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.

(Daily Mail)   Coming soon to a gun store near you - A belt fed rifle that can "spray bullets like a fire hose" and it's perfectly legal. Yippie Ki-yay M@#$#@#ER   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 278
    More: Spiffy, National Firearms Act, stock, loopholes, Gun Control Act, general public  
•       •       •

19067 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:23 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-13 09:48:57 PM

NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

Sure, it's useful when aliens invade and force you and your buddy to run shirtless through the jungle, killing wave after wave of bad guys, dodging pillars of fire, climbing a waterfall for some reason, then blowing up a big red heart-like thing while a bunch of weird spiders try to eat your face, but that's about it.


Because they're fun to fire at the range every now and then if you've got the money to burn for the device and for the ammo. There's not much practical use for your average civilian though.
 
2013-09-13 09:49:52 PM

NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

Sure, it's useful when aliens invade and force you and your buddy to run shirtless through the jungle, killing wave after wave of bad guys, dodging pillars of fire, climbing a waterfall for some reason, then blowing up a big red heart-like thing while a bunch of weird spiders try to eat your face, but that's about it for overthrowing a tyrannical government, as the Founders had recently done when they drafted the Constitution.


... of course, actually attempting to overthrow the government is treason. So, there's no reason the government shouldn't make firing one of these weapons illegal. But to prevent ownership of it would make it more difficult to oppose tyranny and would violate the second amendment.
 
2013-09-13 09:49:56 PM

dittybopper: Dadoody: You can own a machine gun with the proper license.

Not if it was manufactured after 1986.


Actually, any Class 3 Dealer can buy an MG built after 1986, and they're far cheaper than most on the market.  You can't SELL it to anyone other than the military, LE or another dealer, but don't let the facts get in the way of your post.
 
2013-09-13 09:50:37 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Belt fed is overrated.  You need a two girl crew.

Three 25 round magazines full of 7.62x39mm is what I call "plenty", which is precisely what that amount of ammo weighs.


And you have to yell "GIT SUM! GIT SUM!" as you shoot it
 
2013-09-13 09:50:46 PM

Dimensio: In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.


So how much is an A-bomb?
 
2013-09-13 09:50:58 PM

Rhino_man: Marcus Aurelius: Belt fed is overrated.  You need a two girl crew.

Three 25 round magazines full of 7.62x39mm is what I call "plenty", which is precisely what that amount of ammo weighs.

7.62x54r is where it's at. If you can't get the job done with bolt-action, you either need more people or an easier job.


In that case, go with a No 4 SMLE.  It's a better gun, the bolt is inherently faster, and it holds 10 rounds.
 
2013-09-13 09:51:58 PM
Here's a vid of some dude shooting it
 
2013-09-13 09:52:09 PM
Thanks Obama
 
2013-09-13 09:52:31 PM

indy_kid: dittybopper: Dadoody: You can own a machine gun with the proper license.

Not if it was manufactured after 1986.

Actually, any Class 3 Dealer can buy an MG built after 1986, and they're far cheaper than most on the market.  You can't SELL it to anyone other than the military, LE or another dealer, but don't let the facts get in the way of your post.


That doesn't change the fact that your average person can't legally buy a MG built after '86. But at least you didn't let semantics get in the way of seeming like a jackass.
 
2013-09-13 09:52:38 PM

vygramul: Mugato: Marcus Aurelius: Belt fed is overrated.  You need a two girl crew.

Three 25 round magazines full of 7.62x39mm is what I call "plenty", which is precisely what that amount of ammo weighs.

What are you preparing for?

Half an hour at the range?


75 rounds in half an hour? Try 10 minutes for <25 yards.
 
2013-09-13 09:52:48 PM

indy_kid: dittybopper: Dadoody: You can own a machine gun with the proper license.

Not if it was manufactured after 1986.

Actually, any Class 3 Dealer can buy an MG built after 1986, and they're far cheaper than most on the market.  You can't SELL it to anyone other than the military, LE or another dealer, but don't let the facts get in the way of your post.


