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.

(CNN)   Good news: if you sold an assault rifle in the past year then you made a nice profit. Bad news: if you bought an assault rifle in the past year then you're a sucker   (money.cnn.com) divider line 723
    More: Obvious, assault weapons, Wedbush Securities, assault rifles, Sandy Hook, Thunder, Falls Church  
•       •       •

9761 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



723 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-09 01:50:22 PM  
Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.
 
2014-04-09 01:50:50 PM  
A guy at my local food co-op told me that people are modifying automatic AR-47 assault rifles so they can shoot two 40-caliper clips of hollow-point shotgun shells at the same time.

Do we, as a people, really need weapons that are this needlessly destructive?
 
2014-04-09 01:51:26 PM  
ooh, but at least you got your "man card" reissue for the penii-impaired
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 01:52:23 PM  
And if you REALLY need to over-compensate,


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 01:52:58 PM  
The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.
 
2014-04-09 01:58:45 PM  

James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.


my ten year old cousin told me the other day that obama is going take away all my guns

this is not a joke
 
2014-04-09 02:02:17 PM  

Jackson Herring: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

my ten year old cousin told me the other day that obama is going take away all my guns

this is not a joke


Did he then try to sell you a gun?

"You better buy this pop gun, Uncle Herring.  Obama's going to ban them pretty soon!  Only $500!"
 
2014-04-09 02:02:33 PM  

Jackson Herring: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

my ten year old cousin told me the other day that obama is going take away all my guns

this is not a joke



Did you tell him that "gullible" was being taken out of the dictionary?
 
2014-04-09 02:10:39 PM  

SilentStrider: Did you tell him that "gullible" was being taken out of the dictionary?


I would have tried to sell him an over-priced gun.
 
2014-04-09 02:11:49 PM  

Jackson Herring: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

my ten year old cousin told me the other day that obama is going take away all my guns

this is not a joke


I know. I bought twenty because Obama had veal last night. I only paid 150% of retail, so I got an awesome deal.
 
2014-04-09 02:13:21 PM  
You mean gun nuts are gullible morons? I have to sit down for this.
 
2014-04-09 02:14:44 PM  
My wife told me I seemed to love my guns more than my family. I told her that wasn't true. Little Timmy isn't going to college because it is full of liberals, not because I cashed out the college fund to buy another AR-15.
 
2014-04-09 02:15:30 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.


Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
 
2014-04-09 02:16:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: You mean gun nuts are gullible morons? I have to sit down for this.


Obama had Beef Wellington for dinner last Tuesday. They came and took a whole pile of guns after that.

Now tell me it's a joke.
 
2014-04-09 02:16:48 PM  
Dictionary.reference.com:

assault rifle
noun1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, ut i lizing an intermediate-powercartridge.
2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually m o dified to allow onlysemiautomatic fire.
 
2014-04-09 02:17:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.

Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use


Don't waste your time getting into a semantic argument over gun words.
 
2014-04-09 02:17:47 PM  
Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.
 
2014-04-09 02:18:35 PM  

James!: cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.

Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Don't waste your time getting into a semantic argument over gun words.


You're right. I'm actually about to go outside - it's a beautiful day.
 
2014-04-09 02:18:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: You mean gun nuts are gullible morons? I have to sit down for this.


You mean they actually believed politicians who said they were going to try and ban assault weapons?  Why, the *FOOLS*!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/obama-gun-violence-task-for ce _n_2331238.html
WASHINGTON - Declaring the time for action overdue, President Barack Obama promised on Wednesday to send Congress broad proposals in January for tightening gun laws and curbing violence after last week's schoolhouse massacre in Connecticut.

Even before those proposals are drafted, Obama pressed lawmakers to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks and restrict high-capacity ammunition clips.


Really, I mean, gun owners must have been *STUPID* to take Obama at his word.
 
2014-04-09 02:21:13 PM  

dittybopper: Even before those proposals are drafted, Obama pressed lawmakers to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks and restrict high-capacity ammunition clips.

Really, I mean, gun owners must have been *STUPID* to take Obama at his word.


What does that have to do with gullible morons buying assault weapons at 150% markup?
 
2014-04-09 02:21:52 PM  
I mean, it's not as if they're a necessity. These people are just paying out the ass for a toy because they don't want daddy to take it away from them.
 
2014-04-09 02:22:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.


So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.
 
2014-04-09 02:23:51 PM  

dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.


No you don't. English-speakers do. Too bad. You were wrong, just be a man and admit it.
 
2014-04-09 02:26:09 PM  
Because "close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks"

Is bad?
 
2014-04-09 02:26:12 PM  

James!: Don't waste your time getting into a semantic argument over gun words.


Rule #4, it's one of their most powerful tricks to making you think they have a point

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 02:26:23 PM  

dittybopper: gun owners must have been *STUPID*


Yep. Glad you admit it.
 
2014-04-09 02:27:05 PM  

drew46n2: James!: Don't waste your time getting into a semantic argument over gun words.

Rule #4, it's one of their most powerful tricks to making you think they have a point

[img.fark.net image 850x929]


If that's one of their most powerful tricks, they are incredibly dumb.
 
2014-04-09 02:29:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: If that's one of their most powerful tricks, they are incredibly dumb.



yet you will see entire threads of debate about because someone said "clip" instead of "magazine."

Heads. Up. Their. Asses.
 
2014-04-09 02:29:49 PM  

drew46n2: And if you REALLY need to over-compensate,


[img.fark.net image 582x426]


You know this guy is packing a monster hog.

www.recoilweb.com
 
2014-04-09 02:31:59 PM  

James!: cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.

Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Don't waste your time getting into a semantic argument over gun words.


It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.
 
2014-04-09 02:32:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

No you don't. English-speakers do. Too bad. You were wrong, just be a man and admit it.


OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

You don't get to redefine technical definitions.  If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.

...

Oh, wait, that's what your point is, right?   Just like Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center said back in 1988:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

You're trying to redefine "assault rifle" to cover both in order to confuse the issue, so that it's easier to get people agree to banning what they think are machine guns, but which actually operate quite differently.

Duly noted.
 
2014-04-09 02:32:49 PM  
Sold one. I don't think it's been used to kill any children yet.
 
2014-04-09 02:38:38 PM  

dittybopper: If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.


It already has.
 
2014-04-09 02:44:45 PM  
Someone with a number of modern sporting rifles could have made quite a bit of money selling them off since Black Oblacka took office and started scaring the sh*t out of gun owners.  If they haven't sold theirs, especially after all the hot air about Newtown and Aurora I'd say they're pretty foolish.  Sure, keep one because even though they're totally the same as a traditional, wooden-stock semi-auto, they are cool and those accessory rails are like swiss army knives in their potential.  But why not sell the rest and buy a hunting cabin share with the profits?
 
2014-04-09 02:44:57 PM  

Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.


*YES*.

SO VERY MUCH FARKING *THIS*.

The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.  This is perfectly encapsulated by Carolyn McCarthy whose signature issue was gun control (her husband was killed, and son wounded, in the Long Island Railroad massacre), who, when pressed about an assault weapons ban she introduced into Congress, couldn't define what a "barrel shroud" was, despite it being in the bill that she introduced, and ended up mistakenly calling it the "shoulder thing that goes up".

She literally didn't know the difference between a piece of sheet metal that surrounds the barrel of a gun, and a folding stock.

BTW, I don't know why it's OK to have a piece of walnut surrounding a barrel, but not a piece of steel.  Doesn't seem to be a rational difference to me, but then, I generally know what I'm talking about when it comes to firearms.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2014-04-09 02:47:39 PM  

dittybopper: Duly noted.


Dude, the guy's just trolling you.  Ignore the ignorant.
 
2014-04-09 02:54:40 PM  

dittybopper: The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.



again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.
 
2014-04-09 02:55:32 PM  

Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.


Just look what it did for the long-haul trucking industry:

runningheavy.com
 
2014-04-09 02:55:49 PM  
Heh, salty seaman.
 
2014-04-09 02:56:58 PM  

factoryconnection: Someone with a number of modern sporting rifles could have made quite a bit of money selling them off since Black Oblacka took office and started scaring the sh*t out of gun owners.  If they haven't sold theirs, especially after all the hot air about Newtown and Aurora I'd say they're pretty foolish.  Sure, keep one because even though they're totally the same as a traditional, wooden-stock semi-auto, they are cool and those accessory rails are like swiss army knives in their potential.  But why not sell the rest and buy a hunting cabin share with the profits?


Or, you could sell them all, and just make new ones out of plastic.

No, seriously:

www.rainierarms.com

Just drill out the holes on your drill press, and assemble the gun.

Of course, if you're more handy than that, you could always build an AK out of a shiat-shovel.  Or an AR-15 lower out of hardwood. (guy used pine, which is soft, and it broke, but hardwood like brazilian walnut would probably work fine).
 
2014-04-09 02:57:20 PM  

dittybopper: Really, I mean, gun owners must have been *STUPID* to take Obama at his word.


It took an ungodly amount of work to slightly improve our horrible healthcare situation, but yeah, sure...Obama totally would have been able to pass a new assault-weapons ban through Congress. Ayup.
 
2014-04-09 03:00:13 PM  

drew46n2: dittybopper: The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.


again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.


Oh, you mean like this?

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
 
2014-04-09 03:01:09 PM  

dittybopper: No, seriously:


You for some reason think that this surprises me or that I don't know it.  But most gun owners are not gun smiths or even proficient with machine tools, so unless that was the case I left in the "keep one" caveat.
 
2014-04-09 03:04:43 PM  

Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Really, I mean, gun owners must have been *STUPID* to take Obama at his word.

It took an ungodly amount of work to slightly improve our horrible healthcare situation, but yeah, sure...Obama totally would have been able to pass a new assault-weapons ban through Congress. Ayup.


So people should have just ignored him, because they should have known he wouldn't be able to get anything passed in Congress?

Listen, I need some stock tips.  Because you are apparently able to see into the future, unlike the rest of us, give me a few tips.  I'm not greedy, I just want some new ham radio equipment.  I've been using a radio manufactured in the 1970's for the last 24 years, and I'd like something newer.
 
2014-04-09 03:04:57 PM  

dittybopper: drew46n2: dittybopper: The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.


again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

Oh, you mean like this?

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.


again, here you are trying to engage in a pedantic "debate" that really has zero relevance to the issue of gun violence. I know you'd rather talk about how assault rifles differ from "sporting" or "assault style" rifles because that DEFLECTS attention away from that pile of dead 6-year-olds in Connecticut.
 
2014-04-09 03:07:42 PM  

drew46n2: dittybopper: drew46n2: dittybopper: The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.


again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

Oh, you mean like this?

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

again, here you are trying to engage in a pedantic "debate" that really has zero relevance to the issue of gun violence. I know you'd rather talk about how assault rifles differ from "sporting" or "assault style" rifles because that DEFLECTS attention away from that pile of dead 6-year-olds in Connecticut.


The dead 6-year-olds are completely irrelevant. What number off your bumper sticker written by someone else does that fall under?
 
2014-04-09 03:09:46 PM  

dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.


Assault rifle means it's

1) for assault
2) a rifle

See Uzi.
 
2014-04-09 03:13:39 PM  

dittybopper: factoryconnection: Someone with a number of modern sporting rifles could have made quite a bit of money selling them off since Black Oblacka took office and started scaring the sh*t out of gun owners.  If they haven't sold theirs, especially after all the hot air about Newtown and Aurora I'd say they're pretty foolish.  Sure, keep one because even though they're totally the same as a traditional, wooden-stock semi-auto, they are cool and those accessory rails are like swiss army knives in their potential.  But why not sell the rest and buy a hunting cabin share with the profits?

Or, you could sell them all, and just make new ones out of plastic.

No, seriously:

[www.rainierarms.com image 640x480]

Just drill out the holes on your drill press, and assemble the gun.

Of course, if you're more handy than that, you could always build an AK out of a shiat-shovel.  Or an AR-15 lower out of hardwood. (guy used pine, which is soft, and it broke, but hardwood like brazilian walnut would probably work fine).


I like my firearms to have less chance of being all explodey in my hands.
 
2014-04-09 03:14:04 PM  

R.A.Danny: The dead 6-year-olds are completely irrelevant



Of course they are. When talking about guns and violence it's important to disregard those who have been shot. The REAL victims are the backyard commandos who's ability to shoot watermelons apart on weekends is being threatened!
 
2014-04-09 03:14:15 PM  
dittybopper:

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

Subby here.  I contemplated using "clips" just to see if you'd have a seizure.
 
2014-04-09 03:14:44 PM  
An Uzi is a rifle?
 
2014-04-09 03:15:21 PM  

drew46n2: R.A.Danny: The dead 6-year-olds are completely irrelevant


Of course they are. When talking about guns and violence it's important to disregard those who have been shot. The REAL victims are the backyard commandos who's ability to shoot watermelons apart on weekends is being threatened!


Yep. The dead kids no longer have any rights.
 
2014-04-09 03:16:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.

Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use


Grats on finding either a typo in the dictionary or pointing out that some lazy idiot needs to be fired at Websters
 
2014-04-09 03:17:49 PM  
I'm not sure how CNN came out with the article but AFAIK the price for the standard semi auto AR has been kinda sorta hovering around the same price point for the past couple years.
Maybe some of you more enthuse gun owners can shed some light on recent pricing.
 
2014-04-09 03:18:18 PM  

R.A.Danny: An Uzi is a rifle?


I'm pretty sure he's a Jew.
 
2014-04-09 03:18:49 PM  

dittybopper: So people should have just ignored him, because they should have known he wouldn't be able to get anything passed in Congress?


No, they should have totally freaked out and bought craploads of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines at exorbitant prices for naught, just like they did.

Obama can scream about banning assault rifles until he's blue in the face, but ain't nothing ever ever ever gonna happen. Not with this herpaderp Congress.
 
2014-04-09 03:20:12 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 03:20:31 PM  

Lando Lincoln: No, they should have totally freaked out and bought craploads of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines at exorbitant prices for naught, just like they did.


I sold the only "assault rifle" I had. Got a tidy sum for a shot out Czech POS.
 
2014-04-09 03:20:56 PM  
Thanks, Obama?
 
2014-04-09 03:21:15 PM  

R.A.Danny: An Uzi is a rifle?


No it's a glock.
 
2014-04-09 03:21:25 PM  
Fools and their money yadda yadda yadda.
 
2014-04-09 03:21:27 PM  

drew46n2: ooh, but at least you got your "man card" reissue for the penii-impaired
[img.fark.net image 466x626]


drew46n2: And if you REALLY need to over-compensate,


[img.fark.net image 582x426]


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-04-09 03:21:29 PM  
Is this the thread where everyone insists they didn't get ripped off and whines about what a good investment their gun was and how many times they've already fended off hoards of intruders with it?
 
2014-04-09 03:21:55 PM  

drew46n2: ooh, but at least you got your "man card" reissue for the penii-impaired
[img.fark.net image 466x626]


Never really understood the matching between guns as phallic symbols.

Unless your penis shoots bullets, you can't really say ones in compensation for a lack of the other because they have nothing to do with each other.
 
2014-04-09 03:22:00 PM  
Oh good!  Time to buy.
 
2014-04-09 03:22:12 PM  
www.quickmeme.com

Well, round two is over. Buy up now and resell when/if Hillary is elected.

Capitalism, it's the American Way.
 
2014-04-09 03:22:12 PM  

dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

You don't get to redefine technical definitions.  If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.


Your issue is with English speakers, Merriam-Webster and the OED. Not me. YOU are the one redefining words. You don't get to just pick definitions of words just because you like them.
 
2014-04-09 03:23:22 PM  
I wouldn't mind getting an AR lower, but prices are just to insane right now, not to mention frenzy on ammo hoarding.
 
2014-04-09 03:23:49 PM  

Ghastly: [img.fark.net image 850x1307]


It's a good thing I can laugh quietly at work.
 
2014-04-09 03:23:54 PM  
Buying a new gun or rifle is sorta like getting a puppy from the mall pet store: if you do either, you probably aren't qualified to own a firearm / dog.

Even a moderately cared-for firearm will last decades. There are so many second hand firearms for sale, like dogs at the pound.

Unless it's for a gift or ceremonial purpose, buying new is for suckers.
 
2014-04-09 03:24:05 PM  

drew46n2: R.A.Danny: The dead 6-year-olds are completely irrelevant


Of course they are. When talking about guns and violence it's important to disregard those who have been shot. The REAL victims are the backyard commandos who's ability to shoot watermelons apart on weekends is being threatened!


True, because they listen to the laws more so than the whacko who clearly ignored the 'gun free zone' line.
 
2014-04-09 03:24:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.

Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use


Some words in language shift over time. They have a "if everyone uses it a certain way for a while, it just becomes that new definition"

Technical terms on the other hand are, and should be, immune from that. Some words really do have specific meanings because they refer to a very specific thing and there are other terms that cover other things. Think of it this way: your metatarsal bones refer to specific bones in the human foot. If you got a bunch of non-doctors to start calling your jaw bone "the metatarsal" would that become the new definition? Of course not. Those people would just be wrong, no matter how many of them there are.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term for a specific group of firearms. Qualified gun experts, armorers, manufactures, etc know this. They are as much an authority on gun terms as a doctor would be on bones. Just because a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about, including those who write the Miriam Webster dictionary, don't really know what it means doesn't mean it doesn't have a specific definition.
 
2014-04-09 03:25:24 PM  

ShadowKamui: Grats on finding either a typo in the dictionary or pointing out that some lazy idiot needs to be fired at Websters


You'll note that I picked multiple dictionaries and they all have the same definition. Maybe it is you who is wrong, chief.
 
2014-04-09 03:25:27 PM  
But Obummer is gonna take 'em soon. A gun industry trade group said so.
 
2014-04-09 03:27:31 PM  
And I was going to retire from the t-shirt and coffee mug profits.

image16.spreadshirt.com
 
2014-04-09 03:27:56 PM  
ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.
 
2014-04-09 03:28:50 PM  

drew46n2: again, here you are trying to engage in a pedantic "debate" that really has zero relevance to the issue of gun violence. I know you'd rather talk about how assault rifles differ from "sporting" or "assault style" rifles because that DEFLECTS attention away from that pile of dead 6-year-olds in Connecticut.


Again, here you are arguing on emotion, without considering the practical and technical issues surrounding what you want to ban.

You say "ban assault weapons".

Well, OK, define them.

There are only two possible ways to do that:  By function, and by cosmetics.

By function, you'd have to ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.  That's the *ONLY* way to get an effective assault weapons ban, and it's *NEVER* going to happen because a lot of traditional hunting rifles and shotguns like the Ruger Mini-30, Remington 750 and 7500, Remington 1100, etc. would end up getting banned also.

That would upset the Fudds.

So really, the only way to ban assault weapons is based on cosmetic things that don't add to the lethality of the gun in the least:  Bayonet lugs, flash hiders/muzzle brakes, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc.

But that isn't going to do anything from a practical standpoint because you don't need those things for a functioning, lethal gun.

What you've done, at that point, is the equivalent of banning racing stripes and spoilers on cars, in an attempt to regulate street racing.  Think that'll work?
 
2014-04-09 03:30:25 PM  
www.gunnuts.net
 
KIA
2014-04-09 03:31:01 PM  
OMG, people own guns.  They also own knives and clubs and spears and swords and boomerangs.  Get over it.
 
2014-04-09 03:32:00 PM  
www.thegatewaypundit.com
 
2014-04-09 03:32:00 PM  
I have been furiously LOL'ing at the abundance of folks putting up their near new "blackrifles" for sale in certain forums and ad bulletins.  Every single one goes like this:

"Hey guys I'm selling my AR just bought last year, 100 rounds through it.  $800 firm"

[next day] "Reduced, to $750"

[next week] "I'll take $650 for it if someone will take it off my hands"


[week after] *crickets*
 
2014-04-09 03:32:04 PM  

dittybopper: Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.

*YES*.

SO VERY MUCH FARKING *THIS*.

The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.  This is perfectly encapsulated by Carolyn McCarthy whose signature issue was gun control (her husband was killed, and son wounded, in the Long Island Railroad massacre), who, when pressed about an assault weapons ban she introduced into Congress, couldn't define what a "barrel shroud" was, despite it being in the bill that she introduced, and ended up mistakenly calling it the "shoulder thing that goes up".

She literally didn't know the difference between a piece of sheet metal that surrounds the barrel of a gun, and a folding stock.

BTW, I don't know why it's OK to have a piece of walnut surrounding a barrel, but not a piece of steel.  Doesn't seem to be a rational difference to me, but then, I generally know what I'm talking about when it comes to firearms.


You shouldn't get too wound up about it. Liberal Progressives live in fear of of guns and people with guns. They don't understand the hobby and would rather, for the most part, would do away with anyone being able to  own anything might be used to harm another.

You can't blame them though, they have been trained since youth to fear things that they don't understand and are soft minded enough to think that anything for "the greater good" is acceptable and right. This is especially true if you can find some reason to form a new gov't agency to regulate anything that they have an issue with. Being good sheep is about being part of the collective, and they certainly don't want to be seen as bad sheep by their Central Planning handlers.
 
2014-04-09 03:32:30 PM  

sigdiamond2000: A guy at my local food co-op told me that people are modifying automatic AR-47 assault rifles so they can shoot two 40-caliper clips of hollow-point shotgun shells at the same time.


