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
 
2013-09-13 08:05:30 PM
This can only end well.
 
2013-09-13 08:07:46 PM
How does a fire hose spray bullets?
 
2013-09-13 08:11:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: How does a fire hose spray bullets?


Like one of these guns, obviously.
 
2013-09-13 08:15:07 PM
Penis.

/also, this  little gem from TFA:
Slide Fire, based in Moran, Texas, already sells bump-stocks for $370 that speed up the rate of fire for semiautomatics.
 
2013-09-13 08:15:40 PM

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: How does a fire hose spray bullets?

Like one of these guns, obviously.


So, a squirt gun then?
 
2013-09-13 08:18:22 PM
How many threads are we gonna have on this gun this week? This is the 6th one.
 
2013-09-13 08:24:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: How does a fire hose spray bullets?

Like one of these guns, obviously.

So, a squirt gun then?


Sure, but you don't want to drink from either of them.
 
2013-09-13 08:28:42 PM
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.
 
2013-09-13 08:29:21 PM

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: How does a fire hose spray bullets?

Like one of these guns, obviously.

So, a squirt gun then?

Sure, but you don't want to drink from either of them.


gabrielchapman.com
 
2013-09-13 08:31:09 PM

Tellingthem: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: How does a fire hose spray bullets?

Like one of these guns, obviously.

So, a squirt gun then?

Sure, but you don't want to drink from either of them.


Heh. Exactly what I thought of.
 
2013-09-13 08:32:41 PM
The safest place is in front of it, right?
 
2013-09-13 08:51:20 PM
And those Nazis still wouldn't be able to hit Hank or Gomez.
 
2013-09-13 08:55:17 PM
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.
 
2013-09-13 08:57:09 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.


What are you preparing for?
 
2013-09-13 09:01:41 PM

Marcus Aurelius: which is precisely what that amount of ammo weighs.


And worth about that much in gold.
 
2013-09-13 09:18:54 PM

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?


With 75 rounds? Anything.
 
2013-09-13 09:21:46 PM

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?
 
2013-09-13 09:28:08 PM

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.
 
2013-09-13 09:30:13 PM
Well, of course, this type of gun is needed.  Have you seen what sort of hardware deer are carrying these days?   It's only proportional to the threat that these patriots are facing out there in the woods.
 
2013-09-13 09:31:42 PM
Why?
 
2013-09-13 09:32:04 PM

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.
 
2013-09-13 09:33:29 PM
I think I saw this episode of CSI... (Miami)
 
2013-09-13 09:33:43 PM
Someone just found their Christmas prezzie. Thanks FARK.
 
2013-09-13 09:34:23 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?


Nobody tell mugato that you can get 7.62x39 by the 1000 rd. Box delivered right to your door from the internet. Or boxes, who can buy just one?
 
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?
 
2013-09-13 09:34:58 PM
The SFS BFR 'bump gun' is fed bullets from a belt and can fire thousands of rounds at a time

Wouldn't that would take thousands of barrels?

Article is flawed from the start.  Leads me to believe that the rest is BS too.
 
2013-09-13 09:35:45 PM
Search YouTube for bump fire AR-15 and enjoy. This is nothing new. If course with .223 going for up to a buck a round it's very costly.
 
2013-09-13 09:36:02 PM
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.
 
2013-09-13 09:36:21 PM
I suspect that this rifle will be much like .50 caliber rifles: anti-gun activists will demand bans based upon irrational fears of damage that may be caused with it, while the firearm itself will be too impractical for anything other than novelty recreational use and thus no actual significant criminal use with it will occur. Additionally, the bans demanded will be broad-reaching to affect a substantial quantity of different firearms. The only fundamental difference will be that .50 caliber rifles will be useful for competition shooting, while the rifle described in the article will be useful only for wasting large quantities of ammunition.
 
2013-09-13 09:38:16 PM
Not illegal to own. You can own it with a 200 buck license. Over rated. I can get that much fire legally already. Its called a gat trigger. Small device attaches to the trigger guard. Has a small handle looks like one off a fishing reel but smaller. One rotation fires four times. Law states one bullet per pull of trigger. Which this perfectly unlike gimmics like bump fore hellfire etc. Forty bucks and two allen head screws and i can be ready to fire in five minutes. I can get around 750 rounds a minute this way.
 
2013-09-13 09:38:22 PM
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.
 
2013-09-13 09:39:43 PM
www.dumaspews.com
Pew Pew Pew Pew
 
2013-09-13 09:39:46 PM
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.
 
2013-09-13 09:40:07 PM
I rather pay a personal ball washer
 
2013-09-13 09:41:43 PM

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


Not if it was manufactured after 1986.
 
2013-09-13 09:42:05 PM

King Something: Penis.

/also, this  little gem from TFA:
Slide Fire, based in Moran, Texas, already sells bump-stocks for $370 that speed up the rate of fire for semiautomatics.


Maybe I'm a little lost, but isn't stuff like that illegal or, at the very least, pushing your firearm up into the restricted Class III field?
 
2013-09-13 09:42:33 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.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-13 09:42:52 PM

duffblue: 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?

Nobody tell mugato that you can get 7.62x39 by the 1000 rd. Box delivered right to your door from the internet. Or boxes, who can buy just one?


Well considering the prices for ammo these days? Not many people can buy one, much less more than one.
 
2013-09-13 09:43:16 PM

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


I wonder why?
 
2013-09-13 09:43:17 PM
I felt a great disturbance in the force.  As if a million gun nuts came at once
 
2013-09-13 09:43:51 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.


I can tell you know your shiat because you bolded your letters.
 
2013-09-13 09:44:05 PM
These are perfect, for when the black people inevitably storm your house, am I right?
 
2013-09-13 09:44:47 PM

joylessFark: I felt a great disturbance in the force.  As if a million gun nuts came at once


Eh, it's a high priced range toy. As pointed out, this thing is priced out of reach for most gun owners. It looks like it might be fun to pop some caps down at the range, but apart from that, not much else.
 
2013-09-13 09:45:02 PM
Article; special $6000 belt-fed rifle that can fire thousands of rounds at a time

Reality; no belt feed, no special rifle, just a cheesy $200 plastic stock to put on a .22 squirrel rifle, using its stock 10 or 25 round magazines

why another greenlight for thei.dailymail.co.uk the Daily Fail again?
 
2013-09-13 09:45:59 PM
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.
 
2013-09-13 09:46:38 PM
Good thing no one has pointed out that a hand cranked gatling is considered semi auto.
 
2013-09-13 09:47:02 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.


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.
 
2013-09-13 09:47:04 PM
Jesus christ. Bump-firing has been around since forever.

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?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

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.


You can bump fire using your belt loop or a rubber band.
 
2013-09-13 09:47:22 PM
well they don't make one to fit my penis enlarger rifle so i'm a sad panda. impractical as all hell but it looks like lots of fun. and avoids that pesky class 3 license. although a causal reading of what makes a machine gun makes one wonder how these guys got around that.
 
2013-09-13 09:47:40 PM

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-09-13 11:27:56 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: I will say that cleaning that farker weekly was a bastard though.


I damn near cut my f*cking hand off doing disassemble reassemble under timed conditions. Christ, those Navy specs are serious business.

Whole lotta firepower, though.
 
2013-09-13 11:29:54 PM
I remember awhile back someone suggested that game companies and gun manufacturers should team up to make something, since they are both blamed for violent acts. He suggested the spreadfire gun from Contra.

Pretty sure he was joking...
 
2013-09-13 11:31:16 PM

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


Why do you care if someone wants to own one? Do you think its likely it'll start an epidemic of chain gun massacres?
 
2013-09-13 11:32:44 PM

OnlyM3: 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.


