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.

(CNSNews)   Remember that Colorado sheriff who announced that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like? Yeah...about that   (cnsnews.com) divider line 658
    More: Followup, Colorado, Weld County, gun controls, sheriffs  
•       •       •

28459 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



658 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
 
2013-03-19 04:11:37 PM

GUTSU: ManRay: Karac: ManRay: Only the President can get away with saying he is not going to prosecute certain laws. Podunk sheriffs do not get that option.

Such as?

Presidents direct their AG to slow work on certain laws all the time. It would be great if Obama would tell Holder to not prosecute pot laws in the states that have legalized it, for instance.

Holder is too busy selling m4's and m64's to mexican cartels out of the back of his Chevy Volt.


He only does that in his spare time, his main job is to help the cartels launder their money
 
2013-03-19 04:11:46 PM

WippitGuud: MichiganFTL: WippitGuud: MichiganFTL: WippitGuud: No, your honor, I did not use a heat source. I just left the pan outside.

Outside!??!? Where the children could see it and possibly touch it!? How horrible of a human being are you!!!11! Think of the children! ... 5 years in jail.

It was in my locked car.
Behind the back seat under the windshield. Which just happened to be pointed south.

I dunno son, that sounds like intent to deceive law enforcement. Why did you have to lock your car, what are you hiding? South is where the devil comes from. Make that 10 years, chain gang.

I'm in Canada.


Oh ok, then we're cool. Wait how did I get here?
 
2013-03-19 04:11:49 PM

pedobearapproved: And for everyone complaining about selective enforcement on this thread I hope next time you're caught dead to rights doing something illegal...say, speeding, on your cell phone, and the cop says "I'm going to let you off with a warning this time." I hope tell that officer that you want his badge number and you're going to report him for dereliction of duty, you're going to the press, and you won't rest until you see that man fired and on the street living in a cardboard box!


Depends. Did the cop get up in front of news cameras a few months prior and say that because he (with his years and years of legal work, combined with his certifications as a legal scholar) thinks traffic laws are unenforceable that he won't be writing any tickets for the indefinite future?

Or did he decide on the spot that doing 66 in a 65 wasn't worth either of your time?
 
2013-03-19 04:12:12 PM

WippitGuud: Based on the comments at the bottom of the article... I look forward to watching the Second American Civil War in HD in the near future,


As long as it's narrated by Ken Burns and set to old-timey banjo music, count me in.
 
2013-03-19 04:12:18 PM

ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country


Screw the hillbillies
 
2013-03-19 04:12:21 PM

vudukungfu: Bravo Two: If it involved porn or weed, Fark would be all for it.

Wait.
dude.
Can you smoke porn?
Like
what would happen?


There are some risks. Your lungs can fill with lube and there is, of course, the risk of priapism.
 
2013-03-19 04:12:22 PM

Giltric: pudding7: umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.

1st amendment is freedom of speech.  Are you allowed to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want, without restriction?   No, you're not.   There are limits/restrictions.   Same with the 2nd amendment.   Constitutionally, what's the difference between a 30-round magazine and a 10-round magazine?

A proper analogy would be can you shoot anyone you want anytime you want anywhere you want?

What you are doing is comparing use of the 1st with devices related to the 2nd.

Banning a 30 round mag is more in line with banning a keyboard or youtube because you have the potential to reach many people simultaneously,  claiming that there is a fire in a theater.


No.  The 1st amendment is about "doing" something.  "Speaking" so to, uhm... speak.  There are restrictions/limits on your 1st amendment rights.  Limits to what you can "do".  You can be arrested/cited/convicted for speaking based on where, when, what you speak.

The 2nd amendment is about "possessing" something.  So, just like the 1st amendment, there are restrictions/limits on what you can possess.  Limits on where, what, when you possess it.   Magazine capacity limits, for example.   No guns in courtrooms, etc.

So not that we've established that the Constitution does, in fact, allow for limits on the right to keep/bear arms, it's just a matter of where the line is drawn.  In California, it's (unfortunately) 10-rounds in a magazine.  Now in Colorado it's apparently 15 rounds.  Some states it's 30.  Is a 30-round limit constitutional, but a 15-round limit isn't?   How so?

The sheriff can say it's unenforceable because it's poorly worded, I get that, no problem.   But to say it's "unconstitutional" is retarded.
 
2013-03-19 04:12:27 PM
Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse
 
2013-03-19 04:12:37 PM
As someone that works in Greeley CO, I'm getting a kick out of these replies

/ducks gun random fire
 
2013-03-19 04:13:41 PM

semiotix: Alphakronik: I'm curious as to if these gun-lubbin' 'mericans would sell AR's to a group of dark skinned men Americans dressed in turbans?