My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

/I don't get my weapons news at the farmers market.
//The produce is really fresh though.
 
2014-04-09 03:33:21 PM  
jaybeezey:

You can't blame them though, they have been trained since youth to fear things that they don't understand and are soft minded enough to think that anything for "the greater good" is acceptable and right. This is especially true if you can find some reason to form a new gov't agency to regulate anything that they have an issue with. Being good sheep is about being part of the collective, and they certainly don't want to be seen as bad sheep by their Central Planning handlers.

www.studybreakmedia.com
 
2014-04-09 03:33:26 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: But Obummer is gonna take 'em soon. A gun industry trade group said so.


Uh, no.  Obama said so.  He even said if Congress didn't act, he would look for ways to act on his own.  The fact that he failed miserably might have reasonably been foreseeable, but your statement is as wrong as wrong can be.
 
2014-04-09 03:33:52 PM  

Ghastly: I like my firearms to have less chance of being all explodey in my hands.


Lower receiver on an AR-15 doesn't need to be particularly strong.  That's why it was originally (and still is) made from an aluminum alloy.  And if it fails, it won't explode.

I'd shoot an AR-15 with a plastic or wooden lower.  Maybe I'd wear leather gloves so I don't get a splinter with the wooden one.

I also remember seeing an AR-15 lower a guy built from appropriately cut and drilled brass sheets.  It was held together by nuts and bolts, and IIRC, it was functional but heavier than an aluminum one.
 
2014-04-09 03:34:53 PM  

dittybopper: drew46n2: again, here you are trying to engage in a pedantic "debate" that really has zero relevance to the issue of gun violence. I know you'd rather talk about how assault rifles differ from "sporting" or "assault style" rifles because that DEFLECTS attention away from that pile of dead 6-year-olds in Connecticut.

Again, here you are arguing on emotion, without considering the practical and technical issues surrounding what you want to ban.

You say "ban assault weapons".

Well, OK, define them.

There are only two possible ways to do that:  By function, and by cosmetics.

By function, you'd have to ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.  That's the *ONLY* way to get an effective assault weapons ban, and it's *NEVER* going to happen because a lot of traditional hunting rifles and shotguns like the Ruger Mini-30, Remington 750 and 7500, Remington 1100, etc. would end up getting banned also.

That would upset the Fudds.

So really, the only way to ban assault weapons is based on cosmetic things that don't add to the lethality of the gun in the least:  Bayonet lugs, flash hiders/muzzle brakes, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc.

But that isn't going to do anything from a practical standpoint because you don't need those things for a functioning, lethal gun.

What you've done, at that point, is the equivalent of banning racing stripes and spoilers on cars, in an attempt to regulate street racing.  Think that'll work?


You sound like a child molester arguing over what exactly the word "consent" means.
 
2014-04-09 03:35:26 PM  

drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.


The difference between the barrel shroud and a folding stock is not minutiae.  If you can't understand that simple difference, then defer to those who do.  Of course, this should apply to any technical issue where experts and engineers actually know what they're talking about, like medicine, internet access, encryption, etc.  (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.)

It'll never happen, but we can dream.
 
2014-04-09 03:36:48 PM  

BarleyGnome: I wouldn't mind getting an AR lower, but prices are just to insane right now, not to mention frenzy on ammo hoarding.


THIS.

Fark!  Anyone want to invest in a target ammunition company?  9mm, .223, .40, and .45.  We'll make millions.
 
2014-04-09 03:37:49 PM  

rwhamann: drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

The difference between the barrel shroud and a folding stock is not minutiae.  If you can't understand that simple difference, then defer to those who do.  Of course, this should apply to any technical issue where experts and engineers actually know what they're talking about, like medicine, internet access, encryption, etc.  (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.)

It'll never happen, but we can dream.


Let me ask you this: Is a barrel shroud or a folding stock more likely to be present on a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Once you can answer that question then you will understand why rifles are classified this way rather than on magazine or clip capacity or caliber.
 
2014-04-09 03:38:14 PM  

dittybopper: drew46n2: again, here you are trying to engage in a pedantic "debate" that really has zero relevance to the issue of gun violence. I know you'd rather talk about how assault rifles differ from "sporting" or "assault style" rifles because that DEFLECTS attention away from that pile of dead 6-year-olds in Connecticut.

Again, here you are arguing on emotion, without considering the practical and technical issues surrounding what you want to ban.

You say "ban assault weapons".

Well, OK, define them.

There are only two possible ways to do that:  By function, and by cosmetics.

By function, you'd have to ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.  That's the *ONLY* way to get an effective assault weapons ban, and it's *NEVER* going to happen because a lot of traditional hunting rifles and shotguns like the Ruger Mini-30, Remington 750 and 7500, Remington 1100, etc. would end up getting banned also.

That would upset the Fudds.

So really, the only way to ban assault weapons is based on cosmetic things that don't add to the lethality of the gun in the least:  Bayonet lugs, flash hiders/muzzle brakes, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc.

But that isn't going to do anything from a practical standpoint because you don't need those things for a functioning, lethal gun.

What you've done, at that point, is the equivalent of banning racing stripes and spoilers on cars, in an attempt to regulate street racing.  Think that'll work?


Rule number one for having a discussion about anything is to actually know what the fark you're talking about. If you're going to debate a topic, you need to be informed about the topic. Basic definitions of words and terms is required. If you can't be bothered to actually know what something is before you start talking about it, much less talking about banning it, you cannot be taken seriously.

This is especially important when you're talking about  law. Law has to be specific, technical, and correct by its very nature. Why don't don't we just have one law in the whole country that just says "don't do bad stuff". Well what's bad stuff? What constitutes doing? Laws must be spelled out as precise as they can be so that people actually know if their own specific action is prohibited or if it's not. Middle ground and grey areas are a disaster and one of the reasons why we could fill warehouses with court opinions that spell things out even more precisely because the law wasn't specific enough when it was written.

So yes, if you're going to jump into a discussion about laws pertaining to gun, you damn well better know exactly what you're talking about, what things mean, what they don't mean and why. That's what laws are based on. And if you don't know that stuff your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.
 
2014-04-09 03:38:27 PM  
cybermech.net
 
2014-04-09 03:38:42 PM  

sigdiamond2000: A guy at my local food co-op told me that people are modifying automatic AR-47 assault rifles so they can shoot two 40-caliper clips of hollow-point shotgun shells at the same time.

Do we, as a people, really need weapons that are this needlessly destructive?


Depends on a) the size of your dick and b) how much of a coward you are.

If you're a real man, you don't need that crap.

And after having been shown how a ban a large clips isn't needed because they don't really slow anyone down, I'm convinced that a ban on large clips wouldn't hurt anyone, so why should anyone care if large clips are banned?
 
2014-04-09 03:39:05 PM  

Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355e nr .pdf

Pages 202 and 203.
 
2014-04-09 03:40:25 PM  

Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,



So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.
 
2014-04-09 03:42:56 PM  

stonicus: You sound like a child molester arguing over what exactly the word "consent" means.


Nice ad hominem.

You sound like a prosecutor trying to convict someone of a sex crime because they took a piss in an alley behind a dumpster.
 
2014-04-09 03:43:56 PM  
Few things give me greater pleasure than seeing a butthurt gun nut.
 
2014-04-09 03:44:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

You don't get to redefine technical definitions.  If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.

Your issue is with English speakers, Merriam-Webster and the OED. Not me. YOU are the one redefining words. You don't get to just pick definitions of words just because you like them.


Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

The ATF doesn't use the term assault rifle either. To them it's either a machine gun, a destructive device, or a normal firearm (shotgun, rifle, pistol). The ATF considers an AR-15 just a rifle. It considers an M-16 a machine gun. There's not really a way to reconcile the difference between the two if you want to class the weapons together in any meaningful way according to US law. A journalist writing about weapons like an AR-15 and calling them "assault rifles" is miserably failing AP style for these reasons, and mass media is where the redefinition is primarily being pushed from.
 
2014-04-09 03:44:37 PM  

dittybopper: So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.


And that's why the gun lobby loves you.
 
2014-04-09 03:44:58 PM  
You have to be pretty damn stupid to be a gun nut so this is not surprising.
 
2014-04-09 03:45:02 PM  

stonicus: dittybopper: drew46n2: again, here you are trying to engage in a pedantic "debate" that really has zero relevance to the issue of gun violence. I know you'd rather talk about how assault rifles differ from "sporting" or "assault style" rifles because that DEFLECTS attention away from that pile of dead 6-year-olds in Connecticut.

Again, here you are arguing on emotion, without considering the practical and technical issues surrounding what you want to ban.

You say "ban assault weapons".

Well, OK, define them.

There are only two possible ways to do that:  By function, and by cosmetics.

By function, you'd have to ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.  That's the *ONLY* way to get an effective assault weapons ban, and it's *NEVER* going to happen because a lot of traditional hunting rifles and shotguns like the Ruger Mini-30, Remington 750 and 7500, Remington 1100, etc. would end up getting banned also.

That would upset the Fudds.

So really, the only way to ban assault weapons is based on cosmetic things that don't add to the lethality of the gun in the least:  Bayonet lugs, flash hiders/muzzle brakes, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc.

But that isn't going to do anything from a practical standpoint because you don't need those things for a functioning, lethal gun.

What you've done, at that point, is the equivalent of banning racing stripes and spoilers on cars, in an attempt to regulate street racing.  Think that'll work?

You sound like a child molester arguing over what exactly the word "consent" means.


And you sound like a loon who thinks that all penetrative sex is rape.
 
2014-04-09 03:45:03 PM  

dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.


 Ban != confiscation. Assault weapons != all firearms

And you wonder why we call you gun  nuts.
 
2014-04-09 03:45:10 PM  
cameroncrazy1984: rwhamann: drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.


I thought you said you were going outside because it was nice out.
 
2014-04-09 03:45:53 PM  

redmid17: Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.


I don't think you actually read the definition of assault rifle...
 
2014-04-09 03:46:07 PM  
dittybopper: "So people should have just ignored him, because they should have known he wouldn't be able to get anything passed in Congress?"

More or less, yeah. "Concerned" hunters and sportsmen should have, instead of freaking out and buying gobs of ammo and eating panic-induced price-hikes, just noted the political rhetoric and then chuckled.

1, because they ought to have paid attention in civics class and known that the President doesn't have much to do with it and 2, because they ought to have a memory longer than a goldfish.
There has been no shortage of high profile shootings since, say, Columbine, and each of those has seen political rhetoric about gun legislation in their wake. And time and again they've only demonstrated the NRA is in no way threatened. The politicians pushing legislation are people who have absolutely no political clout, are getting their clocks cleaned in the judiciary and are reduced to seeking political points with talk.

Never mind that "Obama coming for your guns" started as a meme long before Sandy Hook. For years the only 'evidence' was vague intimations that he was a Chicago politician or just a 'liberal' -- as if those were cause enough to justify the panic. Then there was the bit where the fear mongers and paranoiacs wet their pants because some 'new' guidelines from "Obama's" park service mentioned the responsibility that sportsmen have on public land, without explicitly declaring the *primacy* of their rights. Despite there being no real *actual* change in policy in that document that remotely threatened the status quo, it was paraded around as 'proof' of Obama-coming-for-your-guns. Or do you remember the co-opted Alex Jones/Glenn Beck nonsense about government agencies buying tons of ammo? How that was turned into the "reason" ammo prices shot up *and* (somehow) evidence that Obama's shock troops (probably Acorn) were preparing to go house-to-house to seize guns?

So let's not pretend like this idea was a response to any actual evidence. It's been something between a self-reinforcing delusion and money-making meme in search of a justification for years. Just because evidence of an intent finally showed up -- never mind us all knowing that intent was never going to be enough to enact change -- that doesn't retroactively justify the fear-mongering and profiteering.
 
2014-04-09 03:46:32 PM  

Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.

And that's why the gun lobby loves you.


When the ALA comes out in support of 1st amendment rights, do you accuse them of being in bed with Big Book?

http://www.ala.org/
 
2014-04-09 03:46:40 PM  

Actual Farking: drew46n2: And if you REALLY need to over-compensate,


[img.fark.net image 582x426]

You know this guy is packing a monster hog.

[www.recoilweb.com image 618x412]


I lost it when I saw the wall mount. LOL.
 
2014-04-09 03:46:46 PM  

dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.


But we have a government that was built on a system of checks and balances, the president is not a dictator, no matter how much the insane right wing wants you to believe it.

No gun control would ever pass a GOP controlled house, ever. They couldn't even get healthcare reform through a DNC controlled house. "Gun Control" is a political third rail in this country these days, Dems just have to keep paying lip service to it.

You were scared into buying soemthing by people who stood to profit substantially by doing so. You got duped, it happens to everyone. I bought a new HVAC system last year I'm not certain I needed.

Just take a deep breath and enjoy your hobby. Hobbies are fun and they're supposed to take your time and money.
 
2014-04-09 03:46:46 PM  
I'll never sell my ghost gun though.

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

"This is a ghost gun, this right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second."
 
2014-04-09 03:47:09 PM  

Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: cameroncrazy1984: rwhamann: drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

I thought you said you were going outside because it was nice out.


I did go outside. But that's not my quote.
 
2014-04-09 03:48:56 PM  

dittybopper: stonicus: You sound like a child molester arguing over what exactly the word "consent" means.

Nice ad hominem.

You sound like a prosecutor trying to convict someone of a sex crime because they took a piss in an alley behind a dumpster.


Ehhh, 5/10... I'll give you a second chance... try again... =)
 
2014-04-09 03:49:27 PM  

impaler: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Assault rifle means it's

1) for assault
2) a rifle

See Uzi.


I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.

My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?

scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-04-09 03:49:47 PM  

rwhamann: (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.


Interesting. If I called up an antique gun parts store and asked if they carried any M1 Garand magazines, what would they think I was talking about? I'll give you a hint. If they mailed me some replacement stripper clips, they would have sent me the wrong part. The magazine on a Garand is actually part of the rifle itself and clips are used to press rounds into the magazine, then discarded.

The reason why clip and magazine aren't interchangeable is because some guns do use actual clips and some use detachable magazines, and they're not the same kind of part. You can't just call up an auto parts store and expect them to know if you're talking about disc brakes or drum brakes when you just say "brakes". They're not the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable. Thinking they are just makes you wrong and ignorant. It's the same with magazine and clip. Using them interchangeably just shows you haven't actually learned what they mean yet.
 
2014-04-09 03:50:13 PM  
For everyone's edification, the 2009 AP Stylebook entry for assault rifle and assault weapon:

"assault rifle: a rifle that is capable of being fired in fully automatic and semi-automatic modes, at the user's option. Designed for, and used by, miltary forces. Also used by some law enforcement agencies. The form: "an M16 assault rifle""

"assault weapon: a semi-automatic firearm similar in appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.  Not synonomouswith assault rifle, which can be used in fully automatic mode. Wherever possible, be specific about the type of weapon: semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic shotgun, semi-automatic pistol"

If you guys want, I can post the AP stylebook definition of "automatic" too.
 
2014-04-09 03:50:44 PM  

Jackson Herring: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

my ten year old cousin told me the other day that obama is going take away all my guns

this is not a joke


That's nonsense.  Commieneticut is going to do it first.  They're already trying with great success.
 
2014-04-09 03:50:47 PM  

dittybopper: self important blabber.


It was just too much to ask that you read the article, wasn't it? Much more important that you indulge yourself in some self-aggrandizing pseudo intellectual "let me tell you about guns" bullsh*t.

You're "that gun owner" the rest of us walk away from...
 
2014-04-09 03:50:53 PM  
I sold one of my EBR's (evil black rifles) last year for about twice what I paid for it 10 years ago.

Then I bought a Bowtech compound bow.

The bow is fun to shoot and I can do it in the backyard, as long as the kiddos are inside.  I can't shoot the rifles I have due to the vicinity of other houses.

Well, I probably COULD shoot them, I just prefer not to get in trouble with the cops.  Or my neighbors.  Or my neighbor who is a cop.
 
2014-04-09 03:50:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

I don't think you actually read the definition of assault rifle...


I read it and you're wrong, to put it bluntly.
 
2014-04-09 03:53:02 PM  

dittybopper: Lower receiver on an AR-15 doesn't need to be particularly strong. That's why it was originally (and still is) made from an aluminum alloy. And if it fails, it won't explode.


One dude made a functioning(don't know how many shots) lower from paper mache.
 
2014-04-09 03:54:10 PM  

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

I don't think you actually read the definition of assault rifle...

I read it and you're wrong, to put it bluntly.


I'm wrong because reasons, obviously.
 
2014-04-09 03:55:14 PM  
Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 03:55:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

I don't think you actually read the definition of assault rifle...

I read it and you're wrong, to put it bluntly.

I'm wrong because reasons, obviously.


Yeah. AP stylebook says Mr CNN is wrong in the article. Manufacturers, the ATF, militaries, and people who fix and sell them all disagree with you. Do you have a particular authority outside of non subject matter experts that you'd like to consult?
 
2014-04-09 03:55:49 PM  

dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.


Says right there he's gonna beat down your door and personally rip them out of your hands.  Horror of horrors.  How will you ever protect yourself with just the rest of your hand guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles?  Oh and I know you're a black powder guy so those too.
 
2014-04-09 03:56:20 PM  

drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]


Cowards that like to intimidate people.
 
2014-04-09 03:58:18 PM  

CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.


Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."
 
2014-04-09 03:59:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.

Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use


And Merriam-Webster isn't a legal or firearms reference book. Try Jane's. Try the law.
 
2014-04-09 04:00:28 PM  
Is anyone old enough to remember the "Liberator" guns from WWII, they'd drop them behind enemy lines in Europe, it was a single shot .45, intended for close range, with a single .45 "dum-dum" round. made for short range targets, due to the smooth bore. I've head stories of people getting shot with those kinda rounds, they'll messed someone up when a round goes whizzing through the body, on a roller coaster ride. Nowadays it's different:
www.therpf.com  Time to ban epoxy now, I guess?
 
2014-04-09 04:00:35 PM  

Best Princess Celestia: drew46n2: ooh, but at least you got your "man card" reissue for the penii-impaired
[img.fark.net image 466x626]

Never really understood the matching between guns as phallic symbols.

Unless your penis shoots bullets, you can't really say ones in compensation for a lack of the other because they have nothing to do with each other.


The phrase shooting blanks to refer to male infertility is older than me.
/Old.
 
2014-04-09 04:00:50 PM  

redmid17: Manufacturers, the ATF, militaries, and people who fix and sell them all disagree with you. Do you have a particular authority outside of non subject matter experts that you'd like to consult?


I have the authority of the English language. The AP stylebook doesn't say what you'd like it to say, either.

Funny that you guys would rather talk about this meaningless bullsh*t that you're wrong on and avoid the topic of why cosmetic items are used to differentiate different types of firearms.
 
2014-04-09 04:01:12 PM  
Sheesh!

Yes, rifles have been really expensive lately.

But my question is this... when the hell is .22 lr going to be back in stock again and cheap. Because holy shiat am I tired of having to scrape around for whatever i can find. 22lr is just about as hard to find as hens teeth still.
 
2014-04-09 04:01:26 PM  

anuran: And Merriam-Webster isn't a legal or firearms reference book. Try Jane's. Try the law.


Merriam-Webster, last I checked, is an authority on the English language.  We're not debating law right now we are debating language.
 
2014-04-09 04:02:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: James!: 

Don't waste your time getting into a semantic argument over gun words.

You're right. I'm actually about to go outside - it's a beautiful day.


In other words: "I'm wrong! fark you! I'm taking my ball and running 

impaler: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Assault rifle means it's

1) for assault
2) a rifle

See Uzi.


No, ignoramus. An assault rifle is a selective fire small-to-medium caliber rifle.
 
2014-04-09 04:03:05 PM  

anuran: In other words: "I'm wrong! fark you! I'm taking my ball and running


WTF are you talking about? I'm right here, dumbass. I took a break for an hour because it's one of the first beautiful days we've had in awhile.
 
2014-04-09 04:06:48 PM  

BarleyGnome: I wouldn't mind getting an AR lower, but prices are just to insane right now, not to mention frenzy on ammo hoarding.


Get a 70% or 80% lower and find someone with a decent shop.
 
2014-04-09 04:07:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Manufacturers, the ATF, militaries, and people who fix and sell them all disagree with you. Do you have a particular authority outside of non subject matter experts that you'd like to consult?

I have the authority of the English language. The AP stylebook doesn't say what you'd like it to say, either.

Funny that you guys would rather talk about this meaningless bullsh*t that you're wrong on and avoid the topic of why cosmetic items are used to differentiate different types of firearms.


Here, let me post a picture of the page of the AP Stylebook I'm staring at. I'm sure you have one that refutes the definition I found since you seem to be so sure. I already typed it out for the thread, but I do love reiterating myself to people who can't or won't read. It's not just cosmetic differences differentiating the types of firearms. It's actual functionality too (ie semi-auto vs auto), the kind of distinctions that the laws make.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-09 04:08:28 PM  

Ex-Texan: Is anyone old enough to remember the "Liberator" guns from WWII, they'd drop them behind enemy lines in Europe, it was a single shot .45, intended for close range, with a single .45 "dum-dum" round. made for short range targets, due to the smooth bore. I've head stories of people getting shot with those kinda rounds, they'll messed someone up when a round goes whizzing through the body, on a roller coaster ride. Nowadays it's different:
[www.therpf.com image 850x637]  Time to ban epoxy now, I guess?