Forgot to add:  Google "Dealer Sample".  I'm sure a lot of folks became Class 3 dealers just to own MGs.
 
2013-09-13 09:53:33 PM

SirEattonHogg: If it's only semi-auto then how does it fire like a machine gun?  Doesn't it only fire as fast as one's trigger finger?

I dunno, it sounds like its just gonna jam more than a normal magazine fed gun (unless as someone mentioned above - you have someone patiently help you feed that belt in).   But, I dunno much about guns (other than the .22 rimfire gun I keep around for plinking), so I'm happy to hear otherwise.


Watch the video. It fires one shot for each pull of the trigger. The trick on this weapon is that it is moving back and forth on his motionless finger. It's the sliding action between the stock and the rest.
 
2013-09-13 09:53:36 PM
At $6000 a pop; the only people who could afford one would be Saudi princes.
 
2013-09-13 09:53:49 PM
Guns like this are why the phrase "moar dakka" was invented.
 
2013-09-13 09:55:13 PM
At this point, can we just treat the people scared of stuff like this as the morons they are?

This ability can be mastered by anyone with a short bit of practice. Yet no one has been mowed down by spree killers bump firing thousands of rounds at helpless victims.

You're statistically only slightly more likely to die by someone bump firing then being beat to death by Santa Claus. It's about as remote a statistic as can be had.
 
2013-09-13 09:55:43 PM
I honestly can't see how this would be even remotely accurate. Looks like just a fun way to waste ammo.
 
2013-09-13 09:55:48 PM

Dadoody: You can own a machine gun with the proper license.

If you think owning this without a license is A-OK or a loophole, you are not educated about gun ownership, or the ATF.

This article is pure bologna, and google "DavidOlofson" if you want to see what ATF will do to you.

Ignorant people discussing things they're ignorant about. Carry on libtards.


WHAT?  SPEAK UP I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
 
2013-09-13 09:57:11 PM

NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?


That's not really the way the law works. Stuff tends to be legal until someone makes it illegal. And thanks to the nonsensical bullshiat that has overrun firearms legislation, what gets classified as "illegal" doesn't necessarily make a hell of a lot of sense.

A 10/22, which is basically a step up from a pellet rifle, can be considered an "assault weapon" if it has bayonet lug (because there are an awful lot of bayonet-related crimes) and a barrel shroud (which basically prevents you from burning your hand if the barrel gets hot).

In this case, because of the paranoia about automatic weapons, there is a lot defining what constitutes an illegal weapon based on certain mechanisms producing a high rate of fire, rather than anything regarding the rate of fire itself.
 
2013-09-13 09:58:06 PM

NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?


How boring would the world be if everything needed a good reason to be legal...
 
2013-09-13 09:58:26 PM

indy_kid: dittybopper: Dadoody: You can own a machine gun with the proper license.

Not if it was manufactured after 1986.

Actually, any Class 3 Dealer can buy an MG built after 1986, and they're far cheaper than most on the market.  You can't SELL it to anyone other than the military, LE or another dealer, but don't let the facts get in the way of your post.


How much does it cost for a Class III license these days, compared to a Form 4 and the $200 tax?

Oh, yeah, $500 a year.  Plus you need to be an FFL in addition, and the ATF shut down the "kitchen table dealers" back in the 1990's, and they frown upon licensees who aren't actually engaged in the business, so unless you're actually making a living (or a significant fraction of a living) actually dealing in guns, getting the dealer license isn't really much of an option.

Certainly, it's not an option in my state.
 
2013-09-13 09:59:07 PM

LukeR: I honestly can't see how this would be even remotely accurate. Looks like just a fun way to waste ammo.


they aren't even close to accurate. i tried an ar-15 with a slide fire stock and it just turned a lot of money into noise. unless you are playing 'a-team' and want to see a lot of dirt kick up in pretty patterns all around your target, they are just a toy to pretend you have a machine gun.
 
2013-09-13 09:59:55 PM
This thing would only be suitable to shooting up a vast number of grouped targets, such as a herd, or crowd, of some sort.
 
