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.

(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
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, flame wars, semiautomatic firearms, design change, private ownership, target shooting, Uzi  
•       •       •

10295 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 9:53 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2013-01-25 11:12:33 AM  

The Smails Kid: 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


I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.
 
2013-01-25 11:14:25 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.


Neither were computers and the Internet. Perhaps we should ban them also?

Besides which, Canada doesn't have nearly as much gun ownership as the United States, and far fewer hunters. In the US, about 1 out of every 20 people buys some sort of hunting license. In Canada, it's 1 out of every 117 people.
 
2013-01-25 11:15:39 AM  

Dimensio: 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?


Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?
 
2013-01-25 11:16:18 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Meh, let people sell all the guns they want, with pretty much any modifications they want. Require them to hold insurance that covers all damages, including lose of life, that may occur through use of the weapon. Before too long the free market will lead to people manufacturing, buying, and using guns in safer manners in order to reduce insurance premiums, while still allowing those who really want to get their jollies off to absorb the extra cost.


Sure, all you have to do is get the criminals to also buy this liability insurance. You know, the ones driving without car insurance or maybe licenses.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:22 AM  

Thunderpipes: The Smails Kid: 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

I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.


You don't shoot competitions, apparently.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:32 AM  
It isn't as if you won't be able to print your own large magazines anyway. The plans/blueprints are out there and more will follow.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:33 AM  

ph0rk: 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?


Families of people that are nuts need to have more tools to deal with it, and I think there should be criminal penalties for allowing a nut to have access to your weapons. I have no problem with background checks either, not sure why anyone would. However, once you start including medical records, that opens a giant can of worms. Is ADHD going to prevent you from passing a background check? PTSD? Depression? Booze? Those alone would probably disqualify almost everyone. Who would determine what level of mental illness is the limit? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? How many people would simply not talk to their doctors knowing they are just ratting them out to the feds?

Tough situation, but guns have almost nothing to do with it. I grew up with guns, everywhere. Nobody did this crap then, let alone once a month. People have changed, not guns.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:40 AM  
"Bryant entered The Broad Arrow Café on the historical site's grounds, carrying a large blue duffel bag. Upon sitting down to eat a meal in the front balcony area, he remarked "There's a lot of wasps about today" to no one in particular. Once he finished, Bryant moved towards the back of the café and set a video camera on a vacant table. He took out an Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and, firing from the hip, began shooting patrons and staff. Within 15 seconds, he had fired 17 shots, killing 12 people and wounding 10."

If some nutjob can use an AR-15 to kill and injure 29 people in 15 seconds then I don't care if you call it an "assault weapon" or not.

Next time you gun nuts are firing your substitute penis off at the range, imagine the brains being splattered over the walls every time you pull the trigger.

Your pathetic little gun hobby doesn't make these weapons something worthwhile for people to be carrying around.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:06 AM  

ph0rk: What do you suggest as a way to address what the public sees as a real problem, other than arming every citizen?


Not limited to this issue: I would suggest that using the public's perception is a piss-poor way to gauge the objective severity of a problem.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:11 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.


No, what I meant was what is it about Alton Brown, I hear this relatively frequently and haven't been able to figure it out. All of the reality show "chefs", I get that, but I was just curious why people don't like Brown, that's all. Wasn't calling you a weenie for not liking him or anything like that.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:14 AM  
Well seeing how, as metioned earlier, I'm putting in the paperwork for a Garand if anyone is interested in owning a little peice of history I encourage you to google civilian marksmenship program. There, you can purchase these surplus M1s, many of which have seen action in WWII and Korea. They ship the rifle directly to you. The requirements are 1, you have to be legal to own a gun. 2, be a part of a CMP approved gun club*. And 3, have proof of some firearm training

*funfact, 4Chan has a CMP approved gun club.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:20 AM  

Thunderpipes: Families of people that are nuts need to have more tools to deal with it, and I think there should be criminal penalties for allowing a nut to have access to your weapons. I have no problem with background checks either, not sure why anyone would. However, once you start including medical records, that opens a giant can of worms. Is ADHD going to prevent you from passing a background check? PTSD? Depression? Booze? Those alone would probably disqualify almost everyone. Who would determine what level of mental illness is the limit? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? How many people would simply not talk to their doctors knowing they are just ratting them out to the feds?

Tough situation, but guns have almost nothing to do with it. I grew up with guns, everywhere. Nobody did this crap then, let alone once a month. People have changed, not guns.


I can't imagine mandated mental health checkups going over well, even if that is exactly what is required. As for what will determine the limits, also tough. Even mental health professionals have difficulty predicting violence.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:28 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?


That is the only definition of assault rifle.

The M16a2 is still an assault rifle because it has 3 round burst which in select instances the rifleman can provide covering fire.