The Liberator was basically a single-use pistol to be used to kill a German soldier for his weapon, it didn't use dum-dum rounds, just regular .45 ACP with full metal jacketed ammo.
 
2014-04-09 04:09:03 PM  

CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.


Are you intimidated yet?

www.opencarrytexas.org

www.opencarrytexas.org
 
2014-04-09 04:09:45 PM  
I bought an AR15 the day of the Newton shootings because i knew this country would flip out and prices would go through the roof.  I liked it better than the AR I already owned so I sold the old one for $500 than I paid for it, which paid for the new one plus a few hundred in profit.  I could have sold it for $200-300 more but I sold it to a friend and didn't want to dick him.
 
2014-04-09 04:12:45 PM  

JesseL: I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.

My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?


No, it's not designed for military forces.
 
2014-04-09 04:12:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Let me ask you this: Is a barrel shroud or a folding stock more likely to be present on a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Once you can answer that question then you will understand why rifles are classified this way rather than on magazine or clip capacity or caliber.


Nice deflection - the legislator pushing for the law could not trouble herself to educate herself on the basic points - which end is the bangy part and which end is the holdy part.  Get it?  What's your field of expertise?  Do you want someone making laws that govern you without knowing something taught in the first 5 minutes of whatever training you've taken?  If she'd mistaken upper and lower receiver, I wouldn't have commented.  If she'd mistaken clip and magazine, I'd laugh at people that complained.  If she'd mistaken bayonet lug for flash suppressor, I'd have sympathy for her.

She doesn't need to be Dr. Oakley, gun scientician, but she needs to show that she took the trouble to understand what she's doing.
 
2014-04-09 04:15:52 PM  
This is totally a bookmark.
 
2014-04-09 04:17:23 PM  

The Homer Tax: They couldn't even get healthcare reform through a

JesseL: impaler: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Assault rifle means it's
1) for assault
2) a rifle

See Uzi.
I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.
My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?
[scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]
 controlled house.


That looks like no Mossberg I've ever seen.
I give up: What the fark is it?
 
2014-04-09 04:18:36 PM  

mediablitz: dittybopper: self important blabber.

It was just too much to ask that you read the article, wasn't it? Much more important that you indulge yourself in some self-aggrandizing pseudo intellectual "let me tell you about guns" bullsh*t.

You're "that gun owner" the rest of us walk away from...


Here, let me gunsplain this to you...
 
2014-04-09 04:19:30 PM  

This text is now purple: Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355e nr .pdf

Pages 202 and 203.


OK, let's look at that:

''(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept
a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-
''(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
''(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
''(iii) a bayonet mount;
''(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed
to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
''(v) a grenade launcher;


So let's look at those features, shall we?

(i) a folding or telescoping stock

There is already a minimum overall length for rifles written into the law:  A rifle can be no shorter than 26 inches overall length with the stock folded.  So even if you have a folding stock, it still has to be more than 2 feet long (16 inches of which must be barrel).

So what happens if you ban them?  People just make shorter-stocked guns to make them handier.  You haven't gained anything.

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;


I'm pretty familiar with weapons, and I can't for the life of me see why this is a problem.  It's a consequence of design:  Pistol grips came about because in order to reduce the amount of muzzle climb, firearms designers moved the stock to be in-line with the axis of the barrel.  That means the recoil goes straight back into the shoulder, instead of up and back.  The problem was a traditional style stock would be *EXTREMELY* awkward in that configuration.  Take a yardstick (or any straight thing, like a hunk of PVC pipe), hold it up to your shoulder, and try to grip it like a rifle.  See how your trigger arm is all akimbo?  It's uncomfortable, and definitely not conducive to accurate shooting.

So the solution was to make a separate pistol grip.

That's what it's for, ergonomics when firing from the shoulder.

(iii) a bayonet mount;

OK, if you can come up with a serious reason why these need to go, you let me know.  I've been following this issue closely for 30 years now, and I've never heard of any serious bayonet attacks.

'(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed
to accommodate a flash suppressor;


Again, I'm at a loss for why these are "bad".  All flash suppressors do is diffuse the flash from firing.  It's still visible, and it doesn't effect the lethality of the projectile in the least.  In fact, a bunch of modern military rifles don't even have them.  For example, the AKM doesn't use one, and neither does the AK-74.  They have muzzle brakes, which help reduce muzzle climb similar to the Browning BOSS system or ported shotgun barrels used by civilian sportsmen.

'(v) a grenade launcher

Grenades themselves are classified as "destructive devices" under federal law and you have to register them with the ATF and pay a $200 tax for *EACH* one you own.

Also, this is actually meaningless because rod-type rifle grenades can be used by any rifle, including single-shot hunting guns.

In any event, again, I haven't heard of this being a problem.  *EVER*.

So let's sum up:  There is a legal minimum length for rifles that applies to all rifles, even those with a folding stock, pistol grips are the ergonomic solution to gripping a rifle that has a stock with no drop, flash hiders don't do anything to increase the ability to hide nor do they increase how deadly the gun is, nobody is going around bayoneting people, and neither is anyone doing rifle grenade massacres.

So what was the point again?
 
2014-04-09 04:19:35 PM  

impaler: JesseL: I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.

My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?

No, it's not designed for military forces.


True, it's not. This one was though:

scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-04-09 04:19:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Homer Tax: They couldn't even get healthcare reform through a JesseL: impaler: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Assault rifle means it's
1) for assault
2) a rifle

See Uzi.
I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.
My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?
[scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]
 controlled house.

That looks like no Mossberg I've ever seen.
I give up: What the fark is it?


MVP Patrol.  I think.
 
2014-04-09 04:20:08 PM  

jaybeezey: dittybopper: Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.

*YES*.

SO VERY MUCH FARKING *THIS*.

The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.  This is perfectly encapsulated by Carolyn McCarthy whose signature issue was gun control (her husband was killed, and son wounded, in the Long Island Railroad massacre), who, when pressed about an assault weapons ban she introduced into Congress, couldn't define what a "barrel shroud" was, despite it being in the bill that she introduced, and ended up mistakenly calling it the "shoulder thing that goes up".

She literally didn't know the difference between a piece of sheet metal that surrounds the barrel of a gun, and a folding stock.

BTW, I don't know why it's OK to have a piece of walnut surrounding a barrel, but not a piece of steel.  Doesn't seem to be a rational difference to me, but then, I generally know what I'm talking about when it comes to firearms.

You shouldn't get too wound up about it. Liberal Progressives live in fear of of guns and people with guns. They don't understand the hobby and would rather, for the most part, would do away with anyone being able to  own anything might be used to harm another.

You can't blame them though, they have been trained since youth to fear things that they don't understand and are soft minded enough to think that anything for "the greater good" is acceptable and right. This is especially true if you can find some reason to form a new gov't agency to regulate anything that they have an issue with. Being good sheep is about being part of the collective, and they certainly don't want to be seen as bad sheep by their Central Planning handlers.


That is why I am a Compassionate Liberal. I often take out my gun collection, clean them, check my ammo stores, check my stock of rags and glass bottles. For when the revolution comes and we take back this country from the Republitards, the 1%ers, the Christians, and bankers I will eagerly be on the front lines burning, shooting and rapeing those people I don't insto submission. Compassionate Liberalism at it's finest.
 
2014-04-09 04:20:31 PM  

taurusowner: rwhamann: (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.

Interesting. If I called up an antique gun parts store and asked if they carried any M1 Garand magazines, what would they think I was talking about? I'll give you a hint. If they mailed me some replacement stripper clips, they would have sent me the wrong part. The magazine on a Garand is actually part of the rifle itself and clips are used to press rounds into the magazine, then discarded.

The reason why clip and magazine aren't interchangeable is because some guns do use actual clips and some use detachable magazines, and they're not the same kind of part. You can't just call up an auto parts store and expect them to know if you're talking about disc brakes or drum brakes when you just say "brakes". They're not the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable. Thinking they are just makes you wrong and ignorant. It's the same with magazine and clip. Using them interchangeably just shows you haven't actually learned what they mean yet.


In a gun store, yes, they are definitely distinct terms.  In a law, they damn well better be spelled out.  Talking head or otherwise discussing the broad idea that they want guns with a maximum load of 10 rounds, I could give a shiat what word he or she uses, because the effect they're trying to achieve is indistinguishable.
 
2014-04-09 04:20:33 PM  

redmid17: For everyone's edification, the 2009 AP Stylebook entry for assault rifle and assault weapon:

"assault rifle: a rifle that is capable of being fired in fully automatic and semi-automatic modes, at the user's option. Designed for, and used by, miltary forces. Also used by some law enforcement agencies. The form: "an M16 assault rifle""

"assault weapon: a semi-automatic firearm similar in appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.  Not synonomouswith assault rifle, which can be used in fully automatic mode. Wherever possible, be specific about the type of weapon: semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic shotgun, semi-automatic pistol"

If you guys want, I can post the AP stylebook definition of "automatic" too.


The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.
 
2014-04-09 04:22:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: rwhamann: drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

The difference between the barrel shroud and a folding stock is not minutiae.  If you can't understand that simple difference, then defer to those who do.  Of course, this should apply to any technical issue where experts and engineers actually know what they're talking about, like medicine, internet access, encryption, etc.  (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.)

It'll never happen, but we can dream.

Let me ask you this: Is a barrel shroud or a folding stock more likely to be present on a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Once you can answer that question then you will understand why rifles are classified this way rather than on magazine or clip capacity or caliber.


You know; my 76 year old mosin nagant has a barrel shroud. It's just made of wood. It's main utility is to allow me not to burn my hand on the barrel. Plenty of hunting rifles have full or partial shrouds.
 
2014-04-09 04:23:29 PM  
So for as little as $375 dollars I can buy an assult rifle and then be assured that I will meet Obama when he comes to take it from me?

That sounds like a bargain, meeting him otherwise would involve airfare, hotels, lucky timing, and maybe even a large campaign donation. I would literaly be saving thousands.
 
2014-04-09 04:24:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Homer Tax: They couldn't even get healthcare reform through a JesseL: impaler: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Assault rifle means it's
1) for assault
2) a rifle

See Uzi.
I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.
My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?
[scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]
 controlled house.

That looks like no Mossberg I've ever seen.
I give up: What the fark is it?


Looks like one of these but I can't tell if his is bolt-action or not. I think I see the handle, but it's kind of dark.
 
2014-04-09 04:26:04 PM  

dittybopper: Of course, if you're more handy than that, you could always build an AK out of a shiat-shovel


That one is just amazing every time I see it...
 
2014-04-09 04:26:22 PM  

Farking Canuck: redmid17: For everyone's edification, the 2009 AP Stylebook entry for assault rifle and assault weapon:

"assault rifle: a rifle that is capable of being fired in fully automatic and semi-automatic modes, at the user's option. Designed for, and used by, miltary forces. Also used by some law enforcement agencies. The form: "an M16 assault rifle""

"assault weapon: a semi-automatic firearm similar in appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.  Not synonomouswith assault rifle, which can be used in fully automatic mode. Wherever possible, be specific about the type of weapon: semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic shotgun, semi-automatic pistol"

If you guys want, I can post the AP stylebook definition of "automatic" too.

The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.


Semantics matter when you send people to jail over them.

Semantics matter when you want to deliberately confuse the public into thinking that a popular sporting rifle is a machine gun.
 
2014-04-09 04:26:50 PM  

redmid17: Here, let me post a picture of the page of the AP Stylebook I'm staring at. I'm sure you have one that refutes the definition I found since you seem to be so sure


You don't seem to get that the AP stylebook jibes perfectly with the dictionary definition.
 
2014-04-09 04:26:52 PM  

sigdiamond2000: A guy at my local food co-op told me that people are modifying automatic AR-47 assault rifles so they can shoot two 40-caliper clips of hollow-point shotgun shells at the same time.

Do we, as a people, really need weapons that are this needlessly destructive?


Someone should put the brakes on that.
 
2014-04-09 04:27:48 PM  

Actual Farking: drew46n2: And if you REALLY need to over-compensate,


[img.fark.net image 582x426]

You know this guy is packing a monster hog.

[www.recoilweb.com image 618x412]


And he's about to break his farking jaw...
 
2014-04-09 04:28:21 PM  

gravy chugging cretin.: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Are you intimidated yet?

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x637]

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x566]


Retards with guns should scare anyone.
 
2014-04-09 04:29:12 PM  

Ex-Texan: Is anyone old enough to remember the "Liberator" guns from WWII, they'd drop them behind enemy lines in Europe, it was a single shot .45, intended for close range, with a single .45 "dum-dum" round. made for short range targets, due to the smooth bore. I've head stories of people getting shot with those kinda rounds, they'll messed someone up when a round goes whizzing through the body, on a roller coaster ride. Nowadays it's different:
  Time to ban epoxy now, I guess?


Wasnt that thing in a Clint Eastwood movie?
 
2014-04-09 04:30:24 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Here, let me post a picture of the page of the AP Stylebook I'm staring at. I'm sure you have one that refutes the definition I found since you seem to be so sure

You don't seem to get that the AP stylebook jibes perfectly with the dictionary definition.


Because Merriam Webster has final say on the actual legal definition of things, right?
 
2014-04-09 04:30:28 PM  

Farking Canuck: The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.


The people who will end up having to comply with the law care, because it's their ass on the line.

Is that reason enough?
 
2014-04-09 04:30:34 PM  

Farking Canuck: redmid17: For everyone's edification, the 2009 AP Stylebook entry for assault rifle and assault weapon:

"assault rifle: a rifle that is capable of being fired in fully automatic and semi-automatic modes, at the user's option. Designed for, and used by, miltary forces. Also used by some law enforcement agencies. The form: "an M16 assault rifle""

"assault weapon: a semi-automatic firearm similar in appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.  Not synonomouswith assault rifle, which can be used in fully automatic mode. Wherever possible, be specific about the type of weapon: semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic shotgun, semi-automatic pistol"

If you guys want, I can post the AP stylebook definition of "automatic" too.

The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.


To risk being pedantic, there is a pretty big difference and it's not minutae. Like I said before, the ATF treats the two very differently. I don't really care about the assault weapon definition, even though I think it's a stupid designation. It's changed several times and exists in varying forms in different cities, states, and on a national level (past and proposed). An assault rifle is a 'machine gun' per the ATF. There is a small pool for civilians, who are heavily vetted, to legally purchase and it is heavily, heavily regulated . If you get caught in possession of an unregistered (or one not registered to you) machine gun in the US, you're looking at 10 years in jail, a felony, and up to 250K fine.  That is anywhere in the US and its territories.

Assault weapons might have similar penalties, but those weapons are legal some places, need to be registered elsewhere, and are completely banned in others. The functional and cosmetic aspects aside, there is a huge disparity on how the law treats them. That is why some people care.

/also plenty of people in this thread seem to care
//welcome to fark
 
2014-04-09 04:31:00 PM  
When you say:

Farking Canuck: The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.


I hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."
 
2014-04-09 04:32:56 PM  

steve42: When you say:

Farking Canuck: The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.

I hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."


That's because you are a paranoid gun nut and probably have mental problems.
 
2014-04-09 04:33:27 PM  

drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."


You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.
 
2014-04-09 04:33:27 PM  
Not sure how I came out. I bought an older a2 style ar15 last fall from a friend for $425. Decided I didn't like the a2 style and sold the upper for $225. I probably spent $7-800 on the new upper I built but it's all high quality shiat I wanted.
 
2014-04-09 04:33:55 PM  

dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: You mean gun nuts are gullible morons? I have to sit down for this.

You mean they actually believed politicians who said they were going to try and ban assault weapons?  Why, the *FOOLS*!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/obama-gun-violence-task-for ce _n_2331238.html
WASHINGTON - Declaring the time for action overdue, President Barack Obama promised on Wednesday to send Congress broad proposals in January for tightening gun laws and curbing violence after last week's schoolhouse massacre in Connecticut.

Even before those proposals are drafted, Obama pressed lawmakers to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks and restrict high-capacity ammunition clips.

Really, I mean, gun owners must have been *STUPID* to take Obama at his word.


If gun owners think a President makes laws without both houses of Congress having their say first, then, yes, they were quite stupid indeed.
 
2014-04-09 04:34:45 PM  

Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.


What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.
 
2014-04-09 04:35:25 PM  

Carn: dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.

Says right there he's gonna beat down your door and personally rip them out of your hands.  Horror of horrors.  How will you ever protect yourself with just the rest of your hand guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles?  Oh and I know you're a black powder guy so those too.


OK, so, let me get this straight:  He wasn't coming for our guns, except that he said he was, but he was totally lying and we should have known that, because subsequent events have shown that he couldn't get any of his wish-list passed in Congress, right?
 
2014-04-09 04:36:28 PM  

iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: rwhamann: drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

The difference between the barrel shroud and a folding stock is not minutiae.  If you can't understand that simple difference, then defer to those who do.  Of course, this should apply to any technical issue where experts and engineers actually know what they're talking about, like medicine, internet access, encryption, etc.  (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.)

It'll never happen, but we can dream.

Let me ask you this: Is a barrel shroud or a folding stock more likely to be present on a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Once you can answer that question then you will understand why rifles are classified this way rather than on magazine or clip capacity or caliber.

You know; my 76 year old mosin nagant has a barrel shroud. It's just made of wood. It's main utility is to allow me not to burn my hand on the barrel. Plenty of hunting rifles have full or partial shrouds.


Actually, I would think any rifle that didn't have a forward handgrip would have one. My SKS definitely has one, it's also known as the forward part of the stock...

Too bad people don't understand why the word definitions are important. you can type until your hands grow physically attached to the keyboard and the grabbers will just ignore you, unfortunately, but they're all for laws based on incomplete meanings unless it affects them directly.
 
2014-04-09 04:36:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Here, let me post a picture of the page of the AP Stylebook I'm staring at. I'm sure you have one that refutes the definition I found since you seem to be so sure

You don't seem to get that the AP stylebook jibes perfectly with the dictionary definition.


No it doesn't. I can read, unlike you. An assault rifle is capable of auto AND semi-auto fire made for militaries and LEOs. An assault weapon looks similar to an assault rifle but is only capable of semi-auto fire. Your definitions, once again not from SMEs, include automatic OR semi-automatic and is made for militaries.

More to the point, the fleshed out encyclopedia entry right below the MW definition actually conflicts with its definition:

Full Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
:  any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000-1,600 ft (300-500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. [ examples given but don't want to thread crap]


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
 
2014-04-09 04:38:14 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.


You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.
 
2014-04-09 04:39:45 PM  

Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.


You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.
 
2014-04-09 04:40:44 PM  

dittybopper: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.

Says right there he's gonna beat down your door and personally rip them out of your hands.  Horror of horrors.  How will you ever protect yourself with just the rest of your hand guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles?  Oh and I know you're a black powder guy so those too.

OK, so, let me get this straight:  He wasn't coming for our guns, except that he said he was, but he was totally lying and we should have known that, because subsequent events have shown that he couldn't get any of his wish-list passed in Congress, right?


Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.
 
2014-04-09 04:41:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

No you don't. English-speakers do. Too bad. You were wrong, just be a man and admit it.


Like what, put it up for a vote?  I don't see that working well.  I mean, what if we did the same thing with a programming language?
 
2014-04-09 04:42:17 PM  

Carn: dittybopper: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.

Says right there he's gonna beat down your door and personally rip them out of your hands.  Horror of horrors.  How will you ever protect yourself with just the rest of your hand guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles?  Oh and I know you're a black powder guy so those too.

OK, so, let me get this straight:  He wasn't coming for our guns, except that he said he was, but he was totally lying and we should have known that, because subsequent events have shown that he couldn't get any of his wish-list passed in Congress, right?

Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.


In Australia, a ban did in fact mean the government went and took them away.  And since we all speak English...
 
2014-04-09 04:42:31 PM  

Ex-Texan: Is anyone old enough to remember the "Liberator" guns from WWII, they'd drop them behind enemy lines in Europe, it was a single shot .45, intended for close range, with a single .45 "dum-dum" round. made for short range targets, due to the smooth bore. I've head stories of people getting shot with those kinda rounds, they'll messed someone up when a round goes whizzing through the body, on a roller coaster ride. Nowadays it's different:
[www.therpf.com image 850x637]  Time to ban epoxy now, I guess?


Actually, that was the gun from In The Line of Fire. The "Liberator" looks like this:

upload.wikimedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
 
2014-04-09 04:42:55 PM  

JesseL: impaler: JesseL: I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.

My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?

No, it's not designed for military forces.

True, it's not. This one was though:

[scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x637]


But it's not semi-auto or faster.
 
2014-04-09 04:43:12 PM  

CynicalLA: steve42: When you say:

Farking Canuck: The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.

I hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."

That's because you are a paranoid gun nut and probably have mental problems.


You're right, of course. I own three.  They look like these:

img.fark.net
Because it couldn't be that I support other people's rights or anything like that, because that would be CRAZY!
 
2014-04-09 04:43:17 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.


I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.
 
2014-04-09 04:44:01 PM  

BgJonson79: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.

