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)   The wife of Dolphins QB Ryan Tannehill returns rental car and leaves an AR-15 on the backseat. Police say not to panic, the weapon has the same power and accuracy as her husband's throwing arm   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 471
    More: Florida, Ryan Tannehill, dolphins, Dolphins quarterback  
•       •       •

7599 clicks; posted to Sports » on 16 Jan 2014 at 11:13 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-16 02:20:50 PM  

EyeballKid: 'cos you don't care about taking lives in order to maintain your tough-guy facade!


Boy, that strawman sure felt that one.  Nice uppercut.
 
2014-01-16 02:21:57 PM  

HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.


I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.
 
2014-01-16 02:22:04 PM  

Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.


Please explain why it's "unreasonable and irrational".
 
2014-01-16 02:22:12 PM  

EyeballKid: Frank N Stein: Liberals are supposed to be the funny ones. Save the sanctimonious crying for conservatives.

And the ones who act like they're aloof and above it all are supposed to be self-absorbed, delusional dickholes. Keep up the good work.


the important thing is that all your internet friends see how cool you are
 
2014-01-16 02:22:31 PM  

HeadLever: lilplatinum: shiat slinging in forums is not debate,

Oh, so you are not worried about making a salient point and are only interested in 'shait slinging'?


When interacting with those worth a discussion, I certainly make salient points and often learn something.  Thats not really debate in any structured fashion, however - and on fark is almost always the later.     Multiplied to the umpteenth degree when two sides of the party are so opposed that one side fetishises a weapon and posts porn-esque pictures of them often and the other side sees them as a genuine threat to public safety.  Not going to have much middle ground there.
 
2014-01-16 02:22:42 PM  

under a mountain: [americaswhiteboy.com image 431x554]


That tile counter is ugly.
 
2014-01-16 02:23:45 PM  

mjohnson71: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

Please explain why it's "unreasonable and irrational".


because you dared to disagree & freedoms

/reasonableness has no place here
 
2014-01-16 02:23:45 PM  

Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.


You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?
 
2014-01-16 02:23:54 PM  

lilplatinum: JesseL: Lucky for me I guess that most of the country is never going to take ideas like yours seriously and I can continue carrying a pistol that holds 18 rounds without really worrying about what you think.

Thank god you can have that to walk around in one of the safest periods of human history ever... not sure how one could cope with crippling paranoia otherwise.


So why the burning need for gun control? I love how you guys will argue that the streets are perfectly safe with one breath and then be screaming about how the sky is falling in the next. Fark the lot of you.
 
2014-01-16 02:24:46 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Do all white football players and their wives look exactly the same? Because this could be a generic photo of any white football player and his wife.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x572]


I was thinking that all football players wives looked the same, you sound racist.


www.athleteswives.com


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-16 02:25:52 PM  
So, today I learned that there's a term called hoplophobia, which is a condition that no respectable doctor says exists, was coined by a guy whose world views were...interesting, to say the least, and is apparently in such use that I'm really starting to get an idea of why, despite my great affinity for firearms, I always get a strong sense of "you have no business being here" whenever I go near a gun display or store.

/some of those places, it's getting to the point where you can just smell the paranoia, fear, and racism/sexism
 
2014-01-16 02:26:05 PM  

under a mountain: [americaswhiteboy.com image 431x554]


Is there anything worse than that Barbie look? AND she's (of course) got a farking belly button thing.
 
2014-01-16 02:26:22 PM  

HeadLever: Publikwerks: How is it harder keeping 5 guns ready than 1 gun ready.

so let me get this straight - it is OK to keep 5 guns with 6 rounds each but not 1 gun with 7 rounds?  And you are serious about this?


Well, unless you are open to limiting the number of guns you own?
 
2014-01-16 02:28:04 PM  

umad: So why the burning need for gun control?


Well, I live in NYC so we already have functional gun control, so its quite safe.  I just worry that as reasonable restrictions get overturned by an overbroad reading of an archaic amendment we might lose that and more asshats might start owning weapons in a city where most of us share walls with our neighbors, but such is the risk of judicial review.

It's generally one of my low totem poll items polciy wise (although the increase in random shootings is a bit distressing), its mostly just fascinating to me the siege mindset of people who feel to walk around armed, or how they fetishize things that are, at best, tools and at most things that murder other human beings.  I mean, car obsession is pretty stupid but guns take it to another level.
 
