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  
•       •       •

7572 clicks; posted to Sports » on 16 Jan 2014 at 11:13 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



471 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-16 09:33:40 AM
"Ma'am, did you check the trunk and backseat, just to make sure all your personal belongings are with you?"
"Yes, of course!"
"Uhh... Ma'am you may want to check that back seat again."
 
2014-01-16 09:35:59 AM
Ignoring the Daily FAIL dramatics, I'd also like to present an F for effort to the rental company for missing the rifle case.
 
2014-01-16 10:01:50 AM
How it was identified:
blog.robballen.com
 
2014-01-16 10:04:59 AM
Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.


 Seriously?
 
2014-01-16 10:08:23 AM
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."
 
2014-01-16 10:13:42 AM

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.
 
2014-01-16 10:20:51 AM
Wow, that's kind of stunningly stupid and hoplophobic all the way around.

If I'd rented that car. . . well, I'm not saying I wouldn't return it, but it'd be awfully easy to pop those two pins and remove and destroy just the lower.
 
2014-01-16 10:23:09 AM

Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?


Did you not view the image of the rifle? It features both a pistol grip and a collapsing stock. At any time it might have spontaneously caused several dozen people to fall over dead merely through proximity.

I am unable to determine whether the firearm also features a flash hider or threaded barrel, which of course would cause it to be even more volatile and dangerous.
 
2014-01-16 10:24:04 AM

Fark It: 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.


My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 10:24:30 AM

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."


Well, someone who knows that an AR-15 is an assault rifle certainly knows more about the subject than someone who doesn't.
 
2014-01-16 10:29:19 AM

Dimensio: It features both a pistol grip and a collapsing stock.


Is an AFG a pistol grip?

The Daily Fail left out this gem:

Fleissig said she and her daughter jumped out of the car to get away from the gun.

Like it was a rattlesnake or something...
 
2014-01-16 10:33:01 AM

vpb: 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."

Well, someone who knows that an AR-15 is an assault rifle certainly knows more about the subject than someone who doesn't.


But an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle.  An assault rifle has a clear, historic definition.

You could call it an assault weapon, like the Brady Campaign.  That's a more subjective, feelings-based phrase that isn't demonstrably wrong.
 
2014-01-16 10:39:37 AM
The women saw a weapon ditched in their car and feared the worse: that they'd be found in possession of someone's cast-off murder weapon.  Who tosses aside a $2000 piece of hardware like that?

Well-heeled idiots and criminals, that's who.  They feared the latter, and got all drama-queeny for the paper.
 
2014-01-16 10:44:22 AM

factoryconnection: The women saw a weapon ditched in their car and feared the worse: that they'd be found in possession of someone's cast-off murder weapon.  Who tosses aside a $2000 piece of hardware like that?

Well-heeled idiots and criminals, that's who.  They feared the latter, and got all drama-queeny for the paper.


Or cops.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 10:48:00 AM

Fark It: vpb: 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."

Well, someone who knows that an AR-15 is an assault rifle certainly knows more about the subject than someone who doesn't.

But an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle.  An assault rifle has a clear, historic definition.

You could call it an assault weapon, like the Brady Campaign.  That's a more subjective, feelings-based phrase that isn't demonstrably wrong.


Bullshiat.  Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically to be an assault rifle.  It's an assault rifle.

Even assuming that it's semi-automatic, the idea that a semi-automatic rifle stops being an assault rifle is idiotic.  It's simple ignorance of grammar.

Even if the NRA was some sort of "official definer" of the English language, it would still be correct to define something that met the definition of an assault rifle except for not being selective fire with an adjective phrase, such as "semi-automatic".

Besides, the term "assault rifle" was made up by Germans during WW-II and they made semi-automatic assault rifles, so you are demonstrably wrong.

An "assault weapon" is a widely used phrase with a clear and well known meaning.  it's even defined in law, unlike the term "assault rifle"   It refers to battle rifles, assault rifles and submachine-guns that have been modified enough in an attempt to make them legal.

I especially live the idea that "assault weapon" is a "made up" phrase.

All language is "made up".  I assume gun nuts think that LaPierre brought a dictionary carved on a rock that he had from a burning plant down from a mountain?
 
2014-01-16 10:49:45 AM

Fark It: Or cops.


True, but that's a bit from column A (with the taxpayers footing the bill) and a bit from column B.
 
2014-01-16 10:54:24 AM

vpb: Fark It: vpb: 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."

Well, someone who knows that an AR-15 is an assault rifle certainly knows more about the subject than someone who doesn't.

But an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle.  An assault rifle has a clear, historic definition.

You could call it an assault weapon, like the Brady Campaign.  That's a more subjective, feelings-based phrase that isn't demonstrably wrong.

Bullshiat.  Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically to be an assault rifle.  It's an assault rifle.

Even assuming that it's semi-automatic, the idea that a semi-automatic rifle stops being an assault rifle is idiotic.  It's simple ignorance of grammar.

Even if the NRA was some sort of "official definer" of the English language, it would still be correct to define something that met the definition of an assault rifle except for not being selective fire with an adjective phrase, such as "semi-automatic".

Besides, the term "assault rifle" was made up by Germans during WW-II and they made semi-automatic assault rifles, so you are demonstrably wrong.

An "assault weapon" is a widely used phrase with a clear and well known meaning.  it's even defined in law, unlike the term "assault rifle"   It refers to battle rifles, assault rifles and submachine-guns that have been modified enough in an attempt to make them legal.

I especially live the idea that "assault weapon" is a "made up" phrase.

All language is "made up".  I assume gun nuts think that LaPierre brought a dictionary carved on a rock that he had from a burning plant down from a mountain?


I don't even know where to begin with this.  The Germans did make up the term "assault rifle," when they invented the "sturmgewehr" (STG-44), a select-fire weapon.  That's the only weapon they referred to as "sturmgewehr."  The definition of "assault weapon" is feelings-based and is different from state-to-state, bill-to-bill.  Your definition of an "assault weapon" is different from any state or federal definition.
 
2014-01-16 11:01:34 AM
i am picturing ryan tannehill's wife in a sexy tight black leather outfit while holding the gun right now.
 
2014-01-16 11:14:38 AM

vpb: An "assault weapon" is a widely used phrase with a clear and well known meaning.  it's even defined in law, unlike the term "assault rifle"   It refers to battle rifles, assault rifles and submachine-guns that have been modified enough in an attempt to make them legal.


Right.  Like in NJ a Marlin 60 .22LR rifle that has no military connection what so ever is an assault weapon.

And in California single shot bolt action guns are assault weapons.

It's a meaningless term.
 
2014-01-16 11:15:32 AM
Meanwhile, Joe Flacco left his slingshot in the back seat of his mom's Cutlass Supreme.
 
2014-01-16 11:17:23 AM
i970.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-16 11:17:54 AM
americaswhiteboy.com
 
2014-01-16 11:18:39 AM
An E-Z Rent-A-Car spokesperson told the Sun Sentinal that cars are cleaned before being given to new customers and that he was 'not sure how that could get past.'

OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer!

You don't clean your cars.
 
2014-01-16 11:19:23 AM

UNC_Samurai: Meanwhile, Joe Flacco left his slingshot in the back seat of his mom's Cutlass Supreme.


Eli tried to toss his gym bag in the trunk, but it clipped the side and was intercepted.
 
2014-01-16 11:19:26 AM
Was it her gun? Cause if so, that's a RGOILF. (Responsible gun owner id like to fark).
 
2014-01-16 11:19:36 AM
Tannehill's nor perfect. Neither is the team. But they did beat both the Pats and Steelers during the regular season, subby.
 
2014-01-16 11:20:05 AM
it was found by a mother and daughter using the car during a visit from New York.

They really don't clean rental cars before renting again, do they?
 
2014-01-16 11:21:18 AM

Galileo's Daughter: Tannehill's nor perfect. Neither is the team. But they did beat both the Pats and Steelers during the regular season, subby.


I'm sorry, is beating the Steelers supposed to be a noteworthy accomplishment?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 11:21:42 AM
Fark It:

I don't even know where to begin with this.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin.  That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher.  There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.
 
2014-01-16 11:21:53 AM
I'd have straight up taken it and sold it to some gun nerd.  I'd say that Obama was personally trying to grab this exact gun with his gun grabbing grabbers that he grabs with, so it's really valuable.
 
2014-01-16 11:22:53 AM
If you 'forget' you had a gun, or don't know where it is, then what good is it doing you?
 
2014-01-16 11:23:11 AM

symptomoftheuniverse: Was it her gun? Cause if so, that's a RGOILF. (Responsible gun owner id like to fark).


You lost me at "responsible".
 
2014-01-16 11:23:19 AM

vpb: Bullshiat.  Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically to be an assault rifle.  It's an assault rifle.

Even assuming that it's semi-automatic, the idea that a semi-automatic rifle stops being an assault rifle is idiotic.  It's simple ignorance of grammar.

Even if the NRA was some sort of "official definer" of the English language, it would still be correct to define something that met the definition of an assault rifle except for not being selective fire with an adjective phrase, such as "semi-automatic".

Besides, the term "assault rifle" was made up by Germans during WW-II and they made semi-automatic assault rifles, so you are demonstrably wrong.

An "assault weapon" is a widely used phrase with a clear and well known meaning.  it's even defined in law, unlike the term "assault rifle"   It refers to battle rifles, assault rifles and submachine-guns that have been modified enough in an attempt to make them legal.

I especially live the idea that "assault weapon" is a "made up" phrase.

All language is "made up".  I assume gun nuts think that LaPierre brought a dictionary carved on a rock that he had from a burning plant down from a mountain?


What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.
 
2014-01-16 11:23:26 AM
My favorite part about these threads is all the gun nerds flipping a tit over terms
 
2014-01-16 11:23:47 AM
There's some kid out there, expelled from school for driving their parents' car and not knowing there was a pocketknife left under the passenger seat, who is getting a kick out of this story....
 
2014-01-16 11:24:31 AM

oh_please: An E-Z Rent-A-Car spokesperson told the Sun Sentinal that cars are cleaned before being given to new customers and that he was 'not sure how that could get past.'

OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer!

You don't clean your cars.


Seriously lol, it's not like it was a pistol hidden in the back of the glove box.
 
2014-01-16 11:24:36 AM
Zeus: "Man, that guy was PISSED,"
McClane: "He'll feel better when he looks in the back seat,"
DANG!
 
2014-01-16 11:25:12 AM

FrancoFile: If you 'forget' you had a gun, or don't know where it is, then what good is it doing you?


I'd rather lose a gun and not need it than need a gun and not lose it.
 
2014-01-16 11:26:09 AM
show me: How it was identified:
[blog.robballen.com image 500x692]

old and irrelevant gun nut image is old and irrelevant.
 
2014-01-16 11:26:21 AM

show me: How it was identified:


Does it really matter which of those she left in the back seat for some random person to acquire?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 11:26:58 AM
jbuist:

It's a meaningless term.

No, it means what the law in those states says it means.  And in common usage it's pretty well defined to.  You may not like it, but you are just objectively wrong.
 
2014-01-16 11:27:38 AM

vpb: Fark It:

I don't even know where to begin with this.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin.  That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher.  There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.


Expert twatwaffle you are
 
2014-01-16 11:28:17 AM

under a mountain:


Can we have more of this instead of another stupid gun thread? Thx
 
2014-01-16 11:28:17 AM
That's a pretty cavalier attitude towards guns to leave something like that in the back seat.
 
2014-01-16 11:28:29 AM

Fark It: I don't even know where to begin with this.  The Germans did make up the term "assault rifle," when they invented the "sturmgewehr" (STG-44), a select-fire weapon.  That's the only weapon they referred to as "sturmgewehr."  The definition of "assault weapon" is feelings-based and is different from state-to-state, bill-to-bill.  Your definition of an "assault weapon" is different from any state or federal definition.


Reliance upon actual definition, rather than feelings, is dishonest and pedantic. If a firearm ban advocate "feels" that this is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian use, then it is, regardless of what any middling "facts" might dictate.
 
2014-01-16 11:28:31 AM

TwistedIvory: Wow, that's kind of stunningly stupid and hoplophobic all the way around.

If I'd rented that car. . . well, I'm not saying I wouldn't return it, but it'd be awfully easy to pop those two pins and remove and destroy just the lower.


Or at the very least, "EO Tech? What's an EO Tech! That's the way I found it! How dare you!"
 
2014-01-16 11:28:58 AM
CSB:

Similar incident. Several years ago I went to rent a car. While waiting for the assorted paperwork to be rendered for my car, the company gets a frantic call. Someone had left their handgun under the driver's seat in the car. One problem: the car had been rented again. About 4 hours before the call.

The rental company personnel had to make a call to these nice people who rented the car. I was able to overhear the call. The company person tried to be vague at first, saying something along the lines of "hey, you know that car we rented you? Yeah, well, if you would just go to the nearest police station, that would be totally awesome. Someone just happened to leave an item in the car. No biggie, right?"  The people were apparently on their way to Orlando, and from this end it sounded like they didn't speak the best english in the world. Finally the company person had to come out and say what the item was, without having the renters freak out. From the sound of it, the renters took it rather well. About that time I was done and heading out so I never got to hear the end of the call. But when I took the car back I asked and they said the people were good about it, got the weapon out of the car, and the company comped them for the day.

/CSB
 
2014-01-16 11:29:21 AM
Model wife of the Miami Dolphins quarterback returns their rental car with an ASSAULT RIFLE on the back seat.

Love the caps usage.
 
2014-01-16 11:29:58 AM

vpb: jbuist:

It's a meaningless term.

No, it means what the law in those states says it means.  And in common usage it's pretty well defined to.  You may not like it, but you are just objectively wrong.


Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".
 
2014-01-16 11:30:26 AM
They drove around with it in the rental car without noticing it for two days, which seems a little odd, but maybe they didn't have a lot of bags.

On the other hand, the dumb blonde not only forgot the gun in the back of the car, but didn't realize that she'd left it in the car for at least two days until the cops called and said "Uh, Ms. Tannehill, are you missing anything?"  Dum dum.
 
2014-01-16 11:30:29 AM
What is Tannehill so afraid of? Dolphins fans? He'd better hope he never gets traded to Oakland.
 
2014-01-16 11:30:43 AM
Responsible Gun Owners just leave their guns laying around everywhere. No charges.
 
2014-01-16 11:30:49 AM

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? Keep in mind that she had her daughter RIGHT THERE, it requires split second decision making capabilities... I might throw up, too.

Not because I was worried about the rifle hopping up on its own and shooting me, though. That takes special potato derp right there...
 
2014-01-16 11:30:52 AM
Was the magazine locked and lubed? What caliber were the shells?
 
2014-01-16 11:31:49 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Model wife of the Miami Dolphins quarterback returns their rental car with an ASSAULT RIFLE on the back seat.

Love the caps usage.


Like the collapsing stock and the pistol grip on the rifle itself, the use of all capital letters helps to induce fear.
 
2014-01-16 11:33:28 AM
Our gun culture is a beautiful thing.
 
2014-01-16 11:33:40 AM
Fully loaded, indeed.
 
2014-01-16 11:34:21 AM

sbchamp: Zeus: "Man, that guy was PISSED,"
McClane: "He'll feel better when he looks in the back seat,"
DANG!


 And the kick is up...and it's good.
 
2014-01-16 11:34:52 AM
I've heard of the pistol and shotgun formations. Is this some variation of the spread offense?
 
2014-01-16 11:35:25 AM
Fark It:
Fleissig said she and her daughter jumped out of the car to get away from the gun.

Like it was a rattlesnake or something...


I think a surprise bag in your rental car qualifies as a "suspicious package".   Having a gun in it?  Totally.  Do you think having a mother and daughter check the bag to be sure explosives were not present is reasonable?    I'm shocked she chose to drove to a police department with it instead of calling emergency response from a safe distance.   That's what I would have done.  Stuff happens.  And as stated elsewhere--if this was a murder or crime related weapon--I would not want to touch it.

Fark It:  'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.
 Seriously?


My daughter felt that way about dull kitchen knives until she was 7 and sharp ones until she was  11, then she started learning to cook.  She chops veggies like a pro now (15).   No accidental cuts, major or minor involving knives in her experience.   Do you imagine kids should have the same comfort zones adult should have?    Violence is abhorrent to the innocent.   And that is a good thing.
 
2014-01-16 11:35:26 AM

Super Chronic: Fully loaded, indeed.


I do not know why reckless endangerment charges were not considered.
 
2014-01-16 11:35:29 AM

vpb: Fark It:

I don't even know where to begin with this.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin.  That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher.  There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.


You.  Are.  Wrong.  The STG-45 wasn't even fielded in the war.  The STG series of weapons were "assault rifles," in that they were select-fire, that's one of their defining features, the other being the intermediate cartridge.

You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
 
2014-01-16 11:35:38 AM

Dimensio: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Model wife of the Miami Dolphins quarterback returns their rental car with an ASSAULT RIFLE on the back seat.

Love the caps usage.

Like the collapsing stock and the pistol grip on the rifle itself, the use of all capital letters helps to induce fear.


To be fair, my first thought would be that it was used in a crime, and it's in the car I just rented. So I would be freaking the fark out until the cops cleared me.
 
2014-01-16 11:37:15 AM

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? Keep in mind that she had her daughter RIGHT THERE, it requires split second decision making capabilities... I might throw up, too.