Says right there he's gonna beat down your door and personally rip them out of your hands.  Horror of horrors.  How will you ever protect yourself with just the rest of your hand guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles?  Oh and I know you're a black powder guy so those too.

OK, so, let me get this straight:  He wasn't coming for our guns, except that he said he was, but he was totally lying and we should have known that, because subsequent events have shown that he couldn't get any of his wish-list passed in Congress, right?

Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

In Australia, a ban did in fact mean the government went and took them away.  And since we all speak English...


Australia doesn't have the number of guns in circulation that we do, nor as many zealots who would lock themselves in their homes and shoot at anyone who came near their property.
 
2014-04-09 04:44:13 PM  
gravy chugging cretin.: Are you intimidated yet?

img.fark.net

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.
 
2014-04-09 04:45:19 PM  

Carn: Australia doesn't have the number of guns in circulation that we do


Not anymore they don't.
 
2014-04-09 04:46:16 PM  

Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.


A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.
 
2014-04-09 04:46:25 PM  

ultraholland: gravy chugging cretin.: Are you intimidated yet?

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.


American flag outfit with an AK?  Seems conflicted.
 
2014-04-09 04:46:53 PM  

ultraholland: gravy chugging cretin.: Are you intimidated yet?

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.


Damn, they scare me to death.  Oh wait, I'm not CynicalLA, no they don't.
 
2014-04-09 04:47:46 PM  

steve42: Because it couldn't be that I support other people's rights or anything like that, because that would be CRAZY!


It's the irrational paranoia that makes you crazy.
 
2014-04-09 04:47:49 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.


Is this what you have? An angry bit of running around shouting "Pussy pussy pussy!"? No wonder you are anti gun, you're a raging danger to anyone around you.
 
2014-04-09 04:47:49 PM  

CynicalLA: A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone. You are not too bright.


We aren't talking about intelligence here, we're talking about how fearful you are of them.
 
2014-04-09 04:48:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: rwhamann: drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

The difference between the barrel shroud and a folding stock is not minutiae.  If you can't understand that simple difference, then defer to those who do.  Of course, this should apply to any technical issue where experts and engineers actually know what they're talking about, like medicine, internet access, encryption, etc.  (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.)

It'll never happen, but we can dream.

Let me ask you this: Is a barrel shroud or a folding stock more likely to be present on a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Once you can answer that question then you will understand why rifles are classified this way rather than on magazine or clip capacity or caliber.


Should they be?  Does that change the performance of the round as it exits the barrel?  After all, a firearm is simply designed to eject said lead downrange...
 
2014-04-09 04:48:48 PM  

Carn: BgJonson79: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.

Says right there he's gonna beat down your door and personally rip them out of your hands.  Horror of horrors.  How will you ever protect yourself with just the rest of your hand guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles?  Oh and I know you're a black powder guy so those too.

OK, so, let me get this straight:  He wasn't coming for our guns, except that he said he was, but he was totally lying and we should have known that, because subsequent events have shown that he couldn't get any of his wish-list passed in Congress, right?

Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

In Australia, a ban did in fact mean the government went and took them away.  And since we all speak English...

Australia doesn't have the number of guns in circulation that we do, nor as many zealots who would lock themselves in their homes and shoot at anyone who came near their property.


I guess that makes sense when you're the subject of the queen and not a citizen ;-)
 
2014-04-09 04:48:53 PM  

lamric: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Homer Tax: They couldn't even get healthcare reform through a JesseL: impaler: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Assault rifle means it's
1) for assault
2) a rifle

See Uzi.
I picked this up from the distributor and sold it yesterday. Made all of $15 profit on it.
My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?
[scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x540]
 controlled house.

That looks like no Mossberg I've ever seen.
I give up: What the fark is it?

MVP Patrol.  I think.


Bolt-action 7.62 with a 24" barrel. Not bad.
How does it shoot?
 
2014-04-09 04:49:19 PM  

R.A.Danny: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.

Is this what you have? An angry bit of running around shouting "Pussy pussy pussy!"? No wonder you are anti gun, you're a raging danger to anyone around you.


People that carry all the time are definitely pussies.  They live in fear.
 
2014-04-09 04:49:28 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.


That's awfully sexist.  Why shouldn't women have guns?
 
2014-04-09 04:49:39 PM  

Carn: BgJonson79: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: dittybopper: Carn: ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_tim e_ full.pdf
The President's Plan includes:
...
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
 magazines,


So he was lying?

Well, he *IS* a politician, but generally, when someone says they want to do something, I take them at their word.

Says right there he's gonna beat down your door and personally rip them out of your hands.  Horror of horrors.  How will you ever protect yourself with just the rest of your hand guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles?  Oh and I know you're a black powder guy so those too.

OK, so, let me get this straight:  He wasn't coming for our guns, except that he said he was, but he was totally lying and we should have known that, because subsequent events have shown that he couldn't get any of his wish-list passed in Congress, right?

Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

In Australia, a ban did in fact mean the government went and took them away.  And since we all speak English...

Australia doesn't have the number of guns in circulation that we do, nor as many zealots who would lock themselves in their homes and shoot at anyone who came near their property.


Yes, let's take our lead from Australia; where everything wants to kill you and you might actually need a gun.

/ with link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_TB6onHVE&sns=em (copy/pasta)
 
2014-04-09 04:49:43 PM  
lamric: American flag outfit with an AK? Seems conflicted.

No shiat. The black boots and camo helmet are a bit out of place, too. I don't see how this guy plans on remaining discrete with this approach.
 
2014-04-09 04:50:31 PM  

CynicalLA: R.A.Danny: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.

Is this what you have? An angry bit of running around shouting "Pussy pussy pussy!"? No wonder you are anti gun, you're a raging danger to anyone around you.

People that carry all the time are definitely pussies.  They live in fear.


The cops are cowards?  Marines in Afghanistan are cowards?
 
2014-04-09 04:50:44 PM  

steve42: Because it couldn't be that I support other people's rights or anything like that, because that would be CRAZY!


No, what's crazy is when someone says "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.

You hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."

That's nuts.
 
2014-04-09 04:51:35 PM  

jaybeezey: dittybopper: Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.

*YES*.

SO VERY MUCH FARKING *THIS*.

The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.  This is perfectly encapsulated by Carolyn McCarthy whose signature issue was gun control (her husband was killed, and son wounded, in the Long Island Railroad massacre), who, when pressed about an assault weapons ban she introduced into Congress, couldn't define what a "barrel shroud" was, despite it being in the bill that she introduced, and ended up mistakenly calling it the "shoulder thing that goes up".

She literally didn't know the difference between a piece of sheet metal that surrounds the barrel of a gun, and a folding stock.

BTW, I don't know why it's OK to have a piece of walnut surrounding a barrel, but not a piece of steel.  Doesn't seem to be a rational difference to me, but then, I generally know what I'm talking about when it comes to firearms.

You shouldn't get too wound up about it. Liberal Progressives live in fear of of guns and people with guns. They don't understand the hobby and would rather, for the most part, would do away with anyone being able to  own anything might be used to harm another.

You can't blame them though, they have been trained since youth to fear things that they don't understand and are soft minded enough to think that anything for "the greater good" is acceptable and right. This is especially true if you can find some reason to form a new gov't agency to regulate anything that they have an issue with. Being good sheep is about being part of the collective, and they certainly don't want to be seen as bad sheep by their Central Planning handlers.


You know the real reason a lot of liberals hate and fear guns?  Because a lot of them have close friends or relatives who were killed with one.  A gun to somebody living in an urban area (IE, likely a liberal) is the thing a drug dealer shot a six year old with, not a tool for hunting or target practice, like it is to somebody living in a rural area (IE, likely a conservative).

I'll give you a very specific example.

Do you know why Diane Feinstein is so anti-gun?

Because she is the one who found Harvey Milk's dead body, moments after he was shot.  She checked his pulse, got his blood on her clothes.

Of course, Harvey Milk was shot by an ex-cop with his former service revolver, so basically no gun control law could have ever prevented his murder (other than banning all guns by all private citizens).
 
2014-04-09 04:51:52 PM  

CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.


And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.
 
2014-04-09 04:52:03 PM  

impaler: steve42: Because it couldn't be that I support other people's rights or anything like that, because that would be CRAZY!

No, what's crazy is when someone says "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.

You hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."

That's nuts.


Isn't that what lawyers do?
 
2014-04-09 04:52:16 PM  

CynicalLA: R.A.Danny: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.

Is this what you have? An angry bit of running around shouting "Pussy pussy pussy!"? No wonder you are anti gun, you're a raging danger to anyone around you.

People that carry all the time are definitely pussies.  They live in fear.


This is based on what? The fact that they have something in their possession that would be dangerous if it were in your possession?
 
2014-04-09 04:52:23 PM  

BgJonson79: CynicalLA: R.A.Danny: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.

Is this what you have? An angry bit of running around shouting "Pussy pussy pussy!"? No wonder you are anti gun, you're a raging danger to anyone around you.

People that carry all the time are definitely pussies.  They live in fear.

The cops are cowards?  Marines in Afghanistan are cowards?


I was talking about gun nuts.  Not people that are required to have one for their job.  It's no wonder you are a gun nut if you couldn't figure that out.
 
2014-04-09 04:53:02 PM  

CynicalLA: steve42: When you say:

Farking Canuck: The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.

I hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."

That's because you are a paranoid gun nut and probably have mental problems.


Nice.  Calling people names.

This is why support for gun control keeps dropping despite mass shootings.

Instead of calling gun owners paranoiacs with mental problems, which allows you to easily dismiss their opinions and positions without actually having to face the possibility that you might actually be wrong, you should be engaging them, learning what actually makes the tick (it's not paranoia or mental illness, btw), and seeing what things you might find common ground on.

But it has to be *EARNEST*.  You can't fake it.  See what it's all about.  Go to the range.  Shoot some guns.  Take the myth and mystery out of it.  Learn the technology and science of it*.  Meet some actual gun owners.  Ask them why they feel like they do about the things you propose, and *LISTEN*.


*One of the things I like about shooting is that it's all just applied physics.
 
2014-04-09 04:53:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: anuran: And Merriam-Webster isn't a legal or firearms reference book. Try Jane's. Try the law.

Merriam-Webster, last I checked, is an authority on the English language.  We're not debating law right now we are debating language.


To be fair, the last few years have seen an increase in the 'Well, we're using the word wrong, but enough people are doing it that we're just going to change the definition"...
 
2014-04-09 04:53:22 PM  

CynicalLA: I was talking about gun nuts.


Please, define gun nuts.
 
2014-04-09 04:53:28 PM  

impaler: See Uzi.


An Uzi isn't a rifle.
 
2014-04-09 04:53:58 PM  

CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: R.A.Danny: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.

Is this what you have? An angry bit of running around shouting "Pussy pussy pussy!"? No wonder you are anti gun, you're a raging danger to anyone around you.

People that carry all the time are definitely pussies.  They live in fear.

The cops are cowards?  Marines in Afghanistan are cowards?

I was talking about gun nuts.  Not people that are required to have one for their job.  It's no wonder you are a gun nut if you couldn't figure that out.


Then why did you say "People that carry" and not "gun nuts that carry" because after all, words have meanings.
 
2014-04-09 04:53:58 PM  

Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.


You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.
 
2014-04-09 04:55:04 PM  

Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.


Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

1.bp.blogspot.com

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.
 
2014-04-09 04:55:36 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:

Bolt-action 7.62 with a 24" barrel. Not bad.
How does it shoot?


The reviews have been good. I haven't had a chance to try one myself yet.
 
2014-04-09 04:56:04 PM  

dittybopper: CynicalLA: steve42: When you say:

Farking Canuck: The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.

I hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."

That's because you are a paranoid gun nut and probably have mental problems.

Nice.  Calling people names.

This is why support for gun control keeps dropping despite mass shootings.

Instead of calling gun owners paranoiacs with mental problems, which allows you to easily dismiss their opinions and positions without actually having to face the possibility that you might actually be wrong, you should be engaging them, learning what actually makes the tick (it's not paranoia or mental illness, btw), and seeing what things you might find common ground on.

But it has to be *EARNEST*.  You can't fake it.  See what it's all about.  Go to the range.  Shoot some guns.  Take the myth and mystery out of it.  Learn the technology and science of it*.  Meet some actual gun owners.  Ask them why they feel like they do about the things you propose, and *LISTEN*.


*One of the things I like about shooting is that it's all just applied physics.


I own a couple guns and always skip your posts.  You are the biggest gun nut on this site and have no credibility.
 
2014-04-09 04:56:52 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.


I think you're level is over 10,000.  Truly an incredible pussy indeed.
 
2014-04-09 04:58:11 PM  
oops, your

"you can't even think for yourself"  Which alt was that from?  You mixing them up now?
 
2014-04-09 04:59:05 PM  

KidneyStone: I bought an AR15 the day of the Newton shootings because i knew this country would flip out and prices would go through the roof.  I liked it better than the AR I already owned so I sold the old one for $500 than I paid for it, which paid for the new one plus a few hundred in profit.  I could have sold it for $200-300 more but I sold it to a friend and didn't want to dick him.


Well, there you have it in a nutshell. Profiting off the bodies of dead children and bragging about it..
This is why I hate gun nuts.
Hopefully you'll all kill each other and your progeny through accidental shootings.


http://www.news4jax.com/news/former-ju-player-dies-in-accidental-sho ot ing/25392622

http://www.wesh.com/news/deputies-teen-held-without-bond-after-accid en tally-shooting-friend/25375896#!Dn1Ao


http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-04-07/story/dad-charged-acci de ntal-shooting-death-his-10-year-old-daughter


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dad-cuffed-girl-10-accident al ly-shot-killed-brother-georgia-home-article-1.1748219
 
2014-04-09 04:59:11 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.


I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.
 
2014-04-09 05:00:06 PM  

Maud Dib: KidneyStone: I bought an AR15 the day of the Newton shootings because i knew this country would flip out and prices would go through the roof.  I liked it better than the AR I already owned so I sold the old one for $500 than I paid for it, which paid for the new one plus a few hundred in profit.  I could have sold it for $200-300 more but I sold it to a friend and didn't want to dick him.

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. Profiting off the bodies of dead children and bragging about it..
This is why I hate gun nuts.
Hopefully you'll all kill each other and your progeny through accidental shootings.


http://www.news4jax.com/news/former-ju-player-dies-in-accidental-sho ot ing/25392622

http://www.wesh.com/news/deputies-teen-held-without-bond-after-accid en tally-shooting-friend/25375896#!Dn1Ao


http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-04-07/story/dad-charged-acci de ntal-shooting-death-his-10-year-old-daughter


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dad-cuffed-girl-10-accident al ly-shot-killed-brother-georgia-home-article-1.1748219


You wish death on your political enemies?  Mr. Putin, is that you?
 
2014-04-09 05:00:13 PM  
The entire gun debate is meant to fleece suckers.
 
2014-04-09 05:00:41 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: The entire gun debate is meant to fleece suckers.


Care to elaborate?
 
2014-04-09 05:00:48 PM  
Hmm

I guess the AP definition of assault rifles did not match up with the MW definition, which was contradicted in the same entry, of assault rifle.
 
2014-04-09 05:01:05 PM  

BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.


I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.
 
2014-04-09 05:01:27 PM  

Geotpf: You know the real reason a lot of liberals hate and fear guns?  Because a lot of them have close friends or relatives who were killed with one.  A gun to somebody living in an urban area (IE, likely a liberal) is the thing a drug dealer shot a six year old with, not a tool for hunting or target practice, like it is to somebody living in a rural area (IE, likely a conservative).

I'll give you a very specific example.

Do you know why Diane Feinstein is so anti-gun?

Because she is the one who found Harvey Milk's dead body, moments after he was shot.  She checked his pulse, got his blood on her clothes.

Of course, Harvey Milk was shot by an ex-cop with his former service revolver, so basically no gun control law could have ever prevented his murder (other than banning all guns by all private citizens).


So why does she feel that it's OK for just her to carry a gun, then? Besides, I watched my mother get beaten to death when I was 5, you don't see me advocating for the outlawing of work boots, do you?
 
2014-04-09 05:02:10 PM  

CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.


So the associate property doesn't work for stupidity?
 
2014-04-09 05:05:41 PM  
This is an assault GUN

olive-drab.com
 
2014-04-09 05:05:58 PM  

CynicalLA: I own a couple guns and always skip your posts.  You are the biggest gun nut on this site and have no credibility.


Actually Dittybopper is quite accurate in his statistics.  Here's some open-source gun data for you to peruse at your leisure.
 
2014-04-09 05:06:29 PM  

CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.


But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.
 
2014-04-09 05:07:01 PM  

ultraholland: gravy chugging cretin.: Are you intimidated yet?

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.


That's only reasonable. How many flavors of prime rubber-room candidacy does it take to parade around in public carrying a chrome-plated commie AK variant while dressed up in a masked US flag costume?
 
2014-04-09 05:07:40 PM  

rwhamann: The difference between the barrel shroud and a folding stock is not minutiae.


The best part, "the shoulder thing that goes up" isn't even talking about folding stocks.  It's even more obscure than that.  On old rifles such as the original M-14 and the M1918A1 BAR, the butt plate was hinged to swing up.  When these rifles were fired on automatic they tended to have tremendous rise and the hinged butt plate would be swung up and placed on top of the shoulder. to help counter the muzzle climb.

It's an extra-ordinarily obscure firearms part and would be particularly useless on a semi-automatic firearm.... so,of course it must be banned!
 
2014-04-09 05:07:54 PM  
CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.
 
2014-04-09 05:08:01 PM  

Farker Soze: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.

But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.


Yep, you are a real winner for totally not understanding what I was saying.
 
2014-04-09 05:08:41 PM  

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

You don't get to redefine technical definitions.  If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.

Your issue is with English speakers, Merriam-Webster and the OED. Not me. YOU are the one redefining words. You don't get to just pick definitions of words just because you like them.

Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

The ATF doesn't use the term assault rifle either. To them it's either a machine gun, a destructive device, or a normal firearm (shotgun, rifle, pistol). The ATF considers an AR-15 just a rifle. It considers an M-16 a machine gun. There's not really a way to reconcile the difference between the two if you want to class the weapons together in any meaningful way according to US law. A journalist writing about weapons like an AR-15 and calling them "assault rifles" is miserably failing AP style for these reasons, and mass media is where the redefinition is primarily being pushed from.


The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and use the firearms they want.

Then we need to educate people about giving said guns to their mentally ill children/friends/lovers.
 
2014-04-09 05:09:13 PM  
Glad there was a  'libertator ' pic there.  I remember as a kid, seeing a couple at gun shows. Lord knows where the old guy got them. One still had most of the bedraggled cardboard box it came in. That wad about 40 or so years ago.
 I wonder why most hobbyists, like I alluded to earlier, Built composite weapons? I mean, the materials are cheap enough, you don't really need much in the way of tooling to make one, so why not? Unless the machismo of open carry somehowmakes you feel like more of a person. Sure, I have guns, doesn't mean I have to wear them like a prosthetic peener everywhere I go.
 
2014-04-09 05:09:22 PM  

steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.


I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.
 
2014-04-09 05:09:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Geotpf: You know the real reason a lot of liberals hate and fear guns?  Because a lot of them have close friends or relatives who were killed with one.  A gun to somebody living in an urban area (IE, likely a liberal) is the thing a drug dealer shot a six year old with, not a tool for hunting or target practice, like it is to somebody living in a rural area (IE, likely a conservative).

I'll give you a very specific example.

Do you know why Diane Feinstein is so anti-gun?

Because she is the one who found Harvey Milk's dead body, moments after he was shot.  She checked his pulse, got his blood on her clothes.

Of course, Harvey Milk was shot by an ex-cop with his former service revolver, so basically no gun control law could have ever prevented his murder (other than banning all guns by all private citizens).

So why does she feel that it's OK for just her to carry a gun, then? Besides, I watched my mother get beaten to death when I was 5, you don't see me advocating for the outlawing of work boots, do you?


I'm sure her thinking is that she is a high profile elected official who might be a target of an assassination attempt.  You know, like Harvey Milk was.

Of course, on the flip side, the shooter, in addition to being an ex-cop, was also a (former) high profile elected official as well.
 
2014-04-09 05:10:26 PM  

CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.


If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?
 
2014-04-09 05:11:10 PM  

CynicalLA: R.A.Danny: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: drew46n2: CynicalLA: drew46n2: Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

Funny, on their Facebook page they refer to anti-gunners as "bullies."

You two are intimidated by them?  Sounds like you're the cowards.

What?  The pussy is the one that has to wear a gun everywhere.  Stop projecting.

You're terrified of a bunch of pussies.  Oh scary!  Stop projecting.

You don't make any sense and are obviously mentally challenged.  It's no wonder why you are a gun nut.

I'm saying that you are intimidated of a group of people you label as pussies.  You sound mental.  It's no wonder you're a gun grabber.

A pussy with a gun is not good for anyone.  You are not too bright.

Is this what you have? An angry bit of running around shouting "Pussy pussy pussy!"? No wonder you are anti gun, you're a raging danger to anyone around you.

People that carry all the time are definitely pussies.  They live in fear.


Just like you, it's a never ending cycle.
 
2014-04-09 05:11:30 PM  

CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.


Or when dozens of 6-year-old kids get shot and there's no one around that can do anything about it.
 
