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.

(WTOP)   So just what the heck is an "assault weapon," anyway? A clip? A magazine? Here's your handy-dandy gun glossary so you can sound infromed for the next flamewar   (wtop.com) divider line 694
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, flame wars, semiautomatic firearms, design change, private ownership, target shooting, Uzi  
•       •       •

10270 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 9:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 10:48:22 AM

Frank N Stein: CMP


Waiting on my Navy 7.62 M1 barrelled receiver, another H&R, and some ammunition. They're pretty backlogged.

I've been wondering if someone was going to bring up the CMP's delivery methods.
 
2013-01-25 10:48:36 AM

Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.


then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?
 
2013-01-25 10:48:39 AM

Dimensio: Thank you. Your response is a perfect illustration of ph0rk's statement: you entirely ignored the primary content of his statement to argue against a position that he did not take.


Who, me? I'm not contesting the basic content of Ivandrago's comment, but rather that we have plenty of avowed "gun folks" saying only what won't work, and none offering any solution that will.
If magazine restrictions won't help, what will?
 
2013-01-25 10:48:41 AM

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


Nice, I wonder hoe many people will bite?
 
2013-01-25 10:49:08 AM

Frank N Stein: I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.


You do know that Joe Biden was one of the original authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, right? He's just as unreasonable on this issue as Feinstein.
 
2013-01-25 10:50:27 AM

Dave Lister: Frank N Stein: CMP

Waiting on my Navy 7.62 M1 barrelled receiver, another H&R, and some ammunition. They're pretty backlogged.

I've been wondering if someone was going to bring up the CMP's delivery methods.


Yeah, I fully expect to wait 90 days or so for my order to ship.

THEY MAIL THE GUN DIRECTLY TO YOUR HOUSE OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
 
2013-01-25 10:50:32 AM

CPennypacker: Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading. Even if it only takes a second or two, its still a longer pause than the shotest possible time between shots on a semi-automatic, unless you're dealing with someone who is really good and highly trained.


Yeah but the bigger the magazing the more likely it it to be a jammy piece of shiat and clearing a jam takes even longer. Also the increased weight of ammunition makes it harder to carry for long periods.

I propose a minimum magazine size of 250 rounds.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:00 AM

Frank N Stein: Ivandrago: Gun owning liberals like myself would happy to talk with Sen. Feinstein and VP Biden about guns. Heck, Joe could talk to his son who is in the Army (even though he's a pog).

I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.

And yes, he is a pog. Even though, as a former Coast Guardsmen myself, I have no right to speak as combat wasn't our main objective.


Some Coast Guard units are pretty elite. LEDETs, PSUs, ITDs,some coasty units get lots of trigger time.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:34 AM

dittybopper: Frank N Stein: I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.

You do know that Joe Biden was one of the original authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, right? He's just as unreasonable on this issue as Feinstein.


We'll, he has presidential aspirations now so he can't play his hand too big
 
2013-01-25 10:51:34 AM

Dimensio: I have been informed that the collapsible stock aids in concealment.


Probably by the same people who also tells you that you could never use a semiauto rifle to defend a home(Even with a collapsible stock), because "it's too long". It's like the goalposts are mounted on wheels when it comes to the gun debate.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:44 AM

StoPPeRmobile: tommyl66: Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?

Would impoving mental health care have prevented 9/11?


Yes, yes it would have. If the heads of various government agencies had the proper checkups to ensure their brains were not located too close to their rectums it could have been avoided.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:47 AM

FlashHarry: odinsposse: You may be thinking of the earlier military rifle, the m14. That had 20 round magazines but also had a larger round (7.62mm instead of 5.56mm).

[www.imfdb.org image 500x111]

actually, i think the early versions did have a 20-round magazine.

[www.nd.gov image 546x147]

the later versions had the 30-round mag.


