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  
•       •       •

19068 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:23 PM (1 year 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 10:27:35 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.


Seriously, what paper do you work for?
 
2013-09-13 10:28:01 PM
I want a bump stock for my Mini-14 so I can waste ammo.
 
2013-09-13 10:28:47 PM

Infernalist: 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."


The militia is defined in the national code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
2013-09-13 10:30:27 PM
Man, I can barely afford to shoot as it is.  Bump firing is just dumb, and a lot of ranges don't allow it.
 
2013-09-13 10:31:49 PM

Infernalist: 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."


The existence of the national guard doesn't take away a right granted to the people. But let nabb argue with you on this, I'm gonna go watch some tv and smoke a bong...
 
2013-09-13 10:32:30 PM

Infernalist: Except we already have that well-regulated militia.  It's called "The National Guard."


So, gonna respond to Snow or go back to your copypasta of talking points?

I remember the good ol' days of Fark, when the trolls used to actually try.
 
2013-09-13 10:32:42 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.

If it makes you feel better.....
If the facts even remotely resembled this hyperbolic mess of an article it would be illegal.
All of these components are legal and combining them is legal.... just expensive, pointless, and unlikely to work when the camera isn't rolling. I did a field test for a gun dealer friend on a similar setup made by another company (I assume it was anyway). It worked for about as long as it took to take the picture.


The 12 gauge Joe Biden told everyone to go out and buy is a far more serious piece of ordinance in reality. The like, totally rockin' pictures notwithstanding.
 
2013-09-13 10:32:54 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: For those of you ready to lose it because it's a gun, and "ZOMGZZZ SCARY!!! NOBODY SHOULD OWN ONE!!!1111!!!"  let me point you to the price of this thing:

$6,000.

That's out of the range for about 99% of gun owners.  And the ones who DO have the money to spend for something like this typically aren't the kind of crazies you'd worry about handling firearms.  So everybody just calm down.


Even military grade M4's and M16's will melt the barrels when used for sustained rapid fire, I would hate to see what happens to a cheap ass AR15 with a few clips fired through them with this thing.
 
2013-09-13 10:33:11 PM
So Jon Snow... I don't want to quote it all. Do you or do you not agree that I am "allowed" to own any gun currently for sale in a reasonable state (such as Ohio)?
 
2013-09-13 10:33:52 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: 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.


I've fired the Mk-19, too... I was disappointed. I felt disconnected from the weapon, like I was watching someone else fire it with my hands... ther lack of recoil really farked with my head, man.
 
2013-09-13 10:33:57 PM
Who do we blame for all these gun threads in one day?
 
2013-09-13 10:34:05 PM

Headso: Infernalist: 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."

The existence of the national guard doesn't take away a right granted to the people. But let nabb argue with you on this, I'm gonna go watch some tv and smoke a bong...


Nah, I'm calling it a night. I have no interest in retreading another argument against that old canard.
 
2013-09-13 10:34:07 PM
Say what you will about the wording, the Supreme Court has decided that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
 
2013-09-13 10:35:13 PM
Daily Fail
 
2013-09-13 10:35:51 PM

Jon Snow: You can bump fire using your belt loop or a rubber band.



I know that.  But still!!! GUNS!!! THEY'RE BLACK!!!  ZOMGZ SCARY!!!  FEELINGS!!!  THE CHILDREN!!!
 
2013-09-13 10:36:11 PM

Mugato: 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?


tree fiddey.
 
2013-09-13 10:36:32 PM
Even the usual gun banning faction gives this article a meh.  nuff said.
 
2013-09-13 10:37:44 PM
Will this be one of those epic "bad gun" vs "good gun" thread?  I'm predicting  yes
 
2013-09-13 10:39:20 PM
Yeah sooner or later this thing is going to end up being used in a criminal act.
 
2013-09-13 10:42:04 PM

vygramul: It's been around for a while, except the belt-firing. It's not going to be popular with gangsters and wannabe rambos. It requires shoulder-firing, and that's just not cool.


Except that actual, real life gangbangers send their guys to the military and then they train everybody else
 
2013-09-13 10:42:59 PM

grimlock1972: Yeah sooner or later this thing is going to end up being used in a criminal act.




Why? They are near impossible to aim, expensive, and less likely to hit whatever target you may have. Criminal's will stick to the cheap handguns they typically always have, and these will be range toys for people with money to burn.
 
2013-09-13 10:43:38 PM
Sasha?
 
2013-09-13 10:43:58 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'.


To be fair, the fact that many things are legal only because no one has justified prohibiting them is a problem for many authoritarians and totalitarians.
 
2013-09-13 10:44:48 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.


It does fire only once per trigger "pull".  It's just designed so that the recoil moves the trigger away from your finger (thus letting up on it) and then brings it back to your finger (thus firing the next round.)

udhq: 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.


