teams will be able to spot him.
 
2013-01-15 02:11:40 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


harder to get caught 'jacking if you can't see the flash.
 
2013-01-15 02:12:08 PM

jst3p: This legislation will protect New Yorkers by reducing the availability
of assault weapons and deterring the criminal use of firearms while
promoting a fair,

Because laws stop people from doing things that are against the law.


I'm all for the criminals stabbing each other to death and suffocating each other to death and whatever other ways they can think of killing each other that doesn't have a massive risk of unintended casualties.
 
2013-01-15 02:13:40 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.
 
2013-01-15 02:13:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.


What was the second ammendment made for?
 
2013-01-15 02:14:42 PM

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


Exactly.
 
2013-01-15 02:15:36 PM
I'm glad Fark has a gun tab now.
 
2013-01-15 02:17:10 PM

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.
 
2013-01-15 02:18:03 PM

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?
 
2013-01-15 02:18:51 PM
Well, a muzzle break isn't a flash suppressor. My handgun has a muzzle break, all it does is lower recoil.
 
2013-01-15 02:21:29 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.

If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?


If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.


Got proof?
 
2013-01-15 02:23:07 PM

Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?



You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat
 
2013-01-15 02:25:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things


The Remington 700 is basically millitary in nature. All current firearms can be somewhat traced back through millitary history or has millitary connections somewhere.

Your point is moot.
 
2013-01-15 02:26:11 PM

Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.


And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?
 
2013-01-15 02:26:46 PM

Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat


You are the one that made the assertion. Go ahead and back it up.
 
2013-01-15 02:27:39 PM

Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)
 
2013-01-15 02:29:04 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?


Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.
 
2013-01-15 02:29:26 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine
If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?


I do believe we have very different ways of dealing with the boogieman.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report