You're paranoid, the threads about guns seem to universally turn into a bunch of gun nuts spouting pro-gun anti-regulation propaganda.
 
2013-09-13 11:33:47 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.


I use a 7MM Rem Mag bolt action, .300 Win Mag Bolt, .270 Bolt, or 9MM Semiauto

Any one of those rifles is more than enough, ammo is cheap, although the pistol could be a .40 SW which is a nice round as well.
 
2013-09-13 11:35:24 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.


Olofson is a jackass who loaned his illegal machine gun to a friend who then took it to a range and started running bursts through it in front of an audience.  So what?
 
2013-09-13 11:37:00 PM
Anyone point out that this belt fed /bump fire combo will lead to melted barells/recievers/gas tubes yet?
 
2013-09-13 11:42:05 PM

R. Paulson: Anyone point out that this belt fed /bump fire combo will lead to melted barells/recievers/gas tubes yet?


The number one source of bans against this thing are at the gun ranges.
 
2013-09-13 11:46:57 PM
I can bump fire my off the shelf stock 10/22 if I hold it right, and with a big mag on there the barrel gets super hot. You don't even need the stupid kit.
 
2013-09-13 11:48:16 PM
Quit wetting your pants over bump fire devices.  You can take a shoe string and a semi-auto AK, or any semi-auto gun with a reciprocating charging handle, and turn it into a machine gun.

Tie shoe string to reciprocating handle, wrap it around the trigger of the gun, pull it tight until it fires.  If you keep your "trigger finger" which is looped around the shoe string in the same spot the gun will keep firing as the reciprocating handle makes its motions.

The ATF actually registered a SHOE STRING with a serial number on it as a machine gun prior to the 1986 manufacturing ban. A SHOE STRING is what you need to make a machine gun out of a semi-auto rifle.

Mass casualties attributed to this practice: 0

Legally you're making a machine gun if you do this.  Bump firing is not making a machine gun (which is why such devices that assist in it are legal, sometimes, depending on how the ATF feels that day) but you can make an illegal machine gun with a freaking SHOE STRING.

And yet nobody does it.  At least not to the detriment of society.
 
2013-09-13 11:48:40 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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.


You are an authoritarian; you "obviously" prefer any measure that imposes further restrictions.
 
2013-09-13 11:49:59 PM
I think i just seen it on Spring Breakers
 
2013-09-13 11:57:53 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.


First off, I totally agree.  Also, I'm kind of a gun nut myself.

That said -- there are good reasons to restrict the right of ownership of a fully automatic weapon (and, frankly, a weapon which had a built-in bump-fire modification sounds like fully automatic to me).  The most striking is that a fully automatic weapon is quite difficult to control.  Shooting a weapon like this has tremendously increase chances of accidents.  Combine that with its lack of utility either for self-defense or for hunting and I don't see a reason why the government can't legitimately restrict it.
 
2013-09-13 11:59:25 PM

meanmutton: 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.

First off, I totally agree.  Also, I'm kind of a gun nut myself.

That said -- there are good reasons to restrict the right of ownership of a fully automatic weapon (and, frankly, a weapon which had a built-in bump-fire modification sounds like fully automatic to me).  The most striking is that a fully automatic weapon is quite difficult to control.  Shooting a weapon like this has tremendously increase chances of accidents.  Combine that with its lack of utility either for self-defense or for hunting and I don't see a reason why the government can't legitimately restrict it.


Easy... Make ownership legal, but make firing it outside of a firing range punishable by death, or a substantial jail sentence, regardless of allegedly justification.
 
2013-09-14 12:03:31 AM
Well that article wasn't bias.
 
2013-09-14 12:13:40 AM

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


  Um, no, only you seem to 'know' that. No constitutional scholar I have ever seen, nor apparently SCOTUS, seems to think thats what it means. But I guess you seem to think you know more about Constitutional scholarship than all of them combined.
  Please, enlighten us.
 
2013-09-14 12:15:20 AM

cajunns: If it is belt fed ,why aren't there any videos on the site?


I noticed that too, as well as the fact that the "belt-fed" piece they were showing look a lot like an M-240 breech. Awhile back, there was shop that made up belt-fed ARs and M-16s, and even then (1988-89?), they were running north of 5K per copy. I never saw one in real-life, but one of those short-lived gun magazines reviewed it, and said that it too was little more than an expensive range toy.

Besides, who wants to hump that much ammo? I learned a long time ago that I didn't like walking long distances with heavy loads on my person. When Cuomo pulled that BS with the SAFE Act, I dumped my AR in a hurry (and made beau-coup money on it, too), and bought a used Rossi lever action carbine in .357.
 
2013-09-14 12:15:35 AM
Boring.  Gatling Guns (real and reproductions) are perfectly legal.  And much cooler!
 
2013-09-14 12:18:05 AM

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.


Think again.  I've seen Eustus there counting out nickels for a nice Desert Eagle so, money is no barrier when fear and racism are holding hands.
Standing at the counter I couldn't believe it.  Scrawny wife, two snot nosed kids, worn thin clothes and wadded up bills and a few rolls of nickels.  For a $2k + .44Mag

You'll do what ever you have to in order to protect your family.  It's what strong men do.

That's what they tell me at least.
 
2013-09-14 12:18:13 AM
Also, how the fark can it "shoot multiple bullets at a time"?  Even machine guns can only fire only bullet at a time.  Sure, they fire them really, really, really quickly, but it is still only one bullet at a time.  I think that the reporter might be more than a lot clueless about how guns work.
 
2013-09-14 12:19:13 AM

BadReligion: 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.


I agree they will be but i can see some filter down to wealthy criminal organizations or used by the son  of the owner in some random act of violence.

I agree about the aim but if you are shooting indiscriminately its not about accuracy its about the amount of lead you can get in the air..
 
2013-09-14 12:19:39 AM
6 Grand? Good lawd that's a lotta money.

Had a flyer in my e-mail this morning from one of my suppliers selling a non belt fed variant of this for $1,400.00. Maybe I should order up a couple or 6.

I'd offer you all a fark discount but you need to be a resident of my state and pass the background check.
 
2013-09-14 12:21:53 AM

Yogimus: R. Paulson: Anyone point out that this belt fed /bump fire combo will lead to melted barells/recievers/gas tubes yet?

The number one source of bans against this thing are at the gun ranges.


I can see that, but lets say a private range, if you hooked up 1000 rnds and went nuts how long before something failed?
i'm thinking around 1/2 thru that belt.
 
2013-09-14 12:27:04 AM
 
2013-09-14 12:32:17 AM

Marcintosh: 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.

Think again.  I've seen Eustus there counting out nickels for a nice Desert Eagle so, money is no barrier when fear and racism are holding hands.
Standing at the counter I couldn't believe it.  Scrawny wife, two snot nosed kids, worn thin clothes and wadded up bills and a few rolls of nickels.  For a $2k + .44Mag

You'll do what ever you have to in order to protect your family.  It's what strong men do.

That's what they tell me at least.


Note: That's a $2,000 handgun.  And if he's spending that much for a Deagle; he's got getting the .44 mag variant.  He's got the original .50AE chambered weapon, with the possibility of him having the .44 mag interchangeable barrel.  And I highly doubt he'll be shooting that thing with .50AE going for nearly $2.00/ shot.  We're talking about $6,000 for what essentially is a stock 7.62 rifle with some over-glorified specialty modification.  That's like Barrett M82 money right there.  And those things aren't exactly FLYING off the shelves to begin with.

So like I said before:  The cost itself makes this gun damn near prohibitive to buy.  And if it goes through ammunition like the article (and most likely the manufacturer) says it will-  it's hella expensive to operate as well.
 
2013-09-14 12:32:36 AM

Prank Monkey: 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.