That is the key point to an assault rifle, it allows rifleman to provide covering fire. Nothing else. Which seperates it from the concept of a battle rifle, which in civilian terms is pretty much any standard hunting rifle.

Thus, the AR 15 is more of a carbine battle rifle than an assault rifle. As you do not have burst or automatic fire modes to provide cover for manuevering troops.

The use of "assault rifle" is kind of an anachronism, as modern militaries don't depend on riflemen to provide covering fire. That idea died quick (hence, burst fire). Intermediate cartridges or anything else you might hear was simply natural firearm evolution, that happened to coincide with the jump from battle rifles to assault rifles.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:28 AM  

HansoSparxx: 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.

Keyword you used is "Weapon". Weapons assault.

Did you have a point to make?



Just that attaching "assault" to "weapon" is facetious since a weapon is a frickin weapon that can be used in an assault, no matter what you label it.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:32 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: 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?

Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?


You did not address my questions.

How does a prohibition not actually implemented in Canada "work"?

If semi-automatic firearms are not Constitutionally protected due to their nonexistence at the time of the authorship of the Amendment, are other technologies also not extant at the time of authorship of Constitutional protections also not subject to those protections?
 
2013-01-25 11:18:44 AM  

The Smails Kid: Thunderpipes: The Smails Kid: 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

I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.

You don't shoot competitions, apparently.


No, and anyone shooting competitions is using very high grade rounds, which will not have any issues being available. You are shooting competition with military surplus? You don't go to the local gunstore and buy Winchester rounds off the shelf or British military rounds for competitions.
 
2013-01-25 11:19:54 AM  

Trapper439: "Bryant entered The Broad Arrow Café on the historical site's grounds, carrying a large blue duffel bag. Upon sitting down to eat a meal in the front balcony area, he remarked "There's a lot of wasps about today" to no one in particular. Once he finished, Bryant moved towards the back of the café and set a video camera on a vacant table. He took out an Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and, firing from the hip, began shooting patrons and staff. Within 15 seconds, he had fired 17 shots, killing 12 people and wounding 10."

If some nutjob can use an AR-15 to kill and injure 29 people in 15 seconds then I don't care if you call it an "assault weapon" or not.

Next time you gun nuts are firing your substitute penis off at the range, imagine the brains being splattered over the walls every time you pull the trigger.

Your pathetic little gun hobby doesn't make these weapons something worthwhile for people to be carrying around.


Your evident obsession with male genitalia is neither relevant to the discussion nor appropriate to introduce in this discussion.
 
2013-01-25 11:20:31 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.


Canada doesn't ban semiautos.
 
2013-01-25 11:21:00 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.


I bet when you watch movies with these guns, you get all butthurt when the firer shoots far more rounds than the gun can hold.

Which is stupid, because it only takes 0 seconds to reload. Clearly they're just reloading faster than you can notice with the naked eye.
 
2013-01-25 11:21:12 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 want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!
 
2013-01-25 11:21:35 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.


1) They are both assault weapons.
2) With all those after market parts the bottom one is likely to jam after every 3rd round
(It is a Ruger after all)
 
2013-01-25 11:21:45 AM  

kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?


That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".
 
2013-01-25 11:22:02 AM  

The Only Sane Man In Florida: DownTheRabbitHole: 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.

This.

Nj already has a limit---my Glock 19C is restricted to 15 but I believe the max is 17

15 round mags are standard capacity for a Glock 19...


The in thinking of the Glock 17 mag capacity? Is it 17? I just know NJs limit
 
2013-01-25 11:22:36 AM  

Frank N Stein: Well seeing how, as metioned earlier, I'm putting in the paperwork for a Garand if anyone is interested in owning a little peice of history I encourage you to google civilian marksmenship program. There, you can purchase these surplus M1s, many of which have seen action in WWII and Korea. They ship the rifle directly to you. The requirements are 1, you have to be legal to own a gun. 2, be a part of a CMP approved gun club*. And 3, have proof of some firearm training

*funfact, 4Chan has a CMP approved gun club.


CMP are out of any real matching Garands. The ones you can still get are pieced together, refurbished, new barrels, etc. If you are lucky to get even a piece of one which actually served, it is fortunate. It is a good program, but the CMP long ago got rid of all the good ones. Might get a receiver made in 1955, barrel made in 1960, new stock, etc. Just really hard to find an authentic one. Ones with correct matching parts go for many thousands of dollars.
 
2013-01-25 11:22:45 AM  

Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: 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?

Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

You did not address my questions.

How does a prohibition not actually implemented in Canada "work"?

If semi-automatic firearms are not Constitutionally protected due to their nonexistence at the time of the authorship of the Amendment, are other technologies also not extant at the time of authorship of Constitutional protections also not subject to those protections?