Not because I was worried about the rifle hopping up on its own and shooting me, though. That takes special potato derp right there...


The way they talk about it, they make it sound like she uncovered a ticking time bomb. Even if you have zero knowledge on handling firearms, it's still perfectly safe for you to be in it's presence or pick up the case it's in and move it. It's not going to start firing on it's own.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 11:38:11 AM
pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.
 
2014-01-16 11:38:18 AM

Skunkwolf: To be fair, my first thought would be that it was used in a crime, and it's in the car I just rented. So I would be freaking the fark out until the cops cleared me.


THIS.
 
2014-01-16 11:38:20 AM
Pop into a gun thread and what do I see? People firing pedantic arguments about what is an 'assault rifle'.
 
2014-01-16 11:39:21 AM
Don't they live in Florida? Why did Tannehill's wife need a rental car?
 
2014-01-16 11:39:49 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Responsible Gun Owners just leave their guns laying around everywhere. No charges.


We don't charge you for leaving your 'free speech' laying around everywhere here on Fark, do we?
 
2014-01-16 11:40:17 AM

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.
 
2014-01-16 11:41:29 AM

Rhypskallion: Do you imagine kids should have the same comfort zones adult should have?     Violence is abhorrent to the innocent.   And that is a good thing.


The  act of violence, sure. But guns and knives are inanimate objects. If you're having that kind of reaction just by seeing or being near one, then you should seek help since you must have had a traumatic experience with one. That's not healthy otherwise.
 
2014-01-16 11:41:31 AM
As a Dolphins fan, this qualifies as HOTY.
 
2014-01-16 11:42:12 AM

Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?


These are just people who want "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership.

Reasonable.
 
2014-01-16 11:42:28 AM

vpb: pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.


You are correct. Expecting an individual who demands a ban on barrel shrouds to actually know what barrel shrouds are and why they should be banned is wholly unreasonable.

I suspect that politicians will next be expected to have an understanding of women's reproductive health before authoring bills legislating medical procedures related to women's reproductive health.
 
2014-01-16 11:42:29 AM
and I thought Lauren Tannehill was hot before.
 
2014-01-16 11:42:33 AM
Though not selective fire (probably---- A famous millionaire may very well have a class 3 permit and a select fire lower) I'd probably call the ar-15 an assault rifle.  Intermediate Cartridge, Pistol grip, and large magazine would make it pretty handy to have on an assault.  Sure you don't have suppression fire on full auto but really in most situations its just a waste of ammunition.
 
2014-01-16 11:42:45 AM

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.


Well, the upper is an LMT Monolithic Rail Platform, and can go upwards of 1,200-1,500. Can't tell the lower receiver, but I'd bet it's a complete LMT package instead of a piecemeal assemblage.
 
2014-01-16 11:43:23 AM

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.


I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.
 
2014-01-16 11:43:30 AM

netweavr: Don't they live in Florida? Why did Tannehill's wife need a rental car?


She was also hauling 20 kilos of coke. Didn't want her own car impounded in case she got busted.
 
2014-01-16 11:43:42 AM

HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Responsible Gun Owners just leave their guns laying around everywhere. No charges.

We don't charge you for leaving your 'free speech' laying around everywhere here on Fark, do we?


Um, you're not going to win that one, buddy.  "A" for effort though.

//in other words, there are myriad laws that govern gun ownership and use, which most gun owners have no problem with.  I think leaving a weapon in a car would be labeled "irresponsible" by most gun owners, don't you?
 
2014-01-16 11:44:16 AM

Rhypskallion: I think a surprise bag in your rental car qualifies as a "suspicious package". Having a gun in it? Totally. Do you think having a mother and daughter check the bag to be sure explosives were not present is reasonable? I'm shocked she chose to drove to a police department with it instead of calling emergency response from a safe distance. That's what I would have done. Stuff happens. And as stated elsewhere--if this was a murder or crime related weapon--I would not want to touch it.


I think it is unreasonable to assume that there would be a bomb to go along with a rifle.  If it was a crime weapon it wouldn't have well over $1k worth of accessories on it, and it would be at the bottom of a large body of water.  I would have probably touched it to check to see if it was loaded, and then unloaded it if necessary.  It being a rental car I would assume that somebody left it there, and that it's highly unlikely a criminal with a $2k rifle would leave a murder weapon in a rental car, that you need state-ID and a credit card to rent, where the rental agency has you on video when you check out and drop it off.  But then again, I'm kind of thoughtful and don't go clutching my pearls.

My daughter felt that way about dull kitchen knives until she was 7 and sharp ones until she was  11, then she started learning to cook.  She chops veggies like a pro now (15).   No accidental cuts, major or minor involving knives in her experience.   Do you imagine kids should have the same comfort zones adult should have?    Violence is abhorrent to the innocent.   And that is a good thing.

Well, your daughter was still a child.  The woman in this case was an adult med student visiting potential residency programs.  And there's nothing inherently violent about a gun all by itself.

/find it ironic that you profess an affinity for martial arts in your profile
//"Violence is abhorrent to the innocent."
 
2014-01-16 11:44:45 AM

Dimensio: Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?

Did you not view the image of the rifle? It features both a pistol grip and a collapsing stock. At any time it might have spontaneously caused several dozen people to fall over dead merely through proximity.

I am unable to determine whether the firearm also features a flash hider or threaded barrel, which of course would cause it to be even more volatile and dangerous.


That may not be a collapsible stock, it may just be a shock absorbing stock... I've seen ones like that tat don't collapse, they just compress to reduce recoil, like a shock absorber... That handgrip is deadly though.
 
2014-01-16 11:45:18 AM

UNC_Samurai: Meanwhile, Joe Flacco left his slingshot in the back seat of his mom's Cutlass Supreme.


Oh snap.
 
2014-01-16 11:45:22 AM

vpb: pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.


I don't expect anti's to be experts either, and I especially don't care about crap like mag vs clip; it's a waste of breath arguing about minor points when the words are used interchangeably. But sometimes they make some outrageously bad errors, that even basic knowledge on the topic would cover. The classic example being the should thing that goes up.
 
2014-01-16 11:45:25 AM

GoldSpider: Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?

These are just people who want "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership.

Reasonable.


Is banning popular civilian sporting rifles based upon the presence of cosmetic features that give the firearms a "menacing" appearance not "reasonable"?
 
2014-01-16 11:46:05 AM

Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.


Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.
 
2014-01-16 11:46:18 AM

Saborlas: [i970.photobucket.com image 179x281]


you're doing it wrong.

img36.imageshack.us

Gun thread..


Oh and:

img69.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-16 11:46:31 AM

vpb: pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.


I forgot how specificity and definitions aren't important when it comes to public policy.
 
2014-01-16 11:46:51 AM

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? Keep in mind that she had her daughter RIGHT THERE, it requires split second decision making capabilities... I might throw up, too.

Not because I was worried about the rifle hopping up on its own and shooting me, though. That takes special potato derp right there...


Yes, though I wouldn't "jump" out of the car, but the words "rental car" and "rifle left behind" invokes all sorts of images that just can't end up well.  My first assumption would be to get the hell out of there, too, mostly because I would assume a crime had been committed.
 
2014-01-16 11:48:10 AM

vpb: Fark It:

I don't even know where to begin with this.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin.  That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher.  There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.


I guess I should feel obligated to point out that the gun you are talking about was produced for maybe the last month of the war and was part of Germany's "Primitive Weapon" program. It shouldn't really be dictating modern firearms definitions, especially when its predecessor and its derivatives use completely different technology and have hundreds if not thousands more in production and still circulating worldwide.  There's not a single army in the world that defines an assault rifle as anything other than a select-fire weapon, intermediate cartridge weapon with a detachable magazine.

Also there were fewer than 30 StG 45s made, so we can both discount that one as anything useful or definitive in this debate.
 
2014-01-16 11:48:10 AM

coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.


I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.
 
2014-01-16 11:48:37 AM
Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.



Says the lady driving an SUV that could kill countless people if it goes out of control and plows into a crowded sidewalk.."OH the humanity"


CSB - Only fun thing I have found in a rental car was porn, gay porn at that, NTTIAWWT.
 
2014-01-16 11:49:11 AM

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."


First, what's $2,00 to the wife of a professional athlete?

Second, yeah, yeah, an AR-15 is as safe as a teddy bear.  Whatever.

And lastly, not everyone is a gun nut.  Finding one in a rental car could lead any normal person to several unappealing conclusions about possible crimes committed, etc.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 11:49:30 AM
Dimensio:
Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".

That's your answer?  "Uh UHHHH!  YOU!"

Really?

You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon"  defined in law.  It's something that can be proven in court.

Also it's common vernacular.  It doesn't really matter if you approve of the term or not, you don't have any authority to dictate the English language to anyone.  It's like an anti-abortion protester trying to claim that the term "pro choice" doesn't exist.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg.  Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.


.
 
2014-01-16 11:50:04 AM

Dimensio: Super Chronic: Fully loaded, indeed.

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


It's not loaded, look at the photo.
 
2014-01-16 11:50:53 AM

Fark It: vpb: pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

I forgot how specificity and definitions aren't important when it comes to public policy.


I do not understand why Congress does not better regulate automobiles. At present, vehicles with spoilers, air dams, hood scoops and chrome exhaust tips -- features that serve no civilian commuter purpose -- are sold without any regulation. I demand a race car ban, also banning all models of the Honda Civic, the Volvo S40 and the Mazda 3 by name.
 
2014-01-16 11:52:10 AM

redmid17: vpb: Fark It:

I don't even know where to begin with this.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin.  That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher.  There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.

I guess I should feel obligated to point out that the gun you are talking about was produced for maybe the last month of the war and was part of Germany's "Primitive Weapon" program. It shouldn't really be dictating modern firearms definitions, especially when its predecessor and its derivatives use completely different technology and have hundreds if not thousands more in production and still circulating worldwide.  There's not a single army in the world that defines an assault rifle as anything other than a select-fire weapon, intermediate cartridge weapon with a detachable magazine.

Also there were fewer than 30 StG 45s made, so we can both discount that one as anything useful or definitive in this debate.


I guess my use of  "predecessor" might be a bit confusing. I mean the StG 44 and the assault rifles derived from it. It's not actually a technical predecessor to the pathetic weapons made by the Reich at the end of the WW2, just that it was the weapon in use before they ran out of the material and ability to manufacture those guns by the end of WW2.
 
2014-01-16 11:53:13 AM

Mikey1969: Dimensio: Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?

Did you not view the image of the rifle? It features both a pistol grip and a collapsing stock. At any time it might have spontaneously caused several dozen people to fall over dead merely through proximity.

I am unable to determine whether the firearm also features a flash hider or threaded barrel, which of course would cause it to be even more volatile and dangerous.

That may not be a collapsible stock, it may just be a shock absorbing stock... I've seen ones like that tat don't collapse, they just compress to reduce recoil, like a shock absorber... That handgrip is deadly though.


Naah, that's a adjustable (collapsible) stock, LMT's SOPMOD. Does have a shock absorber rubber pad on the ass-end of it, but no integrated shocks.
 
2014-01-16 11:53:27 AM

Great_Milenko: 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."

First, what's $2,00 to the wife of a professional athlete?

Second, yeah, yeah, an AR-15 is as safe as a teddy bear.  Whatever.

And lastly, not everyone is a gun nut.  Finding one in a rental car could lead any normal person to several unappealing conclusions about possible crimes committed, etc.


I would have come to similar conclusions if I found a Hi-Point in the glove box, or a sawed-off shotgun under the seat....

vpb: You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon" defined in law.


And it's defined differently based on what jurisdiction you're in.

Also it's common vernacular.

Thanks to the Orwellian efforts of gun control advocates, who seek to cast an ever increasing amount of firearms under the "assault weapon" banner.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg.  Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the reasonable, commonsense gun control advocate.

"Paper weights and wall-hangers are assault rifles because FEELINGS!"
 
2014-01-16 11:53:43 AM

vpb: Dimensio:
Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".

That's your answer?  "Uh UHHHH!  YOU!"

Really?

You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon"  defined in law.  It's something that can be proven in court.

Also it's common vernacular.  It doesn't really matter if you approve of the term or not, you don't have any authority to dictate the English language to anyone.  It's like an anti-abortion protester trying to claim that the term "pro choice" doesn't exist.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg.  Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.


Well if it's de-miled entirely, it wouldn't fire and it would cease to be a firearm. An assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you switch it to semi-auto. Just flip the lever and set it to single shot or burst/auto (depending on the gun).
 
2014-01-16 11:55:17 AM
Came for Ms Tannehill pics, only under a mountain came thru
 
2014-01-16 11:55:28 AM

netweavr: Dimensio: Super Chronic: Fully loaded, indeed.

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

It's not loaded, look at the photo.


I did a double-take at that part of the article myself. Pretty devious of them to casually describe the vehicle as "Fully Loaded" in context that they know people will freak out about.
 
2014-01-16 11:55:30 AM

vpb: Dimensio:
Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".

That's your answer?  "Uh UHHHH!  YOU!"

Really?

You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon"  defined in law.  It's something that can be proven in court.

Also it's common vernacular.  It doesn't really matter if you approve of the term or not, you don't have any authority to dictate the English language to anyone.  It's like an anti-abortion protester trying to claim that the term "pro choice" doesn't exist.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg.  Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.


.


Attempting to justify incorrect use of a term does not alter the proper definition of the term.

The AR-15 pattern rifle that I own was never capable of fully automatic nor "burst fire" operation. From its initial manufacture, it has operated only as a semi-automatic rifle. It is, therefore, not an "assault rifle" by definition and describing it as such is not honest.

While I understand that you hate firearms and that you advocate unreasonable firearm restrictions (such as the vetoed effort to ban all magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles in California), dishonestly redefining terminology does not justify those restrictions.
 
2014-01-16 11:56:15 AM

redmid17: redmid17: vpb: Fark It:

I don't even know where to begin with this.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin.  That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher.  There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.

I guess I should feel obligated to point out that the gun you are talking about was produced for maybe the last month of the war and was part of Germany's "Primitive Weapon" program. It shouldn't really be dictating modern firearms definitions, especially when its predecessor and its derivatives use completely different technology and have hundreds if not thousands more in production and still circulating worldwide.  There's not a single army in the world that defines an assault rifle as anything other than a select-fire weapon, intermediate cartridge weapon with a detachable magazine.

Also there were fewer than 30 StG 45s made, so we can both discount that one as anything useful or definitive in this debate.

I guess my use of  "predecessor" might be a bit confusing. I mean the StG 44 and the assault rifles derived from it. It's not actually a technical predecessor to the pathetic weapons made by the Reich at the end of the WW2, just that it was the weapon in use before they ran out of the material and ability to manufacture those guns by the end of WW2.


Check out the video I posted.  The German Army did adopt the STG-45 because it was significantly cheaper and easier to produce, but the Mauser factory and tooling was disassembled and loaded up on freight cars destined for Hitler's Alps where he thought they could mount a comeback.  Aside from the prototypes, the STG-45 parts that were made and intended for use in the field were never actually assembled, the war ended.
 
2014-01-16 11:56:21 AM
My first thought would have been "Free rifle. Sweet!"

Then I would have returned it.


Probably.
 
2014-01-16 11:56:51 AM
ASSAULT RIFLE
 
2014-01-16 11:57:25 AM
Fark It [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 10:04:59 AM


Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

Seriously?
Spineless bed-wetting liberals surprise you?

"OMGWTFBBQ, a chunk of metal!"
 
2014-01-16 11:58:06 AM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: 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? Keep in mind that she had her daughter RIGHT THERE, it requires split second decision making capabilities... I might throw up, too.

Not because I was worried about the rifle hopping up on its own and shooting me, though. That takes special potato derp right there...

Yes, though I wouldn't "jump" out of the car, but the words "rental car" and "rifle left behind" invokes all sorts of images that just can't end up well.  My first assumption would be to get the hell out of there, too, mostly because I would assume a crime had been committed.


I'd probably drive to the police station, in case a crime had been committed with it, and I'd call them first so that if for some reason I got pulled over, I would have something on record that I was bringing in a weapon that I had questions about. Of course, looking at the gun, I also would have my doubts that it was used in any crime, you don't often drop that kind of cabbage on your choice of weapon for drive bys...
 
2014-01-16 11:58:51 AM
I love when the tiny dick bregade gets their panties in a wad when people don't use their preferred nomenclature for their stupid little toys.

/guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are.
 
2014-01-16 11:59:06 AM

Dimensio: Fark It: vpb: pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

I forgot how specificity and definitions aren't important when it comes to public policy.

I do not understand why Congress does not better regulate automobiles. At present, vehicles with spoilers, air dams, hood scoops and chrome exhaust tips -- features that serve no civilian commuter purpose -- are sold without any regulation. I demand a race car ban, also banning all models of the Honda Civic, the Volvo S40 and the Mazda 3 by name.


Petitions protesting movies like the "Fast & Furious" franchise are also in order.
It's just disgusting car porn.
 
2014-01-16 11:59:10 AM

croesius: netweavr: Dimensio: Super Chronic: Fully loaded, indeed.

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

It's not loaded, look at the photo.

I did a double-take at that part of the article myself. Pretty devious of them to casually describe the vehicle as "Fully Loaded" in context that they know people will freak out about.


