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  
•       •       •

10264 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 11:39:14 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?


Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.
 
2013-01-25 11:40:06 AM

HeadLever: 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?

Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.


This. Lol thank you
 
2013-01-25 11:42:17 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?


Changing mags != reloading mags
 
2013-01-25 11:42:36 AM

justtray: 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.


Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice
 
2013-01-25 11:45:10 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.


Youy remind me of people that think they will be able to retire one day.
 
2013-01-25 11:46:00 AM

HeadLever: justtray: 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.

Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice


What authority? What ad hominem?

They don't, literally. See - paul ryan. See - every conservative in these threads. See - you just now.
 
2013-01-25 11:48:57 AM

justtray: What authority?


From the authority that you declare your blanket statement to be true.

What ad hominem?

The personal attack on conseratives.


Nice troll though. I'll give it an 8.5/10
 
2013-01-25 11:49:03 AM

StoPPeRmobile: 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.

Youy remind me of people that think they will be able to retire one day.


Why is that? Am I wrong? How many rounds do I need for my rifle? Are zombies really coming? I really hope I am realistic thinking that hunting rounds will not be banned. But then again, maybe you have a point? Maybe Obama will make hunting rounds sold by the single round, for 10 bucks each, with a background check each time, you know, for the children. I love guns. I am just realistic about the need for ammo.

Found some really good non-corrosive British ammo a while back, already loaded in stripper clips. I always seem to be able to find those deals somewhere. If not, some smaller companies make very good ammo at a decent price and I can still, even right now, buy in bulk.
 
2013-01-25 11:49:33 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?


When some asshole armed with a spoon or a golf club goes into an elementary school and kills 26 people with it. Most of them children.

Fark your hobby.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:05 AM

Giltric: PC LOAD LETTER: Source4leko: Huh, the BAR isn't on that list. Because its not like that was designed for warfare or anything. Oh wait, its not a scary looking black rifle, nevermind.

I thought they banned the BAR in the 30's?

nope.

they range in price from 5k to like 20k.


Well, depends on what you mean. The 5 to 20K range likely refers to a fully automatic BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle)

You can get a new semi-auto BAR, today, from Cabela's and other dealers.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:13 AM

DownTheRabbitHole: 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.


That wasn't my intended point. The mental health professionals we currently have need better training in this area - they are not currently equipped to deal with either the volume of checkups needed nor are they trained to detect those likely to commit violent acts.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:29 AM
Is the rotorooter machine they use to scramble unborn children count?
 
2013-01-25 11:50:41 AM

HeadLever: justtray: What authority?

From the authority that you declare your blanket statement to be true.

What ad hominem?

The personal attack on conseratives.


Nice troll though. I'll give it an 8.5/10


Technically, justtray's comment was a "poisoning the well" fallacy, which a special case of the ad hominem argument.
 
2013-01-25 11:51:27 AM

justtray: HeadLever: justtray: 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.

Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice

What authority? What ad hominem?

They don't, literally. See - paul ryan. See - every conservative in these threads. See - you just now.


[maximumdeflection.jpg]
 
2013-01-25 11:52:29 AM

HeadLever: justtray: What authority?

From the authority that you declare your blanket statement to be true.

What ad hominem?

The personal attack on conseratives.


Nice troll though. I'll give it an 8.5/10


Blanket statements are now always made from 'authority?'
General snark is now a personal attack?

Nice job failing. 10/10
 
2013-01-25 11:52:49 AM

ph0rk: pedrop357: The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

Ah, so if his mother had been only able to own one gun...


Then he might have picked a more capable gun and more reliable magazine. OR stolen a second gun.
 
2013-01-25 11:54:49 AM

clowncar on fire: Nad don't forget kiddies: the proper stance to fire a handgun is by holding it's grip on a horizontal plain (firin' gangsta) or firing at your intended target while rolling on the ground between perfectly good points of cover.

(hopefully you were being as sarcastic when you were talking about the extensive use of "hip firing" in armed conflict).


That's one of the gun control group talking points. Dianne Feinstein loves to use it.
I think it's crap, but find it funny they can't even keep their story straight.
 
2013-01-25 11:56:48 AM

CPennypacker: 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


So 3 times in 20 years.