Here in Washington State one can buy a handgun from a private individual at 18 years old. Slide fire kits have been out for a while, if you put one on a S&W 15/22 it's like shooting the BB gun at the fair where you have to shoot out the star....
 
2013-09-14 12:35:26 AM

Dingleberry Dickwad: duffblue: 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?

Nobody tell mugato that you can get 7.62x39 by the 1000 rd. Box delivered right to your door from the internet. Or boxes, who can buy just one?

Well considering the prices for ammo these days? Not many people can buy one, much less more than one.


Its czech ammo. Yes people can afford one or 2. Got my last one for 2 bills. Thats alot of plinking at the range for nice and cheap.
 
2013-09-14 12:35:42 AM
 "150 traumatized viewers wrote the Federal Communications Commission to express their outrage about the 20-year-old singer's twerking, foam-fingering, skimpycostume, bumping, grinding, omnipresent tongue, and her interaction with oversize PEDO bears."
 
2013-09-14 12:36:54 AM
Opp's how did that happen? sorry wrong link
 
2013-09-14 12:44:25 AM

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, it means that gun ownership is necessary for a well regulated (meaning one that drills regularly) militia. That is why George Washington forced every able bodied man to buy at his own expense a firearm, powder and balls. Which was also the response to conservatives who cried that the government has never required citizens to spend money just to live here.

The whole "National Guard" thing is bs too. A militia is communtity based and supported. Guard are not just funded by the DoD (and for anyone who thinks otherwise... recruiting scams ran by the Guard in various states were aimed at uncaring numbers to get more federal support) and are necessary to any regular military deployment even if it is just logistics. There is no local community based leadership. It is all top down from the state level.

These arguments are made by the government to make it sound perfectly fine in doing what the Constitution expressly forbids because they know that if they said "we have said screw the Constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts and these are the rules we actually play by" then the streets would run red with the blood of idiots and their victims.

So long as they pretend that the Constitution is the law of the land then we need to hold their feet to the coals on these matters. The rights must be absolute and individually applicable or they are meaningless.

I know they are meaningless because they put limits where the Constitution permits none. I just want the federal government to admit that the Constitution cannot possibly be the "law of the land" in modern society, scrap the damned thing and replace it with an actual workable document.

To that end, I take the extreme position because that is how it was written. No licenses. No tests. No laws or civil regulations. No infringing while the Bill of Rights is still in force. No exceptions were written in only a justification for the uninfringable right backed up almost immediately by our first President. All the weasel words to the contrary are poppycock and have been used to remake society through backdoor means.
 
2013-09-14 12:45:18 AM
Pretty farking cool toy for $350. Check out the Russian guy's slide fire on youtube.
 
2013-09-14 12:48:27 AM
Instead of regulating guns by how they work, wouldn't it make more sense to benchmark them.  Pick a rate of fire that we consider 'too much' and make the manufacturer of the gun put up money for an X-Prize.  If anyone can fire the gun faster than the desired rate of fire, either unmodified or modified with only simple tools in X amount of time, they get the money and the gun gets banned.

You could do the same thing with concealability.  Once a year, have a event where disabled versions of the guns are handed out to people and everyone coming into the event gets $100 if security doesn't find a gun on them (to encourage people to come in unarmed) but $10,000 if they smuggle one of the disabled guns in.  (Give the screeners prizes for finding them).
 
2013-09-14 12:59:34 AM

cajunns: If it is belt fed ,why aren't there any videos on the site?


Turning a closed-bolt, fixed barrel rifle into a belt-fed quasi-machinegun is farking ridiculous.  The thing will melt the first time the owner takes it out into the woods to make a HEY Y'ALL, WATCH THIS! YouTube video.

/Former M240 gunner
 
2013-09-14 01:05:17 AM

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


I'd speculate that over 90% of all rounds fired by civilians are a "fun way to waste ammo."

Hell I'm going to go outside tomorrow and waste ammo. And it's going to be fun.
 
2013-09-14 01:05:44 AM

KimNorth: "150 traumatized viewers wrote the Federal Communications Commission to express their outrage about the 20-year-old singer's twerking, foam-fingering, skimpycostume, bumping, grinding, omnipresent tongue, and her interaction with oversize PEDO bears."


That actually made more sense than the article being discussed here.
 
2013-09-14 01:10:55 AM

HoratioGates: Instead of regulating guns by how they work, wouldn't it make more sense to benchmark them.  Pick a rate of fire that we consider 'too much' and make the manufacturer of the gun put up money for an X-Prize.  If anyone can fire the gun faster than the desired rate of fire, either unmodified or modified with only simple tools in X amount of time, they get the money and the gun gets banned.

You could do the same thing with concealability.  Once a year, have a event where disabled versions of the guns are handed out to people and everyone coming into the event gets $100 if security doesn't find a gun on them (to encourage people to come in unarmed) but $10,000 if they smuggle one of the disabled guns in.  (Give the screeners prizes for finding them).


WTF did i just read?
 
2013-09-14 01:20:21 AM

runescorpio: Dingleberry Dickwad: duffblue: 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?

Nobody tell mugato that you can get 7.62x39 by the 1000 rd. Box delivered right to your door from the internet. Or boxes, who can buy just one?

Well considering the prices for ammo these days? Not many people can buy one, much less more than one.

Its czech ammo. Yes people can afford one or 2. Got my last one for 2 bills. Thats alot of plinking at the range for nice and cheap.


On an AR? Assuming its cyclic rate is around 600, (less than an AR15, but lets be generous) I would put it at irreparable damage to the upper receiver within 300 rounds (head spacing, rifling getting stripped for being too soft), and mechanical failure at the 4000 round mark.  Gas tubes do not enjoy the heat.
 
2013-09-14 01:21:37 AM
I quoted the shiat out of the wrong guy
 
2013-09-14 01:40:45 AM

vygramul: 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.


Yeah I'm a tactical shooter, not a hunter.

I've heard folks at the range talk about CCW and self defense. Then they head into the bay and take 5 seconds to set up a sight picture on a target 10+ yards away. In a self defense situation, you are going to shoot quickly and probably at a target inside 7 yards. If you're not practicing that-- in addition to practicing reloading and drawing, you're not practicing for self defense.

For example: Who the crap is ever going to shoot at 150-yards inside their own home?

Now for hunting or recreational shooting at 100+ yards, sure 75-cartridges would go a long way. 75 cartridges for a hunting rifle is a lot different than for an AR-15 and a half-dozen bowling pins at 15-yards.
 
2013-09-14 01:43:50 AM

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



Is there any good reason that burning a flag should be legal?

Any good reason having the freedom to say "Fark libs eat shiat" should be legal?

For that matter, is there any good reason that eating shiat should be legal?

It's not the job of the citizen to explain why he should be able to retain a constitutional right.  It is the job of the government to prove that it has the authority to restrict that right.

I'll tell ya what...if the number of people murdered by this type of weapon exceeds, say, the number of people who die from other's bare hands, then I'll be willing to listen to why they ought to be banned.
 
2013-09-14 01:43:51 AM

mizchief: 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.


They sell plastic lowers now too. I've read (internet mind you) that people have melted/warped them.
 
2013-09-14 01:49:50 AM

ripwry: Not illegal to own. You can own it with a 200 buck license. Over rated. I can get that much fire legally already. Its called a gat trigger. Small device attaches to the trigger guard. Has a small handle looks like one off a fishing reel but smaller. One rotation fires four times. Law states one bullet per pull of trigger. Which this perfectly unlike gimmics like bump fore hellfire etc. Forty bucks and two allen head screws and i can be ready to fire in five minutes. I can get around 750 rounds a minute this way.


That does sound like fun.

