If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

19068 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-14 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 28 of 278 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report