I've wondered about this myself, for gun shows, which is where you go for no-questions-asked firearms in a hurry. If you set it up right, you could have a whole hidden-camera exposé.

Would they sell to a swarthy guy who muttered in Arabic and cackled evilly?
Would they sell to a guy who kept arguing with the invisible 6-foot-tall rabbit only he could see?
Would they sell to a guy who wouldn't shut up about his felony convictions?
Would they sell to an 8th-grader? ("Yeah, I'm 18. What's it to you? You some kind of Nancy Pelosi-style fascist?")

I'm guessing you wouldn't have to go far at "reputable" gun shows to find people who'd answer yes to all of those questions. For added lulz, if any of them said no, you could have a guy in a suit show up claiming to be an NRA monitor and loudly demanding to know why they were pissing on the Second Amendment.

Loophole-oriented gun shows are truly amazing things. Everyone should go check one out, no matter how much you love or hate guns. Don't worry about blending in--nobody will be making eye contact with you.


You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters? Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car? Or should people not be allowed to sell their own property without government intervention?
 
2013-03-19 04:13:48 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse


Stupid hicks being stupid hicks.  Let them secede already.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:21 PM

jaybeezey: There will be no assault weapons ban as part of the gun control bill coming up because Reid knew it would be a non starter and he desperately needs to win one for the "children".


I'm pretty sure these sheriffs are mostly talking about the current state law regarding magazinse that is being fought, not any federal law.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:33 PM
Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?


Uh...


Can I have more than one magazine?
 
2013-03-19 04:14:45 PM

thenumber5: odinsposse: thenumber5: likely manufactures will just start selling magazines like the California type that need to tool to remove the magazine

The CA law is pretty specific to CA. It doesn't apply to the AWB here in Chicago, for instance. So there's no reason to think it absolves people in Colorado.

And really, there is no need to. Magazines don't have much in the way of identifying marks. There is little to stop someone from driving to, say, Wyoming, picking up a stack of magazines and distributing among their friends and pretending they have always owned them.

Colorado's law is poorly written because it casts suspicion on every legal gun owner but also makes it extremely difficult to fully enforce. Thus, it is unenforceable.

..really

i didnt say any thing about California law applying any where but California

i said "California Style Magazines" meaning, manfactures will likely start making magazines that have a locking screw on the strike plate so it cant be easily removed in the feild for a extender to snapped on, much like in California guns sold with removable magazines are required to have a lock screw to keep someone from quickly changing mags


I've purchased several guns (rifles and pistols) here in California, and none of them require a tool that prevents me from quickly changing magazines.  The release on my Sig bought in CA works just like the release on my brother-in-law's Sig bought in Arizona.
 
2013-03-19 04:15:14 PM

GUTSU: Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car?


Actually yes, but I know less about yards and cars than I do firearms, so I feel I can avoid a scam. How much for the irradiated ants?


/I have no reason to be here anymore...
 
2013-03-19 04:15:22 PM

Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?


How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?
 
2013-03-19 04:15:42 PM

thenumber5: lilplatinum: potterydove: lilplatinum: Giltric: How do you feel about the legalities of sanctuary cities? Should they fire the politicians and law enforcement officals who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Immigration law is a civil, not a criminal matter.

Nope.  There are criminal penalties for illegal entry.

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor offense (and not one all people referred to as "illegals" are guilty of - i.e. those who overstay their visas or were brought here as kids), but immigration law is not criminal law.  Deportation is not a criminal matter and the punishment for illegal entry is not deportation.

Also immigration is a Federal matter and not a State/local

local law enforcement isnt always keep in the loop concerning federal investations in there Area, and the local PD deciding to go after a illegal can blow a mutiyear drug/gun running investation


Gun control can also be a federal matter.  Especially when we are talking about an assault weapons ban.
 
2013-03-19 04:15:59 PM
I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.
 
2013-03-19 04:16:26 PM

WippitGuud: Bravo Two: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

This. Plus, Sheriffs and Law Enforcement have chosen to ignore laws on the books in the past without so much as a thought. The only reason that people are even mentioning it is because A) this is Fark, and B) it involves guns.

If it involved porn or weed, Fark would be all for it.

/hypocrites.

I can't walk into a school with porn and weed and kill a bunch of students.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the students would throw a party in my favor.

In fact, forget the school.


That's not the point. Firstly, they'd still arrest you. Secondly, knee-jerk limitations that have no basis in reality and do nothing to prevent anything are a waste of time trying to enforce, just like policing drugs. Yeah, people may abuse drugs and occasionally do bad shiat with them, too. How well are those preemptive restrictions on Sudafed working out for you?
 