Since I'm a little lazy, all my guns are things you could buy at any gun show, so I go to "The Gun Store" in Vegas or various other places nationwide once or twice a year for my full auto fix.
 
2013-09-14 01:55:11 AM

bmihura: ripwry: Not illegal to own. You can own it with a 200 buck license. Over rated. I can get that much fire legally already. Its called a gat trigger. Small device attaches to the trigger guard. Has a small handle looks like one off a fishing reel but smaller. One rotation fires four times. Law states one bullet per pull of trigger. Which this perfectly unlike gimmics like bump fore hellfire etc. Forty bucks and two allen head screws and i can be ready to fire in five minutes. I can get around 750 rounds a minute this way.

That does sound like fun.

Since I'm a little lazy, all my guns are things you could buy at any gun show, so I go to "The Gun Store" in Vegas or various other places nationwide once or twice a year for my full auto fix.


It's been 3 years since I've been behind a 240... I need to get my fix soon.

Vegas, you say?
 
2013-09-14 01:56:25 AM
i.imgur.com

Brap!
 
2013-09-14 01:58:47 AM
www-tc.pbs.org

The ATF loves rapid fire.


/Ask any Branch Davidian
 
2013-09-14 02:02:33 AM
"The Gun Store" is overrated, and their range is old and cramped. Go to Discount Firearms or American Shooters next time you are in Vegas instead. Both are going to be less crowded, cheaper, and more comfortable. Plus their indoor ranges don't suck. Or come to the Desert Hills Shooting Club outside of Boulder City, it has a bunch of great outdoor ranges, skeet, trap, rental machine guns, rental Baretts, anything you could want. Plus after you go shooting, you can visit the bar(you can't shoot after you drink, so do that last, otherwise they will kick you out). I am a member there, but you can go as a non-member as well.
 
2013-09-14 02:13:03 AM

BadReligion: you can't shoot after you drink


chewthedirt.com
 
2013-09-14 02:23:24 AM
Looking forward to the videos of dumbfarks finding out that sustained fire through a barrel that is not built for it tends to end up being either rather costly or completely catastrophic.
 
2013-09-14 02:47:36 AM
Sounds great for home defense accidentally killing all your neighbors.
 
2013-09-14 03:03:46 AM

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're dead wrong.
 
2013-09-14 03:14:53 AM
Two things.  1)This isn't helping the gun debate at all.  2)$6000 is stupid expensive for such a silly feature.
 
2013-09-14 04:05:51 AM
Oh boy! Now I'll really get that deer!
 
2013-09-14 04:38:43 AM
Lol.   The truest truth is it doesn't work on guns that have a bolt lockback interchange.

I have a Phillipines Armscor .22lr rimfire which doesn't do lockback and if I decide I wanna drop 15 rounds into the target in 9 seconds all I gotta do is wiggle my finger.  No sloppy "recoil" operation or anything.  To use this piece of shiat from the article is to absolutely give up on accuracy of any kind.

Its immaterial whether the ATF has cleared it, its already been banned in half the States.
The magazine it takes to feed that much ammo?  Special license.
 
2013-09-14 05:01:42 AM

Occam's Nailfile: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?


Is there any good reason that burning a flag should be legal?

Any good reason having the freedom to say "Fark libs eat shiat" should be legal?

For that matter, is there any good reason that eating shiat should be legal?

It's not the job of the citizen to explain why he should be able to retain a constitutional right.  It is the job of the government to prove that it has the authority to restrict that right.

I'll tell ya what...if the number of people murdered by this type of weapon exceeds, say, the number of people who die from other's bare hands, then I'll be willing to listen to why they ought to be banned.


Is there a reason you have "what is legal" and "what is necessary" completely confused in your mind?

Yes, there is a good reason burning a flag should be legal: It's an expression of one's opinion that is protected by the 1st Amendment under "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech..." However, Congress may restrict where, when and how that flag may be burned; for instance, in the state of California, you may not take that flag out into the Angeles National Forest in the middle of August and set fire to it when there are wildfire restrictions in place, no matter how ardent a proponent of free speech you may be.

The right to bear arms does NOT guarantee the right to bear any type of ordnance the military churns out. The right of the OTHER people to be safe in their homes and persons trumps to some extent your right to be armed to the teeth; and no court has seen fit to declare that your need to blow shiat up outweighs the needs of everyone else to not be blown up.

And yes, it is legal to eat shiat; however, I see vanishingly few sane people exercising that right. Why are you not out there, defending your inalienable right to chow down on manure? Could it be because not all rights, however LEGAL they may be, are necessary to be exercised?
 
2013-09-14 05:03:25 AM
I didn't know about these!

Detailed review here, showing exactly how it works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBAyOAiUIM

And here's a guy using one with a Saiga 12-gauge! Damn, I love shotguns and always wanted a full-auto 12-gauge. Some opportunities just come too late in life. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnpG6PlYtME
 
2013-09-14 06:12:03 AM

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.


Yes, because deranged spree killers will totally wait to legally buy something like this instead of just stealing it.
 
2013-09-14 06:37:43 AM

Gyrfalcon: Occam's Nailfile: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?


snip
snip

Is there a reason you have "what is legal" and "what is necessary" completely confused in your mind?


excuse me
what is necessary
1. the only thing necessary is food and a space to sleep
we NEED nothing else
2. deeply resented is someone else telling me what i NEED or what i don't NEED

3. arguing over what should be legal however - that is up to what society wants and/or is willing to put up with.

simple
 
2013-09-14 07:50:07 AM

Tellingthem: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: How does a fire hose spray bullets?

Like one of these guns, obviously.

So, a squirt gun then?

Sure, but you don't want to drink from either of them.

[gabrielchapman.com image 445x234]


That's very odd.  The name Stanley Spadowski popped into my head at random yesterday and I couldn't remember what it was from.  I never remembered to look it up as I would usually do but remembered it immediately when I saw that pic.

/csb
 
2013-09-14 08:03:57 AM
Belt fed whining machine sprays like a gigantic whiny firehose.
 
2013-09-14 08:49:22 AM

runescorpio: Dingleberry Dickwad: duffblue: 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?

Nobody tell mugato that you can get 7.62x39 by the 1000 rd. Box delivered right to your door from the internet. Or boxes, who can buy just one?

Well considering the prices for ammo these days? Not many people can buy one, much less more than one.

Its czech ammo. Yes people can afford one or 2. Got my last one for 2 bills. Thats alot of plinking at the range for nice and cheap.


Impressive. I payed 3 bills for 1000 - 9MM Remington 115 FMJ plinker ammo

I payed 325 for 1000 - .40 SW 180 JHP

Ironically I payed 200 for 1000 - 7MM Rem Mag Federal 180
 
2013-09-14 09:19:35 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: I rather pay a personal ball washer


Is it too much to ask to have someone walking in front of you scrubbing and rinsing?
 
2013-09-14 09:27:53 AM

doglover: 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?

With 75 rounds? Anything.


That could shoot up a lot of schools.......
 
2013-09-14 09:32:09 AM

Ivan the Tolerable: why another greenlight for the[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x333] the Daily Fail again?



Thing is I'm a Brit, living in England and I'm sat here going "But isn't that an Armalite, the civilian variant of the M-16 assault rifle used my America's military?  Not expecting it to have full auto either available or retrofittable is like expecting the SA-80 to fire nerf darts."  Then I realised it's the Daily Mail.

So this is just the DM appealing to its readers about why firearms are evil horrible things and you should all be afraid.

I think most people in the UK would be surprised that something that looks like our idea of an assault rifle doesn't have 3/5 burst and full-auto on its selector as standard.  Not that we'd want one...  not a lot of big critter things to shoot at in these parts; beyond long pig.
 