The overwhelming majority have the shooter reloading at will and killing until he gets tired of it(Aurora) or FINALLY starts seeing resistance after as much as 10-15 minutes (Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc.).
 
2013-01-25 11:56:56 AM

pedrop357: ph0rk: pedrop357: The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

Ah, so if his mother had been only able to own one gun...

Then he might have picked a more capable gun and more reliable magazine. OR stolen a second gun.


Yes, but theoretically at least there is a point where limitations of reload/firing rate would work. If all he had access to was a bolt action rifle, for example, well the Aurora shooter probably just would have used explosives.

Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)

I think detecting people like that early would be more beneficial, but even then there are bound to be breakdowns, and I would hope that it becomes less trivial to acquire and carry that sort of hardware, especially for disturbed people.
 
2013-01-25 11:57:10 AM

justtray: HeadLever: justtray: 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.

Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice

What authority? What ad hominem?



*starts up head thinker*

Conservipedia?
 
2013-01-25 11:58:52 AM

dittybopper: 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.


Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.
 
2013-01-25 12:00:05 PM

pedrop357: dittybopper: 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.

Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.


Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?
 
2013-01-25 12:00:25 PM

dittybopper: 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?


1) you may have up to two guns both outside of your control and outside of a safe within your residence.

2) you can still sell to anyone who passess a background check

3) I would be more worried about it being struck down on the same grounds as poll tax/voter
Id/etc. It shouldn't cost anything to get.
 
2013-01-25 12:00:35 PM

djh0101010: 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.


This.

If the CT shooter's mother had had insurance for her guns, what would have changed?
 
2013-01-25 12:01:30 PM

ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?


You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.
 
2013-01-25 12:03:19 PM

Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.


Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.
 
2013-01-25 12:03:38 PM

ph0rk: 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.


So sweeping, unconstitutional, revolution inspiring gun control might have a chance at stopping 80-120 deaths a year from mass shootings (they're about 1% of all homicides).

I frame it in terms of full out bans and confiscation because that is the only thing that has a chance (but just a chance) at stopping mass shootings.

Doesn't seem worth it to open the door for more rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, home invasions, etc. by disarming everyone.

If you only care about mass shooting deaths, you're part of the problem.
 
2013-01-25 12:03:58 PM

HeadLever: Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.


GRCooper: Changing mags != reloading mags


pardon me - i misread the post. i realize that loading a magazine with individual bullets is not the same thing as switching out an empty mag for a full one.

so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety. stopping at intersections for one.

i still don't see how this is unreasonable. if it saves even one life because a shooter got tackled while swapping mags, then doesn't that justify the inconvenience of having to reload your magazines more often?
 
2013-01-25 12:04:07 PM

pedrop357: djh0101010: 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.

This.

If the CT shooter's mother had had insurance for her guns, what would have changed?


It is almost Randian....

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
 
2013-01-25 12:05:10 PM

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?


It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.
 
2013-01-25 12:05:28 PM

ph0rk: Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)


Why do cops need it? Are cops slaughtering 150 people or more?
 
2013-01-25 12:05:29 PM
i'm sure i'll get hit for saying "bullets" instead of "rounds" too.
 
2013-01-25 12:05:32 PM

pedrop357: ph0rk: 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.

So sweeping, unconstitutional, revolution inspiring gun control might have a chance at stopping 80-120 deaths a year from mass shootings (they're about 1% of all homicides).

I frame it in terms of full out bans and confiscation because that is the only thing that has a chance (but just a chance) at stopping mass shootings.

Doesn't seem worth it to open the door for more rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, home invasions, etc. by disarming everyone.

If you only care about mass shooting deaths, you're part of the problem.


If you'd have read the entire thread you'd realize that isn't the case. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of placing a spoon in the same class as a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. If, however, you think their relative killing power is equivalent, why not collect spoons instead?
 
2013-01-25 12:06:24 PM
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says as many as 40 percent of all gun sales are completed without a background check. That's because sales between private gun owners and sales at gun shows are exempt under federal law.

This is utter BS. There is no gun show exemption. The same laws apply at a gun show as apply everywhere else.

Also, the 40% number is fiction: Link
 
2013-01-25 12:06:31 PM

ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.


So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.
 