2013-03-19 04:17:05 PM

GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?


murlocparliament.com
 
2013-03-19 04:17:19 PM

thenumber5: i didnt say any thing about California law applying any where but California

i said "California Style Magazines" meaning, manfactures will likely start making magazines that have a locking screw on the strike plate so it cant be easily removed in the feild for a extender to snapped on, much like in California guns sold with removable magazines are required to have a lock screw to keep someone from quickly changing mags


Right. That makes those magazines legal in California. I already pointed out that same modification does not make those magazines legal here in Chicago, which has a similar set of assault weapon laws. So there is no certainty that that modification would make those magazines legal in Colorado.
 
2013-03-19 04:17:21 PM

GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?


$12 for a background check... that's less than the farking sales tax. So, now you have to pay $812 dollars....
 
2013-03-19 04:17:38 PM
What makes these inbred redneck sheriffs think they are the Supreme Court?
 
2013-03-19 04:17:46 PM

coeyagi: Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse

Stupid hicks being stupid hicks.  Let them secede already.


God forbid a politician be held accountable to the voters.  Sorry not everyone can rule by decree like Bloomburg
 
2013-03-19 04:17:52 PM

Tom_Slick: Caffandtranqs: Do you know many people with cannons? Do you know many people who think people having cannons is a good idea?

Actually yes, on both counts, but I collect antique firearms.

/Ever try to fire an 1851 Colt Navy? Not an easy gun to use.


I mean cannons that use live ammunition to shoot large projectiles to inflict damage to a structure, not show pieces or (as someone before stated) as lawn decorations.

/Never tried to shoot one
 
2013-03-19 04:18:16 PM
This is a nice election gesture, but that's it. Cops will use any tool you give them if the feel they are taking criminals off the street by using it. You can say, "I will not enforce this law," but as soon as some criminal clearly flaunts the new law, a DA will most certainly prosecute them for it.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:26 PM

odinsposse: thenumber5: the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in

1) That doesn't change the fact that the law is worded so poorly it is unenforceable and 2) it makes it even harder to tell if a magazine is legally owned since even magazines that are of illegal size might still be legal

tom baker's scarf: Only if they have said gun or mag in plain sight or there is a reasonable suspicion the person in question has said guns or mags, outside of a search warrant that is.

It's not like a traffic cop field stops your car looking for dope when you get pulled over for speeding.

It isn't "said magazines" because as I said all magazines are, under the wording of this law, probably illegal. So any indication that someone is a gun owner makes it likely they are in violation of this new law.


Please. the cops are already not looking to arrest anyone over this. Could most mags be modified to hold more than 15 rounds sure, if you cut out the bottom, wield or tape on another mag with a longer feeder spring etc but that's like saying if I'm transporting two cases of liquor I'm under suspicion of selling it without a license.

If on the other hand officer Lou opens your trunk and finds a bunch of mags with the bottoms cut off or there is just a removable plug so the 100 round drum can only hold 15 rounds while the plug is installed then you're obviously violating the law and should be detained.

This isn't a manpower or enforcement issue. This is a elected cop keeping his name in the papers stoking the derp so he can keep being an elected cop.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:29 PM
Juries have the ability to nullify a law (or at least a conviction under that law) they think is unenforceable or unconstitutional. Why wouldn't a sheriff also have that ability?
 
rka
2013-03-19 04:18:37 PM
Couple of things.

This sheriff is on his 3rd term and in the last election he got over 76% of the vote. I rather doubt his constituents are going to throw him out.

BUT

He's up against a term limit law. He needs a pending court case to go in his favor in order to run again in 2014.

Unless he himself violates a law or the constitution there is no legal reason for his removal. Not enforcing every law on the books does not rise to the level of law breaking for a sheriff.

The only thing that's unusual about this case is his very public commentary. Normally, sheriffs just quietly go about their business of non-enforcement.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:48 PM

Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.


Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:50 PM

cman: Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime


The county coroner is usually the only elected official with authority to fire a sheriff outright (Ohio).  The state can step in as well, but they would likely tr to stay out of this.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:51 PM

Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.


Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?
 
2013-03-19 04:18:56 PM

WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?


And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.
 
2013-03-19 04:19:31 PM

Godscrack: [img692.imageshack.us image 630x454]


Pure win.

(right click, save)
 
2013-03-19 04:19:43 PM

Caffandtranqs: Tom_Slick: Caffandtranqs: Do you know many people with cannons? Do you know many people who think people having cannons is a good idea?

Actually yes, on both counts, but I collect antique firearms.

/Ever try to fire an 1851 Colt Navy? Not an easy gun to use.