2013-09-14 09:34:48 AM
Aperture science Industry defense turrets, fire the whole bullet! That's 30% more bullet per bullet.

Cave Johnson, We're done here.
 
2013-09-14 09:37:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: The right to bear arms does NOT guarantee the right to bear any type of ordnance the military churns out.


Correct. That is actually a permitting issue, not a legal issue.

/yes you can own a functional howitzer
//You can own a tank too
///They seal the barrels on tanks so you cant fire them.
////But tanks don't have keys just a start button, so if you're trained on one you could just steal one from a military base. Who's going to stop you? You've got a tank.
 
2013-09-14 09:38:27 AM

JuniorII: That could shoot up a lot of schools.......


A kid in my school stabbed a pencil all the way through a bullies hand.

Should we ban pencils?
 
2013-09-14 09:45:52 AM

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.


This this this this this.
 
2013-09-14 09:46:24 AM

fluffy2097: JuniorII: That could shoot up a lot of schools.......

A kid in my school stabbed a pencil all the way through a bullies hand.

Should we ban pencils?


Until that kid can stab 75 (just a number I pulled out of my ass) kids (from a distance of 100 feet easily) then pencils are OK with me.

And did the bully die from his pencil-shot wound?


/bullies don't always get what they deserve
//BAN teh PENCIL!!!!
 
2013-09-14 10:00:14 AM

JuniorII: And did the bully die from his pencil-shot wound?


No but an aspergers kid in my high-school did stab a random kid to death in the bathroom "just to see what it felt like."

/ban all sharps.
 
2013-09-14 10:12:02 AM

cajunns: video


CNN had a video of this device being used on a belt-feed rifle, but damned if I can find it.  I am sure someone with better google-fu than me can dig something up.
 
2013-09-14 10:14:49 AM

Mock26: Also, how the fark can it "shoot multiple bullets at a time"?


That makes it sound scarier, which, after all, is the goal. And you know that quite a few clueless readers will file that 'fact' away in their "why the Government should confiscate all guns" mental log.
 
2013-09-14 10:19:13 AM

fluffy2097: JuniorII: And did the bully die from his pencil-shot wound?

No but an aspergers kid in my high-school did stab a random kid to death in the bathroom "just to see what it felt like."

/ban all sharps.


Please, I am begging you, let's not have a discussion that correlates guns to ANYTHING else than things that were made to kill. Pencils were not made to kill. Sharp things like scissors and protractors (what was this kid stabbed to death with? broken glass? ban mirrors in restrooms! ban restrooms!do you hear yourself?) have other uses.

Guns do not.

And aspergers kid? Did he stab and kill 26? Were they able to wrestle him to the ground and take the sharp thing away? Did they have to wait for him to reload? All interesting questions.....
 
2013-09-14 10:27:45 AM

JuniorII: fluffy2097: JuniorII: And did the bully die from his pencil-shot wound?

No but an aspergers kid in my high-school did stab a random kid to death in the bathroom "just to see what it felt like."

/ban all sharps.

Please, I am begging you, let's not have a discussion that correlates guns to ANYTHING else than things that were made to kill. Pencils were not made to kill. Sharp things like scissors and protractors (what was this kid stabbed to death with? broken glass? ban mirrors in restrooms! ban restrooms!do you hear yourself?) have other uses.

Guns do not.

And aspergers kid? Did he stab and kill 26? Were they able to wrestle him to the ground and take the sharp thing away? Did they have to wait for him to reload? All interesting questions.....


Guns are designed to kill. This is a good thing, because there are folks out there that need killing.
 
2013-09-14 10:32:53 AM
At a buck a round, who can afford to shoot these weapons? Feed mill wanted $8.50 for a box of 50 .22 LR. Sheesh!
 
2013-09-14 10:53:42 AM
I wish these anti gun loons would STFU about this bumber stock so i can buy one when I can afford it...
 
2013-09-14 10:55:25 AM

Occam's Nailfile: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?


Is there any good reason that burning a flag should be legal?

Any good reason having the freedom to say "Fark libs eat shiat" should be legal?

For that matter, is there any good reason that eating shiat should be legal?

It's not the job of the citizen to explain why he should be able to retain a constitutional right.  It is the job of the government to prove that it has the authority to restrict that right.

I'll tell ya what...if the number of people murdered by this type of weapon exceeds, say, the number of people who die from other's bare hands, then I'll be willing to listen to why they ought to be banned.


So you are willing to listen as to why handguns ought to be banned?
 
2013-09-14 10:56:02 AM

Yogimus: JuniorII: fluffy2097: JuniorII: And did the bully die from his pencil-shot wound?

No but an aspergers kid in my high-school did stab a random kid to death in the bathroom "just to see what it felt like."

/ban all sharps.

Please, I am begging you, let's not have a discussion that correlates guns to ANYTHING else than things that were made to kill. Pencils were not made to kill. Sharp things like scissors and protractors (what was this kid stabbed to death with? broken glass? ban mirrors in restrooms! ban restrooms!do you hear yourself?) have other uses.

Guns do not.

And aspergers kid? Did he stab and kill 26? Were they able to wrestle him to the ground and take the sharp thing away? Did they have to wait for him to reload? All interesting questions.....

Guns are designed to kill. This is a good thing, because there are folks out there that need killing.


And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.

Why is that? What could we do to stop this? Since we can't seem to remove the crazy from the human race what other options present themselves?

Please try to think about this in an unselfish manner, lives are at stake.
 
2013-09-14 10:58:53 AM

JuniorII: And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.


This is false. 50+% of gun deaths are suicides.

Of the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly persons with felony criminal records.
 
2013-09-14 11:10:50 AM

Yogimus: JuniorII: And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.

This is false. 50+% of gun deaths are suicides.

Of the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly persons with felony criminal records.


Holy cow dude, you pulled that one right out of your rectum.

Unless the CDC is out to take yer gurns.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

And totally citation needed about the remaining deaths vs felony record.

imagetitan.net
 
2013-09-14 11:24:44 AM

Yogimus: JuniorII: And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.

This is false. 50+% of gun deaths are suicides.

Of the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly persons with felony criminal records.


Guns are used 40 - 80 times more often to protect a life and/or property than they are used to commit a crime.
 
2013-09-14 11:31:37 AM
Meanwhile, there are still strict limits on how much Sudafed I can buy in a month.
 
2013-09-14 11:37:34 AM

Maul555: Yogimus: JuniorII: And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.

This is false. 50+% of gun deaths are suicides.

Of the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly persons with felony criminal records.

Guns are used 40 - 80 times more often to protect a life and/or property than they are used to commit a crime.


That stat smells of rectum also.

http://smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statisti cs / 

By those numbers (I'm even including other guns, not just the evil handgun) we have a 1.5767087122323262% of guns used in a manner deemed justifiable  by law enforcement.
 
2013-09-14 11:40:42 AM
JuniorII:
And aspergers kid? Did he stab and kill 26? Were they able to wrestle him to the ground and take the sharp thing away? Did they have to wait for him to reload? All interesting questions.....

img.fark.net

This partially paralyzed 56-year old former taxi driver killed at least 198 people and injured at least 147.
He did it with two milk jugs of gasoline and a lighter. Obviously we must pass strict gasoline control laws.
 
2013-09-14 11:46:04 AM

BayouOtter: JuniorII:
And aspergers kid? Did he stab and kill 26? Were they able to wrestle him to the ground and take the sharp thing away? Did they have to wait for him to reload? All interesting questions.....

[img.fark.net image 180x180]

This partially paralyzed 56-year old former taxi driver killed at least 198 people and injured at least 147.
He did it with two milk jugs of gasoline and a lighter. Obviously we must pass strict gasoline control laws.