I did not know that. Thanks to you and syrynxx
 
2013-01-25 10:51:55 AM

ph0rk: Ivandrago: It's because the left won't listen to anyone who knows anything about guns,

I think if a group knowledgeable about guns had some proposals other than "arm everyone, everywhere" people, including "the left" would listen.


But there does not appear to be any group offering that message, at least not that the public can see.


Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns. I consider myself to be on the left side of the spectrum politically, and I decry the right and their fanaticism that amounts to "any restriction is tyranny." My problem is that the things that Feinstein want to do will have 0 bearing on the lethality of the guns they're trying to restrict. Collapsible buttstocks aren't for concealment, they're for comfort. Pistol grips are for comfort as well. Bayonet lugs allow you to attach a bayonet. Does anyone anywhere have any evidence of a bayonet being used in a crime while attached to a rifle? Flash hides don't actually hide the flashes and many people today are using them to make the flashes bigger and look cooler (the Noveske Flaming Pig for instance is awesome http://www.riflegear.com/p-638-noveske-kx3-556-flaming-pig-flash-hider .aspx) But those are the things that they're going to ban from rifles. It's legislation that doesn't mean anything. And it doesn't mean anything but no one wants to talk about it.
 
2013-01-25 10:52:46 AM

Giltric: Some Coast Guard units are pretty elite. LEDETs, PSUs, ITDs,some coasty units get lots of trigger time.


That is true. However, my time in the Guard was equally split between search and rescue/law enforcement and desk jockeying.
 
2013-01-25 10:52:52 AM

kqc7011: http://www.assaultweapon.info


LOL, I just posted this, didn't see yours, sorry. Great page, too bad the anti's refuse to acknowledge it.
 
2013-01-25 10:54:38 AM

ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.


I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.
 
2013-01-25 10:54:56 AM

Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.


Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?
 
2013-01-25 10:55:15 AM

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading. Even if it only takes a second or two, its still a longer pause than the shotest possible time between shots on a semi-automatic, unless you're dealing with someone who is really good and highly trained.

They're almost never tackled while reloading.

The major ones-virginia tech and sandy hook had the shooter reloading multiple times without it apparently making a difference. At VT, he brought 19 magazines and investigators found 15 empty mags strewn about; at Sandy Hook, the shooter left half loaded magazines everywhere.
The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

The only time anyone can say that magazines did anything at all is Tucson. Once.

LIRR Massacre - 1993

Link

Thurston High School Massacre - 1998

Link

Thats two from a 5 second google with no effort. Plus Tuscon. And I'm sure if I wanted to put the effort into it I'd find more.

But carry on with the "it wouldn't do ANYTHING so we shouldn't do it" BS


Read about Kip and Colin_ both had some major psychological and agressive bugs in their closets- if they had been identified and properly dealt with earlier in life, magazine capacity may have more of a significant role to play in this conversation.
 
2013-01-25 10:55:33 AM

Mikey1969: ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.


If everyone liked the same things this thread wouldn't exist.
 
2013-01-25 10:56:07 AM

DoomPaul: I have yet to see a weapon that cannot be used to assault someone.


I have yet to see any object that can be picked up not potentially be used to assault someone. The board game Clue has a nice assortment of random stuff that could be used to assault and kill someone and the part of the game is about figuring out which object was used as a weapon. Heck, I could probably kill someone with my keyboard; the cord can detach from the keyboard, be used to assault someone, and then be plugged back in.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:17 AM

Thunderpipes: So the 2nd amendment is the right to hunt?

I doubt the founding fathers intended that to be the meaning, quite the opposite.


The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.

During the Constitutional Congress, southern states proposed the 'states only' version so plantation owners could have private armies but still make it illegal for slaves to shoot back. The northern states had pushed for abolition, but really wanted the interstate commerce parts of the Constitution, which the southern states refused to accept until abolition was taken off the table. The southern states wanted state control of firearms so they could give the slave-owning white minority a monopoly on firepower, but didn't have the political chips to force that version. IMO, the making the Second Amendment a right of the individual was a 'screw you' from the northern states to the southern ones, at least granting slaves the potential to rise against their owners without being executed by the state for succeeding.