I mean cannons that use live ammunition to shoot large projectiles to inflict damage to a structure, not show pieces or (as someone before stated) as lawn decorations.


Does it have to be gunpowder-powered?
Apparently there is a surprising number of people who have a backyard trebuchet
 
2013-03-19 04:21:08 PM

odinsposse: thenumber5: i didnt say any thing about California law applying any where but California

i said "California Style Magazines" meaning, manfactures will likely start making magazines that have a locking screw on the strike plate so it cant be easily removed in the feild for a extender to snapped on, much like in California guns sold with removable magazines are required to have a lock screw to keep someone from quickly changing mags

Right. That makes those magazines legal in California. I already pointed out that same modification does not make those magazines legal here in Chicago, which has a similar set of assault weapon laws. So there is no certainty that that modification would make those magazines legal in Colorado.


....i see you just dense
 
2013-03-19 04:21:11 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country

Screw the hillbillies


Yeah, fark everyone that doesn't live in a city, what do they do besides supply everything people in the cities need to live? Obviously they're all sister farking hicks, I bet they don't even pay $10 for a cup of coffee.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:32 PM

Satanic_Hamster: All they have to do is say: "Due to current budget and time constraints, we only have the resources to investigate so many crimes as well as do general street patrolling. Given the other demands on our officers these new unfunded mandates will not take a high priority in enforcement for my staff."

That's fine and that's LEGAL.


So, if he said things like these:

"Why put the effort into enforcing a law that is unenforceable? With all of the other crimes that are going on, I don't have the manpower, the resources or the desire to enforce laws like that."

"if a person who uses a gun outfitted with a magazine able to hold more than 15 rounds in a crime, that person will be charged under the new law."


You'd be ok with his decision?

It's obvious that he he isn't a fan of the law, but it's also obvious that his primary reasoning is that even if he liked the laws, he (and his force) have no ability to enforce them. The best they can do is tack it on as an extra charge for other crimes.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:32 PM

sirgrim: WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?

And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.


And I agree.

I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:38 PM

Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?


Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:51 PM

Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.


Just out of curiosity, what does the FBI have to do with an argument between state and county officials over the enforcement of a state law?
 
2013-03-19 04:22:13 PM

Caffandtranqs: I mean cannons that use live ammunition to shoot large projectiles to inflict damage to a structure, not show pieces or (as someone before stated) as lawn decorations.


Would a bowling ball mortar fall into that description?
 
2013-03-19 04:22:20 PM
As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all. You people whining about a magazine limit crack me up too, "I can't buy a new 30 round mag so i have to reload more now waaaaaaaahhhhhh". I can see the argument likening the paying your own background check fee is like a poll tax and might like to see that law stricken on those grounds and replaced with a system where everyone gets 1 free a year and then has to pay for them after that. Other than that, this all much ado about nothing.
 
2013-03-19 04:22:56 PM

Fano: sans


Came to say I see what you did there.

/nice pun
/your hair is nice too
 
2013-03-19 04:22:57 PM

Shryke: Evil High Priest: That's not your farking job. Your farking job is to uphold laws, as passed. You don't get to pick and choose. Do your farking job, or quit.

Were you saying this when Obama and Holder decided to stop enforcing DOMA?


They're sheriffs now? Who knew!

Sheriffs get to allocate resources. They don't get to decide court cases.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:35 PM

GUTSU: Yeah, fark everyone that doesn't live in a city, what do they do besides supply everything people in the cities need to live?


Yeah, there is no point to say fark the hillbillies, we need serfs willing to toil in the fields in order to make our city lives awesome.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:40 PM

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse

Stupid hicks being stupid hicks.  Let them secede already.

God forbid a politician be held accountable to the voters.  Sorry not everyone can rule by decree like Bloomburg


That's fine, I am just advocating that they be hicks in their own country and stop f*cking up mine.  I know they want to. You know they want to.  Let them live in a paradise where anyone can do anything to anybody.  F*ck if I care.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:46 PM
And we're supposed to be afraid of al Qaeda? Here are 240 "law enforcement" officials vowing to subvert the law & the Constitution.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:51 PM

FreetardoRivera: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

[murlocparliament.com image 695x535]


A poll tax is a reasonable restriction on the right to vote.  Reasonable.
 
2013-03-19 04:24:23 PM

pudding7: I've purchased several guns (rifles and pistols) here in California, and none of them require a tool that prevents me from quickly changing magazines. The release on my Sig bought in CA works just like the release on my brother-in-law's Sig bought in Arizona.


I think he is talking about AR-15s that end up requiring a "bullet button." Meaning you need a tool to remove the Ar mag.
 
Displayed 50 of 658 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