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.

(Opposing Views)   "Holt and his friends were dry-firing the gun at each other for fun earlier in the day." Hmmm, I wonder how this story ends   (opposingviews.com) divider line 417
    More: Florida, handguns, guns  
•       •       •

7683 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2013 at 9:42 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 02:51:20 PM  

Smidge204: are you against permitting, licensing and registering firearms too? What if they decide a permit should cost $25,000?


I am.  Having a registry is something the vast majority of gun owners oppose - for good reason.
 
2013-12-05 02:54:23 PM  

metatronarchetype: Dimensio: My understanding is that the presence of a pistol grip, a threaded barrel or an adjustable stock transforms a conventional hunting or target rifle into a deadly assault weapon. However, I also understand that some California lawmakers have sought to expand the definition to include any semi-automatic rifle fed from a detachable magazine.

But what do you think?  You said it's common sense that assault weapons are only suitable for mass murder.  When you formed this opinion, what was it that you were thinking of?


I stated that "assault weapons" are suitable only for mass murder, and therefore that law enforcement should have exclusive access to them.

Study it out.
 
2013-12-05 02:55:25 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Using what definition of "machinegun"?  I generally operate on the whole "fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger" definition, which doesn't cover semi-autos, but does cover guns with a "burst" and true "full auto" capabiliity.  I don't know where you are, but where I am, the guns in question most certainly ARE "machineguns" under my definition.  And yes, I've both examined the guns in question closely AND actually fired them.


Hmm. A standard-issue service rifle is not a machine gun. I've never had to set up a range card with FPLs for any M16 variant.
 
2013-12-05 02:56:27 PM  

Dimensio: Study it out.


You're killing me.
 
2013-12-05 02:59:02 PM  

GanjSmokr: Police are not considered "civilians"


by other civilians.
 
2013-12-05 03:03:24 PM  

HeadLever: Having a registry is something the vast majority of gun owners oppose - for good reason.


Drummed-up conspiracy freak paranoia is not good reason, Sonja.
 
2013-12-05 03:07:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: HeadLever: Having a registry is something the vast majority of gun owners oppose - for good reason.

Drummed-up conspiracy freak paranoia is not good reason, Sonja.


History certainly is
 
2013-12-05 03:07:47 PM  

Dimensio: I stated that "assault weapons" are suitable only for mass murder, and therefore that law enforcement should have exclusive access to them.

Study it out.


You think assault weapons should be restricted, I understand that.  I'm trying to see if you know what an assault weapon actually is.

Apparently, you don't.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Drummed-up conspiracy freak paranoia is not good reason, Sonja.


Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.  This is a real thing that has actually happened in real life.  Being concerned that the same thing will happen again is not paranoia, it's common sense.
 
2013-12-05 03:07:55 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Drummed-up conspiracy freak paranoia is not good reason, Sonja


What you see as drummed up paranoia, others see as prudent precaution aginst a tired and true method of gun confiscation.

Never mind the fact that will never comply anyway....
 
2013-12-05 03:10:53 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: Police are not considered "civilians"

by other civilians.


So you are saying "Police are not considered 'civilians' by other people who are actually considered 'civilians' by the accepted definition"?

OK then.... I think you agree with me.
 
2013-12-05 03:13:37 PM  

metatronarchetype: You think assault weapons should be restricted, I understand that. I'm trying to see if you know what an assault weapon actually is.

Apparently, you don't.


Not familar with Dimensio, I see.  You need to take everything in the context of the Snark turned up to 11.

His point here is a facious one where only the police and millitary should be able to commit mass murder.  You, plebe, should have no such right or protection from such.
 
2013-12-05 03:16:58 PM  

Carousel Beast: skozlaw: It's never a tragedy when stupid people get shot doing stupid things. Tragedy in this sort of circumstance implies an accident and getting shot playing with guns like they're children's toys is never accidental.

Ever.