2013-09-13 10:01:43 PM

dittybopper: Rhino_man: Marcus Aurelius: Belt fed is overrated.  You need a two girl crew.

Three 25 round magazines full of 7.62x39mm is what I call "plenty", which is precisely what that amount of ammo weighs.

7.62x54r is where it's at. If you can't get the job done with bolt-action, you either need more people or an easier job.

In that case, go with a No 4 SMLE.  It's a better gun, the bolt is inherently faster, and it holds 10 rounds.


True... I'm a history buff, though... and an M38 Mosin is around $200, and it was ONLY produced during the WWII years, which means that I don't have to worry about finding one that was made at the right time, in the right armory.

Also, I'm used to the M16A2 and M16A4, so the 39 inch overall length of the M38 Mosin just FEELS right to me.
 
2013-09-13 10:03:10 PM

Satan's Dumptruck Driver: vygramul: Mugato: Marcus Aurelius: Belt fed is overrated.  You need a two girl crew.

Three 25 round magazines full of 7.62x39mm is what I call "plenty", which is precisely what that amount of ammo weighs.

What are you preparing for?

Half an hour at the range?

75 rounds in half an hour? Try 10 minutes for <25 yards.


Why on earth would you fire at only 25 yards? 150m with iron sights is the minimum or they revoke your man card.
 
2013-09-13 10:04:11 PM

Ivan the Tolerable: LukeR: I honestly can't see how this would be even remotely accurate. Looks like just a fun way to waste ammo.

they aren't even close to accurate. i tried an ar-15 with a slide fire stock and it just turned a lot of money into noise. unless you are playing 'a-team' and want to see a lot of dirt kick up in pretty patterns all around your target, they are just a toy to pretend you have a machine gun.


This. Now, if there were some legal loophole to permit the sale of the M240...

Pardon me while I sit in the corner and drool like an idiot, remembering all the fun times I had with an M240B while I was on active duty... I miss that thing.
 
2013-09-13 10:06:20 PM

Infernalist: This thing would only be suitable to shooting up a vast number of grouped targets, such as a herd, or crowd, of some sort.


Or flock.
 
2013-09-13 10:08:31 PM
This is why I carry a railgun on a mobile trailer with me at all times...
 
2013-09-13 10:09:49 PM

vygramul: Infernalist: This thing would only be suitable to shooting up a vast number of grouped targets, such as a herd, or crowd, of some sort.

Or flock.


http://www.retrocrush.com/retrorandy/flockofseagulls/flockofseagulls22 .jpg

Thankfully, they already started running.
 
2013-09-13 10:09:50 PM
ooooohhh, evil!
 
2013-09-13 10:10:03 PM

indy_kid: I'm sure a lot of folks became Class 3 dealers just to own MGs.


That would explain the gun store that appears to be open 15 minutes a week.
 
2013-09-13 10:10:18 PM
Isn't that thing just a different stock to attack to your ar-15? why is it 6 grand?
 
2013-09-13 10:12:26 PM

Rhino_man: Ivan the Tolerable: LukeR: I honestly can't see how this would be even remotely accurate. Looks like just a fun way to waste ammo.

they aren't even close to accurate. i tried an ar-15 with a slide fire stock and it just turned a lot of money into noise. unless you are playing 'a-team' and want to see a lot of dirt kick up in pretty patterns all around your target, they are just a toy to pretend you have a machine gun.

This. Now, if there were some legal loophole to permit the sale of the M240...

Pardon me while I sit in the corner and drool like an idiot, remembering all the fun times I had with an M240B while I was on active duty... I miss that thing.


Pft, wake me when there's a loophole to allow sales of Mk-19's. Yeah, I know it's a grenade launcher, but goddamn that thing was fun to fire, and I got to do it fairly often in Iraq. No not at actual enemies, but the guard position my retrans team manned at our site in Iraq had a MK-19 and every so often we'd be told to fire off some rounds into the empty valley below us for "practice" or just to get rid of some rounds to make way for new ammo coming in.