I'm close to this position.  The heavier the stuff the higher the license requirements (same as a CDL is more strict than an ordinary driver's license) but the only things I would utterly prohibit are chemical and bio weapons.  Furthermore, nukes would be subject to the same security that they are in military hands--while you would be able to own one you could never actually possess it as that would violate the two-man rule.  That doesn't make them totally useless, though--Acme Asteroid Movers could go bring home a rock with an Orion drive.  They would have to bring along a few people that the government considers nuke-certified to handle the actual weapons.

udhq: 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.


I disagree.  Mandatory minimums lead to unfair situations.
 
2013-09-13 10:45:14 PM
'bump gun' is the cool band name / song title of the day.
 
2013-09-13 10:45:37 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.


Your claim is legally false.
 
2013-09-13 10:46:44 PM
hmm
 
2013-09-13 10:46:48 PM

Bigdogdaddy: Will this be one of those epic "bad gun" vs "good gun" thread?  I'm predicting  yes


Ugh I had a horrible gun. Single shot 20 gauge my grandpa gave me. The thing kicked like a mule and I couldn't hit jack with it. My dads cheap 12 gauge felt like a Cadillac compared to it. Ithaca 37 IIRC. Nothing special but man that thing was reliable. Used to shoot skeet with it and it shot very well. Never had a single issue. Loved that gun.
 
2013-09-13 10:49:13 PM

Rhino_man: Dingleberry Dickwad: 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.

I've fired the Mk-19, too... I was disappointed. I felt disconnected from the weapon, like I was watching someone else fire it with my hands... ther lack of recoil really farked with my head, man.


I liked it, watching the small explosions down in the valley or on the rocky cliffside on the other side of the valley was pretty cool.
I will say that cleaning that farker weekly was a bastard though.
 
2013-09-13 10:49:46 PM

Tellingthem: Bigdogdaddy: Will this be one of those epic "bad gun" vs "good gun" thread?  I'm predicting  yes

Ugh I had a horrible gun. Single shot 20 gauge my grandpa gave me. The thing kicked like a mule and I couldn't hit jack with it. My dads cheap 12 gauge felt like a Cadillac compared to it. Ithaca 37 IIRC. Nothing special but man that thing was reliable. Used to shoot skeet with it and it shot very well. Never had a single issue. Loved that gun.


I have an 1897 winchester 12 (1906 serial number) that shoots like a dream.  Wouldn't trade it for the finest AR-15
 
2013-09-13 10:50:06 PM

Tellingthem: Bigdogdaddy: Will this be one of those epic "bad gun" vs "good gun" thread?  I'm predicting  yes

Ugh I had a horrible gun. Single shot 20 gauge my grandpa gave me. The thing kicked like a mule and I couldn't hit jack with it. My dads cheap 12 gauge felt like a Cadillac compared to it. Ithaca 37 IIRC. Nothing special but man that thing was reliable. Used to shoot skeet with it and it shot very well. Never had a single issue. Loved that gun.




I had a Kimber that couldn't get through a mag without a failure to extract. It was a $1200 lemon. It went back to Kimber 3 times before they agreed to replace it.
 
2013-09-13 10:50:13 PM
I am wasting time here but... I believe the perception of guns is very simple. You grew up with them as a thing, or you grew up with them as a "thing". Very  simple terms so flame me as you will. I grew up with guns as things you hunted with, things you shoot at targets for fun, and things you protect your family with. They were not worshiped , fetishised, jerked off over, whatever. They were also not feared, misrepresented or something to be scared of. These are things we grew up to respect, understand and learn how to use. For someone who didn't grow up that way... basically how you learned to respect the ability and the outcome if you drove a car. The responsibilities are great. If you were taught well, you take it seriously. If not, you are a danger. The difference is, you are not allowed to own a handgun (responsible for most gun deaths) until you are 21 years old. You can drive at 16.
 
2013-09-13 10:51:22 PM

BadReligion: Say what you will about the wording, the Supreme Court has decided that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.


The court alse ruled that the Affordable Car Act is Constitutional. Tea party activists nonetheless dispute the Constitutionality of the law. Firearm regulation advocates who claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms are merely showing solidarity and their intellectual agrement with the Tea Party.
 
2013-09-13 10:51:46 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.



You were doing so well.
 
2013-09-13 10:52:59 PM
And meanwhile, back in reality, California has passed legislation that classifies any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition as an ASSAULT WEAPON, which bans their sale or purchase. And anyone who already owns one has to register it.

What a frightened, cowed group of subjects America is becoming.

Can someone remind me of the percentage of Americans that falls victim to these evil long guns every year?
 
2013-09-13 10:55:21 PM
If it is belt fed ,why aren't there any videos on the site?
 
2013-09-13 10:56:14 PM

Nabb1: organizmx: doglover: How many threads are we gonna have on this gun this week? This is the 6th one.

Dude, go outside more. Take your dogs even.

/in before the libs come in trashing this beautiful expression of Somalian, we, American freedom.

I doubt your average Somalian goon has the money for one of these things.


I doubt your average Somalian goon would want one when they can get a full auto AK47s for their next high seas hijinks.
 
2013-09-13 10:56:44 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.