The girl should be charged with murder and everyone else involved as accomplices to it.

If gun owners want to be seen as responsible, let's help them out by starting to hold them responsible when they act like farging retards with the damn things. Maybe if we started locking idiots like these up for long periods of time the only ones left in any significant measure WOULD be the ones that are actually responsible after a time.

That's some weapons grade Derp there. Substitute "automobile" for gun and I believe you'll see why.


Nah, automobile owners and operators should be held to the same proposed standard of accountability as gun owners and operators.
 
2013-12-05 03:18:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Hmm. A standard-issue service rifle is not a machine gun. I've never had to set up a range card with FPLs for any M16 variant.


Which service?  ATF considers a gun that has a three round burst capabiliity to be a "machinegun".  Of course, ATF has also ruled that a run of the mill 14 inch long white tennis shoe shoelace is also considered to be a "machinegun"...and no, I'm not joking.
 
2013-12-05 03:19:50 PM  
Oh, and here's a link that contains the ATF letter in question:  http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
 
2013-12-05 03:28:22 PM  

metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.


Yes, they have.
1. Confiscation from people breaking the law.
2. Confiscation from convicted felons.
3. Confiscation from the mentally ill.
4. Confiscation from people convicted of domestic abuse.

Confiscation of firearms is not necessarily a bad thing.

And I'm beginning to suspect that there are a bunch of people from the third category who post in these threads.
 
2013-12-05 03:30:02 PM  

GanjSmokr: demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: Police are not considered "civilians"

by other civilians.

So you are saying "Police are not considered 'civilians' by other people who are actually considered 'civilians' by the accepted definition"?

OK then.... I think you agree with me.


No. Cops are civilians. Paramilitary is not military, otherwise Boy Scouts wouldn't be civilians.
 
2013-12-05 03:32:09 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.

Yes, they have.
1. Confiscation from people breaking the law.
2. Confiscation from convicted felons.
3. Confiscation from the mentally ill.
4. Confiscation from people convicted of domestic abuse.

Confiscation of firearms is not necessarily a bad thing.

And I'm beginning to suspect that there are a bunch of people from the third category who post in these threads.


Registries have also been useful in the city of New York following implementation of firearm prohibitions that included no grandfather clause. Owners of newly banned firearms were contacted by the government and instructed that they were no longer legally allowed to own newly banned registered firearms, and that the firearms were to be removed from the city, destroyed, or turned in to the government without compensation.
 
2013-12-05 03:33:29 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Yes, they have.
1. Confiscation from people breaking the law.
2. Confiscation from convicted felons.
3. Confiscation from the mentally ill.
4. Confiscation from people convicted of domestic abuse.

Confiscation of firearms is not necessarily a bad thing.


Good job at completely ignoring the other side of that confiscation argument.  The part wher goverment decides that ordinary citizens shouldn't own guns.
 
2013-12-05 03:35:25 PM  

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Yes, they have.
1. Confiscation from people breaking the law.
2. Confiscation from convicted felons.
3. Confiscation from the mentally ill.
4. Confiscation from people convicted of domestic abuse.

Confiscation of firearms is not necessarily a bad thing.

Good job at completely ignoring the other side of that confiscation argument.  The part wher goverment decides that ordinary citizens shouldn't own guns.


He doesn't really have a problem with that.
 
2013-12-05 03:36:34 PM  

Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.

Yes, they have.
1. Confiscation from people breaking the law.
2. Confiscation from convicted felons.
3. Confiscation from the mentally ill.
4. Confiscation from people convicted of domestic abuse.

Confiscation of firearms is not necessarily a bad thing.

And I'm beginning to suspect that there are a bunch of people from the third category who post in these threads.

Registries have also been useful in the city of New York following implementation of firearm prohibitions that included no grandfather clause. Owners of newly banned firearms were contacted by the government and instructed that they were no longer legally allowed to own newly banned registered firearms, and that the firearms were to be removed from the city, destroyed, or turned in to the government without compensation.