You didn't address mine either, and pointing that arms is broad term and that arms are already heavily restricted did address some of your endless babbling.
 
2013-01-25 11:23:00 AM  
The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. 'Make it evil,' he'd been told. 'Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with.'
--Douglas Adams

Needs to be in the text of any law describing "assault rifles"

/actual design was to be lightweight for charging "over the top" during the Great War
//lighter than traditional main battle rifles, now pretty much replaced them
 
2013-01-25 11:23:07 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: 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 want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


It's funny when liberals come into gun threads wanting registration for firearms yet biatch and moan when conservatives suggest that someone should need an ID to vote.
 
2013-01-25 11:23:13 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?



The three-round burst still qualifies as the essential difference between semi-auto and full-auto - one shot per trigger pull with semi-auto, including bump-fire.  The article is well-intentioned and does point out that the terms being thrown about are ambiguous and dynamic.

The fact that the answer to "is this rifle/pistol an assault weapon?" is "well, it depends where you are standing and what year it is" shows what a stupid term it is.  Without going to any external sources, my internal definition of "assault rifle" is a weapon that fires an intermediate-power cartridge such as the 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm and is capable of selective semi-auto or full-auto fire.  My all-time favorite tweak of the '94 definition of "assault weapon" was the OA-98.

Is this a "semi-automatic assault weapon" as defined in the '94 bill?


i831.photobucket.com

The answer is "it depends on whether that magazine was shipped with the gun by the manufacturer".  If that 48 oz. gun had included a 30-round magazine, its 'manufactured weight' would have triggered one of the arbitrary cosmetic criteria for being considered an assault weapon.  So the pistol was shipped without a magazine, and it wasn't an assault weapon.  Taa daa!
 
2013-01-25 11:23:28 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: 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 want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


You mean like, registering to vote? Idiot.
 
2013-01-25 11:24:00 AM  

ChuDogg: 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?

That is the only definition of assault rifle.

The M16a2 is still an assault rifle because it has 3 round burst which in select instances the rifleman can provide covering fire.


Yes, but three-round burst does not mean the same thing as fully-automatic. Burst, you pull the trigger and it fires three times. Fully automatic, you pull the trigger and it keeps firing until it runs dry or you release.

Tossing the Webster's dictionary definitions of assault weapon / rifle around is a pointless exercise anyway. The only place it will matter is in a bill, which will include the definition of 'assault rifle' for the purposes of that bill, after which the term will be used as a shorthand for that 3 page definition.

The commonly held meaning of the term is legally pointless. The commonly held meaning of the term 'speeding' is more than 5 miles over the limit - but that doesn't mean you can't get a ticket for 59 in a 55.
 
2013-01-25 11:25:37 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: 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?

Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

You did not address my questions.

How does a prohibition not actually implemented in Canada "work"?

If semi-automatic firearms are not Constitutionally protected due to their nonexistence at the time of the authorship of the Amendment, are other technologies also not extant at the time of authorship of Constitutional protections also not subject to those protections?

You didn't address mine either, and pointing that arms is broad term and that arms are already heavily restricted did address some of your endless babbling.


Once you address my question, I will address yours.
 
2013-01-25 11:27:00 AM  

Mikey1969: No, what I meant was what is it about Alton Brown, I hear this relatively frequently and haven't been able to figure it out. All of the reality show "chefs", I get that, but I was just curious why people don't like Brown, that's all. Wasn't calling you a weenie for not liking him or anything like that.


Probably because of all the reality chefs, he is the one about which friends and acquaintances have said "you must watch his show, you will like it, it is awesome"

And I watched it and didn't like it, so now I have an opinion about him, in particular one that is negative after others built up my expectations.

I also don't like Elvis or the Beatles, so there you go.
 
2013-01-25 11:27:01 AM  
A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?
 
2013-01-25 11:27:40 AM  

FlashHarry: 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?


Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming
 
2013-01-25 11:28:09 AM  

andrethered1: A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?


While that is true, I bet I can kill more people before being wrestled to the ground and disarmed with a few guns than a drawer full of spoons.
 
2013-01-25 11:29:52 AM  

Frank N Stein: I'm putting in the paperwork for a Garand if anyone is interested in owning a little peice of history I encourage you to google civilian marksmenship program. There, you can purchase these surplus M1s, many of which have seen action in WWII and Korea. They ship the rifle directly to you.


I got a Grade 2 Garand from the CMP about a decade or so ago for $400.  The CMP is as close to the Heller-vs-DC ruling of the 2nd Amendment as possible - after instruction and qualification with the rifle ("well-regulated"), you have the opportunity to purchase (what used to be) the standard military-issue rifle.  Fun fact - you are forbidden to resell your CMP Garand if you were crazy enough to ever consider that.
 