Sigh. I even asked please.

And what else is gasoline used for? It really has other uses? Are you willing to give up your pick-em-up truck?
 
2013-09-14 11:51:23 AM

JuniorII: Maul555: Yogimus: JuniorII: And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.

This is false. 50+% of gun deaths are suicides.

Of the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly persons with felony criminal records.

Guns are used 40 - 80 times more often to protect a life and/or property than they are used to commit a crime.

That stat smells of rectum also.

http://smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statisti cs /

By those numbers (I'm even including other guns, not just the evil handgun) we have a 1.5767087122323262% of guns used in a manner deemed justifiable  by law enforcement.


Wow, that was short and useless.   ...  I am still correct though

click to enlarge:
americangunfacts.com


The big point to take away from this is that making guns more difficult to obtain by law abiding citizens will directly result in more victims.  Guns are overwhelmingly used for good in this country in the majority of gun related incidents.   I cannot support any measures that would reduce the number of self defense uses...
 
2013-09-14 11:58:09 AM
JuniorII:
Sigh. I even asked please.

And what else is gasoline used for? It really has other uses?


You can use it as a solvent to clean delicate fabrics, too. Other than that, you've got the release of chemical energy through oxidation(combustion).
 
2013-09-14 12:25:01 PM

Maul555: JuniorII: Maul555: Yogimus: JuniorII: And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.

This is false. 50+% of gun deaths are suicides.

Of the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly persons with felony criminal records.

Guns are used 40 - 80 times more often to protect a life and/or property than they are used to commit a crime.

That stat smells of rectum also.

http://smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statisti cs /

By those numbers (I'm even including other guns, not just the evil handgun) we have a 1.5767087122323262% of guns used in a manner deemed justifiable  by law enforcement.

Wow, that was short and useless.   ...  I am still correct though

click to enlarge:
[americangunfacts.com image 271x1500]


The big point to take away from this is that making guns more difficult to obtain by law abiding citizens will directly result in more victims.  Guns are overwhelmingly used for good in this country in the majority of gun related incidents.   I cannot support any measures that would reduce the number of self defense uses...


Infographics are neat to look at, even if they are completely cherry-picked stats.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/ sh rtable_15.html

Simple enough for you? It's from the FBI's own crime stats.
 
2013-09-14 12:26:55 PM

JuniorII: Maul555: JuniorII: Maul555: Yogimus: JuniorII: And yet they seem to be used constantly, in the greater majority, to kill the innocent.

This is false. 50+% of gun deaths are suicides.

Of the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly persons with felony criminal records.

Guns are used 40 - 80 times more often to protect a life and/or property than they are used to commit a crime.

That stat smells of rectum also.

http://smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statisti cs /

By those numbers (I'm even including other guns, not just the evil handgun) we have a 1.5767087122323262% of guns used in a manner deemed justifiable  by law enforcement.

Wow, that was short and useless.   ...  I am still correct though

click to enlarge:
[americangunfacts.com image 271x1500]


The big point to take away from this is that making guns more difficult to obtain by law abiding citizens will directly result in more victims.  Guns are overwhelmingly used for good in this country in the majority of gun related incidents.   I cannot support any measures that would reduce the number of self defense uses...

Infographics are neat to look at, even if they are completely cherry-picked stats.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/ sh rtable_15.html

Simple enough for you? It's from the FBI's own crime stats.


Thanks for proving my point.  There are many many many many times more self defence gun uses than there are homicides listed on that page.
 
2013-09-14 12:29:51 PM
Oh no! A big scary gun!

Insert rant about gun nuts being scared....
 
2013-09-14 12:34:18 PM
Hmmm, California is about to enact a law that bans all centerfire semiauto rifles with detachable mags. I never thought about shifting to belt-fed. Hmmm.
 
2013-09-14 01:36:06 PM

Maul555: There are many many many many times more self defence gun uses than there are homicides listed on that page.


A "defensive" firearm use only occurs if an aggressor is killed. Considering any other incident, such as when an aggressor is nonfatally injured or simply deterred without injury, risks diminishing an anti-gun argument, and thus those incidents should not be counted.
 
2013-09-14 01:59:14 PM
Well, I shoot a fair bit, but don't own a black rifle.  To ME, this looks like a big waste of money, but then every time I'm at the range I see something that makes me shake my head it seems like.  But I like to get a lot of shooting for my money, and I prize accuracy more than volume of lead launched per second.

I'm also a cheap SOB, so I'd never spend that kind of dosh just to be able to waste ammo faster.  I'd rather spend 10x the range time for the same number of rounds.

Then, I'm an old coot, so probably this is not for me anyway, I don't wear 5.11 clothing and look to make sure everything I buy is either Bone Collector imprinted or says "Tactical" on the package.
 
2013-09-14 02:23:33 PM
"M@#$#@#ER" = "Mossberg Farker", right?
 
2013-09-14 02:30:39 PM

bmwericus: Well, I shoot a fair bit, but don't own a black rifle.  To ME, this looks like a big waste of money, but then every time I'm at the range I see something that makes me shake my head it seems like.  But I like to get a lot of shooting for my money, and I prize accuracy more than volume of lead launched per second.

I'm also a cheap SOB, so I'd never spend that kind of dosh just to be able to waste ammo faster.  I'd rather spend 10x the range time for the same number of rounds.

Then, I'm an old coot, so probably this is not for me anyway, I don't wear 5.11 clothing and look to make sure everything I buy is either Bone Collector imprinted or says "Tactical" on the package.


I'd like to get a decent AR-15 these days, but that's because I genuinely enjoy shooting the M16A4 or M4 when my unit goes to the range.  I've gotten used to shooting a rifle with a pistol grip.  We shoot man-sized plastic "Ivans" that pop-up.  I like shooting it accurately semi-automatic, and feel a great sense of satisfaction when I get an Expert rating.

It would be nice to shoot without all of the hassle of the military's oppressive safety regulations.  The idea of blasting a bunch of watermelons from 25 meters with some gimmick that makes it flop around like a dying squid has zero appeal to me.
 
2013-09-14 02:54:34 PM
www.ammoland.com

Thought this was interesting.

I'm sure Assad would agree that the "rebels" should not be allowed access to assault weapons.


/But it couldn't happen here
//I'm telling you, my dear
///That it couldn't. Happen. Here
 
2013-09-14 02:59:17 PM

bmwericus: Well, I shoot a fair bit, but don't own a black rifle.  To ME, this looks like a big waste of money, but then every time I'm at the range I see something that makes me shake my head it seems like.  But I like to get a lot of shooting for my money, and I prize accuracy more than volume of lead launched per second.

I'm also a cheap SOB, so I'd never spend that kind of dosh just to be able to waste ammo faster.  I'd rather spend 10x the range time for the same number of rounds.

Then, I'm an old coot, so probably this is not for me anyway, I don't wear 5.11 clothing and look to make sure everything I buy is either Bone Collector imprinted or says "Tactical" on the package.


I own an AR-15 pattern rifle, and a "bump-fire" stock does not in any way appeal to me.

This, however, does, so do not assume that I am not a sad and pathetic individual.
 
2013-09-14 03:19:02 PM
So here, any deviation or waffling brings angry nerds, I guess
 
2013-09-14 03:20:01 PM

Amos Quito: [www.ammoland.com image 600x471]

Thought this was interesting.

I'm sure Assad would agree that the "rebels" should not be allowed access to assault weapons.


/But it couldn't happen here
//I'm telling you, my dear
///That it couldn't. Happen. Here


Yes, it could happen here.  I'm expecting it to happen around the same time as we have first contact with the Vulcans.
 
2013-09-14 03:36:42 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?