I only ever use the term "loaded" or "unloaded" when referring to whether a firearm contains ammunition.

I typically use the term "fully loaded" to describe myself at night.
 
2014-01-16 11:59:38 AM
Well you've got half a burn there, subby. While AR-15s generally use a lower-powered round, accuracy is one of their strengths (vs things like AK-47).
 
2014-01-16 11:59:58 AM

netweavr: Don't they live in Florida? Why did Tannehill's wife need a rental car?


And for "only a few hours"? And leaves a gun in the trunk?

por-img.cimcontent.net

"This stinks worse than my ex-wife's meatloaf."
 
2014-01-16 12:00:06 PM
Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?
 
2014-01-16 12:00:21 PM

lilplatinum: I love when the tiny dick bregade


Your obsession with male genitalia is of absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.
 
2014-01-16 12:01:10 PM

bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?


Unaffiliated independents placed Representative Michelle Bachmann on an intelligence committee?
 
2014-01-16 12:01:46 PM

pyrotek85: vpb: pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

I don't expect anti's to be experts either, and I especially don't care about crap like mag vs clip; it's a waste of breath arguing about minor points when the words are used interchangeably. But sometimes they make some outrageously bad errors, that even basic knowledge on the topic would cover. The classic example being the should thing that goes up.


Except that people want to use these "minor points" to set the laws that govern guns. If they can't even get the terminology right, how are the laws expected to be fair? That is the problem people have with the terminology.
 
2014-01-16 12:02:10 PM

jayhawk88: netweavr: Don't they live in Florida? Why did Tannehill's wife need a rental car?

And for "only a few hours"? And leaves a gun in the trunk?

[por-img.cimcontent.net image 313x400]

"This stinks worse than my ex-wife's meatloaf."


Maybe she went to a gunshow and bought it as a gift? Then forgot it in the car?

We could have this thread all wrong. Maybe it should be about airheaded models!
 
2014-01-16 12:02:24 PM

bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?


Michelle Bachmann and creationists being on those committees is just as bad as who try to write gun laws with no knowledge or consultation of people who know about guns.
 
2014-01-16 12:02:46 PM

JohnCarter: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.


Says the lady driving an SUV that could kill countless people if it goes out of control and plows into a crowded sidewalk.."OH the humanity"


CSB - Only fun thing I have found in a rental car was porn, gay porn at that, NTTIAWWT.


How was it?
 
2014-01-16 12:02:54 PM

croesius: Mikey1969: Dimensio: Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?

Did you not view the image of the rifle? It features both a pistol grip and a collapsing stock. At any time it might have spontaneously caused several dozen people to fall over dead merely through proximity.

I am unable to determine whether the firearm also features a flash hider or threaded barrel, which of course would cause it to be even more volatile and dangerous.

That may not be a collapsible stock, it may just be a shock absorbing stock... I've seen ones like that tat don't collapse, they just compress to reduce recoil, like a shock absorber... That handgrip is deadly though.

Naah, that's a adjustable (collapsible) stock, LMT's SOPMOD. Does have a shock absorber rubber pad on the ass-end of it, but no integrated shocks.


Man, I fired one once where the stock was basically filled with BBs, that was an amazingly gentle recoil...
 
2014-01-16 12:04:09 PM

bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws?


You don't have to be an expert, but some cursory knowledge on subjects in which there are strong opinions (no matter the subject) is a pre-requisite for any kind of reasonable discourse.  Like knowing what a barrel shroud is, or the commonly accepted definition of an "assault rifle."

If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

I'm a Democrat, voted for Obama, and served as a Democratic election judge.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 12:04:33 PM
Fark It:
You.  Are.  Wrong.  The STG-45 wasn't even fielded in the war.  The STG series of weapons were "assault rifles," in that they were select-fire, that's one of their defining features, the other being the intermediate cartridge.

That's cute.  When you are making up your own facts, just put a period after every word.  That way it looks authoritative.

So what if it wasn't fielded?  That has nothing to do with anything.  That's just a red herring to draw attention from the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about when you tried to claim that there was only one assault rile.

And you are dodging the fact that the Gustloff Volkssturmgewehr was semi-automatic.  The people who invented the term assault rifle made a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Let me repeat that.  It's an objectively demonstrable fact that the people who invented the term assault rifle made semi-automatic assault rifles.  They fielded some of them too, not that that is relevant.

You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Yes, that's why I am documenting that my facts are actual facts.  Unlike yours.

Oh, and before you start with the "anyone can edit Wikipedia" nonsense, Wikipedia isn't a primary source of information, it's an aggregator much like Fark.  The actual source of the information is linked to at the bottom of the article.

Also you can go see examples of the first semi automatic assault rifles from WWII in various museums if you want to do that.
 
2014-01-16 12:05:26 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.


Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...
 
2014-01-16 12:05:29 PM
Finding a rifle like that in a rental car in England would indeed be quite a big deal.

Then again, so would a mass shooting.
 
2014-01-16 12:05:51 PM

lilplatinum: /guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are


Irregardless of what a dictionary declares, those two terms both have an ideal definition. The fact that they are used interchangeably doesn't alter the fact that a clip most accurately describes one thing, and a magazine most accurately describes another.
 
2014-01-16 12:07:21 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Finding a rifle like that in a rental car in England would indeed be quite a big deal.

Then again, so would a mass shooting.


Finding a mass shooting in the boot of any vehicle would be quite a big deal. No matter the country.
 
2014-01-16 12:07:33 PM

Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...


I would suffer a panic attack should I suspect that I had misplaced a firearm. Should such an event occur, I would seriously reconsider whether I should continue to own them.
 
2014-01-16 12:08:21 PM

Mikey1969: That may not be a collapsible stock, it may just be a shock absorbing stock... I've seen ones like that tat don't collapse, they just compress to reduce recoil, like a shock absorber... That handgrip is deadly though.

Naah, that's a adjustable (collapsible) stock, LMT's SOPMOD. Does have a shock absorber rubber pad on the ass-end of it, but no integrated shocks.

Man, I fired one once where the stock was basically filled with BBs, that was an amazingly gentle recoil...


I...I want that. Just going from the basic serrated plastic buttstock to a magpul stock with a pad was a massive improvement. You don't remember what make that stock was, by any chance?
 
2014-01-16 12:09:22 PM

GoldSpider: Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?

These are just people who want "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership.

Reasonable.


Definitely reasonable. Why arent you willing to compromise? New York State was perfectly content with the NY Safe Act it passed last year and is working aggressively to promote 2nd Amendment rights in the aftermath:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/ny-gun-contro l- groups-pols-double-safe-act/#more-288101
 
2014-01-16 12:10:57 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.


Maybe we should call them "abortions" and then use the fear that is kicked up to ban abortions. That is the entire point. The anti-gunners are trying to get common semi-automatic rifles banned, so they love to lump them in with automatic rifles to convince the other mouth breathers of their ilk to support the bans. Stop being misleading and maybe we will work with you on a few things. As it is, all you will ever get from us to any of your suggestions is "How about no."
 
2014-01-16 12:12:04 PM
Ms Tannehill rented the white Nissan Rogue Jan 4 for only a few hours before she swapped it for another car. The fully loaded was then rented to Judith Fleissig, 58, of Rochester, New York.

God DAM IT! Why do I never get to find the good stuff? All I ever get is maps, plastic earings and used condoms.
 
2014-01-16 12:12:16 PM

vpb: That's just a red herring to draw attention from the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about when you tried to claim that there was only one assault rile.


I never claimed there was only one assault rifle.

And you are dodging the fact that the Gustloff Volkssturmgewehr was semi-automatic. The people who invented the term assault rifle made a semi-automatic assault rifle.

From your own link:

"There is confusion concerning the designation, sources talk about the VG 1-5, the Volkssturm-Gewehr 1-5, Versuchs-Gerät 1-5, Gustloff and Gustloff Geräts 507."

Gewehr just means rifle, btw.

"Some selective fire VG 1-5s were made."

Issues with the article

"This article has been checked against the following

Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy:  criterion not met"

Oh, and before you start with the "anyone can edit Wikipedia" nonsense, Wikipedia isn't a primary source of information, it's an aggregator much like Fark.  The actual source of the information is linked to at the bottom of the article.

See above.
 
2014-01-16 12:12:49 PM

umad: 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.

Maybe we should call them "abortions" and then use the fear that is kicked up to ban abortions. That is the entire point. The anti-gunners are trying to get common semi-automatic rifles banned, so they love to lump them in with automatic rifles to convince the other mouth breathers of their ilk to support the bans. Stop being misleading and maybe we will work with you on a few things. As it is, all you will ever get from us to any of your suggestions is "How about no."


You are needlessly inventing conspiracy, by acting as though some gun control advocate has actually admitted that having the public confusing semi-automatic rifles with actual military machine guns would improve support for firearm bans.
 
2014-01-16 12:12:59 PM

Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.
'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'
Both women were stunned.
'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said.  'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

 Seriously?


Thankfully it's legal to transport a concealed weapon between your car and a game hunting expedition in Southern California.  Most folks around here see you getting in and out of a car with a scary gun and they flip out.

*sigh*

I suppose it would be funny to see some random woman throw-up to kick off a hunt, but the helicopters and LEO crawling the hillsides looking for you after might be....inconvient.
 
2014-01-16 12:13:07 PM

Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...


Did you have to take them through the ATF to make sure they aren't hot or evidence before you took possession?
 
2014-01-16 12:13:51 PM

vpb: Fark It:
You.  Are.  Wrong.  The STG-45 wasn't even fielded in the war.  The STG series of weapons were "assault rifles," in that they were select-fire, that's one of their defining features, the other being the intermediate cartridge.

That's cute.  When you are making up your own facts, just put a period after every word.  That way it looks authoritative.

So what if it wasn't fielded?  That has nothing to do with anything.  That's just a red herring to draw attention from the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about when you tried to claim that there was only one assault rile.

And you are dodging the fact that the Gustloff Volkssturmgewehr was semi-automatic.  The people who invented the term assault rifle made a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Let me repeat that.  It's an objectively demonstrable fact that the people who invented the term assault rifle made semi-automatic assault rifles.  They fielded some of them too, not that that is relevant.

You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Yes, that's why I am documenting that my facts are actual facts.  Unlike yours.

Oh, and before you start with the "anyone can edit Wikipedia" nonsense, Wikipedia isn't a primary source of information, it's an aggregator much like Fark.  The actual source of the information is linked to at the bottom of the article.

Also you can go see examples of the first semi automatic assault rifles from WWII in various museums if you want to do that.


The "assault rifle" you are trying to claim was a propaganda push at the end of WW2 when they didn't have the ability or material to make the StG 44s anymore. It uses an entirely different technology than every other *actual* assault rifle ever made, and was, once again, part of the German "Primitive Weapon" program. They never saw any type of substantive use because their production runs were the last few weeks of the war.
 
2014-01-16 12:14:37 PM

croesius: Mikey1969: That may not be a collapsible stock, it may just be a shock absorbing stock... I've seen ones like that tat don't collapse, they just compress to reduce recoil, like a shock absorber... That handgrip is deadly though.

Naah, that's a adjustable (collapsible) stock, LMT's SOPMOD. Does have a shock absorber rubber pad on the ass-end of it, but no integrated shocks.

Man, I fired one once where the stock was basically filled with BBs, that was an amazingly gentle recoil...

I...I want that. Just going from the basic serrated plastic buttstock to a magpul stock with a pad was a massive improvement. You don't remember what make that stock was, by any chance?


Unfortunately, no... I can't even remember who it was whose gun it was, a friend or family member, but it was sure sweet.
 
2014-01-16 12:15:11 PM
Why is there only ONE picture of the offender in here.
 
2014-01-16 12:15:14 PM

croesius: lilplatinum: /guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are

Irregardless of what a dictionary declares, those two terms both have an ideal definition. The fact that they are used interchangeably doesn't alter the fact that a clip most accurately describes one thing, and a magazine most accurately describes another.


Gun nuts get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when someone defines an assault weapon in a way they feel is not justified, and then get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when somoene accurately uses a word as it is defined in a dictionary. 

Its almost as if they only care about correct definitions when it is politically expedient to their reckless little hobby.
 
2014-01-16 12:15:19 PM

vpb: Dimensio:
Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".

That's your answer?  "Uh UHHHH!  YOU!"

Really?

You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon"  defined in law.  It's something that can be proven in court.

Also it's common vernacular.  It doesn't really matter if you approve of the term or not, you don't have any authority to dictate the English language to anyone.  It's like an anti-abortion protester trying to claim that the term "pro choice" doesn't exist.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg.  Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.



So my ruger rifle changes fundamentally depending on what state line I've walked across? Sweet.
 
2014-01-16 12:15:36 PM
So how many clips were left with the assault rifle?
 
2014-01-16 12:16:22 PM

Dimensio: Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...

I would suffer a panic attack should I suspect that I had misplaced a firearm. Should such an event occur, I would seriously reconsider whether I should continue to own them.


Because you aren't one of the failed science experiments that made up a large minority of the customer base we had I suspect.

Was doing society a favor by relocating those guns to a more responsible home.  One of the detailers found a small sub-machine gun (not sure what kind - I wasn't there that day) that had been illegally converted to full-auto.  THAT brought in a whole mess of feds.

/Seriously - If you are going to leave behind something that is highly illegal, don't leave it in a car you rented under your own name and credit card.
 
2014-01-16 12:17:20 PM

redmid17: It uses an entirely different technology than every other *actual* assault rifle ever made, and was, once again, part of the German "Primitive Weapon" program.


And at that point in the war they wouldn't have had that much ammunition to spare, not to mention that the recoil and muzzle-climb from a gas blowback-operated assault rifle would have been, adventurous, to say the least.  Imagine a STEN, except instead of a 124gr bullet at 1,000 fps, you have basically the same weight projectile going more than twice as fast.
 
2014-01-16 12:18:22 PM
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
 
2014-01-16 12:18:51 PM

Mikey1969: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Mikey1969: Of course, looking at the gun, I also would have my doubts that it was used in any crime, you don't often drop that kind of cabbage on your choice of weapon for drive bys...


It's exactly the kind of weapon you'd use for an assassination attempt.

I can see a TV series now...airheaded hot model wife of an NFL QB by day, airheaded assassin for hire by night...
 
2014-01-16 12:18:53 PM

Fark It: I think it is unreasonable to assume that there would be a bomb to go along with a rifle.  If it was a crime weapon it wouldn't have well over $1k worth of accessories on it, and it would be at the bottom of a large body of water.  I would have probably touched it to check to see if it was loaded, and then unloaded it if necessary.  It being a rental car I would assume that somebody left it there, and that it's highly unlikely a criminal with a $2k rifle would leave a murder weapon in a rental car, that you need state-ID and a credit card to rent, where the rental agency has you on video when you check out and drop it off.  But then again, I'm kind of thoughtful and don't go clutching my pearls.


Florida.  Airport rental car office.  Airports are TSA propaganda zones.   Reasonable to assume?  No--but reasonable to be careful--yes.  These folks clearly have no clue about the cost of the item or it's accessories.   I am not familiar with the AR-15, and would not touch a random one found in a rental car.    I would also have chosen to call the police before the car rental company.

Well, your daughter was still a child.  The woman in this case was an adult med student visiting potential residency programs.  And there's nothing inherently violent about a gun all by itself.

Well crud, got my numbers mixed up in the first read, confused times with ages.   I initially thought the daughter was a child--my error.

/find it ironic that you profess an affinity for martial arts in your profile
//"Violence is abhorrent to the innocent."


Martial arts has a long history of pacifistic practitioners.
 I've never needed to inflict harm in any real world situations.   Some of my classmates have certainly done so (special forces, police officers/trainers).   I personally hate violence.  And peanuts.  But those things exist, and can harm me and people I care about.   Most of practical self defense is avoiding situations.
 
2014-01-16 12:19:52 PM

Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.


I may have missed it, but since there is no mention of ammunition being present, I'm guessing it wasn't, as they always mention it when there is.

So why would there be criminal charges if there was no ammunition?

I'll put it a different way.  Suppose I leave an explosive detonation control box in a car, but no explosives.  Certainly ill-advised, and careless, but not reckless.
 
2014-01-16 12:20:03 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Ms Tannehill rented the white Nissan Rogue Jan 4 for only a few hours before she swapped it for another car. The fully loaded was then rented to Judith Fleissig, 58, of Rochester, New York.

God DAM IT! Why do I never get to find the good stuff? All I ever get is maps, plastic earings and used condoms.


I found a roach in the ash tray of a rented Dodge aspen once...
 
2014-01-16 12:20:04 PM
Great_Milenko: 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."

First, what's $2,00 to the wife of a professional athlete?

Second, yeah, yeah, an AR-15 is as safe as a teddy bear.  Whatever. (wtf?)

And lastly, not everyone is a gun nut (That's true all accross the aisle).  Finding one in a rental car could lead to any normal person who watches too much TV, to vomit or wet themselves, to several unappealing conclusions about possible crimes committed, etc.(hold me!!!)
 
2014-01-16 12:20:15 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]


And what's with the head tilt?
 
2014-01-16 12:21:46 PM

bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?