2014-04-09 05:11:32 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.

But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.

Yep, you are a real winner for totally not understanding what I was saying.


Everyone understands what you are saying, coward.  Thank you for the acknowledgment of victory though.
 
2014-04-09 05:11:51 PM  

mcmnky: Buying a new gun or rifle is sorta like getting a puppy from the mall pet store: if you do either, you probably aren't qualified to own a firearm / dog.

Even a moderately cared-for firearm will last decades. There are so many second hand firearms for sale, like dogs at the pound.

Unless it's for a gift or ceremonial purpose, buying new is for suckers.


Ah No; please post photo of your Flintstones Foot-mobile! Would love to see your Alexander Graham Bell, hand crank phone box; next to your wood fired Ben Franklin Stove! Oh wait, hard to scan image of your non-new goods with glass plate Mathew Brady~esque wooden box camera.

Many new firearms are made with different/ increased safety features, made out of new materials; and shoot new calibers of ammunition. Plus, new innovations in bolt technology to include Kriss Vector design, FN P-90 carbine, or even Glock Striker fire design...

Please sit down, thank you for playing, there are some nice party gifts for you as you leave to go back to your basement.
 
2014-04-09 05:12:02 PM  

BgJonson79: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?


The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.
 
2014-04-09 05:13:02 PM  

CynicalLA: I'm sure you cowards are all set to save the day when your fantasy retard home invasion happens, nuts.


FTFY

Wouldn't want to break your stride, would we?
 
2014-04-09 05:13:16 PM  

BgJonson79: The cops are cowards?


For the most part, yes, but their job requires them to be armed.

BgJonson79: Marines in Afghanistan are cowards?


No. Then, again, unlike Afghanistan, CONUS is not an active combat zone.
 
2014-04-09 05:13:22 PM  

violentsalvation: I'll never sell my ghost gun though.


I never noticed before.. that rifle has no sights.
 
2014-04-09 05:13:22 PM  

R.A.Danny: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

Or when dozens of 6-year-old kids get shot and there's no one around that can do anything about it.


Cite your source?
 
2014-04-09 05:13:39 PM  

Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.

But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.

Yep, you are a real winner for totally not understanding what I was saying.

Everyone understands what you are saying, coward.  Thank you for the acknowledgment of victory though.


Projection once again.  I'm sure it make sense in your head.
 
2014-04-09 05:13:58 PM  

CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?

The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.


Aren't there several respectable links above me to direct President Obama quotes on the subject?
 
2014-04-09 05:14:31 PM  

dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.


Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...
 
2014-04-09 05:15:09 PM  

BgJonson79: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?

The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

Aren't there several respectable links above me to direct President Obama quotes on the subject?


So Obama wants to ban guns?
 
2014-04-09 05:15:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: BgJonson79: The cops are cowards?

For the most part, yes, but their job requires them to be armed.

BgJonson79: Marines in Afghanistan are cowards?

No. Then, again, unlike Afghanistan, CONUS is not an active combat zone.


But he said people, with no qualifiers.  Maybe he should be more specific.

Do you support disarming the police?
 
2014-04-09 05:16:16 PM  

CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?

The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

Aren't there several respectable links above me to direct President Obama quotes on the subject?

So Obama wants to ban guns?


He wants to re-up the assault weapons ban.  Isn't that the definition of banning guns?
 
2014-04-09 05:17:00 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.

But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.

Yep, you are a real winner for totally not understanding what I was saying.

Everyone understands what you are saying, coward.  Thank you for the acknowledgment of victory though.

Projection once again.  I'm sure it make sense in your head.


You're getting boring, why don't you mix it up a little?

Projection!  Squawk!  Projection!
 
2014-04-09 05:17:09 PM  

Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...


This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.
 
2014-04-09 05:17:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ban != confiscation. Assault weapons != all firearms

And you wonder why we call you gun  nuts


Oh really?
 
2014-04-09 05:18:37 PM  

dittybopper: This text is now purple: Actual Farking: It will never happen, but I think the gun debate would be advanced massively if everyone could have a list of agreed upon nomenclature to work from.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355e nr .pdf

Pages 202 and 203.

OK, let's look at that:


The point was to provide the legal definition of "assault weapons" as defined by the 1994 statute that first defined the term. Thus to short-circuit Duke's semantic biatching.
 
2014-04-09 05:19:41 PM  

Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.

But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.

Yep, you are a real winner for totally not understanding what I was saying.

Everyone understands what you are saying, coward.  Thank you for the acknowledgment of victory though.

Projection once again.  I'm sure it make sense in your head.

You're getting boring, why don't you mix it up a little?

Projection!  Squawk!  Projection!


You don't even have an argument except saying thing I did except turning it around.  I never use ignore but you are getting annoying.
 
2014-04-09 05:21:09 PM  

Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...


One reason gun prices might still be high in the retail stores is the dealers sold off inventory and had to replace it with the distributors astronomically-marked-up inventory.  What I have been noticing over the last few months is that wholesale dealers are almost pre-scare levels on their pricing now.  I have an e-mail from one distributor advertising the Colt line at $549.00 per rifle, and another with the whole-kit-minus-lower for $350.00.
 
2014-04-09 05:22:00 PM  

lamric: CynicalLA: I own a couple guns and always skip your posts.  You are the biggest gun nut on this site and have no credibility.

Actually Dittybopper is quite accurate in his statistics.  Here's some open-source gun data for you to peruse at your leisure.


Accurate or not, there's also the issue of paranoia...

I used to enjoy the gun threads here. But for the last couple of years now, they've become shameless circle-jerks slanted towards one side or the other, with more dick references than a Robert Schimmel comedy special (and yes, I'm aware that I've probably just did the same thing), and the paranoia has gone to plaid. To hear the usual posters in these threads tell it, I'm either a complete monster for just knowing what I do about guns - not even owning any; I don't - or I'm damn near a traitor for thinking that perhaps 100-round C-mags aren't really something that needs to be available to civilians. No middle ground.
 
2014-04-09 05:22:20 PM  

Geotpf: Do you know why Diane Feinstein is so anti-gun?

Because she is the one who found Harvey Milk's dead body, moments after he was shot. She checked his pulse, got his blood on her clothes.


No one in the country has benefited more from less-strict gun laws than Dianne Feinstein. She owes most of her $100M net worth to the assassination of Harvey Milk.
 
2014-04-09 05:22:46 PM  

CynicalLA: I own a couple guns...


Darn, I missed this amongst the rest of your wharrgarbl.  So, now I see the issue:

I'm a retarded, cowardly, nut because I support your right to own "a couple guns."

I will admit you're a convincing argument for some sort of a written test prior to being allowed to purchase one, though.
 
2014-04-09 05:22:48 PM  

impaler: This is an assault GUN

[olive-drab.com image 504x325]


Good gosh, I hate 105s. They took away our nice M110A2 howitzers and gave us 105mm popguns.
 
2014-04-09 05:23:25 PM  

CynicalLA: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.


So racism is OK when talking about White folk? Clear as a bell.
 
2014-04-09 05:24:22 PM  

This text is now purple: Geotpf: Do you know why Diane Feinstein is so anti-gun?

Because she is the one who found Harvey Milk's dead body, moments after he was shot. She checked his pulse, got his blood on her clothes.

No one in the country has benefited more from less-strict gun laws than Dianne Feinstein. She owes most of her $100M net worth to the assassination of Harvey Milk.


now this is an A+ comment. lol
 
2014-04-09 05:24:42 PM  

Mikey1969: CynicalLA: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.

So racism is OK when talking about White folk? Clear as a bell.


I'm white so I can make fun of white trash all day.
 
2014-04-09 05:24:47 PM  

dk47: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

You don't get to redefine technical definitions.  If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.

Your issue is with English speakers, Merriam-Webster and the OED. Not me. YOU are the one redefining words. You don't get to just pick definitions of words just because you like them.

Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

The ATF doesn't use the term assault rifle either. To them it's either a machine gun, a destructive device, or a normal firearm (shotgun, rifle, pistol). The ATF considers an AR-15 just a rifle. It considers an M-16 a machine gun. There's not really a way to reconcile the difference between the two if you want to class the weapons together in any meaningful way according to US law. A journalist writing about weapons like an AR-15 and calling them "assault rifles" is miserably failing AP style for these reasons, and mass media is where the redefinition is primarily being pushed from.

The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and use the ...


Background checks need to have databases shored up. I doubt many people disagree with that. Waiting periods don't really do much from my POV, and so far the only court case that has challenged it to my knowledge is leaning toward them being unconstitutional. I'm fine with licensing as long as it's not unduly long or costly process, though I don't particularly like it. I'd be fine with allowing private sales with the requirement that bill of sale, along with identifying information of the gun and purchaser are kept for say, 10 years. Illinois' current system actually looks decent, though it does have a FOID to work off of.
 
2014-04-09 05:25:37 PM  

Skyd1v: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

One reason gun prices might still be high in the retail stores is the dealers sold off inventory and had to replace it with the distributors astronomically-marked-up inventory.  What I have been noticing over the last few months is that wholesale dealers are almost pre-scare levels on their pricing now.  I have an e-mail from one distributor advertising the Colt line at $549.00 per rifle, and another with the whole-kit-minus-lower for $350.00.


Well, that's what TFA was saying, too, which is good news. I should buy more ammo for my SKS before people freak out again, though. remember, it wasn't just gun prices that were high, ammo not only went up, but was often out of stock..
 
2014-04-09 05:26:29 PM  

CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: Farker Soze: CynicalLA: People that carry all the time are definitely pussies. They live in fear.

And like I've been saying, you're scared of them.  What level of pussy does that put you at?  Afraid of the fearful.  Sad, really.

You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.

I guess that means everyone in the House of Reps is stupid, since their job is to listen and vote for their constituents' best interests.

I was talking about Farker Soz,  The guy is obviously retarded.  He just repeats your argument back to you and calls himself winner.

But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.

Yep, you are a real winner for totally not understanding what I was saying.

Everyone understands what you are saying, coward.  Thank you for the acknowledgment of victory though.

Projection once again.  I'm sure it make sense in your head.

You're getting boring, why don't you mix it up a little?

Projection!  Squawk!  Projection!

You don't even have an argument except saying thing I did except turning it around.  I never use ignore but you are getting annoying.


Still boring me.  You just can't grasp it, can you?  Your whole argument is "Look at these pussies with their guns.  Aren't these guys pussies?  I'm intimidated of them.  Yeah, they're the pussies." and you lacking any sort of self-observation to see what you are doing.  Projection indeed.
 
2014-04-09 05:27:05 PM  
I could use the the exact same rationale as the anti gun folks in this thread and elsewhere to make an argument for the temperance movement. I don't think many folks would be quite as gung ho about that though.
 
2014-04-09 05:27:42 PM  

CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.


"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress
"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."
The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."
USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,"
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
            (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
            (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
            (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."
Legislation introduced in Missouri. 2013

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013
"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?)
Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

"the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don't give their weapons up in a buy-back program.  Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,"
Iowa state Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013


California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of "Assault Weapons" to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of "Assault Weapons" to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the "bullet button" or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were "grandfathered " for possession if registered in previous "Assault Weapons" gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered "high-cap" magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. ("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

"We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There's no question about it...We're on a roll now, and I think we've got to take the-you know, we're gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can."
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, 'moment of opportunity' and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed."
Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed?  "Final Solution" anyone?)

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate."
Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

"No one in this country should have guns."
Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

Proposed Missouri Bill to ban "assault weapons":
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
 
2014-04-09 05:28:45 PM  

BgJonson79: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?

The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

Aren't there several respectable links above me to direct President Obama quotes on the subject?


No. They include fake Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and Reagan quotes, so they are not respectable for all values of respectable that include being in accordance with empirical, historical, and factual reality.
 
2014-04-09 05:28:52 PM  
dittybopper: Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

not only that, but he signed into law the ability for people to carry weapons in national parks.

media3.washingtonpost.com

this fruitcake with the sign was at that rally with his tri-cornered-hat-wearing buddies because they were allowed to be; yet they were protesting Obama, and guns, and tyranny, and whatever the fark else was on their minds. These farks bought up the guns. These farks bought up the ammo. These farks drove prices high, and me out of the market. These farks make gun owners look like shiat.

and all in response to Obama expanding gun rights.
 
2014-04-09 05:29:33 PM  

JesseL: CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that directio ...


Like I said, paranoid.  They are coming to take your guns.  You better stock up.
 
2014-04-09 05:30:16 PM  

redmid17: dk47: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

You don't get to redefine technical definitions.  If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.

Your issue is with English speakers, Merriam-Webster and the OED. Not me. YOU are the one redefining words. You don't get to just pick definitions of words just because you like them.

Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

The ATF doesn't use the term assault rifle either. To them it's either a machine gun, a destructive device, or a normal firearm (shotgun, rifle, pistol). The ATF considers an AR-15 just a rifle. It considers an M-16 a machine gun. There's not really a way to reconcile the difference between the two if you want to class the weapons together in any meaningful way according to US law. A journalist writing about weapons like an AR-15 and calling them "assault rifles" is miserably failing AP style for these reasons, and mass media is where the redefinition is primarily being pushed from.

The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and us ...


Welp apparently there a bunch of people in one state who are against background checks.  We'll see if it passes this go 'round.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/02/gun_background_che ck _bill_shuf.html
 
2014-04-09 05:30:59 PM  

BgJonson79: He wants to re-up the assault weapons ban.  Isn't that the definition of banning guns?


The ban was on importing and manufacturing. If you're sane and not a criminal, you get to keep your personal knockoff of Stoner's Plastastic Folly.
 
2014-04-09 05:31:09 PM  
My AR has yet to assault anyone. Must be broken.
 
2014-04-09 05:31:34 PM  

dk47: The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and use the ...


I agree.  Attempting to ban  types of guns (beyond the long existing near total ban on full autos) just results in petty arguments about how the ban is stupid, as it's nearly impossible for such a ban to be of any use unless it's massively broad, so you end up just banning things randomly (like the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which (as mentioned many times) banned guns that were no more lethal than ones it didn't ban).

The proper response, IMHO, after Newtown would have been something along the lines of the following:

1. The Federal government would take control of all regulation of guns.  No state or local restriction could be tougher (or weaker) than the Federal one.  (Local gun control laws are useless because there a device called an automobile that allows criminals to drive from a place with weak laws and buy guns there and then take them to a place with strict laws, plus the Feds have the constitutional right to "well-regulate the milita").

2. There would be a website and toll free number which would need to be checked before any gun transfer of any kind (sale, gift, whatever).  The buyer would have to supply something like first and last name and date of birth, and it would shoot back a "Ok to sell" or a "Not ok to sell" binary answer to the seller when he looks them up.  The data on felons and people with mental health issues would be strengthened to make sure the "Not ok to sell" list was up to date and accurate as possible.

3. There would be a standard, nationwide, concealed carry permit process, run by the Federal government.

I think this type of thing could have passed Congress (including the House) and would have helped keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (as well as expanding the rights of others to buy, own, and use guns for non-evil purposes).  But, nope, compromise is dead.
 
2014-04-09 05:32:23 PM  

CynicalLA: They are coming to take your guns.


Nah, they may try, but they will fail.  Again.
 
2014-04-09 05:34:05 PM  

Geotpf: Of course, Harvey Milk was shot by an ex-cop with his former service revolver, so basically no gun control law could have ever prevented his murder (other than banning all guns by all private citizens).


NYC basically does that (it bans guns possessed by on-duty National Guardsmen!), and even it has an exception for concealed carry by retired cops.
 
2014-04-09 05:34:39 PM  

JesseL: CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that directio ...


Man, you're really paranoid to make all that up.
 
2014-04-09 05:34:52 PM  

ultraholland: dittybopper: Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

not only that, but he signed into law the ability for people to carry weapons in national parks.

[media3.washingtonpost.com image 707x470]

this fruitcake with the sign was at that rally with his tri-cornered-hat-wearing buddies because they were allowed to be; yet they were protesting Obama, and guns, and tyranny, and whatever the fark else was on their minds. These farks bought up the guns. These farks bought up the ammo. These farks drove prices high, and me out of the market. These farks make gun owners look like shiat.

and all in response to Obama expanding gun rights.


That's the one he specifically let die in court before he signed it because it was a rider attached to the largest economic bill he signed?
 
2014-04-09 05:34:57 PM  
Geotpf: plus the Feds have the constitutional right to "well-regulate the milita"

uuhhhh....
 
2014-04-09 05:35:00 PM  

CynicalLA: Like I said, paranoid. They are coming to take your guns. You better stock up.


I might be paranoid, but there are a number of people that really do want to start banning guns. To deny that they exist is just silly.

I'm not too worried though. There are fewer true believers on the opposing side every year. Their movement is in its death throes.

For myself, I have plenty of guns. If I'm honest with myself I have more than I'll ever need. Most of what I plan to have in the future I'll be building myself.
 
2014-04-09 05:35:35 PM  

BgJonson79: Do you support disarming the police?


I support removing all police exceptions from arms and monitoring laws. Police should be civilians -- nothing less and nothing more.
 
2014-04-09 05:36:22 PM  

CynicalLA: Like I said, paranoid. They are coming to take your guns. You better stock up.


Now that's funny.  Better.


quotes:  "We're coming to take your guns"

LA:  "Hahah, you're paranoid to think they're coming to take your guns"


Keep it up.  Entertain me, monkey.
 
2014-04-09 05:38:16 PM  

This text is now purple: Geotpf: Do you know why Diane Feinstein is so anti-gun?

Because she is the one who found Harvey Milk's dead body, moments after he was shot. She checked his pulse, got his blood on her clothes.

No one in the country has benefited more from less-strict gun laws than Dianne Feinstein. She owes most of her $100M net worth to the assassination of Harvey Milk.


No question her political career was advanced by such (she became mayor of San Fran since the then current mayor was also killed in the attack).  Most of her money is from her husband (who is an investment banker).  Of course, there are accusations that companies he owned got government contracts in part due to who he was married to.
 
2014-04-09 05:38:20 PM  

JesseL: CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that directio ...


Correct, the collection of all the "ban guns" type rhetoric is so small, 40 years of it can fit in one post in an Internet thread.
 
2014-04-09 05:38:42 PM  

Farker Soze: But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.


I think what he's getting at, which genuinely (and no offense intended) might be too subtle for you, is that people who are so afraid that they carry guns everywhere might act irrationally in any situation that they perceive as the least bit threatening.  This situation varies from person to person according to level of fear, but could include everything from a clerk speaking too loudly at a supermarket to a bank robbery.

That terrified, unstable person in a crisis could be fatal in the most benign of situations.  If you, as a civilian, are truly so concerned with your safety that you need an immediate kill weapon at your disposable at all times, perhaps this is an indication that you are too twitchy to be trusted with one.

Of course, that's just my interpretation of the argument.
 
2014-04-09 05:39:12 PM  

CynicalLA: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.


What about nonfat old Jewish dudes? I'm farking hating how the price of ammo, especially .45ACP, is cutting into my range time.
/Never hoarded or "stocked up" on ammunition.
 
2014-04-09 05:40:15 PM  

CynicalLA: Like I said, paranoid.


You are a special kind of person.

You tell him that no one is trying to ban anything, then when he shows you statements by all kinds of people saying they want to ban them, you call him paranoid.

/Special
//Like the short bus
 
2014-04-09 05:40:32 PM  

ultraholland: gravy chugging cretin.: Are you intimidated yet?

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.


I gotta admit the guns don't bother me in the least but that outfit....

Wow that's just terrifying.
 
2014-04-09 05:40:36 PM  

Geotpf: But, nope, compromise is dead.


Because the people suggesting ideas like yours in DC have no credibility when it comes to good-faith gun control. "Yes, let's get this passed so we can just defund article 2. No ability do a background check, no gun sales."
 
2014-04-09 05:40:47 PM  

ultraholland: Geotpf: plus the Feds have the constitutional right to "well-regulate the milita"

uuhhhh....


Article I Section 8 Clauses 14-17.
 
2014-04-09 05:41:52 PM  

gadian: Farker Soze: But I am the winner.  You are a far greater pussy than they are, because by your own admittance you are scared of pussies.  There is no denying this.

I think what he's getting at, which genuinely (and no offense intended) might be too subtle for you, is that people who are so afraid that they carry guns everywhere might act irrationally in any situation that they perceive as the least bit threatening.  This situation varies from person to person according to level of fear, but could include everything from a clerk speaking too loudly at a supermarket to a bank robbery.

That terrified, unstable person in a crisis could be fatal in the most benign of situations.  If you, as a civilian, are truly so concerned with your safety that you need an immediate kill weapon at your disposable at all times, perhaps this is an indication that you are too twitchy to be trusted with one.

Of course, that's just my interpretation of the argument.


He's not interested in explaining any such thing.  He's interested in trolling.  So, I will just troll along also.  fark him.
 
2014-04-09 05:42:33 PM  

USP .45: My AR has yet to assault anyone. Must be broken.


Some people complain about the kick when they fire my SKS, I'm assuming that this is the "assault" that they're talking about.
 
2014-04-09 05:43:32 PM  

dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.


Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.
 
2014-04-09 05:44:10 PM  

dittybopper: What you've done, at that point, is the equivalent of banning racing stripes and spoilers on cars, in an attempt to regulate street racing.  Think that'll work?


Oh yeah?  Well when's the last time any six year old died street racing???