If it takes you 30 minutes to fire 75 rounds, you'd better either be doing precision shooting at long range or reevaluate your training.
 
2013-09-14 03:42:43 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?


Every time someone brings nuclear weapons into the gun control debate, you get one of these:

img812.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-14 04:15:53 PM

vrax: Amos Quito: [www.ammoland.com image 600x471]

Thought this was interesting.

I'm sure Assad would agree that the "rebels" should not be allowed access to assault weapons.


/But it couldn't happen here
//I'm telling you, my dear
///That it couldn't. Happen. Here

Yes, it could happen here.  I'm expecting it to happen around the same time as we have first contact with the Vulcans.



We already have a regime that doesn't represent the interests of The People.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_repub li c_we_must_reclaim.html

Enjoy
 
2013-09-14 04:20:49 PM

Ontos: 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?

If it takes you 30 minutes to fire 75 rounds, you'd better either be doing precision shooting at long range or reevaluate your training.


Well, mostly because the local range does 10 on 5 off. So you're really only shooting for 20 of those minutes. And I don't fire rifles at short range. I'm not in it to see how fast I can empty a mag at a human silhouette at 25 yards.
 
2013-09-14 05:32:35 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'.


Yes.... Liberty and a free people can be a real biatch sometimes.
 
2013-09-14 05:34:51 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: So like I said before: The cost itself makes this gun damn near prohibitive to buy. And if it goes through ammunition like the article (and most likely the manufacturer) says it will- it's hella expensive to operate as well.


It's called credit and they hand that shiat out like prizes in cereal boxes.  Most people could put that shiat on a credit card and if they weren't planning on staying alive long enough to pay it off, why wouldn't they?

I'm not anti-gun, but these guys are testing the limits....well, if the Daily Mail can be believed.

And while I'm not anti-gun, I'm pretty sure if they attract too much attention to themselves they'll get their little gizmo banned.

What do you think will happen if the next mass shooter uses one?

So you'd better buy one while you can.  That's probably a big selling point to a lot of people.  I'll pass.  I got better things to do with $6000 and I plan on living long enough to pay off my credit cards for a little while longer (like a few more decades at least).

But if I were the guy to be the next Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shooter, this would be worth looking into.  It may technically be a semiautomatic, but it sure looked like an automatic when then guy in the video was firing it.

Then again, I'm not a gun expert.  I'm just saying if you wanted to go on a killing spree, the $6000 price tag isn't going to be a huge obstacle for most people.
 
2013-09-14 06:31:57 PM
put one of those crank things on the trigger, about the same result. vastly inaccurate bullet spray.
I will use my bolt action Springfield 1903A3...
 
2013-09-14 06:45:32 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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'.


In other words, "what is not expressly permitted is prohibited." I'll bet your ideal world would be very very orderly.
 
2013-09-14 07:02:58 PM

jjorsett: TuteTibiImperes: 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'.

In other words, "what is not expressly permitted is prohibited." I'll bet your ideal world would be very very orderly.



Tute must masturbate vigorously to photos from North Korea.

Those nice folks in Camp 14 are just so polite and compliant! No ugly expression of opinions, no violence (against each other) whatsoever, and people happily inform the authorities when their mother is engaging in crimethink! With the government's help,  everyone here could be such well-behaved citizens too!
 
2013-09-14 08:58:22 PM

BigNumber12: jjorsett: TuteTibiImperes: 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'.

In other words, "what is not expressly permitted is prohibited." I'll bet your ideal world would be very very orderly.


Tute must masturbate vigorously to photos from North Korea.

Those nice folks in Camp 14 are just so polite and compliant! No ugly expression of opinions, no violence (against each other) whatsoever, and people happily inform the authorities when their mother is engaging in crimethink! With the government's help,  everyone here could be such well-behaved citizens too!


Because everything is not allowed none are free!

Wait, what?
 
2013-09-14 09:17:04 PM

jjorsett: In other words, "what is not expressly permitted is prohibited." I'll bet your ideal world would be very very orderly.


I lot of people if pushed to describe their ideal world, would describe it very much like North Korea. They don't like to say as much. They envision if they got all their policy goals enacted we wouldn't end up like North Korea. We'd be a "freer" version. Why? Because! That's why it'd work.
 
2013-09-14 09:59:47 PM

JuniorII: Because everything is not allowed none are free!


The North Koreas of the world happen when enough TuteTibilmpereses get together and take incremental steps to bring their dream to fruition. Only by opposing those incremental actions can the rest of us prevent their success.

You've noticed that the totalitarian states of history didn't usually come into being overnight, right?
 
2013-09-14 10:10:46 PM
No thread about Kentucky wanting an RFID tag on every firearm?
 
2013-09-14 10:31:48 PM
You can already buy the butt end of the rifle that does all of the magic.

OFN
 
2013-09-14 10:35:05 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.


Sounds like one of those New England Arms single shots. Went sporting clay shooting with my son's Boy Scout troop once. One of the boys brought one of those in 12 gauge. He was small for his age, but loved shooting. Saw him put 50 rounds through it, with no flinching. Asked to see his shoulder afterwards, and it was bruised beyond belief. He asked the Scoutmaster if we could go shooting every month!. He ultimately enlisted in the Marines...
 
2013-09-14 10:44:50 PM

Wretched: Sounds like one of those New England Arms single shots. Went sporting clay shooting with my son's Boy Scout troop once. One of the boys brought one of those in 12 gauge. He was small for his age, but loved shooting. Saw him put 50 rounds through it, with no flinching. Asked to see his shoulder afterwards, and it was bruised beyond belief. He asked the Scoutmaster if we could go shooting every month!. He ultimately enlisted in the Marines...


I have a few of those. As simple a shotgun as you can get.
 
2013-09-14 11:18:46 PM

R. Paulson: WTF did i just read?


Where did I lose you?  Obviously, it's a form of gun control.

The idea is that there are lots of loopholes in the gun laws, including some pretty glaring ones in the spec department.  By creating a system of prizes you get people to push guns to their limits and see if they exceed a certain limit.

Think of it this way- If suddenly the government wanted to ban selling cars that went over 100 miles per hour, you've got several ways to enforce that.  One would be expensive government testing paid for with your taxes (expensive).  A second way would be to rely on self reporting with no oversight (not reliable).  A third way is to set a standard and wait for someone with legal standing (an injury victim) to sue for the cars actually going faster than 100 miles per hour.  The fourth, and probably least expensive solution, is to set a standard- no car can go faster than 100 miles per hour- and the companies have to self-certify, but they have to put up a bond that is forfeit to anyone who proves they lied (and, on top of that, they then get hit with fines and penalties.)  The idea though, is that people who want to win the prize are going to be more motivated to push the car to it's limits than government or company testers.  The fear of losing the bond and fines keeps the company in line, the government doesn't have to pay for lots of inspectors and the industry causing the risk underwrites it.

With guns, the government could, for instance, set a limit that no gun can shoot more than 10 rounds in 10 seconds and can't have a clip bigger than 10 rounds or a clip that can be changed faster than 3 seconds (I have no idea what guns would fall on either side of that range, it's just an example.)  Any new gun model would have to post a bond (or get insurance) that says, 'Our gun meets these rules.'  Say it's a $5000 bond (it should probably be related to the price of the gun so the bond scales).  Now, to collect that $5000 all anyone has to do is prove that the gun doesn't meet those requirements.  If they do, the gun manufacturer has to fork over the cash and faces large fines.  They can't even really pay hush money to the quickdraw specialist, because if it can be done, other people will figure it out and until they fess up they would have to keep paying out.  Allowing for a couple minutes of tinkering flushes out guns that are easy to modify into automatics.