You should be required to have some level of knowlege on the topic, especially if you plan on advocating new laws.  My mother and I got in an argument (minor one) over how banning "huge magazines" could have stopped the asswipe from killing so many children at Sandy Hook because he could have "easily been stopped" if he had to reload (changing magazines).  When I told her it was extremely unlikely she said a few things that led me to ask her how long she thought a magazine swap took.  Her absolutely honest answer was "a couple minutes".
No knowledge of a topic means you should not be able to push for laws, regulations, restrictions etc, based on what you have already decided the "right thing to do to prevent..." may be.  Ever.

Personally I don't give a shiat if you call it an assault rifle or not, but you should all admit that they are used in the most minor percentage of firearm crime out of any category, and banning them will do nothing.  Shotguns are used in WAY more crimes and murders (look up the statistics on the FBI website yourself), but they don't look scary enough for people to demand they be banned.

/the owner of this AR is an asshat and should be charged with something.
 
2014-01-16 12:22:43 PM

Rhypskallion: I've never needed to inflict harm in any real world situations. Some of my classmates have certainly done so (special forces, police officers/trainers). I personally hate violence. And peanuts. But those things exist, and can harm me and people I care about. Most of practical self defense is avoiding situations.


I agree.  And I might have had a different reaction if I found it upon or right before my return while still at the airport, I could see the airport cops treating me a bit differently.  ARs are stupidly easy to become familiar with, they're designed with the average grunt in mind.
 
2014-01-16 12:24:18 PM
a Nissan rogue, ew
 
2014-01-16 12:24:44 PM

Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...


You sound like a highly responsible gun owner.  Good thing you don't have any identifying information in your profile, like your photograph.

/What you're doing is illegal unless police were involved with the return process and the guns were reported to law enforcement as missing
//if you left the part about police involvement out, carry on
 
2014-01-16 12:24:44 PM

Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.


You have to commit a crime for criminal charges to be filed. Does that make sense to you?
 
2014-01-16 12:25:11 PM

GDubDub: Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.

I may have missed it, but since there is no mention of ammunition being present, I'm guessing it wasn't, as they always mention it when there is.

So why would there be criminal charges if there was no ammunition?

I'll put it a different way.  Suppose I leave an explosive detonation control box in a car, but no explosives.  Certainly ill-advised, and careless, but not reckless.


I mean it's still negligence. Not exactly rocket science to acquire bullets. Most states don't require a background check for ammo (or a FOID), so anyone who found that gun could theoretically walk into a store and purchase some .223 for shooting even if they couldn't legally possess the gun or ammo. This isn't as bad as the cop who left their service rifle on the top of their trunk in Seattle (in a locked compartment and out of sight), but it's something worth punishing, even if it is a watered down charge with a fine and community service.
 
2014-01-16 12:26:40 PM

lilplatinum: croesius: lilplatinum: /guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are

Irregardless of what a dictionary declares, those two terms both have an ideal definition. The fact that they are used interchangeably doesn't alter the fact that a clip most accurately describes one thing, and a magazine most accurately describes another.

Gun nuts get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when someone defines an assault weapon in a way they feel is not justified, and then get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when somoene accurately uses a word as it is defined in a dictionary. 

Its almost as if they only care about correct definitions when it is politically expedient to their reckless little hobby.


Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.
 
2014-01-16 12:27:37 PM

CheatCommando: Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...

Did you have to take them through the ATF to make sure they aren't hot or evidence before you took possession?


Not ATF, local and state police.  Every time we found a gun in a car we would call it in and they would note the make, caliber, and serial # in a report.  Then the shop boss would lock them in the parts room for 30 days.  Sometimes (rarely) a cop would swing by because they had some reason to suspect that one of the guns was used in a crime.  Way more often the 30 days would expire and whomever had found the gun initially got to take it home.

It was a nice perk, but didn't make up for the low pay and lousy hours.
 
2014-01-16 12:28:42 PM

Richard C Stanford: The dumbass leaving his $2,000 dollar rifle in a rental car and forgetting about it.


2000 dollar dollar?
 
2014-01-16 12:28:48 PM

TwoBeersOneCan: Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...

You sound like a highly responsible gun owner.  Good thing you don't have any identifying information in your profile, like your photograph.

/What you're doing is illegal unless police were involved with the return process and the guns were reported to law enforcement as missing
//if you left the part about police involvement out, carry on


See above.
 
2014-01-16 12:29:09 PM

bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws?


Ideally you would be well versed on the consequences of enacting and repealing various gun-control laws, given the history available in the United States.

Of course, if you are well versed in the relevant history, and honest, you would not be much of a gun control advocate.
 
2014-01-16 12:29:31 PM

Mikey1969: Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.

You have to commit a crime for criminal charges to be filed. Does that make sense to you?


The article randomly threw the words "fully loaded" into a sentence to make it appear as though the gun were loaded. If it were loaded during transit, that'd be a problem.
 
2014-01-16 12:30:23 PM

fastfxr: As a Dolphins fan, this qualifies as HOTY.


I was hoping this thread would turn into making fun of Tannehill and pictures of his wife. Should have known better.

/Subby
//thanks guys
 
2014-01-16 12:32:56 PM

Skyd1v: Was doing society a favor by relocating those guns to a more responsible home.  One of the detailers found a small sub-machine gun (not sure what kind - I wasn't there that day) that had been illegally converted to full-auto.  THAT brought in a whole mess of feds.


Probably a Tec 9
 
2014-01-16 12:33:11 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Mikey1969: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Mikey1969: Of course, looking at the gun, I also would have my doubts that it was used in any crime, you don't often drop that kind of cabbage on your choice of weapon for drive bys...

It's exactly the kind of weapon you'd use for an assassination attempt.

I can see a TV series now...airheaded hot model wife of an NFL QB by day, airheaded assassin for hire by night...


I would imagine a proper assassination attempt would use a caliber with a bit more oomph.

To really reach out and touch someone:
truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com
 
2014-01-16 12:34:45 PM

netweavr: Mikey1969: Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.

You have to commit a crime for criminal charges to be filed. Does that make sense to you?

The article randomly threw the words "fully loaded" into a sentence to make it appear as though the gun were loaded. If it were loaded during transit, that'd be a problem.


Not according to Florida law, just has to be in a case, as far as I can tell.
 
2014-01-16 12:35:17 PM
Bleh.  Nothing at all in the article whether it had a shoulder thing that goes up.
 
2014-01-16 12:36:00 PM

croesius: Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.


And if clip were an archaic phrase for magazine from a couple centuries ago, perhaps your analogy would hold water.  As it is, the language has commonly evolved to the point that clip is known by all but the most pedantic gun fetishists as synonymous with magazine.  It is so common that the dictionary has included that definition, because - hey, thats how language evolves.
 
2014-01-16 12:36:25 PM

Mikey1969: netweavr: Mikey1969: Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.

You have to commit a crime for criminal charges to be filed. Does that make sense to you?

The article randomly threw the words "fully loaded" into a sentence to make it appear as though the gun were loaded. If it were loaded during transit, that'd be a problem.

Not according to Florida law, just has to be in a case, as far as I can tell.


Really? That seems dumb. Leaving weapons loaded when you aren't intending to fire them is just poor practice.

It's like driving with an open beer. Sure you may not be drunk, but you're still too retarded to drive.
 
2014-01-16 12:38:30 PM
i184.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-16 12:40:09 PM

Fark It: Rhypskallion: I think a surprise bag in your rental car qualifies as a "suspicious package".

 .  I would have probably touched it to check to see if it was loaded, and then unloaded it if necessary.


For you, I or anyone familiar with the AR family, that would be a reasonable action to take.

Would you really want a nervous person with no training and an extreme fear of firearms attempting to clear one? One of the scariest things I have encountered was an amateur with firearm of any type.

Weapon shown did not have a magazine seated, dust cover was open and bolt was forward.
Conceivably had one in chamber, but why?

Carried M-16 during my National Guard days. Didn't like it. Much preferred my M-1D sniper rifle.
 
2014-01-16 12:40:50 PM

Skyd1v: CheatCommando: Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...

Did you have to take them through the ATF to make sure they aren't hot or evidence before you took possession?

Not ATF, local and state police.  Every time we found a gun in a car we would call it in and they would note the make, caliber, and serial # in a report.  Then the shop boss would lock them in the parts room for 30 days.  Sometimes (rarely) a cop would swing by because they had some reason to suspect that one of the guns was used in a crime.  Way more often the 30 days would expire and whomever had found the gun initially got to take it home.

It was a nice perk, but didn't make up for the low pay and lousy hours.


Which means they ran the serial numbers with the Feds, I'd bet. I'd always heard that you needed to do that with any found firearm.
 
2014-01-16 12:40:57 PM

Molavian: [i184.photobucket.com image 344x415]


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

No there isn't.
 
2014-01-16 12:42:46 PM

lilplatinum: croesius: Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.

And if clip were an archaic phrase for magazine from a couple centuries ago, perhaps your analogy would hold water.  As it is, the language has commonly evolved to the point that clip is known by all but the most pedantic gun fetishists as synonymous with magazine.  It is so common that the dictionary has included that definition, because - hey, thats how language evolves.


I couldn't  care less about the clip/magazine debate. The reason assault rifle/assault weapon ticks off a lot of people is because it started out as deliberate obfuscation and scare tactics, well the conflation anyway. A gun seller coined assault weapon sometime in the 80s to cater to a certain demographic.

Assault rifles are regulated by the NFA and classified by the ATF as machine guns. Every assault weapons bills I've seen defines assault weapons as strictly semi-automatic. There's no point in including NFA weapons because they are heavily regulated at the federal level and the states who care about AWB legislation have typically already banned or regulated NFA weapons (CA, NY, IL, CT, MA).
 
2014-01-16 12:44:13 PM

netweavr: Mikey1969: netweavr: Mikey1969: Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.

You have to commit a crime for criminal charges to be filed. Does that make sense to you?

The article randomly threw the words "fully loaded" into a sentence to make it appear as though the gun were loaded. If it were loaded during transit, that'd be a problem.

Not according to Florida law, just has to be in a case, as far as I can tell.

Really? That seems dumb. Leaving weapons loaded when you aren't intending to fire them is just poor practice.

It's like driving with an open beer. Sure you may not be drunk, but you're still too retarded to drive.


Doesn't make it illegal. Besides, loaded, not loaded ddoesn't change the fact that the gun isn't a sentient being IR anything... Yes, its always safer to unload the gun when not in use, but that doesn't justify this woman "almost throwing up"...
 
2014-01-16 12:44:43 PM
rumorsandrants.com
 
2014-01-16 12:45:25 PM
rumorsandrants.com
 
2014-01-16 12:45:30 PM
I'm a proponent of gun control, but I would have taken the rifle if I found it. It's worth a LOT of money, and there's no registry, so it would be tough to ever prove it's not mine, let alone if they could even find the gun again.
 
2014-01-16 12:46:10 PM

Skyd1v: TwoBeersOneCan: Skyd1v: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: 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.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's.  You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect.  Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Remington model 700
Colt 1911
4 bamboo fly rods
Dry suit with spear gun
Geiger counter
Several stun guns
Booze.  Gallons upon gallons of booze.

/still got the guns...

You sound like a highly responsible gun owner.  Good thing you don't have any identifying information in your profile, like your photograph.

/What you're doing is illegal unless police were involved with the return process and the guns were reported to law enforcement as missing
//if you left the part about police involvement out, carry on

See above.


I just did.  Cheers!
 
2014-01-16 12:46:33 PM

justtray: I'm a proponent of gun control, but I would have taken the rifle if I found it. It's worth a LOT of money, and there's no registry, so it would be tough to ever prove it's not mine, let alone if they could even find the gun again.


Fo sheezee, there are plenty of hillbillies back home who you could sell that to legally.
 
2014-01-16 12:46:54 PM

redmid17: AWB legislation have typically already banned or regulated NFA weapons (CA, NY, IL, CT, MA).


The General Assembly actually snuck a lifting of certain NFA weapons (SBS/SBRs) restrictions past Quinn.  C&R FFLs in Illinois can into SBRs.
 
2014-01-16 12:46:56 PM
In college a friend of mine bought a car from a police auction. When we were going over it we noticed the shade in the back was crooked and had a lump in it. It was stuck and he couldnt pull it down at first but after he gave it a good yank out falls a .38. We were a tad shocked, but we ended up just calling the cops to come get it and none of us went to jail.
 
2014-01-16 12:47:15 PM
I bet she was going to the movies. You never know when a popcorn crime is going to be committed. She was prepared to defend herself.
 
2014-01-16 12:47:28 PM

lilplatinum: Molavian: [i184.photobucket.com image 344x415]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

No there isn't.


The dictionary is stupid.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

If you want to be the sort of person who willfully participates in the destruction of useful words through misuse, go ahead. The fact that you have a lot of company doesn't make you any less a cretin.
 
2014-01-16 12:47:44 PM
coedbc.files.wordpress.com
ASSAULT RIFLES!
 
2014-01-16 12:48:15 PM

groppet: In college a friend of mine bought a car from a police auction. When we were going over it we noticed the shade in the back was crooked and had a lump in it. It was stuck and he couldnt pull it down at first but after he gave it a good yank out falls a .38. We were a tad shocked, but we ended up just calling the cops to come get it and none of us went to jail.


That was probably a murder weapon...
 
2014-01-16 12:48:26 PM

Dimensio: vpb: pyrotek85:

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight.  Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue.  It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

You are correct. Expecting an individual who demands a ban on barrel shrouds to actually know what barrel shrouds are and why they should be banned is wholly unreasonable.

I suspect that politicians will next be expected to have an understanding of women's reproductive health before authoring bills legislating medical procedures related to women's reproductive health.


so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary?  to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

na... probably just to look cool & scary
 
2014-01-16 12:49:30 PM

lilplatinum: Molavian: [i184.photobucket.com image 344x415]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

No there isn't.


lol
 
2014-01-16 12:49:39 PM

croesius: I would imagine a proper assassination attempt would use a caliber with a bit more oomph.

To really reach out and touch someone:
[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 608x335]


Now that is my type of rifle. Remmy 700 with a Leopold gold ring.  You can keep your ARs and I'll take me a good ol bolty anyday.


My favorite rig:

www.6mmbr.citymaker.com
 
2014-01-16 12:49:56 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]


that's ridiculous. just look at tom brady and his wife.

queenofsports.com
 
2014-01-16 12:50:44 PM

justtray: I'm a proponent of gun control, but I would have taken the rifle if I found it. It's worth a LOT of money, and there's no registry, so it would be tough to ever prove it's not mine, let alone if they could even find the gun again.


There's no registry of ownership, but there is centralized tracking of guns reported stolen. You could sell it to some unscrupulous buyer in the hopes of obfuscating the chain of possession, but it's a chancy thing to do with a high dollar gun.
 
2014-01-16 12:52:50 PM

Fark It: redmid17: AWB legislation have typically already banned or regulated NFA weapons (CA, NY, IL, CT, MA).

The General Assembly actually snuck a lifting of certain NFA weapons (SBS/SBRs) restrictions past Quinn.  C&R FFLs in Illinois can into SBRs.


Nice been meaning to fill out one of those C & R apps for awhile. Looks like lupara type shotguns are legal too (as an AOW). Might have to revisit that C & R app and mail it in.
 
2014-01-16 12:54:13 PM

JesseL: If you want to be the sort of person who willfully participates in the destruction of useful words through misuse, go ahead. The fact that you have a lot of company doesn't make you any less a cretin.


A gun nut with a hardon for lingustic prescription, amazing!

I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular.  I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.
 
2014-01-16 12:54:38 PM

inner ted: na... probably just to look cool & scary


The barrel shroud's function is to keep you meat hooks off the barrel when it is glowing.
 
2014-01-16 12:54:40 PM
Molavian:
http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/L/LH/fark_LH6rGh1UbYOmx70ja54hYW 7 Ck3M.jpg?t=Z-ecrgfPRWf1cAKQTbXBFw&f=1390194000" alt="i184.photobucket.com">

Three articles offering a difference in opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-fi re arm.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/dont-call-a-magazine-a-cl ip -we-spoke-with-an-ex-seal-about-the-difference-and-why-its-important/
 
2014-01-16 12:55:31 PM

inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary?  to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?


What purpose is served by banning such features?
 
2014-01-16 12:56:49 PM

inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary? to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

na... probably just to look cool & scary


Those are to keep you from burning yourself, to make it easier to store a gun or manipulate it in confined spaces, to aid in aiming, and to be able to shoot more without reloading.

Some of those may be convenient to criminals, but they're also legitimate improvements for people who intend to use their guns lawfully.
 
2014-01-16 12:56:52 PM

lilplatinum: I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.


I actually do refer to the acceleration pedal as the "throttle".
 
2014-01-16 12:57:00 PM

lilplatinum: croesius: Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.

And if clip were an archaic phrase for magazine from a couple centuries ago, perhaps your analogy would hold water.  As it is, the language has commonly evolved to the point that clip is known by all but the most pedantic gun fetishists as synonymous with magazine.  It is so common that the dictionary has included that definition, because - hey, thats how language evolves.


The misuse of the most appropriate word for an item for another word which is less appropriate for the item being referenced still remains. Just because a large number of people don't care enough to use the best choice to describe something does not make it correct. It may make it passable in day-to-day conversation with people who have no stake in the argument, but when involved in a discussion on said item as the focal point, it makes a person look uninformed on the subject. The people you are talking with know what you are trying to say, but they also know that there is a much better term for it.
 
2014-01-16 12:57:08 PM

lilplatinum: I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular.  I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.