2013-01-25 12:06:48 PM

pedrop357: It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.


as has been mentioned earlier, shooters in the past have been stopped while swapping mags. i fail to see how being a bit of a "burden" justifies the killing of more people.
 
2013-01-25 12:07:47 PM

StoPPeRmobile: ph0rk: Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)

Why do cops need it? Are cops slaughtering 150 people or more?


Because civilians are doing same, obviously. Should law enforcement be less well-armed than the public? Besides, the guns that cops carry can be easily taken away: simply vote different local politicians into office and have them change the rules.
 
2013-01-25 12:08:30 PM

justtray: 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.


What would lead either of you to believe that I'm a conservative?

To dispense with it, though, you can't "bear" a nuclear weapon in the conventional sense of the term, and secondly, no right is completely unlimited. We aren't arguing whether or not there is a line past which a particular weapon is too dangerous for general civilian ownership: We all agree there are some weapons that shouldn't be commonly owned because they are too dangerous.

What we are arguing where precisely to place it that line. Currently, at the federal level, the line is between semi-automatic firearms which are OK to own, and fully automatic firearms (machine guns) and other devices like bombs and missiles.

Personally, I think that line is in a pretty decent place right now, and I don't even own a semi-automatic firearm.
 
2013-01-25 12:08:45 PM

pedrop357: ph0rk: 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.

So sweeping, unconstitutional, revolution inspiring gun control might have a chance at stopping 80-120 deaths a year from mass shootings (they're about 1% of all homicides).

I frame it in terms of full out bans and confiscation because that is the only thing that has a chance (but just a chance) at stopping mass shootings.

Doesn't seem worth it to open the door for more rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, home invasions, etc. by disarming everyone.

If you only care about mass shooting deaths, you're part of the problem.


It's the new misogyny. Women are not allowed to be as powerful as men.

Fear!
 
2013-01-25 12:09:05 PM

Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.


You said political suicide. Farking the public is not necessarily political suicide - don't backpedal.

I think the history of politics in the United States shows that either party can be quite successful while also screwing the public.
 
2013-01-25 12:09:47 PM

FlashHarry: if it saves even one life


Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?
 
2013-01-25 12:10:13 PM

Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.


If the Dems gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad. Unlimited spending, 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt, rights taken away at the spur of the moment, severe downgrading of US credit ratings, then interest rates change, then complete economic collapse.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:24 PM

Thunderpipes: If the Dems any party gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad.


I don't think many folks would like an unopposed party in power.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:25 PM

pedrop357: CPennypacker: 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

So 3 times in 20 years.

The overwhelming majority have the shooter reloading at will and killing until he gets tired of it(Aurora) or FINALLY starts seeing resistance after as much as 10-15 minutes (Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc.).


Do you guys all have reading problems? Thats what I found after looking for 5 seconds.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:36 PM

FlashHarry: so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety.


How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich. Or are we going to now insall mechanisms that initiates a 'magazine waiting period' so that you need to wait 3 days from the time you take an spent magainze out of the firearm until you can load a new one? That would make more sense in this context.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:46 PM

Thunderpipes: Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.

If the Dems gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad. Unlimited spending, 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt, rights taken away at the spur of the moment, severe downgrading of US credit ratings, then interest rates change, then complete economic collapse.


They will still find a way to blame someone else while staring at the bottom of their glass of kool aid


/bottoms up!
 
2013-01-25 12:11:57 PM

Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?


lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?
 
2013-01-25 12:12:24 PM

ph0rk: pedrop357: dittybopper: 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.

Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.

Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?


A lot of Democrats have gone full retard on the gun control issue and went insane in New York. 2014 should be interesting.

It won't be Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, etc. who lose their seats, it will be all those foolish enough to join.

On a side note, I'm thinking the Republicans could run a nitwit like Sarah Palin against Biden and/or Cuomo and probably come out ahead.
 
2013-01-25 12:12:28 PM

Giltric: Thunderpipes: Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.

If the Dems gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad. Unlimited spending, 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt, rights taken away at the spur of the moment, severe downgrading of US credit ratings, then interest rates change, then complete economic collapse.

They will still find a way to blame someone else while staring at the bottom of their glass of kool aid


/bottoms up!


Well, as long as you able to carry on a reasonable line of argument.
 
2013-01-25 12:13:31 PM

FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?

lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?


There's that word again.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report