2014-01-16 02:28:07 PM  

Clutch2013: So, today I learned that there's a term called hoplophobia, which is a condition that no respectable doctor says exists, was coined by a guy whose world views were...interesting, to say the least, and is apparently in such use that I'm really starting to get an idea of why, despite my great affinity for firearms, I always get a strong sense of "you have no business being here" whenever I go near a gun display or store.

/some of those places, it's getting to the point where you can just smell the paranoia, fear, and racism/sexism


What does racism/sexism have to do with the issue being discussed?
 
2014-01-16 02:28:18 PM  

coeyagi: tblax: My favorite part about these threads is all the gun nerds flipping a tit over terms

Exactly.  OMG, they said "Assault Rifle", and it's NOT an assault rifle, therefore the gun owner was completely responsible and the article writer is the irresponsible one!

Deflection is all they have.


You're right. It was a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
 
2014-01-16 02:28:25 PM  

LarryDan43: You never know when you'll need to clear a room full of kindergartners. Be prepared.


Yell "recess"?

How would you do it?
 
2014-01-16 02:28:49 PM  

hasty ambush: I was thinking that all football players wives looked the same, you sound racist.


Every football star wants the head cheerleader.
 
2014-01-16 02:29:50 PM  

BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?


Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to  class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.
 
2014-01-16 02:31:15 PM  

lilplatinum: I'm just asking questions...


Go fark yourself
 
2014-01-16 02:31:57 PM  

Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.


Number of deaths from the kinds of weapon you want to limit are vastly outnumbered by deaths from the hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers you deem just fine.
 
2014-01-16 02:32:37 PM  

umad: lilplatinum: I'm just asking questions...

Go fark yourself


umadbro?
 
2014-01-16 02:33:25 PM  

Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?

Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to  class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.


So you are fine with severely limiting the rights of regular citizens, but the police and military get an automatic exemption. And of course criminals won't care what it is legal to have, so they would just use one of the millions of previously legal but still in existence high capacity guns. The only people your proposed ban would affect would be law abiding citizens, otherwise known as the literally millions of gun owners in America who never have and never will be criminals or violent.
 
2014-01-16 02:34:16 PM  

jigger: under a mountain: [americaswhiteboy.com image 431x554]

Is there anything worse than that Barbie look? AND she's (of course) got a farking belly button thing.


The tile countertop is worse, I'm telling you!  The grout lines are going to get all stained and good luck getting a nice even writing or cutting surface!
 
2014-01-16 02:34:43 PM  

Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?

Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to  class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.


Half of the NFA-registered weapons in the country are owned by police agencies.
 
2014-01-16 02:36:01 PM  

jigger: under a mountain: [americaswhiteboy.com image 431x554]

Is there anything worse than that Barbie look? AND she's (of course) got a farking belly button thing.


I think those women are very attractive. Though I'm more of a pale skin, dark hair, blue eyes type person.
 
2014-01-16 02:38:23 PM  

Publikwerks: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct, as is evident by all of the posts describing Ms. Tannehill's behavior as "responsible".

Haven't seen any condemnation either.


Then you did not look.
 
2014-01-16 02:40:39 PM  

Dimensio: Publikwerks: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct, as is evident by all of the posts describing Ms. Tannehill's behavior as "responsible".

Haven't seen any condemnation either.

Then you did not look.


There are alot of comments, I'm not saying there was none, and thats why I said "Seen" any.
 
2014-01-16 02:40:42 PM  

Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.


You are asserting a need for such a ban. Please demonstrate that such a restriction is warranted, and that a limitation of no more than six rounds is reasonable. Explain also why police would have need for a higher capacity, and explain how firearm owners would be compensated for the loss of nearly every magazine-fed semi-automatic firearm in the country, and every firearm with an internal magazine holding more than six rounds of ammunition.
 
2014-01-16 02:40:52 PM  
who the f*rk takes an assault type rifle in a rental car?
 
2014-01-16 02:41:10 PM  
Publikwerks:I figured would keep most revolvers . . . just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

Does not compute.  You appear to contradict yourself.  Handguns (including revolvers which you want to keep) are a much higher threat to public safety than a lever action Winchester (which would now be banned).  You blanket ban is not really about safety when it comes to reality of the problem.

This type of thinking is capricious.
 
2014-01-16 02:41:56 PM  

Frank N Stein: jigger: under a mountain: [americaswhiteboy.com image 431x554]

Is there anything worse than that Barbie look? AND she's (of course) got a farking belly button thing.

I think those women are very attractive. Though I'm more of a pale skin, dark hair, blue eyes type person.