And I am sure that you call a barrel shroud a 'shoulder thing that goes up', with rest of the gun grabbers, right?
 
2014-01-16 12:57:23 PM

lilplatinum: I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular.


When discussing regulations on that thing? You bet your ass you should be using the technical name.
 
2014-01-16 12:58:40 PM

Dimensio: lilplatinum: I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.

I actually do refer to the acceleration pedal as the "throttle".


I call it the accelerator. 2nd one is the brake. Third one, hopefully, is the clutch. I do like manual transmissions.
 
2014-01-16 01:00:35 PM

redmid17: Dimensio: lilplatinum: I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.

I actually do refer to the acceleration pedal as the "throttle".

I call it the accelerator. 2nd one is the brake. Third one, hopefully, is the clutch. I do like manual transmissions.


If the leftmost pedal (discounting the dead pedal) in an automobile that I am driving is not a clutch pedal, prepare for unexpected sudden stops.
 
2014-01-16 01:01:01 PM

HeadLever: croesius: I would imagine a proper assassination attempt would use a caliber with a bit more oomph.

To really reach out and touch someone:
[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 608x335]

Now that is my type of rifle. Remmy 700 with a Leopold gold ring.  You can keep your ARs and I'll take me a good ol bolty anyday.


My favorite rig:

[www.6mmbr.citymaker.com image 640x347]


Now that is a beaut of a stock!
 
2014-01-16 01:01:20 PM

croesius: The misuse of the most appropriate word for an item for another word which is less appropriate for the item being referenced still remains. Just because a large number of people don't care enough to use the best choice to describe something does not make it correct. It may make it passable in day-to-day conversation with people who have no stake in the argument, but when involved in a discussion on said item as the focal point, it makes a person look uninformed on the subject. The people you are talking with know what you are trying to say, but they also know that there is a much better term for it.


If you are writing a technical paper on the subject of guns, your argument might hold water.  For the vast majority of conversations a normal non gun-nut human being would ever have, there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling a magazine a clip, which is why the language has evolved to make the two terms synonymous.

Plus calling it a clip has the added advantage of enraging idiots.
 
2014-01-16 01:01:43 PM

Dimensio: redmid17: Dimensio: lilplatinum: I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.

I actually do refer to the acceleration pedal as the "throttle".

I call it the accelerator. 2nd one is the brake. Third one, hopefully, is the clutch. I do like manual transmissions.

If the leftmost pedal (discounting the dead pedal) in an automobile that I am driving is not a clutch pedal, prepare for unexpected sudden stops.


My mom spun out a few news vans that way (in snowy weather). Then again, she's also not the greatest driver either.
 
2014-01-16 01:02:32 PM

lilplatinum: Plus calling it a clip has the added advantage of enraging idiots.


Do you know what else enrages idiots?

Calling gun ownership a constitutional right.
 
2014-01-16 01:02:48 PM

HeadLever: lilplatinum: I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular.  I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.

And I am sure that you call a barrel shroud a 'shoulder thing that goes up', with rest of the gun grabbers, right?


No, that is not in the dictionary as a synonym for barrel shroud, so the compensators have nothing to whine about that one.
 
2014-01-16 01:03:11 PM
It's Miami, you'd think the rental cars would come with AK-47s.
 
2014-01-16 01:03:33 PM

JesseL: lilplatinum: Molavian: [i184.photobucket.com image 344x415]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

No there isn't.

The dictionary is stupid.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

If you want to be the sort of person who willfully participates in the destruction of useful words through misuse, go ahead. The fact that you have a lot of company doesn't make you any less a cretin.


Keep in mind this is the same person whose appeal to authority defers to people who just recently included "derp" and "twerk" as proper, book 'em for the ages, words.
 
2014-01-16 01:03:37 PM
You never know when you'll need to clear a room full of kindergartners. Be prepared.
 
2014-01-16 01:03:42 PM

Fark It: lilplatinum: Plus calling it a clip has the added advantage of enraging idiots.

Do you know what else enrages idiots?

Calling gun ownership a constitutional right.


I never claimed it wasn't.  Practicing religion is a constitutional right too, it doesn't make those that practice it any less idiotic.
 
2014-01-16 01:03:50 PM

lilplatinum: JesseL: If you want to be the sort of person who willfully participates in the destruction of useful words through misuse, go ahead. The fact that you have a lot of company doesn't make you any less a cretin.

A gun nut with a hardon for lingustic prescription, amazing!

I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular.  I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.


I don't care about prescription vs description so much as I care about precision. There are some words that have a specific technical meaning that is necessary for making critical distinctions. When someone insists on muddying the meaning of that word they're destroying a useful tool and they rarely offer up a suitable replacement. It's linguistic vandalism.

And I do call a throttle a throttle - except when it's an accelerator. :P
 
2014-01-16 01:04:55 PM

lilplatinum: HeadLever: lilplatinum: I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular.  I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.

And I am sure that you call a barrel shroud a 'shoulder thing that goes up', with rest of the gun grabbers, right?

No, that is not in the dictionary as a synonym for barrel shroud, so the compensators have nothing to whine about that one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Gun control advocates:  So stupid they make Tucker Carlson look like an actual journalist.
 
2014-01-16 01:06:24 PM

umad: lilplatinum: I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular.

When discussing regulations on that thing? You bet your ass you should be using the technical name.


Meh, when discussing regulations the vernacular is fine.  I would grant you that when WRITING regulations the most technical verbage possible should be used, but no one in any gun thread on fark is doing that.
 
2014-01-16 01:06:26 PM
I'm all for gun rights, but how is this not even a misdemeanor?
 
2014-01-16 01:06:36 PM

lilplatinum: croesius: The misuse of the most appropriate word for an item for another word which is less appropriate for the item being referenced still remains. Just because a large number of people don't care enough to use the best choice to describe something does not make it correct. It may make it passable in day-to-day conversation with people who have no stake in the argument, but when involved in a discussion on said item as the focal point, it makes a person look uninformed on the subject. The people you are talking with know what you are trying to say, but they also know that there is a much better term for it.

If you are writing a technical paper on the subject of guns, your argument might hold water.  For the vast majority of conversations a normal non gun-nut human being would ever have, there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling a magazine a clip, which is why the language has evolved to make the two terms synonymous.

Plus calling it a clip has the added advantage of enraging idiots.


Like I mentioned, people who are uninformed on the subject won't notice the use of words that aren't used accurately. In all subjects, people who are informed on the matters being discussed will know that you are uninformed. Be it firearms, automobiles, cooking, singling yourself out as being ignorant is never really the best route to go, but is a route taken by many. Take that as you will.
 
2014-01-16 01:06:50 PM

lilplatinum: No, that is not in the dictionary as a synonym for barrel shroud,


That would have been news to Carolyn McCarthy then.  Maybe she should have consulted (at the very least) a dictionary before pushing her ban on said item.
 
2014-01-16 01:07:03 PM
WTF happened in here?
*sees "Main" designation*
Oh, no wonder
 
2014-01-16 01:07:43 PM
Yet another "responsible" gun owner.
 
2014-01-16 01:09:57 PM

lilplatinum: Plus calling it a clip has the added advantage of enraging idiots.


I wouldn't call them idiots but some farkers are so easy to troll.

Gun rights activists
Global climate change
Atheists

Used to be the "rape is never funny" bunch but they seem to have mostly moved on.
 
2014-01-16 01:12:07 PM
HeadLever: lilplatinum: No, that is not in the dictionary as a synonym for barrel shroud,

That would have been news to Carolyn McCarthy then.  Maybe she should have consulted (at the very least) a dictionary before pushing her ban on said item.


I agree, shes an idiot and most of the attempted bans are poorly written.  Unfortunately we're stuck with an archaic amendment (amusingly in existance so we wouldn't end up with a gigantic standing army, which the founders believed is a tool of tyranny) that makes this all irrelevant, as our archaic constitution is fairly difficult to fix, especially in this political environment.  I've never denied we're stuck with these stupid things.
 
2014-01-16 01:13:01 PM

jruland: that's ridiculous. just look at tom brady and his wife.

queenofsports.com


I think she had to dye her hair blonde, as a requirement for the marriage.
 
2014-01-16 01:13:17 PM

croesius: Like I mentioned, people who are uninformed on the subject won't notice the use of words that aren't used accurately. In all subjects, people who are informed on the matters being discussed will know that you are uninformed. Be it firearms, automobiles, cooking, singling yourself out as being ignorant is never really the best route to go, but is a route taken by many. Take that as you will.


Not using technical terminology in casual conversation is not a sign of ignorance, and I am 100% certain you do it on a daily basis on things you don't care for as much as firearms.
 
2014-01-16 01:14:53 PM
I came for a thread full of pictures of Ryan Tannehill's hot wife and, with few exceptions, all I got was a bunch of morons arguing about nothing for the sixteen-thousandth time since last December.

You people suck.
 
2014-01-16 01:15:52 PM

Mikey1969: Doesn't make it illegal. Besides, loaded, not loaded ddoesn't change the fact that the gun isn't a sentient being IR anything... Yes, its always safer to unload the gun when not in use, but that doesn't justify this woman "almost throwing up"...


The bulimic tendencies of the woman are mostly irrelevant. I just assumed she was trying to make a huge deal out of it so she could sue someone. Because America.
 
2014-01-16 01:16:32 PM

skozlaw: I came for a thread full of pictures of Ryan Tannehill's hot wife and, with few exceptions, all I got was a bunch of morons arguing about nothing for the sixteen-thousandth time since last December.

You people suck.


Gun thread is going to win out over a Mrs. Tannehill thread just about any day of the week. You know that. Use google
 
2014-01-16 01:16:46 PM

fatalvenom: fastfxr: As a Dolphins fan, this qualifies as HOTY.

I was hoping this thread would turn into making fun of Tannehill and pictures of his wife. Should have known better.

/Subby
//thanks guys


Pipe dream. Though someone with more of a psychology background than myself could provide some very interesting insights, I suspect, into why this thread, instead of being full of photos of scantily-clad blonde models, is instead awash with guns, guns and more guns.
 
2014-01-16 01:17:30 PM

skozlaw: I came for a thread full of pictures of Ryan Tannehill's hot wife and, with few exceptions, all I got was a bunch of morons arguing about nothing for the sixteen-thousandth time since last December.

You people suck.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-01-16 01:18:15 PM

croesius: Now that is a beaut of a stock!


Pretty much standard on Coopers.  They are not cheap but if you want form and function (guaranteed 1/2 moa @100yds)

That first scratch on that stock always is tough though.
 
2014-01-16 01:19:33 PM

HeadLever: lilplatinum: No, that is not in the dictionary as a synonym for barrel shroud,

That would have been news to Carolyn McCarthy then.  Maybe she should have consulted (at the very least) a dictionary before pushing her ban on said item.


Preventing the multitude of high-profile homicides committed with M1 Garand rifles is too important a goal to be bothered with details.
 
2014-01-16 01:20:59 PM

lilplatinum: I agree, shes an idiot and most of the attempted bans are poorly written.


so let's use more slang and vernacular language because that would defiantly clear things up, amiright?
 
2014-01-16 01:23:08 PM

lilplatinum: croesius: Like I mentioned, people who are uninformed on the subject won't notice the use of words that aren't used accurately. In all subjects, people who are informed on the matters being discussed will know that you are uninformed. Be it firearms, automobiles, cooking, singling yourself out as being ignorant is never really the best route to go, but is a route taken by many. Take that as you will.

Not using technical terminology in casual conversation is not a sign of ignorance, and I am 100% certain you do it on a daily basis on things you don't care for as much as firearms.


I am, in fact, a pedant with respect to most subjects.
 
2014-01-16 01:23:33 PM
lilplatinum:Not using technical terminology in casual conversation is not a sign of ignorance, and I am 100% certain you do it on a daily basis on things you don't care for as much as firearms.

If I know better, I'll always use the correct terminology.

Maybe to you it isn't a sign of ignorance, but then you're willfully ignorant. Who knows how much esteem you've sacrificed in the eyes of people more discerning than yourself?
 
2014-01-16 01:24:17 PM

Dimensio: inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary?  to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

What purpose is served by banning such features?


couldn't quite figure out a decent answer?

JesseL: inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary? to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

na... probably just to look cool & scary

Those are to keep you from burning yourself, to make it easier to store a gun or manipulate it in confined spaces, to aid in aiming, and to be able to shoot more without reloading.

Some of those may be convenient to criminals, but they're also legitimate improvements for people who intend to use their guns lawfully.


that is a decent answer
 
2014-01-16 01:24:52 PM

Dimensio: lilplatinum: croesius: Like I mentioned, people who are uninformed on the subject won't notice the use of words that aren't used accurately. In all subjects, people who are informed on the matters being discussed will know that you are uninformed. Be it firearms, automobiles, cooking, singling yourself out as being ignorant is never really the best route to go, but is a route taken by many. Take that as you will.

Not using technical terminology in casual conversation is not a sign of ignorance, and I am 100% certain you do it on a daily basis on things you don't care for as much as firearms.

I am, in fact, a pedant with respect to most subjects.


I find that I'm also a pedant with respect to most subjects. The most intelligent ones usually are able to decipher my big words, so I have to have them thrown into ye olde gaol and tortured. Works out well for the most part.
 
2014-01-16 01:27:05 PM
This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.
 
2014-01-16 01:27:58 PM
Instead of posting pictures of the women in question I see a bunch of adults being passive aggressive and catty about their irrelevant political views.

I want to SEE women, not people fighting like them.
 
2014-01-16 01:29:40 PM

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


Lowering the bar is what the Miami Dolphins do better than anything.
 
2014-01-16 01:30:56 PM
JTFC.


JTFC, you guys.
 
2014-01-16 01:31:12 PM

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".
 
2014-01-16 01:31:59 PM

super_grass: Instead of posting pictures of the women in question I see a bunch of adults being passive aggressive and catty about their irrelevant political views.

I want to SEE women, not people fighting like them.


My sexual orientation is incompatible with an interest in such images.
 
2014-01-16 01:33:48 PM
The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.
 
2014-01-16 01:34:19 PM

JesseL: lilplatinum:Not using technical terminology in casual conversation is not a sign of ignorance, and I am 100% certain you do it on a daily basis on things you don't care for as much as firearms.

If I know better, I'll always use the correct terminology.

Maybe to you it isn't a sign of ignorance, but then you're willfully ignorant. Who knows how much esteem you've sacrificed in the eyes of people more discerning than yourself?


Ignorance would imply that I am unaware of the deliniation between the two things rather than abject apathy towards the feelings of overly sensitive people obsessed with tools/weapons.  Their esteem is not something of particular value.
 
2014-01-16 01:34:23 PM

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.
 
2014-01-16 01:34:32 PM

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

You are correct,


As always.
 
2014-01-16 01:36:35 PM

HeadLever: lilplatinum: I agree, shes an idiot and most of the attempted bans are poorly written.

so let's use more slang and vernacular language because that would defiantly clear things up, amiright?


In conversation, sure.   At no point in my life when saying clip has it caused any confusion, at most it just caused amusement from the outrage of the weapon obsessed.  If, in some scenario it was actually important of me to make a technical distinction between two things, then I will switch to technical language.  Like pretty much everyone.  I don't believe for a nanosecond that all of you champions of lingustic purity never use vernacular terminology for things that could be described in a more technically precise way, you just get your panties in a wad when it comes to your hobbies.
 
2014-01-16 01:36:52 PM

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

You are correct,

As always.


Might I suggest, in the future, however that you provide direct references or quotes from individuals who expressed the sincere belief that the act of leaving a firearm in a rented vehicle is responsible behavior. Doing so will eliminate any ability for any challenger to claim that you are attempting to exaggerate or even to fully misrepresent reality.
 
2014-01-16 01:37:09 PM

inner ted: Dimensio: inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary?  to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

What purpose is served by banning such features?

couldn't quite figure out a decent answer?


I think their point is that the onus is on you to explain why people shouldn't have them, we don't have to justify their legality.
 
2014-01-16 01:40:23 PM
cdn.lolcaption.com


blog.gunspec.com


i881.photobucket.com
thegunstorelasvegas.com
s3-live.tapcdn.com
 
2014-01-16 01:40:44 PM

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. Well, I have seen condemnation of the press for over-reacting. But the fact remains that a child who has no experience handling a weapon found it. Luckly, that girl did the right thing and got an adult. You get a stupid kid, and it could have been much much worse.
 
2014-01-16 01:40:55 PM

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


How is that restriction not arbitrary and capricious?  All those lever action Winchesters and Brownings would now be illegal to own?

Because these are such a danger to society these days

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-16 01:41:38 PM

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


Why?

Most murders happen with far fewer shots than that, and there are plenty of defensive scenarios where more could be necessary.

Besides, anyone planning to murder a lot of people could just carry more guns. Or switch to something like arson, which is likely to kill a lot more people.
 
2014-01-16 01:43:38 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.


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.
 
2014-01-16 01:43:57 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-16 01:45:46 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.


Obviously when the roving gangs of 7 rapists that are so common in the country break into your house.
 
2014-01-16 01:50:16 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 could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.
 
2014-01-16 01:50:34 PM

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

Why?

Most murders happen with far fewer shots than that, and there are plenty of defensive scenarios where more could be necessary.

Besides, anyone planning to murder a lot of people could just carry more guns. Or switch to something like arson, which is likely to kill a lot more people.