The law was changed by their elected representatives. They were then given time to comply with the law. The Supreme Court (page 54 of your favorite decision) says that it's perfectly kosher.  What's your beef?
 
2013-12-05 03:36:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.

Yes, they have.
1. Confiscation from people breaking the law.
2. Confiscation from convicted felons.
3. Confiscation from the mentally ill.
4. Confiscation from people convicted of domestic abuse.


5.  Confiscation from people who were told by the Government that they were essentially grandfathered into legality if they registered their rifles, until the Government in question changed their mind, and ordered them to surrender their weapons, at the point of (unregistered) guns of the same kind in the hands of Governmental employees.

There ya go.  FTFY.
 
2013-12-05 03:37:08 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: Police are not considered "civilians"

by other civilians.

So you are saying "Police are not considered 'civilians' by other people who are actually considered 'civilians' by the accepted definition"?

OK then.... I think you agree with me.

No. Cops are civilians. Paramilitary is not military, otherwise Boy Scouts wouldn't be civilians.



OK... once more for the ignorant - by the accepted-by-everyone-but-you definition of "civilian", cops are NOT civilians.  I posted the def for you up-thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia. Civilians are distinct from combatants. They are afforded a degree of legal protection from the effects of war and military occupation. In U.S. parlance, a civilian is also considered one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.[1]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
ci·vil·ian
 noun \sə-ˈvil-yən  also -ˈvi-yən\
: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
ci·vil·ian
  [si-vil-yuh]  Show IPA
noun1.
a person who is not on active duty with
 a military, naval,  police, or fire fighting  .


If you are going to chose to ignore what people accept as a definition of that word, don't be surprised if people correct you or think you are a moron.
 
2013-12-05 03:37:37 PM  

R.A.Danny: He doesn't really have a problem with that.


obviously.  Perfect example on how the gun grabbers use 'reasonable' arguments in order to implement unreasonable legislation.
 
2013-12-05 03:39:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The law was changed by their elected representatives. They were then given time to comply with the law. The Supreme Court (page 54 of your favorite decision) says that it's perfectly kosher.  What's your beef?


Given the lack of debate involved in that process, do you honestly consider that to be indicative of a remotely free society?  Keep in mind that for many, many years, literal slavery was entirely legal in this country.
 
2013-12-05 03:41:25 PM  

GanjSmokr: If you are going to chose to ignore what people accept as a definition of that word, don't be surprised if people correct you or think you are a moron.


Wait, are you actually arguing that FIREFIGHTERS are not "civilians"?  Because that's what it appears that you're saying.
 
2013-12-05 03:43:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.

Yes, they have.
1. Confiscation from people breaking the law.
2. Confiscation from convicted felons.
3. Confiscation from the mentally ill.
4. Confiscation from people convicted of domestic abuse.

Confiscation of firearms is not necessarily a bad thing.

And I'm beginning to suspect that there are a bunch of people from the third category who post in these threads.

Registries have also been useful in the city of New York following implementation of firearm prohibitions that included no grandfather clause. Owners of newly banned firearms were contacted by the government and instructed that they were no longer legally allowed to own newly banned registered firearms, and that the firearms were to be removed from the city, destroyed, or turned in to the government without compensation.

The law was changed by their elected representatives. They were then given time to comply with the law. The Supreme Court (page 54 of your favorite decision) says that it's perfectly kosher.  What's your beef?


I am merely noting that concerns of registries being used for confiscation are validated by previous events, and that your list is incomplete.
 
2013-12-05 03:43:30 PM  

HeadLever: R.A.Danny: He doesn't really have a problem with that.

obviously.  Perfect example on how the gun grabbers use 'reasonable' arguments in order to implement unreasonable legislation.


I think we can all agree that marijuana kills brain cells.
 