Today there are millions of decent and honestly moderate people whose support for gun control generalizes to something like, "let's keep guns out of the hands of undesirables." They haven't stopped to think that for at least 3/4 of US history, the word 'undesirables' was the polite term for 'negroes', or that even today the selection criteria the suggest would skew strongly toward 'low-income, black, and male'.

I have no doubt that those people would be horrified to see how easily their words could be turned into support for a new era of Jim Crow laws. I hope it doesn't have to go that far before they realize the unintended consequences could be awful.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:49 AM

Frank N Stein: dittybopper: Frank N Stein: I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.

You do know that Joe Biden was one of the original authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, right? He's just as unreasonable on this issue as Feinstein.

We'll, he has presidential aspirations now so he can't play his hand too big


Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.
 
2013-01-25 10:58:26 AM

ph0rk: Mikey1969: ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.

If everyone liked the same things this thread wouldn't exist.


I like to argue so I disagree.
 
2013-01-25 10:59:12 AM

StoPPeRmobile: ph0rk: Mikey1969: ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.

If everyone liked the same things this thread wouldn't exist.

I like to argue so I disagree.


OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
 
2013-01-25 11:00:29 AM

Giltric: Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

the VT killer had a single 15 round mag and a backpack full of 10 round magazines. He fired over 150 shots.


Hell, in Columbine, Eric Harris had a Hi-Point with 10 round mags and fired something like 96 round, while the TEC-( with 28, 32 and 52 round mags) for only 55 rounds. So the 1/3 size mag was used in a gun that fired almost twice as many rounds...
 
2013-01-25 11:01:28 AM

ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?


Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.
 
2013-01-25 11:01:42 AM
Tell you what, busting off a 20 round magazine in my M1A is frightening compared to a wussy little AR in .223. I have the Army issue M1 bipod and it is a very accurate rifle.

The price now for an M1A like mine has more than doubled, if you can find one at all. Cheapest I have seen was an auction starting at $2500.

I cannot find a matching numbers WW II Garand, which is my goal (to collect all the major WW II rifles from various nations, matching numbers). I keep hoping one will turn up at a backwoods store or gunshow, now that is looking like it will never happen. I recently found a matching numbers early war K98 which is beautiful, but that is bolt action and below the radar, for now. I don't doubt that will change with time.

Thanks a lot libs, for screwing up perfectly good and safe fun.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:14 AM

Rich Cream: HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?


Please define a defensive weapon that has no offensive capability.


Wobbuffet.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:43 AM

Mikey1969: kqc7011: http://www.assaultweapon.info

LOL, I just posted this, didn't see yours, sorry. Great page, too bad the anti's refuse to acknowledge it.


I could not get the link to work for me. You provided. Thanks.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:52 AM

syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation


You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?
 
2013-01-25 11:03:54 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.


I like all of those things. If a real gun lobby was promoting them, they would probably get implemented (well, perhaps not mental health, as that would segue into single payer so fast people's heads would spin).

I don't expect to see a real gun lobby promoting any of those solutions, though.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:02 AM

yingtong: The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.


Correction: The Second Amendment recognizes a poor person's right to own something a rich person can't ignore.

The Constitution doesn't 'give rights to the people'. The Constitution grants powers to the government, and those powers are derived from the rights of the people.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:12 AM

Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.



A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:26 AM

ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?


Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work. The line is nice and clear and the gun nuts can finally stop whining about normenclature. Basically the US could use the same restrictions as Canada.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:42 AM

CtrlAltDestroy: Rich Cream: HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?


Please define a defensive weapon that has no offensive capability.

Wobbuffet.


I lol'ed
 
2013-01-25 11:06:52 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.


Please outline such reasonable rules, given that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws requiring the use of a trigger lock or other ways of delaying immediate access to a gun are unconstitutional.

Also, please explain how the federal government gets the right to decide if I can sell my constitutionally protected property or not.