To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.

Now as for most people get killed with the first shots - well, those cannot be stopped without banning all guns. Are you advocating that? If not, then those people under any other scenario, die. Having low shots per reload or belt fed weapons makes no difference.

And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.
 
2014-01-16 01:51:26 PM

JesseL: Or switch to something like arson, which is likely to kill a lot more people.


"If guns are banned, they'll do something even worse!" makes zero sense.

If shooters wanted to do something even worse, they'd do something even worse.
 
2014-01-16 01:51:44 PM

croesius: lilplatinum: croesius: lilplatinum: /guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are

Irregardless of what a dictionary declares, those two terms both have an ideal definition. The fact that they are used interchangeably doesn't alter the fact that a clip most accurately describes one thing, and a magazine most accurately describes another.

Gun nuts get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when someone defines an assault weapon in a way they feel is not justified, and then get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when somoene accurately uses a word as it is defined in a dictionary. 

Its almost as if they only care about correct definitions when it is politically expedient to their reckless little hobby.

Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.


Sorry Dipshiats, "Assault Weapon" for the purposes of this example, is defined by statute. Saying that they are playing a semantic game is no more valid an excuse than ignorance. The government has defined what an "Assault Weapon" is, and no matter how hard you biatch and cry about it, you are completely and utterly wrong in this example.

/She should, however, be barred from having any carry license in the fututre. It's obvious she is not a responsible gun owner.
 
2014-01-16 01:54:29 PM
img.fark.net

Lol. Hoplophobs
 
2014-01-16 01:55:01 PM

Publikwerks: To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.


Are you serious? That is completely and monumentally wrong.

Keeping 5 guns handy and usable at all times (as they would need to be for defense - defenders lack initiative in an attack and don't know when or where it will happen) is a hell of a lot harder than figuring out how to carry 5 guns.
 
2014-01-16 01:55:03 PM

lilplatinum: I don't believe for a nanosecond that all of you champions of lingustic purity never use vernacular terminology for things that could be described in a more technically precise way, you just get your panties in a wad when it comes to your hobbies.


If this type of relaxed and generalized vernacular finds its way into proposals, you can bet that folks are going to point out the flaws.  In addition, if you are making a point in a debate, it pays to be clear and concise.

If you are joking around with your buddies on the range, no one really cares.
 
2014-01-16 01:55:22 PM

JesseL: This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.


Perhaps her dumb ass should spend more time at the range, or perhaps buy something more appropriate for home defense... like a shotgun.
 
2014-01-16 01:56:52 PM

HeadLever: If this type of relaxed and generalized vernacular finds its way into proposals, you can bet that folks are going to point out the flaws.  In addition, if you are making a point in a debate, it pays to be clear and concise.


I already said above that if legislation is written in the vernacular rather than being technical, it is very poorly  written.  As most knee jerk gun legislation, admittedly, often is.
 
2014-01-16 01:57:08 PM

Publikwerks: And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.


What was the deadliest mass muder in US history?
 
2014-01-16 01:58:27 PM

lilplatinum: JesseL: This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

Perhaps her dumb ass should spend more time at the range, or perhaps buy something more appropriate for home defense... like a shotgun.


She hit the guy five times in the face and neck. Perhaps you should just recognize a stupid idea for what it is and not make a fool of yourself defending it?
 
2014-01-16 01:59:42 PM
She almost threw up, but only got a minor case of the runs.
 
2014-01-16 02:00:32 PM

JesseL: 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 could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.


According to that story she emptied her weapon after he came into view. Thats a poor reaction. She stopped aimed fire and was just unloading. I'm not saying I would have been better, but I don't think 10 more rounds would have yielded better results.

And it did stop him. It didn't kill him, but he ceased doing anything other than bleeding.

Now, if you want to make a case that you could have to fend off a small gang, I just have to say too bad. You show me an example where someone ran out of ammo defending themselves that doesn't military action, and I will give you're scenario some weight. But by that logic, everyone should get to have a FGM-148 Javelin incase a tank decides to do a little B&E
 
2014-01-16 02:01:28 PM
I can't believe I read this WHOLE THING.
 
2014-01-16 02:01:45 PM
We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.
 
2014-01-16 02:02:35 PM

BlackMtnMan: She almost threw up, but only got a minor case of the runs.


So, she plays football like her husband as well as resembles him physically.
 
2014-01-16 02:03:37 PM

Publikwerks: JesseL: 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 could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

According to that story she emptied her weapon after he came into view. Thats a poor reaction. She stopped aimed fire and was just unloading. I'm not saying I would have been better, but I don't think 10 more rounds would have yielded better results.

And it did stop him. It didn't kill him, but he ceased doing anything other than bleeding.

Now, if you want to make a case that you could have to fend off a small gang, I just have to say too bad. You show me an example where someone ran out of ammo defending themselves that doesn't military action, and I will give you're scenario some weight. But by that logic, everyone should get to have a FGM-148 Javelin incase a tank decides to do a little B&E


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.
 
2014-01-16 02:05:08 PM

lilplatinum: I already said above that if legislation is written in the vernacular rather than being technical, it is very poorly  written.


And if you try to debate a topic in the vernacular, you are likely going to get smacked around quite a bunch.
 
2014-01-16 02:05:32 PM

JesseL: Publikwerks: To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.

Are you serious? That is completely and monumentally wrong.

Keeping 5 guns handy and usable at all times (as they would need to be for defense - defenders lack initiative in an attack and don't know when or where it will happen) is a hell of a lot harder than figuring out how to carry 5 guns.


How is it harder keeping 5 guns ready than 1 gun ready. I mean, I'll concede that the attacker has the element of surprise, but by your former points - most murders are in the first few shots. So if they get you by surprise, it doesn't matter if you have a glock 18 with a 40 round clip under your pillow. You will most likely never wake up from dreamytime.
 
2014-01-16 02:05:49 PM
That broad's got some teeth.  Homeschooled?
 
2014-01-16 02:08:02 PM

Frank N Stein: [img.fark.net image 850x523]

Lol. Hoplophobs


Jesus f--king Christ, was this the Word of the Day in the NRAs newsletter this week, or the RNCs talking points memo?

If I had driven around for two days with an unknown gun in the car - not knowing if the safety was on or off, loaded or not, REALLY not knowing why the owner didn't TRACK IT DOWN FOR TWO DAYS (*best* case scenario, too dumb to realize they left a weapon behind - worse, they left it behind *intentionally*) - yeah, I'd freak out a bit too.  This is not irrational.

/gunsgunsgunsgunsguns!
//not compensating for anything!
 
2014-01-16 02:08:53 PM

croesius: netweavr: Dimensio: Super Chronic: Fully loaded, indeed.

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

It's not loaded, look at the photo.

I did a double-take at that part of the article myself. Pretty devious of them to casually describe the vehicle as "Fully Loaded" in context that they know people will freak out about.


thatsthejoke.jpg

/meaning the joke that inspired my post y'all are responding too
 
2014-01-16 02:09:23 PM

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.
 
2014-01-16 02:10:46 PM

JesseL: Publikwerks: And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.

What was the deadliest mass muder in US history?


Oh, aren't you adorable.

/murder.
 
2014-01-16 02:12:11 PM

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?
 
2014-01-16 02:12:13 PM

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.
 
2014-01-16 02:12:54 PM

JesseL: Publikwerks: JesseL: 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 could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

According to that story she emptied her weapon after he came into view. Thats a poor reaction. She stopped aimed fire and was just unloading. I'm not saying I would have been better, but I don't think 10 more rounds would have yielded better results.

And it did stop him. It didn't kill him, but he ceased doing anything other than bleeding.

Now, if you want to make a case that you could have to fend off a small gang, I just have to say too bad. You show me an example where someone ran out of ammo defending themselves that doesn't military action, and I will give you're scenario some weight. But by that logic, everyone should get to have a FGM-148 Javelin incase a tank decides to do a little B&E

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.


Well, you can think that, but I'm pretty sure that large capacity magazines have been banned, and could be banned again. If you can't defend your position, it far more likely than you think.

Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:00 PM

lilplatinum: 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.

Obviously when the roving gangs of 7 rapists that are so common in the country break into your house.


So why draw the line at six shots?  Why not a single sht rifle or hand gun and if you think yo may need more than one shot  buy tow guns and keep then next to each other.?

I for one am not too big on government limiting me to what it defines I need.  It will already  fine  you (or is it a tax? )for having too good a  health plan.

I realize that  there is a political ideology that  prescribes that point of view ( "to each according to their needs" IIRC) but I would prefer it was not running our country.


This is a .22 revolver, holds 10 shots.  A real menace to society

accurateshooter.net


This devastating  bit of firepower holds 15 to 17 rounds of .22 ammo

picturearchive.gunauction.com
Of course this only holds five rounds so it may be relatively harmless

3.bp.blogspot.com


www.spearfishingplanet.com


You know how some chicks don't think  men should be allowed to make laws about abortion. Maybe the ignorant about guns should not be allowed to make gun laws.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:17 PM

JesseL: lilplatinum: JesseL: This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

Perhaps her dumb ass should spend more time at the range, or perhaps buy something more appropriate for home defense... like a shotgun.

She hit the guy five times in the face and neck. Perhaps you should just recognize a stupid idea for what it is and not make a fool of yourself defending it?


When did I defend it?   I was just giving her some practical advice... if you shoot someone in the face and neck with a shotgun, you will not need to do it 4 more times.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:27 PM

pyrotek85: inner ted: Dimensio: inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary?  to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

What purpose is served by banning such features?

couldn't quite figure out a decent answer?

I think their point is that the onus is on you to explain why people shouldn't have them, we don't have to justify their legality.


please highlight from my post where I asked they be banned.
 
2014-01-16 02:14:00 PM

Publikwerks: JesseL: Publikwerks: To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.

Are you serious? That is completely and monumentally wrong.

Keeping 5 guns handy and usable at all times (as they would need to be for defense - defenders lack initiative in an attack and don't know when or where it will happen) is a hell of a lot harder than figuring out how to carry 5 guns.

How is it harder keeping 5 guns ready than 1 gun ready. I mean, I'll concede that the attacker has the element of surprise, but by your former points - most murders are in the first few shots. So if they get you by surprise, it doesn't matter if you have a glock 18 with a 40 round clip under your pillow. You will most likely never wake up from dreamytime.


You do realize your whole argument is nothing more than "if you have nothing to hide"
 
2014-01-16 02:14:45 PM

Publikwerks: Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.


Ok, I'll use both hands while shooting my pistol next time.
 
2014-01-16 02:15:26 PM

HeadLever: lilplatinum: I already said above that if legislation is written in the vernacular rather than being technical, it is very poorly  written.

And if you try to debate a topic in the vernacular, you are likely going to get smacked around quite a bunch.


Depending on what level of debate you are having.  shiat slinging in forums is not debate, and the technical difference between a clip and a magazine (in gun nut terms, since they are identical in common terms) is probably irrelevant in the vast majority of gun discussions unless you are proposing some sort of limitation and need to clarify if it applies to both.
 
2014-01-16 02:16:17 PM

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

You are correct,

As always.

Might I suggest, in the future, however that you provide direct references or quotes from individuals who expressed the sincere belief that the act of leaving a firearm in a rented vehicle is responsible behavior. Doing so will eliminate any ability for any challenger to claim that you are attempting to exaggerate or even to fully misrepresent reality.


Don't hold your breath. He just disappears from threads when asked to back up his bullshiat. I'm still waiting on a citation from him on a universal background check bill with no included bans that was supposedly voted down because NRA.

So how about it Hotwing? You going to back up your big talk or what? I suspect we just won't hear from you again in this thread.
 
2014-01-16 02:16:22 PM

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
 
2014-01-16 02:16:27 PM
NOW I HAVE
AN AR 15

HO HO HO
 
2014-01-16 02:16:37 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Frank N Stein: [img.fark.net image 850x523]

Lol. Hoplophobs

Jesus f--king Christ, was this the Word of the Day in the NRAs newsletter this week, or the RNCs talking points memo?

If I had driven around for two days with an unknown gun in the car - not knowing if the safety was on or off, loaded or not, REALLY not knowing why the owner didn't TRACK IT DOWN FOR TWO DAYS (*best* case scenario, too dumb to realize they left a weapon behind - worse, they left it behind *intentionally*) - yeah, I'd freak out a bit too.  This is not irrational.

/gunsgunsgunsgunsguns!
//not compensating for anything!


sit down. I think you might throw up.
 
2014-01-16 02:16:39 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]


Not too far off...
i.cdn.turner.com

Simlar...
celebbabylaundry.com

A little different:
media.nesn.com

Hmm...
www.thefamedriven.com

/nttawwt
/low-hanging fruit
 
2014-01-16 02:16:58 PM

hasty ambush: lilplatinum: 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.

Obviously when the roving gangs of 7 rapists that are so common in the country break into your house.

So why draw the line at six shots?  Why not a single sht rifle or hand gun and if you think yo may need more than one shot  buy tow guns and keep then next to each other.?

I for one am not too big on government limiting me to what it defines I need.  It will already  fine  you (or is it a tax? )for having too good a  health plan.

I realize that  there is a political ideology that  prescribes that point of view ( "to each according to their needs" IIRC) but I would prefer it was not running our country.


This is a .22 revolver, holds 10 shots.  A real menace to society

[accurateshooter.net image 540x309]


This devastating  bit of firepower holds 15 to 17 rounds of .22 ammo

[picturearchive.gunauction.com image 700x700]
Of course this only holds five rounds so it may be relatively harmless

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x298]


[www.spearfishingplanet.com image 484x275]


You know how some chicks don't think  men should be allowed to make laws about abortion. Maybe the ignorant about guns should not be allowed to make gun laws.

images.sodahead.com
 
2014-01-16 02:17:29 PM

HeadLever: Publikwerks: Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.

Ok, I'll use both hands while shooting my pistol next time.


HAHAHAHAHA It's funny, 'cos you don't care about taking lives in order to maintain your tough-guy facade! Hyuk, hyuk! Get it!?
 
2014-01-16 02:18:29 PM

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'?  In that case, I'll just bundle your points within that context and conveniently flush them down the toilet.
 
2014-01-16 02:18:56 PM

EyeballKid: HeadLever: Publikwerks: Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.

Ok, I'll use both hands while shooting my pistol next time.

HAHAHAHAHA It's funny, 'cos you don't care about taking lives in order to maintain your tough-guy facade! Hyuk, hyuk! Get it!?


Liberals are supposed to be the funny ones. Save the sanctimonious crying for conservatives.
 
2014-01-16 02:20:19 PM

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.
 
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.
 
2014-01-16 02:54:51 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".


Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?
 
2014-01-16 02:56:44 PM

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

Don't deflect the question.  Please respond.


I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption
 
2014-01-16 02:57:01 PM

mjohnson71: 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".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?


Deal
 
2014-01-16 02:57:11 PM

Publikwerks: As I said, I am open to change - if it make sense to exempt something,


Fair enough.  You and I are on opposite sides here, but this kind of discussion is refreshing.  As you can see, the details are sticky here.  Trying to cut down on crime by limiting firearm features is very problematic.  Many features that make them easy to commit a crime with are the same features that help them be a good self defense weapon or useful in many circumstances.
 
2014-01-16 02:57:27 PM

BadReligion: 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.


I never claimed to be a reliable marksman.
 
2014-01-16 02:57:56 PM

keypusher: 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?


Russell Kaepernick. Graduated from Nevada and then played a season at Wisconsin in grad school. 1st pick in the 2012 draft. Pretty much universally recognized as the successor to Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers
 
2014-01-16 02:58:41 PM

mjohnson71: Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?


Heavens, no!!! It will be totally inappropriate to discuss how to stop a tragedy after that tragedy has happened! Wayne LaPierre will have to have his fainting couch pulled out!
 
2014-01-16 02:58:46 PM

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

Don't deflect the question.  Please respond.

I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption


www.bizpacreview.com

This place just got a lot cooler in my mind.
 
2014-01-16 02:59:48 PM

mjohnson71: 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".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?


You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

Stop
 
2014-01-16 03:01:30 PM

Publikwerks: I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption


The problem is that it is really not.  Large magazines are often prone to feeding issues.   Also this*

*Results are not typical, but with a bit of practice, reloading a revolver takes a few seconds.
 
2014-01-16 03:01:33 PM

Publikwerks: mjohnson71: 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".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?

You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

Stop


Ok. I'm going to favorite you as "gun grabber, but reasonable. Do not troll" lol
 
2014-01-16 03:03:07 PM

lilplatinum: I love when the tiny dick bregade gets their panties in a wad when people don't use their preferred nomenclature for their stupid little toys.

/guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are.


I love it how people who are scared shiatless of guns tend to be so obsessed with dicks.
 
2014-01-16 03:03:11 PM

Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.



So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.
 
2014-01-16 03:04:47 PM

pyrotek85: I especially live the idea that "assault weapon" is a "made up" phrase.

All language is "made up". I assume gun nuts think that LaPierre brought a dictionary carved on a rock that he had from a burning plant down from a mountain?


What difference does it really make anyway?


vatandosh.com

"It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. And most importantly...not blame me."
 