2013-12-05 03:44:48 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: GanjSmokr: If you are going to chose to ignore what people accept as a definition of that word, don't be surprised if people correct you or think you are a moron.

Wait, are you actually arguing that FIREFIGHTERS are not "civilians"?  Because that's what it appears that you're saying.


By the currently accepted definition of "civilians", firefighters are not considered to be included.  I'm not really "arguing" the fact, just stating it for those who don't care to accept it.
 
2013-12-05 03:45:41 PM  

GanjSmokr: demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: Police are not considered "civilians"

by other civilians.

So you are saying "Police are not considered 'civilians' by other people who are actually considered 'civilians' by the accepted definition"?

OK then.... I think you agree with me.

No. Cops are civilians. Paramilitary is not military, otherwise Boy Scouts wouldn't be civilians.


OK... once more for the ignorant - by the accepted-by-everyone-but-you definition of "civilian", cops are NOT civilians.  I posted the def for you up-thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia. Civilians are distinct from combatants. They are afforded a degree of legal protection from the effects of war and military occupation. In U.S. parlance, a civilian is also considered one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.[1]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
ci·vil·ian
 noun \sə-ˈvil-yən  also -ˈvi-yən\
: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
ci·vil·ian
  [si-vil-yuh]  Show IPA
noun1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval,  police, or fire fighting  .


If you are going to chose to ignore what people accept as a definition of that word, don't be surprised if people correct you or think you are a moron.


People can accept whatever the fark they want. It doesn't mean much when they do.

Until police or firefighters are operating under the DoD and subject to the UCMJ, they're civilians in every way that actually matters - and what idiots think constitutes a civilian does not matter.

We have a word to distinguish military personnel from non-military persons. It's a useful word. Trying to change it into something else is either stupid, or a sign of a social engineering effort to create a divide between people that would otherwise not exist.
 
2013-12-05 03:48:20 PM  

JesseL: GanjSmokr: demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: demaL-demaL-yeH: GanjSmokr: Police are not considered "civilians"

by other civilians.

So you are saying "Police are not considered 'civilians' by other people who are actually considered 'civilians' by the accepted definition"?

OK then.... I think you agree with me.

No. Cops are civilians. Paramilitary is not military, otherwise Boy Scouts wouldn't be civilians.


OK... once more for the ignorant - by the accepted-by-everyone-but-you definition of "civilian", cops are NOT civilians.  I posted the def for you up-thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia. Civilians are distinct from combatants. They are afforded a degree of legal protection from the effects of war and military occupation. In U.S. parlance, a civilian is also considered one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.[1]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
ci·vil·ian
 noun \sə-ˈvil-yən  also -ˈvi-yən\
: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
ci·vil·ian
  [si-vil-yuh]  Show IPA
noun1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval,  police, or fire fighting  .


If you are going to chose to ignore what people accept as a definition of that word, don't be surprised if people correct you or think you are a moron.

People can accept whatever the fark they want. It doesn't mean much when they do.

Until police or firefighters are operating under the DoD and subject to the UCMJ, they're civilians in every way that actually matters - and what idiots think constitutes a civilian does not matter.

We have a word to distinguish military personnel from non-military persons. It's a useful word. Trying to change it into something else is either stupid ...



You should really let all the dictionary companies know that they're wrong.
 
2013-12-05 03:49:51 PM  
No one here  (other than the pothead) really thinks that gun ownership should be limited to non civilians. Why is the subject being changed?
 
2013-12-05 03:53:01 PM  

umad: CasperImproved: Two friends playing with a third friend's gun (owner at fault for allowing).

After friends play with gun, they did not observe owner load same gun, then put it back on the table. (owners fault).

Two friends play with the loaded gun with assumable results (owners fault).

Were the two friends stupid? Yes.

But who was criminally negligent and ultimately responsible for this tragedy?

The idiot who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. She broke every rule of gun safety. It is all on her.