OH YEAH!!! YOU BEEN TOLD!!! SNAP!!!
 
2014-04-09 05:44:51 PM  
Rifles, sure.  But can i get .22 ammo yet?
 
2014-04-09 05:45:09 PM  

This text is now purple: Geotpf: Of course, Harvey Milk was shot by an ex-cop with his former service revolver, so basically no gun control law could have ever prevented his murder (other than banning all guns by all private citizens).

NYC basically does that (it bans guns possessed by on-duty National Guardsmen!), and even it has an exception for concealed carry by retired cops.


Here's the logic shark jump I like to make. What if that cop had not used a gun, and say an ax or butcher knife.

weapon doesn't make the killer, killer picks the weapon.

/don't believe me, ask mr teen commando pro up in PA today
//and that one guy in china
//thank god my dad didn't go melee when he snaped, 6ft ex infantry does damage
 
2014-04-09 05:46:37 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH: Article I Section 8 Clauses 14-17.

aahhh
 
2014-04-09 05:46:50 PM  

impaler: Correct, the collection of all the "ban guns" type rhetoric is so small, 40 years of it can fit in one post in an Internet thread.


So you actually think that is the entire collection of these?  Are you that dumb or do you just play that way on Fark?
 
2014-04-09 05:47:47 PM  

tripleseven: A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire


And most guns don't have them nor do they need them. It was legislation targeting TEC-9s and similar derp pistols popular with thugs at the time.

Stop acting like it's a brilliant idea.
 
2014-04-09 05:48:49 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Rifles, sure.  But can i get .22 ammo yet?


I'll be honest the severe 22 ammo shortage must be regional. I have yet to go to a cabelas, disks, bass pro or something similar that didn't have 22s. Most had limits but they were available.

/Chicago tri state area
 
2014-04-09 05:49:11 PM  

tripleseven: Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician that proposed legislation on said item once miss identified it.


FIFY.

If you can't even identify the damn thing, maybe quit trying to legislate it until you can actually educate yourself on what the hell you are talking about.
 
2014-04-09 05:49:12 PM  

dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.


Right, so what's the problem?
 
2014-04-09 05:49:15 PM  
redmid17: That's the one he specifically let die in court before he signed it because it was a rider attached to the largest economic bill he signed?

my understanding is that similar rules died under Bush, and this was attached to the Credit CARD Act.
 
2014-04-09 05:49:17 PM  

CynicalLA: Mikey1969: CynicalLA: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.

So racism is OK when talking about White folk? Clear as a bell.

I'm white so I can make fun of white trash all day.


Yeah, not buying it. I also don't buy it when black people throw the 'N-word' around. Racism is racism.
 
2014-04-09 05:49:28 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire

And most guns don't have them nor do they need them. It was legislation targeting TEC-9s and similar derp pistols popular with thugs at the time.

Stop acting like it's a brilliant idea.


Hey, you want to continue the argument from the other night?
Start by admitting you posted a falsehood about the video being edited. Until then, your comments don't hold much weight.
 
2014-04-09 05:50:21 PM  

omeganuepsilon: But can i get .22 ammo yet?


If you are lucky.  some are starting to show up on the shelves but you have to act fast.
 
2014-04-09 05:51:21 PM  

HeadLever: tripleseven: Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician that proposed legislation on said item once miss identified it.

FIFY.

If you can't even identify the damn thing, maybe quit trying to legislate it until you can actually educate yourself on what the hell you are talking about.


Again, this is your only argument?
 
2014-04-09 05:52:47 PM  

Ex-Texan: Is anyone old enough to remember the "Liberator" guns from WWII, they'd drop them behind enemy lines in Europe, it was a single shot .45, intended for close range, with a single .45 "dum-dum" round. made for short range targets, due to the smooth bore. I've head stories of people getting shot with those kinda rounds, they'll messed someone up when a round goes whizzing through the body, on a roller coaster ride. Nowadays it's different:
[www.therpf.com image 850x637]  Time to ban epoxy now, I guess?


I loved him in that movie where he played the retard. I have a cousin who is a retard and I appreciated the sensitive way he portrayed retards.

/he was also good in that movie where he was the jewel thief.
 
2014-04-09 05:54:09 PM  

tripleseven: Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire. firing bullets.


FTFY
 
2014-04-09 05:54:53 PM  

tripleseven: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.


A politician who was trying to get something banned and had no clue what that something was.  Is it too much to ask that you actually know what the hell it is you're banning, Congressman?

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.


You know how many rounds it takes an average barrel to get too hot to hold?  One, maybe two or three.  Almost every rifle including bolt actions have some form of stock, handguard, shroud, or whatever.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.

Yes, please do.  It's not gonna fark itself.
 
2014-04-09 05:54:59 PM  

Mikey1969: tripleseven: Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire. firing bullets.

FTFY


Uh huh.
 
KIA
2014-04-09 05:56:14 PM  
You're the same folks who claim that the right to vote is severely infringed by laws requiring that someone show a photo ID to prove they are voting only once in the correct district, aren't you?  You fought hard to get that overturned.  Why?  Because, rights!

But somehow requiring extensive BATF paperwork and background checks to exercise Second Amendment rights isn't an infringement.  Why? Because, wharrgarble!  And we need even greater infringements because wharrgarble II!

There are incidents of police abuse and brutality as well as any number of horrific crimes perpetrated against completely innocent people every day.  Well-established case law that says the police have no duty to come protect you personally.  Their duty is to the society as a whole, so if they can't get to you in time, that's pretty much too bad for you.

But if a person wants to keep a handgun concealed about their person to protect themselves, they should be subjected to mandatory licensing and regulations because... UNFOCUSED BUT ALL-ENCOMPASSING FEAR!


Look, we are a nation of rights.  Free speech, free religion, uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.  Any of these can be exercised for any reason at all or just because you feel like it.

You either believe in all of the rights or you don't.  Frankly, I don't care what you believe and I don't have to because I have my rights and I'm not giving them up.
 
2014-04-09 05:56:42 PM  

HeadLever: So you actually think that is the entire collection of these?  Are you that dumb or do you just play that way on Fark?


That is pretty much the entire history of these.

If there was a real threat of a gun ban, that list would all be 2012-2014 and full of Congressmen.

Seriously? Rosie O'Donnell in 1999? That's your evidence? Grasp at straws much?
 
2014-04-09 05:56:58 PM  

Farker Soze: tripleseven: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A politician who was trying to get something banned and had no clue what that something was.  Is it too much to ask that you actually know what the hell it is you're banning, Congressman?

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

You know how many rounds it takes an average barrel to get too hot to hold?  One, maybe two or three.  Almost every rifle including bolt actions have some form of stock, handguard, shroud, or whatever.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.

Yes, please do.  It's not gonna fark itself.


Yes...I was a gun user for 15 years.

A gun barrel does not get too hot to touch from firing two or three bullets.

But I guess it makes you feel all smart like and stuff to spout falsehoods on the intertubes.
 
2014-04-09 05:57:38 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire

And most guns don't have them nor do they need them. It was legislation targeting TEC-9s and similar derp pistols popular with thugs at the time.

Stop acting like it's a brilliant idea.

Hey, you want to continue the argument from the other night?
Start by admitting you posted a falsehood about the video being edited. Until then, your comments don't hold much weight.


So because the unedited version exists it means no edited versions exist? Awesome logic. Then there's the overriding issue of emotionally involved people contributing to a public policy discussion, and your intent to claim that emotional arguments somehow hold more weight than reasoned ones. And now you're still on this epic retardation surrounding barrel shrouds. So no, I don't even want to continue.
 
KIA
2014-04-09 05:59:19 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm farking hating how the price of ammo, especially .45ACP, is cutting into my range time.


Seriously.  Was there today and they want $30 a box.  Why, I remember when...
 
2014-04-09 06:00:00 PM  

Mikey1969: tripleseven: Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire. firing bullets.

FTFY


I already explained to him that the most popular firearm sold with a barrel shroud is a Biden approved Mossberg shotgun that holds an absolutely astonishing 8-9 shells.

He thinks this makes it a machine gun.
 
2014-04-09 06:00:20 PM  

tripleseven: Again, this is your only argument?


Nope, but it hits the nail on the head.  These dumbasses are trying to legislate things which they obviously know nothing about.  Don't even try to suggest that they become educated about the topic.  I guess the 'we must pass it to find out what is in it' mentality is still alive and well.
 
2014-04-09 06:00:35 PM  

tripleseven: Farker Soze: tripleseven: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A politician who was trying to get something banned and had no clue what that something was.  Is it too much to ask that you actually know what the hell it is you're banning, Congressman?

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

You know how many rounds it takes an average barrel to get too hot to hold?  One, maybe two or three.  Almost every rifle including bolt actions have some form of stock, handguard, shroud, or whatever.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.

Yes, please do.  It's not gonna fark itself.

Yes...I was a gun user for 15 years.

A gun barrel does not get too hot to touch from firing two or three bullets.

But I guess it makes you feel all smart like and stuff to spout falsehoods on the intertubes.


Right.  Your bull barrel .22 made you an expert, eh?
 
2014-04-09 06:02:52 PM  

tripleseven: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.


Huh, I guess I should tell my bolt action nagant to stop firing so fast; then I won't need a wooden barrel shroud.

/ you don't need to fire rapidly to get your barrel hot; even my over-under shotgun has a partial barrel shroud
 
2014-04-09 06:02:55 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire

And most guns don't have them nor do they need them. It was legislation targeting TEC-9s and similar derp pistols popular with thugs at the time.

Stop acting like it's a brilliant idea.

Hey, you want to continue the argument from the other night?
Start by admitting you posted a falsehood about the video being edited. Until then, your comments don't hold much weight.

So because the unedited version exists it means no edited versions exist? Awesome logic. Then there's the overriding issue of emotionally involved people contributing to a public policy discussion, and your intent to claim that emotional arguments somehow hold more weight than reasoned ones. And now you're still on this epic retardation surrounding barrel shrouds. So no, I don't even want to continue.


I made a statement concerning the actions of teabaggers at a town hall.
You said my statement was false and the video was edited. I then posted the complete unedited video which was exactly to my statement.

Oh yeah, barrel shrouds, why am I still on them? Cause every gun thread will include multiple people reciting the Diane feistein thing. As if its the only argument. Well, that politician lady once misidentified a gun part so therefore all gun legislation is moot...derp!

Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false, so no wonder you don't want to continue.
 
2014-04-09 06:03:16 PM  

dr_blasto: My wife told me I seemed to love my guns more than my family. I told her that wasn't true. Little Timmy isn't going to college because it is full of liberals, not because I cashed out the college fund to buy another AR-15.


Little Timmy didn't have that big of a fund to begin with if all you got was 1 AR-15.
 
2014-04-09 06:03:32 PM  

impaler: That is pretty much the entire history of these.


lol, no.  Notice the absence of Michael Moore quotes?  Of course not.  you are not paid to be logical, are you?
 
2014-04-09 06:03:36 PM  

USP .45: Mikey1969: tripleseven: Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire. firing bullets.

FTFY

I already explained to him that the most popular firearm sold with a barrel shroud is a Biden approved Mossberg shotgun that holds an absolutely astonishing 8-9 shells.

He thinks this makes it a machine gun.


That is not what you said.
 
2014-04-09 06:03:48 PM  
Guns R Us now includes a bottle of Viagra with any gun purchase...
 
2014-04-09 06:04:04 PM  

tripleseven: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.


It takes exactly 5 rounds of .38 +P ammunition from my snubnose revolver, one cylinder,  to make the barrel too hot to touch.

Keep farking that chicken indeed.
 
2014-04-09 06:04:38 PM  

tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false


I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.
 
2014-04-09 06:05:20 PM  

tripleseven: Farker Soze: tripleseven: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A politician who was trying to get something banned and had no clue what that something was.  Is it too much to ask that you actually know what the hell it is you're banning, Congressman?

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

You know how many rounds it takes an average barrel to get too hot to hold?  One, maybe two or three.  Almost every rifle including bolt actions have some form of stock, handguard, shroud, or whatever.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.

Yes, please do.  It's not gonna fark itself.

Yes...I was a gun user for 15 years.

A gun barrel does not get too hot to touch from firing two or three bullets.

But I guess it makes you feel all smart like and stuff to spout falsehoods on the intertubes.


It really depends on the gun. Manual actions heat up faster than self loading ones because the heat doesn't have time to conduct through the brass and reach the chamber before the case is ejected. Larger rounds that burn more powder make more heat obviously. Less overbore rounds may heat up the barrel faster due to the greater surface area of exposed bore.

I love it when someone was in the military and got to use all of 3 different firearms (and then usually only for an annual qualification) and think it makes them an expert.
 
2014-04-09 06:05:51 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false

I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.


Goalpost shift. Nice.
 
2014-04-09 06:05:59 PM  

clarksvegas: Here's the logic shark jump I like to make. What if that cop had not used a gun, and say an ax or butcher knife.


My understanding is that usually cops use stairs when a gun isn't handy.
 
2014-04-09 06:06:07 PM  

lamric: ultraholland: gravy chugging cretin.: Are you intimidated yet?

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.

American flag outfit with an AK?  Seems conflicted.


Not at all.  Even in the heart of Soviet communism a single man picked himself up by the bootstraps and invented a tool that has been sold worldwide.  Then in true American fashion, he was screwed out of the money he should have been earning.  What's more American than bootstraps and getting screwed by the government?
 
2014-04-09 06:09:23 PM  

JesseL: Manual actions heat up faster than self loading ones because the heat doesn't have time to conduct through the brass and reach the chamber before the case is ejected.


Which would explain why a pump action Mossberg might have a barrel shroud, whereas a military grade semi auto Benelli doesn't, despite the fact that the Benelli can fire faster.

Barrel shroud idiocy 2014.
 
2014-04-09 06:11:25 PM  

JesseL: tripleseven: Farker Soze: tripleseven: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A politician who was trying to get something banned and had no clue what that something was.  Is it too much to ask that you actually know what the hell it is you're banning, Congressman?

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

You know how many rounds it takes an average barrel to get too hot to hold?  One, maybe two or three.  Almost every rifle including bolt actions have some form of stock, handguard, shroud, or whatever.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.

Yes, please do.  It's not gonna fark itself.

Yes...I was a gun user for 15 years.

A gun barrel does not get too hot to touch from firing two or three bullets.

But I guess it makes you feel all smart like and stuff to spout falsehoods on the intertubes.

It really depends on the gun. Manual actions heat up faster than self loading ones because the heat doesn't have time to conduct through the brass and reach the chamber before the case is ejected. Larger rounds that burn more powder make more heat obviously. Less overbore rounds may heat up the barrel faster due to the greater surface area of exposed bore.

I love it when someone was in the military and got to use all of 3 different firearms (and then usually only for an annual qualification) and think it makes them an expert.


If your comment was to me, no I was never in the military.
 
2014-04-09 06:12:52 PM  

drew46n2: dittybopper: The problem is that the people who hate guns the most know absolutely nothing about them.


again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.


And yet you morons get all huffy when legislators try to ban Vaping supplies because they don't know the intricacies or differences between vaping and smoking a cigarette. You think that MAYBE the people making the laws should have more than a lousy movie-based knowledge of something before writing laws about it?
 
2014-04-09 06:12:59 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false

I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.

Goalpost shift. Nice.


No no sweetie, when the entire crux of your argument is that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire, me stating that a shroud would make zero difference on any Mossberg's rate of fire isn't shifting the goalposts.

If anything, it's shifting them to exactly what you were trying to argue and burying that idiocy in the dirt. You should thank me for being so accommodating.
 
2014-04-09 06:13:27 PM  

JesseL: It really depends on the gun. Manual actions heat up faster than self loading ones because the heat doesn't have time to conduct through the brass and reach the chamber before the case is ejected. Larger rounds that burn more powder make more heat obviously. Less overbore rounds may heat up the barrel faster due to the greater surface area of exposed bore.

I love it when someone was in the military and got to use all of 3 different firearms (and then usually only for an annual qualification) and think it makes them an expert.


Yep, as someone that shoots high volume small caliber (17 and 20 calibers) you can shoot for quite a time until the barrel gets too hot.  However, also shooting high quality rifles, you do need to keep an eye on it as a hot barrel will erode the lands and rifling much quicker than a cool barrel.  For my experience, if you can't keep you hand on the barrel it is time to let it cool.

/about 4k rounds through my .204 barrel and still shoots very well.
 
2014-04-09 06:15:35 PM  
tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false

I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.

Goalpost shift. Nice.


No, you don't hold it by the barrel, but you very well may come into contact with it after shooting and the shroud is a barrier against contacting a hot surface. His posts didn't shift; he explained that it doesn't functionally affect the firing. Your failure to understand does not render his post incorrect.
 
2014-04-09 06:16:34 PM  

tripleseven: If your comment was to me, no I was never in the military.


That was an assumption on my part. Mea Culpa.

So where did you get your 15 years of experience? What sorts of guns were you shooting?
 
2014-04-09 06:20:38 PM  

ultraholland: tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false

I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.

Goalpost shift. Nice.

No, you don't hold it by the barrel, but you very well may come into contact with it after shooting and the shroud is a barrier against contacting a hot surface. His posts didn't shift; he explained that it doesn't functionally affect the firing. Your failure to understand does not render his post incorrect.


"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed." ~tripleseven 2014-04-02 09:35:58
 
2014-04-09 06:21:51 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false

I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.

Goalpost shift. Nice.

No no sweetie, when the entire crux of your argument is that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire, me stating that a shroud would make zero difference on any Mossberg's rate of fire isn't shifting the goalposts.

If anything, it's shifting them to exactly what you were trying to argue and burying that idiocy in the dirt. You should thank me for being so accommodating.


Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once. I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

Rapid fire causing the hot barrel of course.

Read.
 
2014-04-09 06:23:19 PM  

USP .45: ultraholland: tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false

I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.

Goalpost shift. Nice.

No, you don't hold it by the barrel, but you very well may come into contact with it after shooting and the shroud is a barrier against contacting a hot surface. His posts didn't shift; he explained that it doesn't functionally affect the firing. Your failure to understand does not render his post incorrect.

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed." ~tripleseven 2014-04-02 09:35:58


See my last post.
 
2014-04-09 06:23:43 PM  

tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once. I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.


LOL

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed." -you

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90096055#c90096055
 
2014-04-09 06:23:50 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Not at all.  Even in the heart of Soviet communism a single man picked himself up by the bootstraps and invented a tool that has been sold worldwide.  Then in true American fashion, he was screwed out of the money he should have been earning.  What's more American than bootstraps and getting screwed by the government?


Since I missed your post the other day, I don't shoot .22 much as I am trying to make my small stockpile last.  I shoot mostly .17 and .20 caliber centerfire these days in bolt guns.
 
2014-04-09 06:25:55 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: The entire gun debate is meant to fleece suckers.


DING! It's just an industry drumming up demand by using fear. It's amusing to watch the reactionary paranoids falling for it, especially with the ammo.

"Oh shiat, the government is buying up all the ammo! Glenn Beck said so! Probably preparing for their disarming campaign ahead of MARTIAL LAW! I better go buy as much as I can!"

Multiply this idiocy by a few million, fast forward a few months:

"OMG! There's an ammo shortage! It's happening! I better buy as much as I can now before it's too late! You'll never take me alive Bareefer Obonghit!!!"

Farking retards.
 
2014-04-09 06:27:29 PM  

This derpfest is brought to you by all-natural FrogLube CLP!


www.whidbeyarms.com


FrogLube: It Smells Good ®™

 
2014-04-09 06:27:34 PM  

JesseL: tripleseven: If your comment was to me, no I was never in the military.

That was an assumption on my part. Mea Culpa.

So where did you get your 15 years of experience? What sorts of guns were you shooting?


Raised in a hunting family with multiple firearms. Rifles/shotguns/handguns. Including even an ar15! My fathers idea of bonding was to take his sons shooting.
 
2014-04-09 06:28:24 PM  

ultraholland: redmid17: That's the one he specifically let die in court before he signed it because it was a rider attached to the largest economic bill he signed?

my understanding is that similar rules died under Bush, and this was attached to the Credit CARD Act.


Bush pushed the rule, courts blocked it with an injunction after he left office, Obama let it die without a challenge, and he signed the CC act with it as a rider.
 
2014-04-09 06:29:13 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once. I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

LOL

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed." -you

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90096055#c90096055


Yes...but your post above incorrectly asserted that I said a barrel shroud allows the GUN to fire faster.
 
2014-04-09 06:29:15 PM  

i253.photobucket.com

 
2014-04-09 06:29:34 PM  

tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once


Nope. Lie.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095757#c90095757

 

tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.


Nope. Lie. That's what said. It's a marginal benefit not prohibiting or enabling slow/rapid fire.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095435#c90095435
 
2014-04-09 06:29:43 PM  

dk47: redmid17: dk47: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: OK, so I can call the manual transmission in my car an automatic?  That's *EXACTLY* what you are saying here.

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

You don't get to redefine technical definitions.  If you do, those technical definitions lose all meaning.

Your issue is with English speakers, Merriam-Webster and the OED. Not me. YOU are the one redefining words. You don't get to just pick definitions of words just because you like them.