2014-01-16 03:05:03 PM

HeadLever: Publikwerks: As I said, I am open to change - if it make sense to exempt something,

Fair enough.  You and I are on opposite sides here, but this kind of discussion is refreshing.  As you can see, the details are sticky here.  Trying to cut down on crime by limiting firearm features is very problematic.  Many features that make them easy to commit a crime with are the same features that help them be a good self defense weapon or useful in many circumstances.


I agree, cutting down on guns is not the solution. It may be part of it a solution, but it has to be done right, or it has bad repercussions.

I am not against gun ownership, and once my kids get older, I plan on picking up an over/under 12 gauge or a semiautomatic shotgun, because I took a class at LL Bean for father day on skeet shooting, and I had a blast(sorry, bad pun).
 
2014-01-16 03:05:47 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".


You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.
 
2014-01-16 03:07:03 PM
BTW - Forgive my poor grammar. It's the end of the day, and after 8 hours of screen time, my brain and eyes get foggy.
 
2014-01-16 03:07:58 PM

EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.


We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.
 
2014-01-16 03:09:39 PM

EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.


When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.
 
2014-01-16 03:12:39 PM

Publikwerks: BTW - Forgive my poor grammar. It's the end of the day, and after 8 hours of screen time, my brain and eyes get foggy.


I recommend drinking. It provides a plausible excuse.
 
2014-01-16 03:13:44 PM

hasty ambush: You know how some chicks don't think men should be allowed to make laws about abortion. Maybe the ignorant about guns should not be allowed to make gun laws.


Wow, you really sell that argument.
 
2014-01-16 03:13:46 PM

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".


...well, the posters are too busy arguing about the semantics about how the weapon left behind to be described to cheerlead or condemn the actual incident...except to condemn the dumbass "ibrul media" who doesn't describe the weapon left behind as they want it to be described.

/Hell, someone will probably condemn me for calling the weapon left behind a weapon.
 
2014-01-16 03:13:50 PM

EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.


Crazy people are going to do crazy things. And to be fair, trying to write a law to try and prevent shootings like Newtown is bad. Way more people die in random crimes than in mass shootings. But they are just nameless faces. The reason Newtown got the attention it did was it was little kids. It was shocking, and stood out from the other gun violence.   I have a son the age of the Newtown victims, and let me tell you, it farking tore my heart out. But I also know thatemotional law is bad law. And using tragedy to pass a law might work, but I'm not doing it.
 
2014-01-16 03:14:36 PM

Frank N Stein: Ok. I'm going to favorite you as "gun grabber, but reasonable. Do not troll" lol


Yeah, what happened here?  An honest argument broke out in the middle of a Fark gun thread.  WTH?
 
2014-01-16 03:14:53 PM
static.giantbomb.com
 
2014-01-16 03:15:05 PM

Dimensio: Publikwerks: BTW - Forgive my poor grammar. It's the end of the day, and after 8 hours of screen time, my brain and eyes get foggy.

I recommend drinking. It provides a plausible excuse.


I still have to commute home, and if there is something far more dangerous than a gun, its a drunk driver.
 
2014-01-16 03:15:27 PM

IlGreven: 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".

...well, the posters are too busy arguing about the semantics about how the weapon left behind to be described to cheerlead or condemn the actual incident...except to condemn the dumbass "ibrul media" who doesn't describe the weapon left behind as they want it to be described.

/Hell, someone will probably condemn me for calling the weapon left behind a weapon.


Several people, Dimensio and myself included, condemned it.
 
2014-01-16 03:18:04 PM

MythDragon: 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.


Yeah, I'd give her a wax job...  :-)
 
2014-01-16 03:21:07 PM

Mikey1969: Yeah, I'd give her a wax job...  :-)


I think we can all agree that is just good manners.
 
2014-01-16 03:25:06 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.


This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.
 
2014-01-16 03:25:08 PM

Dimensio: When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.


Like how pro-capital punishment people  insist that killing people will teach people not to kill people?
 
2014-01-16 03:27:09 PM

umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.


Wow. So, that's the next step, then? Mr. LaPierre has trained you well. Now, sit. Beg. Give me a paw? GOOD BOY.
 
2014-01-16 03:29:59 PM

mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.


Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.
 
2014-01-16 03:31:08 PM

EyeballKid: Dimensio: When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.

Like how pro-capital punishment people  insist that killing people will teach people not to kill people?


The primary argument (from those who do not simply admit that support of the death penalty is based upon a desire for vengeance rather than justice) is that a potential consequence of execution serves to deter homicide. Derision should therefore be based upon the complete lack of any compelling evidence in support of such a conclusion.
 
2014-01-16 03:31:49 PM
The only things in the sports tab that generate more responses than this are nfl threads and wrasslin threads. Drew should stick a gun thread in the tab more often and maybe more people would look at it. This may work for the business tab as well.
 
2014-01-16 03:33:54 PM
FOUL DEMON I CAST THEE OUT OF MY SPORTS TAB

GET THEE BACK WITH THE DROOLERS AND DIDDLERS AND DEGENERATES OF THE POLITICS TAB

END COMMUNICATION
 
2014-01-16 03:34:51 PM

Igor Jakovsky: The only things in the sports tab that generate more responses than this are nfl threads and wrasslin threads. Drew should stick a gun thread in the tab more often and maybe more people would look at it. This may work for the business tab as well.


You forgot a "pizza" tab.
 
2014-01-16 03:36:19 PM

Frank N Stein: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.


As is "want".
 
2014-01-16 03:40:16 PM

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

Don't deflect the question.  Please respond.

I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption


Yeah. Five Guys is a pretty safe bet. Sure, the fries have a ton of oil in them, but it's a popular restaurant that's always got a crowd, even in today's (semi)health conscious United States.
 
2014-01-16 03:41:45 PM

mjohnson71: Frank N Stein: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.

As is "want".


Rights aren't really subject to either.
 
2014-01-16 03:42:17 PM
I'm not saying that I would keep it...but I know I would have to think about it for a while before making a decision.
 
2014-01-16 03:42:56 PM

mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.


I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.
 
2014-01-16 03:46:48 PM

BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.


Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?
 
2014-01-16 03:47:04 PM

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

How is that restriction not arbitrary and capricious?  All those lever action Winchesters and Brownings would now be illegal to own?

Because these are such a danger to society these days

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x133]


Hey, I've got one of those!  Leave them alone!!
 
2014-01-16 03:49:41 PM

mjohnson71: I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.


For my hunting (big game, small game, varmint etc) you are going to need something different than a shotgun and pistol to have any success.

Not to mention if you get into benchrest or some other competitive shooting.
 
2014-01-16 03:53:07 PM

bikerbob59: Hey, I've got one of those!  Leave them alone!!


What caliber?

1886 in a .40-82
 
2014-01-16 03:54:39 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.


The problem is that gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise is a two way street. Taking away my rights and taking a bit more of it down the road is not a compromise. In my home state of NY, a large swath of semiautomatic rifles were labelled assault weapons. For a stretch I couldn't legally load more than 7 rounds into my 10 round capacity magazines. NYC has started confiscating firearms from residents. Now the state is talking about banning "high power sniper rifles". How can the casual observer not state this is incrementalism at work?

You want compromise? You get universal background checks and I get a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. Both sides should walk away overjoyed and there would be no negative effect on crime.
 
2014-01-16 04:01:23 PM

mjohnson71: BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?


Yup. And don't forget to only practice free speech using only your voice, handwritten notes on quill and parchment, and paper on old style printing presses. The founders weren't talking about the internet when they wrote the 1st ammendment, after all.
 
2014-01-16 04:03:45 PM

croesius: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Mikey1969: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Mikey1969: Of course, looking at the gun, I also would have my doubts that it was used in any crime, you don't often drop that kind of cabbage on your choice of weapon for drive bys...

It's exactly the kind of weapon you'd use for an assassination attempt.

I can see a TV series now...airheaded hot model wife of an NFL QB by day, airheaded assassin for hire by night...

I would imagine a proper assassination attempt would use a caliber with a bit more oomph.

To really reach out and touch someone:
[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 608x335]


Exactly the wrong tool for an assassin. What you want is a .22 pistol with subsonic ammo. You shoot them twice in the back of the head, nobody even notices the report.
 
2014-01-16 04:04:46 PM

hasty ambush: You know how some chicks don't think men should be allowed to make laws about abortion. Maybe the ignorant about guns should not be allowed to make gun laws.


I'm OK with this. Republicans cannot vote on anything that takes a basic understanding of science and/or logic.
 
2014-01-16 04:05:06 PM

BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.


I have a single-shot Airsoft pistol and Daisy Model 25. Puss.
 
2014-01-16 04:08:30 PM

mjohnson71: BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?


I'd be down with that if it meant you got off the internet permanently and stuck with exercising the 1st Amendment via means used when the 1st was written.


mew=med

/tablet
 
2014-01-16 04:09:00 PM
Another responsible gun owner that deserves to have their right protected.

You know what, we do not need to ever get rid of anyone's 2nd amendment rights. All we need to do is start charging idiots with felonies for stuff like this. You know, enforce laws and stuff. That will get rid of 90% of the idiots and solve 95% of the problem.
 
2014-01-16 04:09:34 PM

mbillips: BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

I have a single-shot Airsoft pistol and Daisy Model 25. Puss.


You'll shoot your eye out!
 
2014-01-16 04:14:33 PM

Fark It: mew=med

/tablet


Weird, I was responding to that idiot who said a 'child' discovered the rifle (muh children!).  I accidentally the whole post somehow.
 
2014-01-16 04:14:37 PM

BadReligion: mbillips: BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

I have a single-shot Airsoft pistol and Daisy Model 25. Puss.

You'll shoot your eye out!


I bought my brother a coffee table book about Daisy air rifles for Christmas, and finally found out what "this thing that tells time" is. The Buck Jones model (not the Red Ryder) had a compass in the stock and sundial markings on it.

tommcmahon.typepad.com
 
2014-01-16 04:21:29 PM

mbillips: BadReligion: mbillips: BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

I have a single-shot Airsoft pistol and Daisy Model 25. Puss.

You'll shoot your eye out!

I bought my brother a coffee table book about Daisy air rifles for Christmas, and finally found out what "this thing that tells time" is. The Buck Jones model (not the Red Ryder) had a compass in the stock and sundial markings on it.

[tommcmahon.typepad.com image 400x648]


That is awesome.
 
2014-01-16 04:29:34 PM

EyeballKid: umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

Wow. So, that's the next step, then? Mr. LaPierre has trained you well. Now, sit. Beg. Give me a paw? GOOD BOY.


So your convenience is more important than the lives of children!?!? You irrational people are farking scum.
 
2014-01-16 04:33:18 PM

umad: EyeballKid: umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

Wow. So, that's the next step, then? Mr. LaPierre has trained you well. Now, sit. Beg. Give me a paw? GOOD BOY.

So your convenience is more important than the lives of children!?!? You irrational people are farking scum.


Of course it is, otherwise Walmart would be out of business.
 
2014-01-16 04:42:07 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]


Shutterstock is going to be pissed you stole that photo.
 
2014-01-16 04:43:10 PM

coeyagi: Dimensio: 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.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all?  Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible.  I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma.  You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads.  FYI.


First off, there is no discussion to be had around "the owner was irresponsible". That is a given fact. If that is all we talked about the entire thread would be: "The owner was irresponsible" followed by 500 "I know, right?".

Second, it isn't an agenda. It is actually an anti-agenda, an unorganized attempt to slow someone else from achieving their actual agenda. Other than a few excessively pedantic gun-owners, the same as you have in any group, nobody would mention this misuse if it weren't for the agenda of the Gun-grabbers. The grabbers have been pushing the use of Assault Weapon and misuse of Assault Rifle into the mainstream media and public consciousness for the last 25 years in order to further their stated goal (agenda) of getting rid of all privately owned guns in the US. If there were no grabbers 98% of all gun owners would not even think to correct the misuse of Assault Rifle. But thanks to them 98% of us feel we have to do so to try and slow the spread of the anti-gun agenda.

Did you honestly think we give a flying fark what these guns are called by the uninformed? Of course we don't. What we care about is not having our guns taken away and that is the only reason we do this.
 
2014-01-16 05:02:01 PM

umad: So your convenience is more important than the lives of children!?!? You irrational people are farking scum.


If you really cared that much about saving children and wanted to do something meaningful about it, you'd campaign to ban 5-gallon buckets and swimming pools.
 
2014-01-16 05:07:28 PM

JesseL: umad: So your convenience is more important than the lives of children!?!? You irrational people are farking scum.

If you really cared that much about saving children and wanted to do something meaningful about it, you'd campaign to ban 5-gallon buckets and swimming pools.


But I like 5 gallon buckets and swimming pools. Therefore it would be less inconvenient to me to repeal the 4th.
 
2014-01-16 05:10:08 PM

bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?


Make comments? No, no need to be an expert or even a hobbyist, in fact you can no nothing at all if you want. But if you don't want to sound stupid and you want people to listen to you and take you seriously then you would be well served by gaining a reasonable familiarity with the subject.

Proposing new laws? No, no need to be an expert, but you should be well informed and have a firm grasp of the subject, and hire an expert to help out.
 
2014-01-16 05:13:08 PM
 Fark It:   Weird, I was responding to that idiot who said a 'child' discovered the rifle (muh children!).  I accidentally the whole post somehow.

At least this idiot didn't 'accidentally the whole post somehow'.   You seem careless.  You probably shouldn't handle firearms, sharp objects, or drive.   And as a childish name caller you go on the ignore list.  Bye-bye!
 
2014-01-16 05:16:07 PM

Dimensio: Preventing the multitude of high-profile homicides committed with M1 Garand rifles is too important a goal to be bothered with details.


They should be banned because they have a tendency to turn your thumb purple.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-16 05:38:16 PM

JesseL: Publikwerks: And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.

What was the deadliest mass muder in US history?


Gettysburg?
 
2014-01-16 05:43:15 PM

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


So I suppose you believe a bullet is a magic item that stops an attacker immediately in their tracks if it so much as gets close to them, right?  Here is a little info for you:

None of the following were people on PCP either.  Officers I know personally have repeatedly said that is their biggest fear because they get unbelievable strength and don't feel pain.
There are tons of stories like the following easily found, but since you know best, you probably won't bother looking into it.

4 minutes is a long time to have to try to fight back.
"The Aftermath:
Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Although Soulis could not have known it, Palmer was wanted for murder in a neighboring state."
Source: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis- i nci

Trooper shot (hit) him 5 times with a .357 magnum.  How many times did he miss?  I guarantee that if you are getting attacked, your adrenaline is at insane levels and you are shaking.  You are dodging and moving.  Your attacker isn't standing there motionless.  You will miss.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates

Required 17 hits to stop him: (very graphic, might not want to look)
http://www.defensivecarry.com/documents/officer.pdf

Police hit him 9 times with a .45 caliber before he stopped:  How many times did they miss under stress?  Is a 10 round magazine enough? HE HAD A BULLET IN HIS BRAIN!
"The Aftermath
In addition to the bullet to his brain, Mettinger had taken six hits in the torso: one in the thigh and two in the right ankle that literally severed his foot, all of which were with hard-hitting .45 caliber Gold Dot ammunition."
http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5019" target="_blank">http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t= 5019

Larry Correira
Here is an article from an expert. (I cut A LOT out but left in the important stuff)
http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-control le rs-once-and-for-all/

Kind of a long read, but his background is important regarding the topic:
A little background for those of you who don't know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I've worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I'd make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I've got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I've won matches, and I've been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.

I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I've argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.

Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I've heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!

I've seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we've got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he'll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I'll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn't really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually-contrary to the movies-you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don't have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn't uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you're going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don't penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, "Darn, I wish I hadn't brought all that extra ammo."

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let's say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he's a complete idiot, he's not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He's picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don't for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They're just broken and evil.

In the cases that I'm aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That's a bad assumption, and here's yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm's forums. My Gunfight - "Thinking Outside Your Box"   So that's awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.

Finally, let's look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That's it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn't so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn't run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I'm no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could've been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you're already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don't care.

Assault Weapons Ban, 1994-2004:
A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[9] In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[10] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders
 
2014-01-16 05:55:18 PM

EyeballKid: So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.



I'm not willing to give up my rights over the idea of some silly "possibility".
 
2014-01-16 05:58:14 PM

BadReligion: mjohnson71: BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?

Yup. And don't forget to only practice free speech using only your voice, handwritten notes on quill and parchment, and paper on old style printing presses. The founders weren't talking about the internet when they wrote the 1st ammendment, after all.


The government could ban the internet. Internet use is not protected under the first amendment.

FYI, free speech does actually mean something different today than when the constitution was written. Free speech was only intended to stop the government from stopping you before you spoke, it was perfectly OK to punish you after the fact. See, alien and sedition acts, Eugene Debs.
 
2014-01-16 06:00:27 PM
The article has two airheads:

1) Somebody who left a rifle in a rental car.  Hell, I triple check rental cars to make sure I haven't left in a CD or my sunglasses.

2) A soccer mom who had a panic attack because she saw a firearm.
 
2014-01-16 06:02:20 PM

fatalvenom: Is it possible for the mods to un-green a thread, because that would be nice.


This is your bastard child, live with it.
 
2014-01-16 06:19:15 PM
Can I play too?
scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-01-16 06:34:32 PM
The ghey is strong in this thread. No pictures of NFL WAGs. C'mon Fark.
 
2014-01-16 06:39:18 PM

Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.


Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.
Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.
Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.
Got a good point and will make a dandy club.
 
2014-01-16 07:17:55 PM

Flappyhead: fatalvenom: Is it possible for the mods to un-green a thread, because that would be nice.

This is your bastard child, live with it.


Dammit!!!!
 
2014-01-16 07:21:45 PM

sambluesnark: Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.

Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.
Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.
Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.
Got a good point and will make a dandy club.


How much did the gladius cost? Sounds like it shouldn't cost more than 60-70 bucks to sharpen.
 
2014-01-16 07:25:46 PM

Doom MD: StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

The problem is that gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise is a two way street. Taking away my rights and taking a bit more of it down the road is not a compromise. In my home state of NY, a large swath of semiautomatic rifles were labelled assault weapons. For a stretch I couldn't legally load more than 7 rounds into my 10 round capacity magazines. NYC has started confiscating firearms from residents. Now the state is talking about banning "high power sniper rifles". How can the casual observer not state this is incrementalism at work?

You want compromise? You get universal background checks and I get a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. Both sides should walk away overjoyed and there would be no negative effect on crime.


I'll trade it all for one thing:

Government employees are equally subject to all laws applied to civilians , and police may not possess or use any arm or munition denied to the general populace.
 
2014-01-16 07:26:54 PM

Fark It: I'm sorry, is beating the Steelers supposed to be a noteworthy accomplishment?


Probably not anymore, but they were favored to win.

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: They should be banned because they have a tendency to turn your thumb purple.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x638]


Question from a non-gun owner: you've identified clips and magazines; aren't some of them referred to as cartridges?
 
2014-01-16 07:30:16 PM

Galileo's Daughter: Fark It: I'm sorry, is beating the Steelers supposed to be a noteworthy accomplishment?

Probably not anymore, but they were favored to win.

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: They should be banned because they have a tendency to turn your thumb purple.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x638]

Question from a non-gun owner: you've identified clips and magazines; aren't some of them referred to as cartridges?


Cartridges go in the clips and/or magazines.  Some people refer to them as bullets, although the bullet is actually just part of the cartridge itself.
 
2014-01-16 07:30:49 PM

Galileo's Daughter: Fark It: I'm sorry, is beating the Steelers supposed to be a noteworthy accomplishment?

Probably not anymore, but they were favored to win.

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: They should be banned because they have a tendency to turn your thumb purple.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x638]

Question from a non-gun owner: you've identified clips and magazines; aren't some of them referred to as cartridges?


A cartridge is what goes in the magazine. It hold the bullet, propellant and primer. Catridges/bullets go in the magazine or clip.
 
2014-01-16 07:31:28 PM

Galileo's Daughter: aren't some of them referred to as cartridges?


No. The cartridge is the bullet.
 
2014-01-16 07:32:23 PM
Should have refreshed I guess.
 
2014-01-16 07:41:54 PM

Galileo's Daughter: Question from a non-gun owner: you've identified clips and magazines; aren't some of them referred to as cartridges?


cartridges are the actual ammunition that is loaded into the gun and fires the bullet.
www.faecdn.com

The magazine is the part of the gun that houses these cartridges and feeds them into the gun.

blogs-images.forbes.com

And a clip is a quick feed mechanism that allows you to quickly refill an empty magazine.

cdn.gunsamerica.com
 
2014-01-16 07:57:38 PM
Like many, I came here for cheesecake pictures.

Like many, I am disappointed with the predictable "OMG THEY GON TAKE R GUNZ" nonsense.
 
2014-01-16 08:03:44 PM
Gawd Damn gun thread, get out of my sports tab!
 
2014-01-16 08:48:49 PM
I remember the nonsense after Obama got elected:

"ZOMG the Commies are gonna take our guns".

Glad to know 5 years later that's still a thing.
 
2014-01-16 09:02:15 PM
www.bodyartdiary.com
 
2014-01-16 09:03:30 PM
s3.vidimg.popscreen.com
 
2014-01-16 09:03:38 PM

fatalvenom: ZOMG the Commies are gonna take our guns".


Didn't help that in 2009 he tried to get the assault weapon ban reinstated.  Even the dems got up in arms about that one.

You must have a short memory.
 
2014-01-16 09:05:23 PM
 
2014-01-16 09:10:38 PM

elguerodiablo: .nsfw

http://www.ritag.org/uploaded_images/action-girls-monster-truck-porn -v ideo-rita-g-703605.jpg


She seems to prefer a really long barrel (or fore-end) if you know what I mean.
 
2014-01-16 09:19:50 PM

umad: EyeballKid: umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

Wow. So, that's the next step, then? Mr. LaPierre has trained you well. Now, sit. Beg. Give me a paw? GOOD BOY.

So your convenience is more important than the lives of children!?!? You irrational people are farking scum.


How about your swimming pool? is it more importation than the lives of children?



www.ammoland.com
Drowning and Water-Related Safety


From 2006 to 2008, each year there have been approximately 5,100 pool- or spa-related submersion injuries treated at emergency departments and 383 pool- or spa-related deaths among children ages 14 and under.
Children under 5 years of age represent a majority (76 percent) of reported fatalities and almost 80 percent of emergency department-treated submersion injuries.
 
2014-01-16 09:33:46 PM
www.farangdingdong.com
 
2014-01-16 09:37:17 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-16 09:38:24 PM
xaxor.com
 
2014-01-16 09:54:13 PM

redmid17: bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

Michelle Bachmann and creationists being on those committees is just as bad as who try to write gun laws with no knowledge or consultation of people who know about guns.


Exactly how much do I need to know about guns and gun related assessories before I can intelligently state "it should be against the law to leave your gun unsecured and unattended in public?"
That is really the issue here, right - How responsible should we REQUIRE folks be with their guns?

Or does it make me a panty wetting liberal because I can't assemble a rifle while blindfolded?
 
2014-01-16 10:01:10 PM

RedT: That is really the issue here, right - How responsible should we REQUIRE folks be with their guns?


Being responsible with guns is already addressed pretty well in current law.  Knowledge of specific firearm mechanics is not really needed for this.

The issue we have been discussing is banning a weapon because of a specific feature or characteristic.  For this issue, knowledge of firearm mechanics is a must.
 
2014-01-16 10:01:26 PM

RedT: redmid17: bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

Michelle Bachmann and creationists being on those committees is just as bad as who try to write gun laws with no knowledge or consultation of people who know about guns.

Exactly how much do I need to know about guns and gun related assessories before I can intelligently state "it should be against the law to leave your gun unsecured and unattended in public?"
That is really the issue here, right - How responsible should we REQUIRE folks be with their guns?

Or does it make me a panty wetting liberal because I can't assemble a rifle while blindfolded?


1) You'd do well to do read the rest of my posts in the thread
2) This gun was not necessarily unsecured, but it was unattended. It was locked away, unloaded, and out of sight. I think it's worthy of a minor charge, community service and a fine, but there is definitely a limit on how responsible we can make people with inert guns -- no gun locks on inoperability without minors or prohibited persons in the house.

Leaving a gun unattended and unsecured in public:

i200.photobucket.com

should net serious penalties, like no guns and jail time for you.
 
2014-01-16 10:04:54 PM
Full gun retard right off the bat. This thread never stood a chance
 
2014-01-16 10:07:41 PM
This may be the best tramp stamp tat ever.


Nsfw

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/files/2010/01/ng-butt-tattoo.jpg
 
2014-01-16 10:09:29 PM
media.rob.nu
 
2014-01-16 10:11:24 PM
 
2014-01-16 10:18:24 PM
img190.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-16 10:23:32 PM
 
2014-01-16 10:29:36 PM
 
2014-01-16 11:11:43 PM

HeadLever: fatalvenom: ZOMG the Commies are gonna take our guns".

Didn't help that in 2009 he tried to get the assault weapon ban reinstated.  Even the dems got up in arms about that one.

You must have a short memory.


Well since most of the NRA folk in this thread have stated that the assault weapon is a Liberal conspiracy, what is everyone worried about?

You still have your guns, and you are still able to shiat all over threads with tired rhetoric.

That damn socialist Muslim is a real buzz kill.
 
2014-01-16 11:13:02 PM

fatalvenom: HeadLever: fatalvenom: ZOMG the Commies are gonna take our guns".

Didn't help that in 2009 he tried to get the assault weapon ban reinstated.  Even the dems got up in arms about that one.

You must have a short memory.

Well since most of the NRA folk in this thread have stated that the assault weapon is a Liberal conspiracy, what is everyone worried about?

You still have your guns, and you are still able to shiat all over threads with tired rhetoric.

That damn socialist Muslim is a real buzz kill.


If you're retarded, you don't need to drink to make stupid comments.
 
2014-01-17 12:18:54 AM
Well, now I'm bookmarking this thread.
 
2014-01-17 10:23:57 AM

Dimensio: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.


Dimensio is my hero...  If for nothing else but how his rationality and composure is maintained when dealing with incredibly irrational and emotional anti gunners.   

I love buzzing through the gun threads and seeing you deconstruct dummy after dummy...     :D      Thanks for the good stuff...


/EIP
 
2014-01-17 10:34:55 AM

fatalvenom: Well since most of the NRA folk in this thread have stated that the assault weapon is a Liberal conspiracy,what is everyone worried about?

 

You are not even making sense.  The assault weapon is a term dreamed up two decades ago in order to describe scary looking guns in such a way as to make it easier for them to pass gun control laws, which they did.  It expired about a decade ago and there are many that would like to see it return (including Obama).

What you are mostly seeing here is push back on that stated goal.


You still have your guns,

Most of them, yep.  And we will continue to fight to make sure that we can continue to own them.  One way for us to ensure that we lose our right to own guns is to quit fighting for this right.


and you are still able to shiat all over threads with tired rhetoric.

Just like you. Not sure what makes your 'tired rhetoric' any different than ours.
 
2014-01-17 04:20:28 PM

redmid17: sambluesnark: Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.

Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.
Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.
Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.
Got a good point and will make a dandy club.

How much did the gladius cost? Sounds like it shouldn't cost more than 60-70 bucks to sharpen.


Bought it on one of those late night "have we go a deal for you knife shows". The one's that sell huge arse bundles of knives for you to resell at flea markets.
Cost 40 45 $.
Double edged.
And I can't find a link that will let me copy a picture of one
.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Uncrossed_g la dius.jpg/300px-Uncrossed_gladius.jpg" alt="Uncrossed gladius.jpg">
sigh. best I can do.
Total blade length 40-43 in.Depending on how you measure it from tip to either where the actual cutting edge ends or if you go completely to the hilt.
At 3-5$ dollars per blade inch cost could be from 120 to 215 dollars to sharpen both sides.
I could go with sharpening one side all the way, or partially sharpen both edges.
 
2014-01-17 04:24:03 PM

sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.

Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.
Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.
Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.
Got a good point and will make a dandy club.

How much did the gladius cost? Sounds like it shouldn't cost more than 60-70 bucks to sharpen.

Bought it on one of those late night "have we go a deal for you knife shows". The one's that sell huge arse bundles of knives for you to resell at flea markets.
Cost 40 45 $.
Double edged.
And I can't find a link that will let me copy a picture of one
.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Uncrossed_g la dius.jpg/300px-Uncrossed_gladius.jpg" alt="Uncrossed gladius.jpg">
sigh. best I can do.
Total blade length 40-43 in.Depending on how you measure it from tip to either where the actual cutting edge ends or if you go completely to the hilt.
At 3-5$ dollars per blade inch cost could be from 120 to 215 dollars to sharpen both sides.
I could go with sharpening one side all the way, or partially sharpen both edges.


Oh wow that's a lot longer than I was thinking. I was under the impression that gladii were short swords.
 
2014-01-17 05:15:24 PM

redmid17: sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.

Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.
Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.
Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.
Got a good point and will make a dandy club.

How much did the gladius cost? Sounds like it shouldn't cost more than 60-70 bucks to sharpen.

Bought it on one of those late night "have we go a deal for you knife shows". The one's that sell huge arse bundles of knives for you to resell at flea markets.
Cost 40 45 $.
Double edged.
And I can't find a link that will let me copy a picture of one
.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Uncrossed_g la dius.jpg/300px-Uncrossed_gladius.jpg" alt="Uncrossed gladius.jpg">
sigh. best I can do.
Total blade length 40-43 in.Depending on how you measure it from tip to either where the actual cutting edge ends or if you go completely to the hilt.
At 3-5$ dollars per blade inch cost could be from 120 to 215 dollars to sharpen both sides.
I could go with sharpening one side all the way, or partially sharpen both edges.

Oh wow that's a lot longer than I was thinking. I was under the impression that gladii were short swords.

Well, based on length of point to base of blade it is only 22 inches.

          v------22------v
           <=========]==o

Compared to a bastard sword, long sword, great sword or katana it is "short"

It's when you measure the actual Cutting edges of the blade, Both sides that makes it measure the 40+ inches.


          v------22------v x 2
           <=========]==o

It's for thrusting not slashing.

 Remember the Romans used a block formation, shoulder to shoulder with shields covering the man next to you.

               0.} 0}_0}_             First and Second ranks would be using swords
               0.} 0}_0}_
               0.} 0}_0}_              Third and Fourth ranks would be using pilum (spears
               0.} 0}_0}_

Best I can do.
And these blocks of legionaires could extend for severals of hundreds of yards.
 
2014-01-17 05:56:33 PM

Farkage: Kind of a long read, but his background is important regarding the topic:
A little background for those of you who don't know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store...


Your opinions on guns mean pretty much shiat since you have come out in support of kids shooting other kids at schools. Thank Christ you are no longer a dealer.
 
2014-01-17 06:10:43 PM
Thank you to everyone who explained what a cartridge is.
 
2014-01-17 06:12:44 PM

sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.

Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.
Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.
Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.
Got a good point and will make a dandy club.

How much did the gladius cost? Sounds like it shouldn't cost more than 60-70 bucks to sharpen.

Bought it on one of those late night "have we go a deal for you knife shows". The one's that sell huge arse bundles of knives for you to resell at flea markets.
Cost 40 45 $.
Double edged.
And I can't find a link that will let me copy a picture of one
.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Uncrossed_g la dius.jpg/300px-Uncrossed_gladius.jpg" alt="Uncrossed gladius.jpg">
sigh. best I can do.
Total blade length 40-43 in.Depending on how you measure it from tip to either where the actual cutting edge ends or if you go completely to the hilt.
At 3-5$ dollars per blade inch cost could be from 120 to 215 dollars to sharpen both sides.
I could go with sharpening one side all the way, or partially sharpen both edges.

Oh wow that's a lot longer than I was thinking. I was under the impression that gladii were short swords.

Well, based on length of point to base of blade it is only 22 inches.

          v------22------v
           <=========]==o

Compared to a bastard sword, long sword, great sword or katana it is "short"

It's when you measure the actual Cutting edges of the blade, Both sides that makes it measure the 40+ inches.


          v------22------v x 2
           <=========]==o

It's for thrusting not slashing. Remember the Romans used a block formation, shoulder to shoulder with shields covering the man next to you.

               0.} 0}_0}_             First and Second ranks would be using swords
          ...


Yeah never mind. I'm an idiot. For whatever reason I was thinking you'd only need to do one side. The worst thing is I've literally been playing Rome: Total War for the last week and forgot that.

I picked the wrong week to quit huffing glue.
 
2014-01-17 06:30:04 PM

Galileo's Daughter: Thank you to everyone who explained what a cartridge is.


THEY'RE STILL SHELLS TO ME DAMMIT!
 
2014-01-17 07:39:17 PM

redmid17: sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.


redmid17: sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: redmid17: sambluesnark: Frank N Stein:

Oh wow that's a lot longer than I was thinking. I was under the impression that gladii were short swords.

Well, based on length of point to base of blade it is only 22 inches.

          v------22------v
           <=========]==o


It's when you measure the actual Cutting edges of the blade, Both sides that makes it measure the 40+ inches.


          v------22------v x 2
           <=========]==o

It's for thrusting not slashing. Remember the Romans used a block formation, shoulder to shoulder with shields covering the man next to you.

               0.} 0}_0}_             First and Second ranks would be using sw ...

System cut off full thread.
No whoop. As I said, could just have one edge sharpened at a time.
Never did any of the Total War game series.
I usually play historic battle recreations on a table top using miniature soldiers.
Most of my ancient's troops are Legions. From Early Republic to Late Empire, including the division of Rome into the multiple factions that resulted.
My co-players are sometimes shall we say.....dedicated .....to a high degree of accuracy, which means we spend as much time or more studying the era's that we play than we may have done in school.

/as for glue use-eh, we all have to have one bad habit
//I still smoke pipes or cigars
///can't have real coffee, alcohol

 
2014-01-17 09:00:36 PM

umad: Farkage: Kind of a long read, but his background is important regarding the topic:
A little background for those of you who don't know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store...

Your opinions on guns mean pretty much shiat since you have come out in support of kids shooting other kids at schools. Thank Christ you are no longer a dealer.


Lol, nice try dipshiat. Go read that post again. I didn't write that, and I clearly stated in my quote that it was from the dudes article.

And again, since you are a paint chip eating regard, I did not advocate anyone shooting up a schilool. I guess in your fantasy world you feel you deserve a participation award though.
 
2014-01-17 10:01:12 PM
Yay!  Gun nuts and anti-gun nuts!
 
Displayed 471 of 471 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report