I do believe that it's time to change it, in a large part due to how much times have changed since the second amendment was penned.  The second amendment was born in a world filled with single shot muzzle loaders and where there was no standing well equipped national army.  It made sense in its day, but that day has passed.   The founding fathers could have never imagined a world with such easy access to weapons so much more advanced than what they had.

Heller and McDonald were both passed on party lines 5-4.  There's a very good chance of the Supreme Court finally flipping towards a liberal majority within the next administration (as long as the Democrats win and hold the Senate of course) and I fully believe that a test case that will overrule those prior cases will be brought.

As far as the case goes now, it specifies the right to bear arms, but does not in any way define the limits of what those arms may be.  That can be interpreted as there being no limits, or as any limits being acceptable as long as some arms are available.  I'd obviously prefer the latter interpretation.
 
2013-09-13 10:57:50 PM
If you want this to be illegal you probably would like to see hypercars, speedboats, monster trucks, skyscrapers, 400cc+ drivers, 400cc+ implants, and anything else that's created by the super ego of male humans outlawed too.
 
2013-09-13 10:57:59 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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.

I do believe that it's time to change it, in a large part due to how much times have changed since the second amendment was penned.  The second amendment was born in a world filled with single shot muzzle loaders and where there was no standing well equipped national army.  It made sense in its day, but that day has passed.   The founding fathers could have never imagined a world with such easy access to weapons so much more advanced than what they had.

Heller and McDonald were both passed on party lines 5-4.  There's a very good chance of the Supreme Court finally flipping towards a liberal majority within the next administration (as long as the Democrats win and hold the Senate of course) and I fully believe that a test case that will overrule those prior cases will be brought.

As far as the case goes now, it specifies the right to bear arms, but does not in any way define the limits of what those arms may be.  That can be interpreted as there being no limits, or as any limits being acceptable as long as some arms are available.  I'd obviously prefer the latter inter ...


1st amendment was made of the days of the printing press.
 
2013-09-13 10:58:12 PM

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


Oh, someone will use this thing to shred a classroom full of children and THEN all the lawmakers will come to their senses.
 
2013-09-13 11:00:19 PM
Those aren't new, and they aren't that useful other than having a little fun on a range.   A 20 rd clip is done in almost a snap of a finger.
 
2013-09-13 11:01:17 PM

Bigdogdaddy: Tellingthem: Bigdogdaddy: Will this be one of those epic "bad gun" vs "good gun" thread?  I'm predicting  yes

Ugh I had a horrible gun. Single shot 20 gauge my grandpa gave me. The thing kicked like a mule and I couldn't hit jack with it. My dads cheap 12 gauge felt like a Cadillac compared to it. Ithaca 37 IIRC. Nothing special but man that thing was reliable. Used to shoot skeet with it and it shot very well. Never had a single issue. Loved that gun.

I have an 1897 winchester 12 (1906 serial number) that shoots like a dream.  Wouldn't trade it for the finest AR-15


I swear there is something about a good shotgun that is just unexplainable. I've tried out the semi-autos and all those fancy ones but that good ol' pump just felt right (I did like the bottom ejection too). Plus it was fun when I beat those guys using something my dad bought at Sears. I didn't always win but I always did pretty good.
 
2013-09-13 11:01:48 PM
doglover


How many threads are we gonna have on this gun this week? This is the 6th one.
The mods greenlight any thread that will help push their political opinions. It's why there's rarely a thread that puts firearms or Jews in a positive light.

// f- threads, pro posts barely/rarely survive.
 
2013-09-13 11:01:51 PM

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

Oh, someone will use this thing to shred a classroom full of children and THEN all the lawmakers will come to their senses.


Because the lack of fully auto fire is the one thing that kept our schools safe all these years.
 
2013-09-13 11:04:15 PM
Cynicism101
2013-09-13 09:34:54 PM


[just pretend that I know how to make cute little music notes]
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (Had a gun)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (Had a gun)
There'd be no more crime, 'cause everybody'd have a gun
(Makes sense!)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?
We've already seen what happens when nobody does. But your party has always been fully supportive of the get on the trains quietly program.
 
2013-09-13 11:05:07 PM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Second Amendment argument? Wonderful!
 
2013-09-13 11:11:16 PM
ALRIGHT!!  Just one more thing for the Liberals to get a clit-on over, that will rarely if ever be used in crimes and even then, only by rank amateurs who won't be able to use it successfully a la Sideshow Bob.

It was getting kind of boring watching Bloomberg try to give NYC a legislative high cap soda ban enema anyway.
 
2013-09-13 11:14:20 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Rhino_man: Dingleberry Dickwad: 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.

I've fired the Mk-19, too... I was disappointed. I felt disconnected from the weapon, like I was watching someone else fire it with my hands... ther lack of recoil really farked with my head, man.

I liked it, watching the small explosions down in the valley or on the rocky cliffside on the other side of the valley was pretty cool.
I will say that cleaning that farker weekly was a bastard though.


Our EOD guys, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they were going to lube them with 40w motor oil one day... in August... in Kuwait.

I've never seen so many round extractions in my life.
 
2013-09-13 11:18:24 PM

NewportBarGuy: The safest place is in front of it, right?


I'm guessing.
 
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