I don't know. To me, bleaching your hair to hell and tanning your skin until it looks like leather just isn't attractive.
 
2014-01-16 02:42:13 PM  
Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".
 
2014-01-16 02:42:38 PM  

Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct, as is evident by all of the posts describing Ms. Tannehill's behavior as "responsible".

Haven't seen any condemnation either.

Then you did not look.

There are alot of comments, I'm not saying there was none, and thats why I said "Seen" any.


Because that requires effort and facts which run completely counter to your argument
 
2014-01-16 02:42:51 PM  

jigger: Frank N Stein: jigger: under a mountain: [americaswhiteboy.com image 431x554]

Is there anything worse than that Barbie look? AND she's (of course) got a farking belly button thing.

I think those women are very attractive. Though I'm more of a pale skin, dark hair, blue eyes type person.

I don't know. To me, bleaching your hair to hell and tanning your skin until it looks like leather just isn't attractive.


Meh. I'd still fark them
 
2014-01-16 02:44:42 PM  

oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".


Sometimes it's fun I argue/debate. Personally, I never set out to change people's minds. I just defend my own beliefs (when I'm not just being a dismissive dick that is)
It's also a good challenge to one'a own belief and forces a person to look inward.
 
2014-01-16 02:45:17 PM  

Fark It: Richard C Stanford: God, just everything about that article...
The dumbass leaving his $2,000 dollar rifle in a rental car and forgetting about it.
The Mails hysterical all-caps ASSAULT RIFLE! head line, showing exactly how much they know about firearms.
And this little gem from the "victims":
"'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled."

The optics alone cost over $1,000, and Tannehill is a starting QB, so that's probably not a Walmart-tier Shrubmaster.  It's probably a Noveske or something.


That was the first thing I noticed. I'd be one EO Tech with magnifier richer.
 
2014-01-16 02:45:19 PM  
Somebody trolled up this thread and ya'll let him. I'm not gonna say who though.

gossipextra.com
rogersnider.com
rogersnider.com
lh6.ggpht.com
cdnl.complex.com
 
2014-01-16 02:47:00 PM  

BadReligion: Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?

Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to  class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.

So you are fine with severely limiting the rights of regular citizens, but the police and military get an automatic exemption. And of course criminals won't care what it is legal to have, so they would just use one of the millions of previously legal but still in existence high capacity guns. The only people your proposed ban would affect would be law abiding citizens, otherwise known as the literally millions of gun owners in America who never have and never will be criminals or violent.


Uhh, yeah. If you are living in a world where you go toe to toe with the US Army/Navy/Air Force or even the Coast Guard or even the local LEOs and win using guns, you are dreaming. The only way to stop the government is not with bullets, but lawyers. Look at Ruby Ridge. Had Randy Weaver not put down his gun, he most likely would have shared his wife and son's fate, and the government would have swept it under the carpet like Waco. But he lived because he took his fight to the courts, where he won.
 
2014-01-16 02:47:27 PM  
Is it possible for the mods to un-green a thread, because that would be nice.
 
2014-01-16 02:48:18 PM  

Publikwerks: Well, unless you are open to limiting the number of guns you own?


Don't deflect the question.  Please respond.
 
2014-01-16 02:48:43 PM  

BadReligion: I just put a similar EOTech optics setup on my rifle. But I know where mine is, and won't be leaving it in a rental car.
[i74.photobucket.com image 850x637]


I use a simple ring sight (the rifle itself is an A3 model and included no rear sight at retail). I do not know whether I should feel impoverished or snobbish.
 
2014-01-16 02:49:28 PM  

Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?

Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to  class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.

So you are fine with severely limiting the rights of regular citizens, but the police and military get an automatic exemption. And of course criminals won't care what it is legal to have, so they would just use one of the millions of previously legal but still in existence high capacity guns. The only people your proposed ban would affect would be law abiding citizens, otherwise known as the literally millions of gun owners in America who never have and never will be criminals or violent.

Uhh, yeah. If you are living in a world where you go toe to toe with the US Army/Navy/Air Force or even the Coast Guard or even the local LEOs and win using guns, you are dreaming. The only way to stop the government is not with bullets, but lawyers. Look at Ruby Ridge. Had Randy Weaver not put down his gun, he most likely would have shared his wife and son's fate, and the government would have swept it under the carpet like Waco. But he lived because he took his fight to the courts, where he won.


It's not about going toe to toe. You hit soft targets, supply lines, and targeted assassination.