You tragically illustrate the mindset behind those I would never allow (if I could) to own a firearm.

Common sense dictates that the gun owner should not have had the gun "sitting around" to be played with. Once he saw they were going to play with it, he should have taken it away as though from a child and put it away.  He compounded his negligence by loading the gun and putting it back into the "play" zone. That turned it from negligent, into criminally negligent.

While the two were completely stupid to play with a gun in the first place, the gun should never had been there for them to play with.
 
2013-12-05 03:53:58 PM  

R.A.Danny: No one here  (other than the pothead) really thinks that gun ownership should be limited to non civilians. Why is the subject being changed?


Just to be clear, I don't think that gun ownership should be limited to non-civilians...

/I am a pot head but it's legal here
//what's your vice?  Booze? Tobacco? Caffeine? Pain pills? Asian trannies? FARK gun threads?
 
2013-12-05 03:54:02 PM  

HeadLever: The part wher goverment decides that ordinary citizens shouldn't own guns.

R.A.Danny: He doesn't really have a problem with that.

metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.  This is a real thing that has actually happened in real life.  Being concerned that the same thing will happen again is not paranoia, it's common sense.

GanjSmokr: OK then.... I think you agree with me.

Dimensio: Study it out.

Secret Master of All Flatulence: a gun that has a three round burst capabiliity to be a "machinegun".


Not to be trusted with a dull spork, strand of overcooked spaghetti, ball of yarn, or firearm.
 
2013-12-05 03:55:36 PM  

GanjSmokr: You should really let all the dictionary companies know that they're wrong.


Gladly. While I'm at it I'll explain that making "literally" mean the same thing as "figuratively" is wrong and stupid.

Dictionary publishers are poor authorities to appeal to for words with precise technical or legal meanings, doubly so when they choose a descriptive approach instead of a prescriptive one.
 
2013-12-05 04:00:32 PM  

JesseL: GanjSmokr: You should really let all the dictionary companies know that they're wrong.

Gladly. While I'm at it I'll explain that making "literally" mean the same thing as "figuratively" is wrong and stupid.

Dictionary publishers are poor authorities to appeal to for words with precise technical or legal meanings, doubly so when they choose a descriptive approach instead of a prescriptive one.


On that we can agree, but alas it is in our vernacular as that now, isn't it?

Just like the words "clips" and "magazines" are apparently interchangeable now even though up until recently they were used to refer to two different things.  I still like to use the correct terms for those items, but I'm just a pedant that way I guess.
 
2013-12-05 04:05:08 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: HeadLever: The part wher goverment decides that ordinary citizens shouldn't own guns.
R.A.Danny: He doesn't really have a problem with that.
metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.  This is a real thing that has actually happened in real life.  Being concerned that the same thing will happen again is not paranoia, it's common sense.
GanjSmokr: OK then.... I think you agree with me.
Dimensio: Study it out.
Secret Master of All Flatulence: a gun that has a three round burst capabiliity to be a "machinegun".

Not to be trusted with a dull spork, strand of overcooked spaghetti, ball of yarn, or firearm.


I believe that you have confused personal attacks with a rational justification of your position.
 
2013-12-05 04:05:19 PM  

JesseL: If you are going to chose to ignore what people accept as a definition of that word, don't be surprised if people correct you or think you are a moron.

People can accept whatever the fark they want. It doesn't mean much when they do.
Until police or firefighters are operating under the DoD and subject to the UCMJ, they're civilians in every way that actually matters - and what idiots think constitutes a civilian does not matter.
We have a word to distinguish military personnel from non-military persons. It's a useful word. Trying to change it into something else is either stupid, or a sign of a social engineering effort to create a divide between people that would otherwise not exist.


I don't believe he takes kindly to being corrected or knowing that he's thought of as a moron.

/Were you going to do any more work on that crazy Israeli Hi-Power?
 