Even if common usage has muddled up the dictionary entry, the manufacturers and users (ie militaries, gun smiths, et al) of the world use the same definition that Ditty posted. I'd be very impressed if you could come up with a production model rifle with those characteristics that wasn't referred to specifically as an assault rifle (or battle rifle). Complicating that is that the most popular semi-auto rifle in the US was initially a military design that was reworked specifically for civilians, so it even fails your definition there.

The ATF doesn't use the term assault rifle either. To them it's either a machine gun, a destructive device, or a normal firearm (shotgun, rifle, pistol). The ATF considers an AR-15 just a rifle. It considers an M-16 a machine gun. There's not really a way to reconcile the difference between the two if you want to class the weapons together in any meaningful way according to US law. A journalist writing about weapons like an AR-15 and calling them "assault rifles" is miserably failing AP style for these reasons, and mass media is where the redefinition is primarily being pushed from.

The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to ...


I imagine that would get a lot of opposition in most any state without a universal background check statute.
 
2014-04-09 06:31:51 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once. I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

LOL

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed." -you

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90096055#c90096055


For someone who's butt is all hurt about politicians not knowing the minutae of firearms, your reading comprehension is pretty shiatty.

Tripleseven said shrouds make a gun fire faster therefore derp!
 
2014-04-09 06:31:57 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once. I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

LOL

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed." -you

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90096055#c90096055

Yes...but your post above incorrectly asserted that I said a barrel shroud allows the GUN to fire faster.


It doesn't allow the user to fire faster either. If anything that's the dumber of the two arguments.
 
2014-04-09 06:32:20 PM  
Headline is accurate. I bought a decent AR in 2009 for $750 NIB, sold it last year for $2,400 to an FFL buddy.

/CSB
 
2014-04-09 06:32:32 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once

Nope. Lie.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095757#c90095757

 tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

Nope. Lie. That's what said. It's a marginal benefit not prohibiting or enabling slow/rapid fire.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095435#c90095435


You really need to go back and...read.
 
2014-04-09 06:33:53 PM  

tripleseven: Raised in a hunting family with multiple firearms. Rifles/shotguns/handguns. Including even an ar15! My fathers idea of bonding was to take his sons shooting.


Okay, so limited experience and it looks like some emotional baggage tied up around your relationship with your father and guns. Good to know.
 
2014-04-09 06:34:10 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once. I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

LOL

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed." -you

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90096055#c90096055

Yes...but your post above incorrectly asserted that I said a barrel shroud allows the GUN to fire faster.

It doesn't allow the user to fire faster either. If anything that's the dumber of the two arguments.


Read my words. Words have meaning, you see.
 
2014-04-09 06:35:14 PM  
tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

but this

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

is somehow a rational argument for a ban?
 
2014-04-09 06:35:24 PM  

JesseL: tripleseven: Raised in a hunting family with multiple firearms. Rifles/shotguns/handguns. Including even an ar15! My fathers idea of bonding was to take his sons shooting.

Okay, so limited experience and it looks like some emotional baggage tied up around your relationship with your father and guns. Good to know.


Yup, all that baggage. Limited experience as well.

Lol
 
2014-04-09 06:36:37 PM  

JesseL: CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that directio ...


tempest.fluidartist.com

/now back to my popcorn
 
2014-04-09 06:36:44 PM  

ultraholland: tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

but this

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

is somehow a rational argument for a ban?


In the context of what makes an *assault rifle" an assault rifle. This was the crux of the legislation the deep stems from.
 
2014-04-09 06:39:30 PM  
tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once

Nope. Lie.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095757#c90095757

 tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

Nope. Lie. That's what said. It's a marginal benefit not prohibiting or enabling slow/rapid fire.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095435#c90095435

You really need to go back and...read.


tripleseven is right. He never said any of that. If you're going to get pedantic about weapon definitions, it helps to be just as careful parsing other folks' words. That said, I want you, tripleseven, to cut through the bullshiat and explicitly state what your previous posts imply.
 
2014-04-09 06:40:06 PM  

drew46n2: ooh, but at least you got your "man card" reissue for the penii-impaired
[img.fark.net image 466x626]


Why are you so concerned with peoples penises or lack there of? Some hobby shooters happen to be ladies you know.....
 
2014-04-09 06:40:45 PM  

lewismarktwo: FrogLube: It Smells Good ®™


Works good too.
 
2014-04-09 06:41:12 PM  

AngryDragon: Oh good!  Time to buy.


Broke down and bought one a month or two ago. With the rails and fore grip0 included I paid just about what I would have pre freakout.
 
2014-04-09 06:41:32 PM  

Seraphym: JesseL: CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that ...


Not really.  What guns have been banned?  The irrational paranoia from gun nuts still stands.  You people are not too smart.
 
2014-04-09 06:42:09 PM  

ultraholland: tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

but this

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

is somehow a rational argument for a ban?


Many rifles will get hot after a few shots.  Yeah we're not talking branding hot, expert for 15 years, but I certainly wouldn't want to have only the barrel as support on a .308 Remington 700 after a few rounds.  Hence, just about everything has some kind of grip other than the steel barrel, for both protection and comfort.   But, if it's steel with holes in it instead of wood or plastic, it's evil and promotes rapid fire.  I guess that's the sum of his argument.
 
2014-04-09 06:44:35 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm farking hating how the price of ammo, especially .45ACP, is cutting into my range time.


Trade you for some .22 LR
 
2014-04-09 06:44:41 PM  

Mikey1969: CynicalLA: Mikey1969: CynicalLA: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.

So racism is OK when talking about White folk? Clear as a bell.

I'm white so I can make fun of white trash all day.

Yeah, not buying it. I also don't buy it when black people throw the 'N-word' around. Racism is racism.


Whatever, cracker.
 
2014-04-09 06:45:13 PM  

HeadLever: 22


Figured as much.  Been kinda wanting to get a .22lr plinker styled like an assault weapon just for the aesthetics, but not going to bother until .22 becomes widely available again.

/that and saving for a car at the moment
 
2014-04-09 06:46:06 PM  

CynicalLA: Not really. What guns have been banned? The irrational paranoia from gun nuts still stands. You people are not too smart.


Yeah; we wasted all that effort fighting countless efforts to ban guns, and none of those efforts succeeded. How silly.
 
2014-04-09 06:46:32 PM  
Anyone with a drill press, a set of calipers, some combination of polymer stock, aluminium and steel, some machining bits; and a laptop and some persistence/patience can pretty much make any kind of gun they want.

What are the people who use government to change society going to do at that point? ban metal? ban plastic? ban machine tools?

Self defense is more than a right, it's a basic human need as basic as breathing. If criminals are going to have these things, then imposing restrictions on the law abiding is just retarded. At some point, you have to stop trying to use law to change behavior, and instead use your own example and child-rearing to change society.
 
2014-04-09 06:49:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Let me ask you this: Is a barrel shroud or a folding stock more likely to be present on a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?


Let me ask you this:  What's the functional difference between the two?

KeatingFive: I'm convinced that a ban on large clips wouldn't hurt anyone, so why should anyone care if large clips are banned?


Because banning them restricts people's freedoms for no good reason?  If you're going to restrict somebody's freedom it needs to be a good reason.

lamric: The Liberator was basically a single-use pistol to be used to kill a German soldier for his weapon, it didn't use dum-dum rounds, just regular .45 ACP with full metal jacketed ammo.


It was also, at least by default, packaged with 20 rounds and a short dowel to be used to pound the fired shell out for reloading.
 
2014-04-09 06:51:20 PM  

JesseL: CynicalLA: Not really. What guns have been banned? The irrational paranoia from gun nuts still stands. You people are not too smart.

Yeah; we wasted all that effort fighting countless efforts to ban guns, and none of those efforts succeeded. How silly.


It's a wedge issue just like abortion.  I'm sure the people making money love it when a Democrat is in office.  This thread really proves it.  Prices go up and the only people hurting are the paranoid gun nuts who fell for it.
 
2014-04-09 06:52:32 PM  

HeadLever: Smeggy Smurf: Not at all.  Even in the heart of Soviet communism a single man picked himself up by the bootstraps and invented a tool that has been sold worldwide.  Then in true American fashion, he was screwed out of the money he should have been earning.  What's more American than bootstraps and getting screwed by the government?

Since I missed your post the other day, I don't shoot .22 much as I am trying to make my small stockpile last.  I shoot mostly .17 and .20 caliber centerfire these days in bolt guns.


Thanks for getting back to me on that.  Rumor is the WalMart in Nampa gets shipments around 7am on Wednesdays.  State & Glenwood gets their around 9am on various days.  Perhaps you'll find some.  I'm down to just a few hundred rounds myself.
 
2014-04-09 06:54:30 PM  

ultraholland: tripleseven is right. He never said any of that. If you're going to get pedantic about weapon definitions, it helps to be just as careful parsing other folks' words. That said, I want you, tripleseven, to cut through the bullshiat and explicitly state what your previous posts imply.


Sockpuppet? Read what he wrote.

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed."

A shroud in no way assists/allows/facilitates the user or gun to fire at a high rate of speed. Period. If that's not what he meant, then he shouldn't be accusing people of not being able to read when he himself isn't able to write.

Only today is he backpeddaling after doing research on what a barrel shroud is supposed to do. It has NOTHING to do with sustained rate of fire. It's a marginal protection against burns or damage from a hot barrel, though the shroud itself can still become hot enough to burn, hence "marginal protection."

It's one of the dumbest points to bring up when suggesting feature bans, yet here we are.
 
2014-04-09 06:54:53 PM  

JesseL: "I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)


Oh no, Rosie O'Donnell wants to take my guns away?

treasure.diylol.com
 
2014-04-09 06:58:29 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Figured as much.  Been kinda wanting to get a .22lr plinker styled like an assault weapon just for the aesthetics,


Can you tell me what is so appealing about a .22 with "assault aesthetics" versus just a run of the mill .22?  I love plinking with my little Marlin 60, I just don't understand the want of assault aesthetics for shooting cans...

It's totally fair to say, "Cause I like it."
Also fair for me to say "I just don't get it."
 
2014-04-09 06:59:15 PM  
USP .45: Sockpuppet? Read what he wrote.

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed."

A shroud in no way assists/allows/facilitates the user or gun to fire at a high rate of speed. Period


aahhh, I see I wasn't pedantic enough. No bother, he's wrong and it's a stupid argument. No idea why I even fixated on this point but, as you said, here we are.
 
2014-04-09 06:59:41 PM  

AngryDragon: Anyone want to invest in a target ammunition company? 9mm, .223, .40, and .45. We'll make millions.


I can find all the .40 and .223 you want right now. I don't own a 9 and rarely shoot my .45 (WWII 1911) so I really don't look for availability.  .357 Sig (my carry caliber) is a royal biatch to find though!
 
2014-04-09 07:01:52 PM  
I have never been so conflicted as in the past year.

A co-worker who is openly gay, openly very liberal, and an ex-very pro gun control supporter announced that he bought an "assault rifle that could shoot 30 times before reloading."  I was very proud that he actually began to see the light, he saw what might have been a good opportunity, and he got involved in the shooting sports.  I offered to give him safety and shooting lessons, but he refused.  I offered advice on how to lock it up and secure the rifle.  Ignored.  He's not the most astute person, often irresponsible, he is physically clumsy and often shows very poor judgement.   He actually is among the crowd that really should never own a weapon, but I will defend his right to own it.

I am proud to see new enthusiasts to the sport, but am less than thrilled when they turn down open offers for education and training.  I even offered listings for accredited training courses.  "Nope, don't need them."  This is a person who I am glad to see change his mindset, but he lacks the background and foundation of safety rules, and he refuses to get training.

/Not even a CSB, just my own conflicted emotions.
 
2014-04-09 07:03:21 PM  

tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.


Go ahead, ban barrel shrouds.  That way no one could ever handle a gun with a hot barrel...

www.flamesofwar.com

Oh wait... humans figure out how to fashion materials in a hand like shape to protect them from hot things?

Well, gee...
 
2014-04-09 07:05:09 PM  

sharpie_69: omeganuepsilon: Figured as much.  Been kinda wanting to get a .22lr plinker styled like an assault weapon just for the aesthetics,

Can you tell me what is so appealing about a .22 with "assault aesthetics" versus just a run of the mill .22?  I love plinking with my little Marlin 60, I just don't understand the want of assault aesthetics for shooting cans...

It's totally fair to say, "Cause I like it."
Also fair for me to say "I just don't get it."


There's no point, it's a waste of money.

If you want to get a proper AR-15 with a .22LR conversion kit so you can practice various drills (aimed at competition shooting), that makes sense. If you just want to shoot cans, there are cheaper and better platforms.
 
2014-04-09 07:06:44 PM  

MylesHeartVodak: I have never been so conflicted as in the past year.

A co-worker who is openly gay, openly very liberal, and an ex-very pro gun control supporter announced that he bought an "assault rifle that could shoot 30 times before reloading."  I was very proud that he actually began to see the light, he saw what might have been a good opportunity, and he got involved in the shooting sports.  I offered to give him safety and shooting lessons, but he refused.  I offered advice on how to lock it up and secure the rifle.  Ignored.  He's not the most astute person, often irresponsible, he is physically clumsy and often shows very poor judgement.   He actually is among the crowd that really should never own a weapon, but I will defend his right to own it.

I am proud to see new enthusiasts to the sport, but am less than thrilled when they turn down open offers for education and training.  I even offered listings for accredited training courses.  "Nope, don't need them."  This is a person who I am glad to see change his mindset, but he lacks the background and foundation of safety rules, and he refuses to get training.

/Not even a CSB, just my own conflicted emotions.


Did you offer to teach him how to shoot or did you invite him to come along and shoot? If you take him out shooting and exercise proper care, he's more likely to pick it up. He might just be really touchy about not knowing about it.

Also bring some extra cleaner and some rags so you give him (and maybe teach him) how and why you need to clean your gun.
 
2014-04-09 07:07:42 PM  
MylesHeartVodak: "Nope, don't need them."

Tell him bullshiat. Nobody does anything potentially dangerous without at least some instruction on how to mitigate the dangers. He's gonna fark somebody up.
 
2014-04-09 07:08:16 PM  

ultraholland: tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Wow...I never once stated that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire. Not once

Nope. Lie.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095757#c90095757

 tripleseven: I said a barrel shroud assists the user in handling a gun that's barrel is hot due to rapid fire.

Nope. Lie. That's what said. It's a marginal benefit not prohibiting or enabling slow/rapid fire.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8204977/90095435#c90095435

You really need to go back and...read.

tripleseven is right. He never said any of that. If you're going to get pedantic about weapon definitions, it helps to be just as careful parsing other folks' words. That said, I want you, tripleseven, to cut through the bullshiat and explicitly state what your previous posts imply.


You seem rational, so here's my rational reply.

The other night, during the Ft Hood shooting thread, multiple people brought up the Diane Feinstein story.  The basis of their ridicule was that barrel shrouds only made guns "Look Scary" and therefore such as.  Someone even asked what about a barrel shroud is so bad.  I made the rational argument that from a purely legal and legislative point, the argument could be made that a barrel shroud assists the user in handling, and effectively firing a gun that's barrel had been made hot, likely by rapid fire.
That was it.  That's was my retort their question.
I then sat through the usual blah blah blah, you don't know guns, etc.  To which I replied, well, in fact, I know a bit about guns.  By no means an expert, but I sat through yearly gun safety courses, and fired quite a few rounds in the course of target shooting, shooting for competition, and hunting.  I no longer choose to shoot guns, or own them, but I have no problem with hunting.
I reiterated my experience with guns today to another poster.  I apparently made the mistake of stating "My father's idea of bonding with his sons, was going shooting"  This was only said to vaguely quantify the amount of time I had spent around guns. However, according to fark logic, and our many resident psychiatrists, this means I have "DADDY ISSUES!"  It also means, I am still IN NO WAY QUALIFIED to have an opinion on gun control, because I do not eat, sleep and breathe them.

I hope I've come clear?
 
2014-04-09 07:09:20 PM  

CynicalLA: Mikey1969: CynicalLA: Mikey1969: CynicalLA: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.

So racism is OK when talking about White folk? Clear as a bell.

I'm white so I can make fun of white trash all day.

Yeah, not buying it. I also don't buy it when black people throw the 'N-word' around. Racism is racism.

Whatever, cracker.


OK, THAT was funny. I'll give you credit on that one...
 
2014-04-09 07:10:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: rwhamann: drew46n2: again, rule #4. Dismiss valid criticism of gun violence and lax gun laws because the person doesn't have an obsession with the intricacies of firearms that enthusiasts do.

You can ignore the pile of bodies because someone said clip instead of mag, or auto instead of semi. Deflect and Deny, classic.

The difference between the barrel shroud and a folding stock is not minutiae.  If you can't understand that simple difference, then defer to those who do.  Of course, this should apply to any technical issue where experts and engineers actually know what they're talking about, like medicine, internet access, encryption, etc.  (I agree with you that gun aficionados should just give up the fight on clip vs magazine - their broad function is quite similar, and colloquial language has made them interchangeable.  Language evolved - get over it.)

It'll never happen, but we can dream.

Let me ask you this: Is a barrel shroud or a folding stock more likely to be present on a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

Once you can answer that question then you will understand why rifles are classified this way rather than on magazine or clip capacity or caliber.


Wow, this is like the firearm version of "no true Scotsman"
 
2014-04-09 07:11:09 PM  

USP .45: ultraholland: tripleseven is right. He never said any of that. If you're going to get pedantic about weapon definitions, it helps to be just as careful parsing other folks' words. That said, I want you, tripleseven, to cut through the bullshiat and explicitly state what your previous posts imply.

Sockpuppet? Read what he wrote.

"It's a benefit that directly assists in enabling the user to fire at a high rate of speed."

A shroud in no way assists/allows/facilitates the user or gun to fire at a high rate of speed. Period. If that's not what he meant, then he shouldn't be accusing people of not being able to read when he himself isn't able to write.

Only today is he backpeddaling after doing research on what a barrel shroud is supposed to do. It has NOTHING to do with sustained rate of fire. It's a marginal protection against burns or damage from a hot barrel, though the shroud itself can still become hot enough to burn, hence "marginal protection."

It's one of the dumbest points to bring up when suggesting feature bans, yet here we are.


Er...no backpedaling involved.  I really feel a little bad for you, with that comprehension problem and all.
 
2014-04-09 07:13:20 PM  

tripleseven: I made the rational argument that from a purely legal and legislative point, the argument could be made that a barrel shroud assists the user in handling, and effectively firing a gun that's barrel had been made hot, likely by rapid fire.


You didn't even use the word "handling" in that thread. Not once.
 
2014-04-09 07:14:04 PM  
Oh nuts.

Was out working on my trees and missed a gun thread. :/
 
2014-04-09 07:20:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use


The Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle

"military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire."

Or the Oxford Dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/assa u lt-rifle

"A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

Or, if you'd rather, the Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide, published by the U.S. military, says: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

The fact is, the military considers "assault rifle" to have a specific definition that is consistent with what others have said, with the distinguishing feature being the ability to operate in a fully automatic mode.
 
2014-04-09 07:26:04 PM  

sharpie_69: Can you tell me what is so appealing about a .22 with "assault aesthetics" versus just a run of the mill .22? I love plinking with my little Marlin 60, I just don't understand the want of assault aesthetics for shooting cans...

It's totally fair to say, "Cause I like it."


1) 'Cause I like it.
2) A gun chambered in .22LR but otherwise as similar as possible to another gun makes for excellent cheap practice for that other gun.

/No EBRs in my closet, but I have no issue with them. I keep meaning to find some .22LR conversions for a few of my pistols, but haven't got around to it.
 
2014-04-09 07:27:09 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: I made the rational argument that from a purely legal and legislative point, the argument could be made that a barrel shroud assists the user in handling, and effectively firing a gun that's barrel had been made hot, likely by rapid fire.

You didn't even use the word "handling" in that thread. Not once.


Oh for farks sake:

Dimensio: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Dimensio: Serious Post on Serious Thread: So if you can't tell (or care) what the difference is between a Dodge Ram and a Ford 150, you can't have an opinion about what the speed limit should be?

No.

However, having absolutely no understanding of the purpose or nature of a catalytic converter should disqualify a legislator from prohibiting their presence in automobiles.

Ah, and the inevitable inane retort. I hate to tell you this, but I pretty much guarantee most legislators don't know not only about catalytic converters, but also TCP stacks, rocket ignition systems, road maintenance, well drilling, poverty in Ethiopia, or how to dock a cargo ship. But they legislate on all that shiat, that's why they have a staff, interns, expert panels, hearings, public interest groups, lobbyists etc.

Again, the fact the gun nuts put this stuff forward as some kind of valid argument just reinforces their image as raving irrational loons.

When a legislator's staff, intern, expert panel or other representative can explain why banning barrel shrouds on rifles is justifiable, ridicule against the legislator will cease to be justifiable.


Should I try?

Because an argument can be made that a shroud (since it protects the user from a hot barrel usually caused by rapid fire) is an assistance to rapid fire.

Was that so hard?

See where I wrote "Protects the user from a hot barrel"?  That was my very first statement on this matter.

Reading is fundamental.

Also, I am not a fark guru, so I have no idea how to link directly to that quite, but it's in the Ft hood thread, page 14.

Is there any other way I can serve you?
 