/insurgency 101
//I'm a coastie as well
 
2014-01-16 02:49:59 PM  

Dimensio: Super Chronic: Fully loaded, indeed.

I do not know why reckless endangerment charges were not considered.


Because she's a responsible gun owner, duh!
 
2014-01-16 02:50:05 PM  

Mikey1969: Richard C Stanford: God, just everything about that article...
The dumbass leaving his $2,000 dollar rifle in a rental car and forgetting about it.
The Mails hysterical all-caps ASSAULT RIFLE! head line, showing exactly how much they know about firearms.
And this little gem from the "victims":
"'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled."

Yeah, the stress of the situation will do that to you... I mean, what do you do? Do you contact the rental company? Do you try and track down the owner yourself? Do you contact the police? Do you claim the rifle for your own, citing Finders keepers? Do you sell it? Do you take it to the range for a few hours and THEN return it?


As long as you buy your own ammo, and bring it back cleaned, (and I mean a decent cleaning where you tear down the bolt carrier group and use CLP, not just a quick hit of the brush to the ejector port area), it's all good. Just like stea-uh borrowing a sports car. It's understood you bring it back with a full tank and a wax job.
 
2014-01-16 02:50:55 PM  

Publikwerks: Look at Ruby Ridge. Had Randy Weaver not put down his gun, he most likely would have shared his wife and son's fate, and the government would have swept it under the carpet like Waco. But he lived because he took his fight to the courts, where he won.


Actually, if Mr Weaver would not have taken up his gun, we would have never known about the corrupt ATF operations in the first place and Mr Weaver would still likely be in jail.

Of course, maybe OKC bombing would not have happened which would have been nice.
 
2014-01-16 02:51:06 PM  

hasty ambush: sweetmelissa31: Do all white football players and their wives look exactly the same? Because this could be a generic photo of any white football player and his wife.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x572]

I was thinking that all football players wives looked the same, you sound racist.


[www.athleteswives.com image 299x433]


[4.bp.blogspot.com image 256x320]


Wow, good work.  Who is the guy in the top picture?
 
2014-01-16 02:51:51 PM  

Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear.  And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?

Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to  class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.

So you are fine with severely limiting the rights of regular citizens, but the police and military get an automatic exemption. And of course criminals won't care what it is legal to have, so they would just use one of the millions of previously legal but still in existence high capacity guns. The only people your proposed ban would affect would be law abiding citizens, otherwise known as the literally millions of gun owners in America who never have and never will be criminals or violent.

Uhh, yeah. If you are living in a world where you go toe to toe with the US Army/Navy/Air Force or even the Coast Guard or even the local LEOs and win using guns, you are dreaming. The only way to stop the government is not with bullets, but lawyers. Look at Ruby Ridge. Had Randy Weaver not put down his gun, he most likely would have shared his wife and son's fate, and the government would have swept it ...


I would never think of such a thing, but the fact of the matter is there is either a reason for everyone to have 6+ rounds, or there is no reason for anyone to have 6+ rounds. Making exceptions for even just the police, forgetting about the military, puts a huge hole in your arguement that people don't need more than 6 rounds. Plus, like I said, everything you want to make illegal would still exist, meaning criminals would still have them. And guns are very simple machines, if they can't get them from a manufacturer, someone will make them themselves to sell on the black market. That actually happened in Australia, a guy was making very nice, high quality sub machine guns to sell to biker gangs.
 
2014-01-16 02:52:46 PM  

HeadLever: Publikwerks:I figured would keep most revolvers . . . just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

Does not compute.  You appear to contradict yourself.  Handguns (including revolvers which you want to keep) are a much higher threat to public safety than a lever action Winchester (which would now be banned).  You blanket ban is not really about safety when it comes to reality of the problem.

This type of thinking is capricious.


As I said, I am open to change - if it make sense to exempt something, I wouldn't have an issue with that. As I said, I am open to rational arguments. I wouldn't have a problem with exempt lever action rifles and shotguns, or at least some of them. The ban I suggested is a starting point.
 
2014-01-16 02:53:42 PM  

Dimensio: BadReligion: I just put a similar EOTech optics setup on my rifle. But I know where mine is, and won't be leaving it in a rental car.
[i74.photobucket.com image 850x637]

I use a simple ring sight (the rifle itself is an A3 model and included no rear sight at retail). I do not know whether I should feel impoverished or snobbish.


Both? I like the EOTech stuff I have, really improves my accuracy. I am not the best marksman out there.
 
Displayed 50 of 471 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report