2013-12-05 04:11:29 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:
/Were you going to do any more work on that crazy Israeli Hi-Power?

I sold it a few months back. Got out of it about what I put into it, and gained some good experience.

I've taken on and finished a few other projects since then:

Enfield no.4 tanker:
scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net

Ruger 10/22 barrel threaded and modified to go on a 77/22:
scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net
scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net
scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net

YHM QD suppressor mount fitted to a FN SPR:
scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net

http://www.facebook.com/LambertGunworks
 
2013-12-05 04:13:57 PM  

Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: HeadLever: The part wher goverment decides that ordinary citizens shouldn't own guns.
R.A.Danny: He doesn't really have a problem with that.
metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.  This is a real thing that has actually happened in real life.  Being concerned that the same thing will happen again is not paranoia, it's common sense.
GanjSmokr: OK then.... I think you agree with me.
Dimensio: Study it out.
Secret Master of All Flatulence: a gun that has a three round burst capabiliity to be a "machinegun".

Not to be trusted with a dull spork, strand of overcooked spaghetti, ball of yarn, or firearm.

I believe that you have confused personal attacks with a rational justification of your position.


There's something about a combination of pants-pissing fear, paranoia, defective reasoning, and bad judgment that has me leaning toward distrust.

/Nothing personal.
//I've felt far more comfortable turning my back on barely-trained 17-19 year-olds armed with automatic weapons than I would with any farker on that list.
///Nothing personal: I was training said armed teenagers.
 
2013-12-05 04:18:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: JesseL: If you are going to chose to ignore what people accept as a definition of that word, don't be surprised if people correct you or think you are a moron.

People can accept whatever the fark they want. It doesn't mean much when they do.
Until police or firefighters are operating under the DoD and subject to the UCMJ, they're civilians in every way that actually matters - and what idiots think constitutes a civilian does not matter.
We have a word to distinguish military personnel from non-military persons. It's a useful word. Trying to change it into something else is either stupid, or a sign of a social engineering effort to create a divide between people that would otherwise not exist.

I don't believe he takes kindly to being corrected or knowing that he's thought of as a moron.

/Were you going to do any more work on that crazy Israeli Hi-Power?


Tell you what - once you get the dictionary companies to change their definitions to be what you think they should be, you can correct me.  Until then, you're just wrong.

Sound fair, kiddo?
 
2013-12-05 04:19:15 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: HeadLever: The part wher goverment decides that ordinary citizens shouldn't own guns.
R.A.Danny: He doesn't really have a problem with that.
metatronarchetype: Registries have been used to help aid confiscation efforts.  This is a real thing that has actually happened in real life.  Being concerned that the same thing will happen again is not paranoia, it's common sense.
GanjSmokr: OK then.... I think you agree with me.
Dimensio: Study it out.
Secret Master of All Flatulence: a gun that has a three round burst capabiliity to be a "machinegun".

Not to be trusted with a dull spork, strand of overcooked spaghetti, ball of yarn, or firearm.

I believe that you have confused personal attacks with a rational justification of your position.

There's something about a combination of pants-pissing fear, paranoia, defective reasoning, and bad judgment that has me leaning toward distrust.

/Nothing personal.
//I've felt far more comfortable turning my back on barely-trained 17-19 year-olds armed with automatic weapons than I would with any farker on that list.
///Nothing personal: I was training said armed teenagers.


You are again relying upon personal attacks rather than upon rational argumentation. While I understand that personal attacks are easier to issue -- especially when advocating a position lacking any intellectual merit -- they do not actually enhance your credibility.
 
2013-12-05 04:19:53 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH:
/Were you going to do any more work on that crazy Israeli Hi-Power?

I sold it a few months back. Got out of it about what I put into it, and gained some good experience.