In addition, please explain why I should get a license to practice a constitutional right. Isn't that prior restraint, something that is constitutionally frowned upon except in very narrow circumstances?
 
2013-01-25 11:07:04 AM

kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.


Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".
 
2013-01-25 11:07:58 AM

Karac: syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation

You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?


i would guess that three-round burst capability would be included as a defining characteristic of an "assault rifle."
 
2013-01-25 11:08:42 AM

Oblio13: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.


A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.


And buy reloading equipment and components, if you can find them.

/I'm buying all I can, before the hoarders get them!!1
 
2013-01-25 11:08:49 AM

kapaso: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work. The line is nice and clear and the gun nuts can finally stop whining about normenclature. Basically the US could use the same restrictions as Canada.


I can't imagine any gun lobby endorsing that position.
 
2013-01-25 11:09:10 AM

yingtong: yingtong: The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.

Correction: The Second Amendment recognizes a poor person's right to own something a rich person can't ignore.

The Constitution doesn't 'give rights to the people'. The Constitution grants powers to the government, and those powers are derived from the rights of the people.


Constitution doesn't grant rights to the government (specifically the bill of rights), it protects citizens from government.

What kind of idiot thinks a safe storage law will do anything anyway? How would you enforce that? Oh, Obama grants the ATF immunity from the 4th amendment? Brown shirts in the middle of the night busting down your door to check if you have a safe? What happens if an intruder pops in, you are going to much around with a safe?

Everything the Democrats propose is stupid, wasteful, and does not touch the problem, which is bad people in society.
 
2013-01-25 11:09:19 AM

Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial very widespread noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".


FTFY.
 
2013-01-25 11:09:52 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: Reasonable rules about storage.


Reasonable? possibly NSFW
 
2013-01-25 11:09:54 AM

Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.


I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.
 
2013-01-25 11:10:03 AM

Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".


It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.
 
2013-01-25 11:10:20 AM

Thunderpipes: yingtong: yingtong: The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.

Correction: The Second Amendment recognizes a poor person's right to own something a rich person can't ignore.

The Constitution doesn't 'give rights to the people'. The Constitution grants powers to the government, and those powers are derived from the rights of the people.

Constitution doesn't grant rights to the government (specifically the bill of rights), it protects citizens from government.

What kind of idiot thinks a safe storage law will do anything anyway? How would you enforce that? Oh, Obama grants the ATF immunity from the 4th amendment? Brown shirts in the middle of the night busting down your door to check if you have a safe? What happens if an intruder pops in, you are going to much around with a safe?

Everything the Democrats propose is stupid, wasteful, and does not touch the problem, which is bad people in society.


Replying to you is a waste of time, but what do you suggest as a way to address what the public sees as a real problem, other than arming every citizen?
 
2013-01-25 11:10:56 AM

odinsposse: FlashHarry: syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.

that's like saying that a bugatti veyron's 1000 horsepower is "standard horsepower" for that car. that may be true, but relative to most vehicles, it is a high-horsepower car.

btw, i believe the original AR15 came with a 20-round magazine, did it not?

You may be thinking of the earlier military rifle, the m14. That had 20 round magazines but also had a larger round (7.62mm instead of 5.56mm).


The M16 I carried in the early 70s came with a 20 round magazine, although we were only allowed to put 18 rounds in them to reduce malfunctions.
 
2013-01-25 11:12:03 AM

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.


Semi-automatic firearms are not prohibited in Canada. Please explain how a prohibition not implemented in Canada "works fine" in that nation; how can a non-existent prohibition "work" at all?

Are you claiming that restrictions upon electronically transmitted speech and that warrantless searches in automobiles are also Constitutionally viable?
 
2013-01-25 11:12:16 AM

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.


Nor was the 4th written when computers and automobiles were around, yet they're still covered. Your point?
 
2013-01-25 11:12:17 AM

tommyl66: Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?


You're being too sensible. Stop that.
 
Displayed 50 of 694 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report