/even cooler was when we were told to blow the old claymores around our perimeter since they were over a year and a half old and they needed to be replaced.
 
2013-09-13 10:12:45 PM
Sorry dont by it. There was a problem with some AK's a few years ago. They was a problem with them that some times a few would jam and go full auto. Courts ruled that the owners of the guns where still in violation and a few went to jail for owning an full auto rifle.

.Anyway. Now a days. You would have to take out a second mortgage just to afford the bullets.
 
2013-09-13 10:14:40 PM

ultraholland: ooooohhh, evil!

 
2013-09-13 10:14:47 PM

Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.


In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate.  The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.
 
2013-09-13 10:15:28 PM
First time this gets used in a mass shooting or bank robbery, BAM, federally illegal.
Just watch.
 
2013-09-13 10:16:19 PM

Tellingthem: ultraholland: ooooohhh, evil!


damn let's try that again...
kithmeme.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-13 10:16:34 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: First time this gets used in a mass shooting or bank robbery, BAM, federally illegal.
Just watch.


We can only hope that it only takes one mass shooting.
 
2013-09-13 10:16:42 PM

qgmonkey: Why?


Taking a stroll in Chicago?

/Do Want!
//The fun toy, not stepping foot in Chicago
 
2013-09-13 10:17:33 PM
Ah yes, lets feel out another fact-scarce scary article that shows how the US gun laws =  Somalia.  I'm sure this will be the talk of the water cooler in places where they use "flyover country" non-ironically.
 
2013-09-13 10:18:55 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate.  The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.


Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.
 
2013-09-13 10:19:51 PM

Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate.  The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.


Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia.  But you knew that.
 
2013-09-13 10:21:45 PM
I think it's time to fix gun law, and here's my proposal to punish criminals

Go ahead, own any number of guns, any kind you want. And I mean ANYTHING. All you need is a gun ownership endorsement on your license or state id, therefore there's no actual database of gun owners.

Decriminalize minor drug crimes, put as many first time, nonviolent offenders into diversion programs. This will empty out the prisons for HUGE new mandatory minimums for ANY serious crime committed by a licensed gun owner. You commit a rape, robbery, murder, assault or threat with that stamp on your licence, you never see the outside of a prison cell again in your life.

The real "good guys with guns" get all the freedom they can handle, the thugs get put away for life, and those of us who choose not to own guns jab the legal weapons we need to fight back against the bad gun owners who threaten public safety.

Seems like a win-win-win to me.
 
2013-09-13 10:21:49 PM

Infernalist: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate.  The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia.  But you knew that.


uh no, the right to bear arms is for the people so they have the tools to form an effective militia if necessary, read the actual text of the amendment.
 
2013-09-13 10:22:15 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

Does it shoot through schools?
 
2013-09-13 10:23:22 PM

Headso: Infernalist: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate.  The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia.  But you knew that.

uh no, the right to bear arms is for the people so they have the tools to form an effective militia if necessary, read the actual text of the amendment.


Except we already have that well-regulated militia.  It's called "The National Guard."
 
2013-09-13 10:24:11 PM

Infernalist: Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia.  But you knew that.


Wow, no one has ever brought that up in a gun thread,  Good job!

/dependent clause
//definition of "well-regulated"
///so if you were a non governmental well regulated militia you would be cool with it, right?
////well-regulated slashies
 
2013-09-13 10:24:29 PM

Headso: uh no, the right to bear arms is for the people so they have the tools to form an effective militia if necessary, read the actual text of the amendment.


Reading is hard for some people.
 
2013-09-13 10:26:14 PM

Infernalist: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate.  The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia.  But you knew that.


No, I know a lot of people like to parrot that mistaken belief that the reference to a militia is somehow a restriction of a right expressly granted to "the People," especially those with no legal education and a piss-poor understanding of history.
 
2013-09-13 10:27:04 PM
I have shot one of these many times. It's a fun way to waste money. That is all. It's horribly inaccurrate. and just wastes ammo. Fun yes, a problem? If a slide stock has ever been used in a crime please let me know because I doubt it.
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report