I've taken on and finished a few other projects since then:

Enfield no.4 tanker:
[scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]

Ruger 10/22 barrel threaded and modified to go on a 77/22:
[scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 540x720]
[scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]
[scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]

YHM QD suppressor mount fitted to a FN SPR:
[scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x637]

http://www.facebook.com/LambertGunworks


That's some fine smithin'.
If only I had the extra wheelbarrow of cash and could    sucker   persuade some fine smith to make me a southpaw M1A with a nice match barrel.
/Brother already refused, the jerk.
 
2013-12-05 04:25:12 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: That's some fine smithin'.
If only I had the extra wheelbarrow of cash and could sucker persuade some fine smith to make me a southpaw M1A with a nice match barrel.
/Brother already refused, the jerk.


Thanks :)

Do you mean a completely mirrored M1A? That would definitely require a wheelbarrow full of cash.

Lesser projects, my rates are quite reasonable ;)
 
2013-12-05 04:34:30 PM  

Dimensio: GanjSmokr: Secret Master of All Flatulence: demaL-demaL-yeH: Suggestion:  Take a walk through a parking lot with a bunch of cop cars in them.  You'll generally see a whole bunch of M4 carbines, complete with "giggle switches", sitting upright and unattended with only a rudimentary locking system keeping them out of "unauthorized" hands.  "Guarded armories" my ass.

That's not a machine gun. They aren't even - with extremely limited exceptions - full auto.

Using what definition of "machinegun"?  I generally operate on the whole "fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger" definition, which doesn't cover semi-autos, but does cover guns with a "burst" and true "full auto" capabiliity.  I don't know where you are, but where I am, the guns in question most certainly ARE "machineguns" under my definition.  And yes, I've both examined the guns in question closely AND actually fired them.

I think we can all agree that they are assault weapon rifles with the things that go up, right?  And I'm sure we can all agree that the only people that should be trusted with them are trained professionals.

[media.salon.com image 750x500]

Common sense establishes that assault weapons are suitable only for mass murder, which is why they should be prohibited to all but members of law enforcement.


Sooo, your saying only LE should be able to commit mass murder.... Im assuming that the targets would be the civilians armed with nerf bats, and iphones?

Im not sure I want to live in your fantasy land anymore.
 
2013-12-05 04:40:56 PM  

R.A.Danny: Secret Master of All Flatulence: This is something that always amused/confused me.  An awful lot of the pro gun-control people generally support abortion on demand and assisted suicide.  An awful lot of the anti gun-control people oppose abortion and assisted suicide.  Does neither subset of those groups see the contradiction?

No no no, all gun owners are fat white GOPpers, and all anti gun types are Obama.


I'm in favor of gun ownership, drinking and driving, assisted or solo suicide, abortion and the death penalty.  Anything that will free up parking spaces.
Also meth on demand.
 
2013-12-05 04:42:53 PM  

morcoth: Common sense establishes that assault weapons are suitable only for mass murder, which is why they should be prohibited to all but members of law enforcement.

Sooo, your saying only LE should be able to commit mass murder.... Im assuming that the targets would be the civilians armed with nerf bats, and iphones?


Why do they even need to be armed, cops kill unarmed people all the time.
 
2013-12-05 04:44:05 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: Also meth on demand.


Only if naked children are handling the chemicals.
 
2013-12-05 04:46:20 PM  

GanjSmokr: Tell you what - once you get the dictionary companies to change their definitions to be what you think they should be, you can correct me.  Until then, you're just wrong.

Sound fair, kiddo?


Per the Geneva Accords, cops are noncombatants. That's why we can't target police headquarters: They're civilians.
 
2013-12-05 05:02:26 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Secret Master of All Flatulence: a gun that has a three round burst capabiliity to be a "machinegun".

Not to be trusted with a dull spork, strand of overcooked spaghetti, ball of yarn, or firearm.


i135.photobucket.com

Well, in that case, it's probably fairly lucky that the above pictured resident of my safe hasn't killed anybody since at least 1968.
 
Displayed 50 of 417 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report