2013-01-25 11:30:12 AM  
By the way, for your Garand wanters?

Obama blocked the import of 800,000 M1 Garands and carbines that South Korea wanted to sell to American collectors. These would have been largely matching numbers weapons and great collector/shooter rifles.

Mainstream media didn't care, so sorry for Fox link, but this sucks. State department would rather almost a million great collectable guns be destroyed rather than fall into evil American hands. How many shootings by Garand lately, by the way?

Link
 
2013-01-25 11:31:26 AM  

dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".


Technically it's more of a  Reductio ad absurdum than straw man. He isn't claiming that's the others argument, but rather that the extreme of the others argument leads toridiculous conclusions.

*the_more_you_know.jpg*
 
2013-01-25 11:31:46 AM  

Thunderpipes: Mainstream media didn't care, so sorry for Fox link,


[haha.jpg]
 
2013-01-25 11:32:05 AM  

DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: 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?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming


"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?
 
2013-01-25 11:33:43 AM  

Mikey1969: 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...


This is why a limitless mag capacity is useless. One can have a bag full of 5 round loaded mags and switch off like nothing.
 
2013-01-25 11:33:56 AM  

Mikey1969: 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.


Yep it is fun but under my reading of the Feinstein bill it would be considered an assault weapon. Rotating cylinder shotgun.
 
2013-01-25 11:34:53 AM  

dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".


Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?
 
2013-01-25 11:35:57 AM  

Dimensio: Glicky: It's a marketing term and therefore useless...

The term is in fact political, not commercial. .


Politics are in fact commercial, not political.
 
2013-01-25 11:36:42 AM  

limeyfellow: Frank N Stein: The renewed talks about gun control has, if anything, taught the grabbers what a magazine is.

I also heartily lol at them trying to rebrand themselves as "gun safety" advocates

That is always a plus. It really annoys me for some reason.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 344x415]


This x 10

PS - don't forget the high ammunition Magazines
 
2013-01-25 11:36:50 AM  

ph0rk: Thunderpipes: Families of people that are nuts need to have more tools to deal with it, and I think there should be criminal penalties for allowing a nut to have access to your weapons. I have no problem with background checks either, not sure why anyone would. However, once you start including medical records, that opens a giant can of worms. Is ADHD going to prevent you from passing a background check? PTSD? Depression? Booze? Those alone would probably disqualify almost everyone. Who would determine what level of mental illness is the limit? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? How many people would simply not talk to their doctors knowing they are just ratting them out to the feds?

Tough situation, but guns have almost nothing to do with it. I grew up with guns, everywhere. Nobody did this crap then, let alone once a month. People have changed, not guns.

I can't imagine mandated mental health checkups going over well, even if that is exactly what is required. As for what will determine the limits, also tough. Even mental health professionals have difficulty predicting violence.


Some have difficulty correctly diagnosing disorders. It is useless.
 
2013-01-25 11:37:34 AM  

Karac: ChuDogg: 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?

That is the only definition of assault rifle.

The M16a2 is still an assault rifle because it has 3 round burst which in select instances the rifleman can provide covering fire.

Yes, but three-round burst does not mean the same thing as fully-automatic. Burst, you pull the trigger and it fires three times. Fully automatic, you pull the trigger and it keeps firing until it runs dry or you release.

Tossing the Webster's dictionary definitions of assault weapon / rifle around is a pointless exercise anyway. The only place it will matter is in a bill, which will include the definition of 'assault rifle' for the purposes of that bill, after which the term will be used as a shorthand for that 3 page definition.

The commonly held meaning of the term is legally pointless. The commonly held meaning of the term 'speeding' is more than 5 miles over the limit - but that doesn't mean you can't get a ticket for 59 in a 55.


You are mistaking the words assault rifle and assault weapon.

An assault rifle has a technical meaning. This isn't semantics. Words mean things. There is a very applicable and real reason why people called them assault rifles. Because the idea that every rifleman could provide covering fire was mind blowing. Outside of that, there was no other reason to keep using the terms battle rifle or even just rifle.

Also, if you simply quote the whole post and it will already clarify most of what you are responding to.

There is no need to selectively quote and ask questions I've already provided the answers for you in the same comment.
 
2013-01-25 11:38:10 AM  

kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?


To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.
 
2013-01-25 11:38:45 AM  
So doe this get covered by the ban? Seems to meet most of the criteria (telescoping stock, magazine fed, shroud, etc.)

img254.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-25 11:39:03 AM  

FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: 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?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?


I don't claim to switch off in 0 seconds; that was sn Army man. im just a chick w a gun. Lets say I have 2 magazines (at 40$ each).. Putting more bullets in them after firing 5 rounds (which takes seconds) is what slows me down during range time.
 
Displayed 50 of 694 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report