You still need to write appropriate standards, but they can be much simpler.  And of course, you still have to fight the NRA.  There are all sorts of clever systems that you can use to align incentives so that companies do the right thing.  There have been X prizes that give cash to the first company that achieves a goal.  They produce a huge amount of research bang for the buck.  When the objective is to make a product less effective though, the incentives don't line up unless you reverse the incentive to be a penalty for anyone who doesn't meet the goal.

Of course, if you don't like even moderate gun control, you won't like this idea.
 
2013-09-14 11:37:33 PM

emonk: No thread about Kentucky wanting an RFID tag on every firearm?


I investigated such a proposal. My search led me to a conservative-tilted website titled "National Report", which stated that "By the beginning of next year it will be mandatory that all registered firearms within the state of Kentucky be implanted with a Weapon RFID System.". The article cites no legislative measures nor links to the Kentucky legal code; additionally, the state has no firearm registry. The claim is thus unsupported, and based upon a dubious premise. Additionally, the current political attitude toward firearm regulation in the state renders enactment of such legislation extremely unlikely.
 
2013-09-15 01:27:58 AM

Dimensio: I suspect that this rifle will be much like .50 caliber rifles: anti-gun activists will demand bans based upon irrational fears of damage that may be caused with it, while the firearm itself will be too impractical for anything other than novelty recreational use and thus no actual significant criminal use with it will occur. Additionally, the bans demanded will be broad-reaching to affect a substantial quantity of different firearms. The only fundamental difference will be that .50 caliber rifles will be useful for competition shooting, while the rifle described in the article will be useful only for wasting large quantities of ammunition.


Pretty much. This thing is the gun equivalent of a Hemi V8 powered lawnmower. Expensive to buy and use, bulky, heavy and all around impractical. I have no doubt anti-gun nuts will flip out though. The hand-wringing and demands for legislation tends to be inversely proportional to the frequency of crime involving the type of gun in question.

Never quite figured that one out bit I guess it may be similar to the way people fear shark attacks so much despite the fact that massively more people die in oceans by simply washing out to see. Rare and dramatic events get noticed, the thousands who die each day of other things are a statistic.
 
2013-09-15 01:32:25 AM

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.


Sounds like it is a spring loaded stock, so you hold it loosely and let the trigger bounce on your finger from the recoil. I figured out that trick with my dad's power stapler when I was a kid. Useless if you want to actually hit something.
 
2013-09-15 01:37:12 AM

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?


Hundreds of millions, and most radioactive substances are illegal to own, for obvious reasons.

Haven't seen a nuke bomb range though, where could you use one if you could get one? And people say they are tired of the car analogy, comparing a small caliber rifle to a nuclear bomb? Really?
 
2013-09-15 01:38:53 AM

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.


That isn't what the Supreme Court said. Care to dispute that?
 
2013-09-15 02:11:43 AM

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'.


Maybe you should go live somewhere with an oppressive government? Banned until specifically allowed doesn't sound like much of a free country to me. That goes far beyond guns.
 
2013-09-15 02:19:50 AM

gfid: TheEdibleSnuggie: So like I said before: The cost itself makes this gun damn near prohibitive to buy. And if it goes through ammunition like the article (and most likely the manufacturer) says it will- it's hella expensive to operate as well.

It's called credit and they hand that shiat out like prizes in cereal boxes.  Most people could put that shiat on a credit card and if they weren't planning on staying alive long enough to pay it off, why wouldn't they?

I'm not anti-gun, but these guys are testing the limits....well, if the Daily Mail can be believed.

And while I'm not anti-gun, I'm pretty sure if they attract too much attention to themselves they'll get their little gizmo banned.

What do you think will happen if the next mass shooter uses one?

So you'd better buy one while you can.  That's probably a big selling point to a lot of people.  I'll pass.  I got better things to do with $6000 and I plan on living long enough to pay off my credit cards for a little while longer (like a few more decades at least).

But if I were the guy to be the next Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shooter, this would be worth looking into.  It may technically be a semiautomatic, but it sure looked like an automatic when then guy in the video was firing it.

Then again, I'm not a gun expert.  I'm just saying if you wanted to go on a killing spree, the $6000 price tag isn't going to be a huge obstacle for most people.


Well, my bet is he'll burn through all his ammo wildly spraying bullets into walls. If he wanted to kill people he'd be firing shots one at a time and aiming first. Real life isn't like a Rambo movie. Even real soldiers in battle rarely use full auto, it just wasted ammo which even if cost is no object it's still heavy and in limited supply.
 
2013-09-15 02:33:37 AM

gfid: TheEdibleSnuggie: So like I said before: The cost itself makes this gun damn near prohibitive to buy. And if it goes through ammunition like the article (and most likely the manufacturer) says it will- it's hella expensive to operate as well.

It's called credit and they hand that shiat out like prizes in cereal boxes.  Most people could put that shiat on a credit card and if they weren't planning on staying alive long enough to pay it off, why wouldn't they?

I'm not anti-gun, but these guys are testing the limits....well, if the Daily Mail can be believed.

And while I'm not anti-gun, I'm pretty sure if they attract too much attention to themselves they'll get their little gizmo banned.

What do you think will happen if the next mass shooter uses one?

So you'd better buy one while you can.  That's probably a big selling point to a lot of people.  I'll pass.  I got better things to do with $6000 and I plan on living long enough to pay off my credit cards for a little while longer (like a few more decades at least).

But if I were the guy to be the next Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shooter, this would be worth looking into.  It may technically be a semiautomatic, but it sure looked like an automatic when then guy in the video was firing it.

Then again, I'm not a gun expert.  I'm just saying if you wanted to go on a killing spree, the $6000 price tag isn't going to be a huge obstacle for most people.


You think that most people in this country could easily come up with $6000 for a specialized bump stock?   $6000 is a sizable chunk of change for most Americans, especially in that demographic from which most mass shooters come from.  These are, generally speaking, not wealthy people, not even middle class wealthy.
 
2013-09-15 03:56:18 AM

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.


Nope. You have to be batguano nuckin' futs to waste that kind of baksheesh on ammo-wasting crap like this.
 
2013-09-15 03:59:17 AM

Amos Quito: vrax: Amos Quito: [www.ammoland.com image 600x471]

Thought this was interesting.

I'm sure Assad would agree that the "rebels" should not be allowed access to assault weapons.


/But it couldn't happen here
//I'm telling you, my dear
///That it couldn't. Happen. Here

Yes, it could happen here.  I'm expecting it to happen around the same time as we have first contact with the Vulcans.


We already have a regime that doesn't represent the interests of The People.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_repub li c_we_must_reclaim.html

Enjoy


To which the solution is unlikely to ever be armed insurrection.  We have legal recourse.  We don't have the collective will to make the required changes.
 
2013-09-15 04:31:27 AM

Amos Quito: [www.ammoland.com image 600x471]

Thought this was interesting.

I'm sure Assad would agree that the "rebels" should not be allowed access to assault weapons.


/But it couldn't happen here
//I'm telling you, my dear
///That it couldn't. Happen. Here


One of many reasons that it (assuming it = successful revolution) couldn't happen here:
noliesradio.org
 
2013-09-15 08:07:09 AM
Sure are a lot of 'men' polishing their 'weapons' here.....
 
2013-09-15 08:48:56 AM

Rhino_man: Amos Quito: [www.ammoland.com image 600x471]

Thought this was interesting.

I'm sure Assad would agree that the "rebels" should not be allowed access to assault weapons.


/But it couldn't happen here
//I'm telling you, my dear
///That it couldn't. Happen. Here

One of many reasons that it (assuming it = successful revolution) couldn't happen here:
[noliesradio.org image 850x637]


Why? Because in all revolutions in history, all military units remained loyal?
 
Displayed 278 of 278 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report