2014-04-09 07:28:17 PM  
Now that I think about it, would a Romanian FPK with standard wood furniture count as an EBR? An "assault weapon", sure.
 
2014-04-09 07:30:42 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Perhaps you'll find some.


I have about a thousand, but squirrel season is approaching fast.  Since I mostly shoot my centerfires varmint hunting, I'll likely be ok.  (the 22lr is for the squirrels that try to sneak attack).  Generally, I should be able to afford to wait until they get stocked well enough as to go on sale.
 
2014-04-09 07:32:51 PM  

cgremlin: cameroncrazy1984: Really? Because, uh, by definition you are wrong:

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
noun

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

The Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle

"military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire."

Or the Oxford Dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/assa u lt-rifle

"A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

Or, if you'd rather, the Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide, published by the U.S. military, says: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

The fact is, the military considers "assault rifle" to have a specific definition that is consistent with what others have said, with the distinguishing feature being the ability to operate in a fully automatic mode.


Don't bother. He never even figured out his own MW definition contradicted itself on the same page and couldn't read the definition set forth by the AP style guide either (CNN botched it in TFA).
 
2014-04-09 07:32:51 PM  

tripleseven: Because an argument can be made that a shroud (since it protects the user from a hot barrel usually caused by rapid fire) is an assistance to rapid fire.

Was that so hard?

See where I wrote "Protects the user from a hot barrel"?  That was my very first statement on this matter.


But it isn't an assistance to rapid fire because the shroud is only marginally protecting the user during handling, not firing. And even during handling, such as reloading, the lack of shroud is no meaningful impediment to the resumption of firing, hence its absence on most firearms.
 
2014-04-09 07:34:03 PM  

tripleseven: Because an argument can be made that a shroud (since it protects the user from a hot barrel usually caused by rapid fire) is an assistance to rapid fire.


And why should rapid fire be outlawed, discouraged or otherwise legislated against?  Even more, why should firearms be intentionally made harder to aim at their intended targets, thus increasing the likelihood of innocent people becoming victimized during the lawful use of firearms?
 
2014-04-09 07:34:33 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Because an argument can be made that a shroud (since it protects the user from a hot barrel usually caused by rapid fire) is an assistance to rapid fire.

Was that so hard?

See where I wrote "Protects the user from a hot barrel"?  That was my very first statement on this matter.

But it isn't an assistance to rapid fire because the shroud is only marginally protecting the user during handling, not firing. And even during handling, such as reloading, the lack of shroud is no meaningful impediment to the resumption of firing, hence its absence on most firearms.


You keep farking that chicken.

But what you can also do, is admit you were wrong in your previous statement, because it was proven right here in black and white.
 
2014-04-09 07:38:51 PM  

tripleseven: Because an argument can be made that a shroud (since it protects the user from a hot barrel usually caused by rapid fire) is an assistance to rapid fire.


Could not the exact same argument be made for any fore-grip on a long gun?  It protects the user from a hot barrel after all.  Are fore-grips an assistance to rapid fire?
 
2014-04-09 07:41:01 PM  
My take on the gun term semantics argument, for what it's worth:

It's not just about saying "You got one minor part of your statement wrong, therefore the whole thing gets thrown out" (though there does appear to be some of that). It's that at this point, getting it wrong means you are not just ignorant on the subject, you are deliberately ignorant (look at all the images just in this thread that basically say "I know I'm wrong, what'r you gonna do about it?"). You're incorrect on a minor item, but when corrected you say "Whatever, it doesn't matter". When you're told that it does in fact make a difference, you say "No it doesn't, you're just trying to deflect from the real issue". If you know you're ignorant, how can you say that it doesn't matter? If you know you're wrong and refuse to accept a correction on the most minor of subjects, why would anyone listen to anything else you have to say?

If you say something wrong once out of ignorance, that's acceptable. Nobody can know everything. However, if after you are given the correct information you continue to say incorrect things that you now know to be incorrect, you aren't just ignorant, you're a liar. Why would anyone trust anything that person says after that?

So, yes, pro-gun folks will continue to be pedantic, because your ignorance is not equal to their knowledge. Especially when that ignorance goes past the discussion phase and makes it into the lawbooks.
 
2014-04-09 07:48:48 PM  

sharpie_69: tripleseven: Because an argument can be made that a shroud (since it protects the user from a hot barrel usually caused by rapid fire) is an assistance to rapid fire.

Could not the exact same argument be made for any fore-grip on a long gun?  It protects the user from a hot barrel after all.  Are fore-grips an assistance to rapid fire?


I'm not in any legislative capacity. Other than my voting rights.
A question was posed, I answered with a rational, informed answer. That's it. Apparently some people's heads assploded.
 
2014-04-09 07:59:52 PM  
They're not assault rifles, they're automatic machine guns. Words mean whatever anti-firearm advocates say they mean. If you try to contest that, you're in violation of point #derp on that idiot's chart of masturbatory stupidity he posts in almost every thread.

Get it yet, guntardos?
 
2014-04-09 08:02:40 PM  
Carn:Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

I never understood why you would want to ban something and not confiscate it as well. Does that mean the 'assault weapons' that are owned arent dangerous - or at least not dangerous enough to confiscate, and that only new ones are?

Doesn't this create two types of citizens - those that can legally own 'assault weapons' because they owned them before the ban, and those who cannot own them? Is this how people want the laws to apply? How do you prove you owned the rifle before the ban? The last 'assault weapon' ban allowed you to buy and sell rifles that already existed, but not make new ones/ How was that supposed to lower crime?

Of course, I'll get no answers, merely insults.
 
2014-04-09 08:11:26 PM  

sugar_fetus: Of course, I'll get no answers, merely insults.


Moran.

You asked intelligent, reasonable questions for which I too would like to see answers.  I just didn't want to disappoint you in case there were no other insults.
 
2014-04-09 08:17:59 PM  
*Sees headline*

*Sees number of comments*

50% of these are  dittybopper's, right?

*scans thread*

*closes thread*
 
2014-04-09 08:18:50 PM  

James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.


So much this.  The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!

WHo would have thought that Gun Owners were driven by fear!
 
2014-04-09 08:18:59 PM  

stonicus: You sound like a child molester arguing over what exactly the word "consent" means.


You seem to be awfully familiar with how child molesters argue.
 
2014-04-09 08:22:49 PM  

sharpie_69: omeganuepsilon: Figured as much.  Been kinda wanting to get a .22lr plinker styled like an assault weapon just for the aesthetics,

Can you tell me what is so appealing about a .22 with "assault aesthetics" versus just a run of the mill .22?  I love plinking with my little Marlin 60, I just don't understand the want of assault aesthetics for shooting cans...

It's totally fair to say, "Cause I like it."
Also fair for me to say "I just don't get it."


I'm not a fan of woodgrain, or even the traditional shapes/styles/lines of most "normal" target rifles.

I like the modern or even futuristic looks. Black metal, carbon fiber or plastics, etc....yet still realistic, IE not:
www.americanrifleman.org

Akin to the reason I like the lines on a Chrysler 300 and Cadillac Eldorado as opposed to those of the more rounded and bubble shaped sedans, not to mention odd birds like the Pinto, or the older cars such as the Ford LTD(think, boxy cop car from the 80s).  Sleek and sharp lines.

I've even seen some re-tooled 22 mechanisms put into things like the P-90 and FN F2000 and other such bullpups.

It's not about my image, it's about having something I can appreciate looking at as well as utilizing.  It's not a military wet dream, I'm not a survivalist, nor would I "practice drills"(lol @ the thought of being that hardcore).

USP .45: There's no point, it's a waste of money.


Because everyone must only appreciate what you appreciate and revile everything else?
Get over yourself.
 
2014-04-09 08:31:09 PM  

sugar_fetus: Carn:Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

I never understood why you would want to ban something and not confiscate it as well. Does that mean the 'assault weapons' that are owned arent dangerous - or at least not dangerous enough to confiscate, and that only new ones are?

Doesn't this create two types of citizens - those that can legally own 'assault weapons' because they owned them before the ban, and those who cannot own them? Is this how people want the laws to apply? How do you prove you owned the rifle before the ban? The last 'assault weapon' ban allowed you to buy and sell rifles that already existed, but not make new ones/ How was that supposed to lower crime?

Of course, I'll get no answers, merely insults.


Okay, I'll give you my best shot on why I advocate this.

Let;s take a look at the Sandy Hook shootings and the huge poster of Obama that can be seen in many gun stores captioned "Salesman of the Year." The NRA pushes constantly that certain guns are "about to be banned" or that "Obama's gonna take your guns!" in order to sell more of these. People who might have been somewhat on the fence run out and by these guns because they believe the crap spewed by the NRA and that this is their only chance to own one.

Now, the credit card bills are coming due, Congress won't renew unemployment benefits and is cutting food stamps, and those guns are sitting there, some of which only got fired a few times because the people that bought them can't even afford the ammunition. Jimmy Bob at the gun store already has 30 used AR-15's filling up his shelves, so he only offers $250 for what was an $800 gun. There being no laws requiring background checks on person-to-person sales, and a person who can't buy from Jimmy Bob willing to offer more, many will go this route and a good number of those guns will wind up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Some of these guns will eventually be used to commit crimes.

The idea behind banning new sales is that when you limit the existing supply, not only does the price go up, but the number of guns actually begins to decline after some get damaged due to misuse, accidents, confiscations from criminals, and general wear and tear. Eventually, these types of guns are only held by those who appreciate them and would be extremely responsible with them, to the point of keeping them under lock and key constantly. The high price also results in fewer criminals being able to afford one, as opposed to right now when there is a glut in the used AR-15 market from so many people realizing Obama's not coming for them and they can sell the one they have now and buy another later.

I'm an advocate of this approach when it comes to reducing the number of guns in our society, as it accomplishes pretty much the same goals as any type of confiscation, except for no one's gun gets confiscated. Couple this with a buyback program, and tons of people will willingly give up their guns in exchange for money.

I'm a gun owner myself, but I find the idea of strapping up to go to the ice cream store rather distasteful. I think we have way too many guns in our society, and we need some common sense ways of reducing their number as well as keeping them out of the hands of mentally ill, without infringing on the rights of those who are mentally sound and not criminals. This seems like a better idea than any others I've heard.
 
2014-04-09 08:41:23 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, any assault rifle is going to net you a nice tidy profit if you hold on to it for a while, because they are by definition NFA items, and the supply was frozen by the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Any assault rifle that wasn't registered with the ATF by the cut-off in 1986 is illegal to own.

Unless, of course, subby means "assault weapons", which is a nebulous category that seems to basically mean "scary looking guns".  They are not the same thing as "assault rifles", which are by definition machine guns.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 08:42:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Because everyone must only appreciate what you appreciate and revile everything else?
Get over yourself.


Just trying to offer practical advice since I shoot competitively with AR-15s and understand what an AR styled .22LR is good for and what a good conversion kit can do.

If you want to pay extra for a rifle that looks like it's for the military or competition and do nothing but shoot at beer cans, be my guest and tard away.
 
2014-04-09 08:47:09 PM  

shtychkn: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

So much this.  The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!


What a talent to just be able to make up nonsense on demand like that.
 
2014-04-09 08:47:19 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: *Sees headline*

*Sees number of comments*

50% of these are  dittybopper's, right?

*scans thread*

*closes thread*


Well, 17 comments out of 400+, but that's pretty close to 50%. Right? 45%, at least.
 
2014-04-09 08:49:37 PM  
tripleseven: The other night, during the Ft Hood shooting thread
|
|
|

I hope I've come clear?

Yes and no. These things easily get spun off track. Just pulling this out of my ass, but I've never heard that a mass shooting could have been prevented, or at least the carnage decreased, because of a shroud. Didn't the shooter use a .45 handgun? The shroud reference is even more pointless in this instance. I'm all for enhance background checks and proper training, but banning cosmetic or secondary features of a weapon is just idiotic to me. AFAIK, the shroud, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. have never helped anybody increase their body count. I know we're all farking lawyers and experts around here, so these arguments often boil down to semantics and feelings, which can easily get convoluted.

 
2014-04-09 08:51:32 PM  

USP .45: If you want to pay extra


Citation needed. (Read as: Come back when you know what the fark you're talking about)

There are several plinking .22 models in the $200-300 range, new.  Not going to beat that with the price of a new AR-15+ the conversion kit and barrel.
 
2014-04-09 08:59:23 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

So much this.  The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!

What a talent to just be able to make up nonsense on demand like that.


You should read your last 6 posts to me.

They're full of nonsense.
 
2014-04-09 09:02:23 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: lewismarktwo: FrogLube: It Smells Good ®™

Works good too.


Yep, I can see how it might have implied otherwise.  The funny thing is that the recipe is centuries old.
 
2014-04-09 09:02:56 PM  

ultraholland: tripleseven: The other night, during the Ft Hood shooting thread
|
|
|I hope I've come clear?Yes and no. These things easily get spun off track. Just pulling this out of my ass, but I've never heard that a mass shooting could have been prevented, or at least the carnage decreased, because of a shroud. Didn't the shooter use a .45 handgun? The shroud reference is even more pointless in this instance. I'm all for enhance background checks and proper training, but banning cosmetic or secondary features of a weapon is just idiotic to me. AFAIK, the shroud, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. have never helped anybody increase their body count. I know we're all farking lawyers and experts around here, so these arguments often boil down to semantics and feelings, which can easily get convoluted.


It was an answer to a specific question.

I have no feelings about it. Other than when USP guy tried to rewrite history and put words in my mouth. That's a little irksome, but my statements are all there in black and white.

As far as shrouds are concerned, no real feelings about it. Was just giving a rational and informed statement on response to a question. Of course since certain people can never be wrong about guns, their head assploded.
 
2014-04-09 09:03:02 PM  

shtychkn: The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!


Thing is that there hasn't been a real price spike or drop. Availability has gone up with increased production, but even at the height of demand, the over the counter prices stayed relatively normal and companies resorted to things like first come first serve rather than gouging.
Its a market that's got a bad habit of remembering names. Building a reputation can be hard enough without making buyers angry on purpose.

In the end the reason more people want "assault weapons" is because they either fear they can't get them later or know that they'll gain collectors value (just like the pre Hughes amendment AR's did) if the laws change.
They wouldn't have anything to base that assumption on if the left didn't keep making weapon bans a platform issue.

The only way an investment in these weapons proves to be a bust is if the idea of a ban never comes back to the table again, ever.
Can politicians resist that temptation?

Time will tell.

/Some thought Obama would be the first to pull it off.
/They even claimed his silence on the issue meant he was slightly pro gun.
/Those who gambled against Democrats that time made a good bit of money not long after.
 
2014-04-09 09:08:45 PM  

tripleseven: put words in my mouth


aka quoting directly from the thread
 
2014-04-09 09:12:16 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: put words in my mouth

aka quoting directly from the thread


Er...you quoted me, then then stated that I said something else. Then you implied I made those statements in the previous thread and just "backpedaled" in the quotes from today. I then provided you with quotes from the original thread which proved I was correct the entire time and never backpedaled.

I mean, you can keep it up if you want, but its already embarrassing to you.


Carry on.
 
2014-04-09 09:12:27 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

So much this.  The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!

What a talent to just be able to make up nonsense on demand like that.


Yeah. That's how reality works. You should check it or some time.
 
2014-04-09 09:12:54 PM  

way south: Thing is that there hasn't been a real price spike or drop. Availability has gone up with increased production, but even at the height of demand, the over the counter prices stayed relatively normal and companies resorted to things like first come first serve rather than gouging.


Yeahhhhhh...... about that......

truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com



Source
 
KIA
2014-04-09 09:20:24 PM  

tripleseven: I no longer choose to shoot guns, or own them


You no longer "choose" to shoot or own guns in NYC???
 
2014-04-09 09:20:50 PM  

omeganuepsilon: USP .45: If you want to pay extra

Citation needed. (Read as: Come back when you know what the fark you're talking about)

There are several plinking .22 models in the $200-300 range, new.  Not going to beat that with the price of a new AR-15+ the conversion kit and barrel.


The citation being an S&W 15-22. They cost as much as they do for a reason, and at that price, if you already have the disposable income to be buying various guns, again, just get a real AR-15 and a conversion kit (doesn't require another barrel). Alternatively there is a big aftermarket for the Ruger 10-22, and you can make those look as cool as you want.
 
2014-04-09 09:21:24 PM  

ox45tallboy: way south: Thing is that there hasn't been a real price spike or drop. Availability has gone up with increased production, but even at the height of demand, the over the counter prices stayed relatively normal and companies resorted to things like first come first serve rather than gouging.

Yeahhhhhh...... about that......



Source


Thanks.


That is for resale. It would be interesting to see the first sale prices.
 
2014-04-09 09:25:17 PM  

shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

So much this.  The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!

What a talent to just be able to make up nonsense on demand like that.

Yeah. That's how reality works. You should check it or some time.


I've yet to hear anyone reference what a gun manufacturer has said that inspired them to be looking to buy something, probably because that doesn't really happen, ie, your made up fantasy beta male world of nonsense. I'm going to venture what prompted people to start buying heavily was the news.

Oh look, there's a graph someone conveniently posted that proves that.
 
2014-04-09 09:27:18 PM  

KIA: tripleseven: I no longer choose to shoot guns, or own them

You no longer "choose" to shoot or own guns in NYC???


http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/rifle_licensing_information. shtml

No, I don't. I could rather easily keep long guns at home. Just takes a background check, fingerprinting and registering them with the city. Pistols and concealed carry are a little more involved.

See look! Gun control in action! Wharrrgrrbl! Big brother Obama libs!
 
2014-04-09 09:28:24 PM  
USP .45: aka quoting directly from the thread

oh just kiss already
 
2014-04-09 09:29:26 PM  

tripleseven: Er...you quoted me, then then stated that I said something else


Bottom line is whatever you ended up claiming today was still totally and laughably wrong, which is why you finally came out with "oh I don't even care about this barrel shroud debate."

"Barrel shrouds do almost nothing" has been my point all along, and you've been claiming the opposite in some way shape or form this entire time. Allegedly misquoted on what way or shape doesn't matter, you're still wrong. I told you not to even waste your time with this days ago, but here we are.
 
2014-04-09 09:31:40 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Er...you quoted me, then then stated that I said something else

Bottom line is whatever you ended up claiming today was still totally and laughably wrong, which is why you finally came out with "oh I don't even care about this barrel shroud debate."

"Barrel shrouds do almost nothing" has been my point all along, and you've been claiming the opposite in some way shape or form this entire time. Allegedly misquoted on what way or shape doesn't matter, you're still wrong. I told you not to even waste your time with this days ago, but here we are.


You're missing the point. Lying and glibly declaring yourself correct doesn't make you a winnar, kid.
 
2014-04-09 09:38:10 PM  
Is a bigger dick really desirable? I would say I'm average but the last time I fully inserted myself in to a female friend she cried out as I pushed in to her cervix. Not a pleasant thing from what I understand. Don't get me wrong, my other girl has no problem with it and I can push as deep as I want. But still, I wonder if a superman dick is really worth it. I'm considering the AK-47 dick but the AR-15 has some nice qualities. Otherwise I may just stick with my stock dick.
 
2014-04-09 09:39:45 PM  
Have an H&K G3A3 that I was offered almost 4k for last year and its not even pristine condition due to me using it more as a tool and not something that sits in a cabinet and makes an occasional trip to the range.

Almost sold it at that price but after as long as I have had it, as accurate as it is at distance, as much as it has taken a beating and still functions flawlessly, as much as I have used it and mostly as much as I enjoy shooting it I just couldn't part with it.
 
2014-04-09 09:44:00 PM  

tripleseven: You're missing the point. Lying and glibly declaring yourself correct doesn't make you a winnar, kid.


I could care less about being the winner. I care about the eradication of idiocy. Claiming barrel shrouds help rapid fire in any way shape or form is idiocy.

That was your claim.

"the argument could be made that a barrel shroud assists the user in handling, and effectively firing a gun that's barrel had been made hot, likely by rapid fire."

Having hands facilitates rapid fire, you should argue that next, it's just as pointless and intellectually dishonest. The degree and specificity of your claim, no matter how much you feel was taken out of context or allegedly misquoted (ctrl + V), is irrelevant, because it's wrong entirely, which is why you've now shifted to foregrips and other irrelevant nonsense. 

Barrel shrouds don't allow or prevent rapid fire, and gun control advocates could care less if they prevent burns or not, they believe they assist in rapid fire WHICH IS WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
 
2014-04-09 09:46:46 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: You're missing the point. Lying and glibly declaring yourself correct doesn't make you a winnar, kid.

I could care less about being the winner. I care about the eradication of idiocy. Claiming barrel shrouds help rapid fire in any way shape or form is idiocy.

That was your claim.

"the argument could be made that a barrel shroud assists the user in handling, and effectively firing a gun that's barrel had been made hot, likely by rapid fire."

Having hands facilitates rapid fire, you should argue that next, it's just as pointless and intellectually dishonest. The degree and specificity of your claim, no matter how much you feel was taken out of context or allegedly misquoted (ctrl + V), is irrelevant, because it's wrong entirely, which is why you've now shifted to foregrips and other irrelevant nonsense. 

Barrel shrouds don't allow or prevent rapid fire, and gun control advocates could care less if they prevent burns or not, they believe they assist in rapid fire WHICH IS WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.


So, in short, Derp! ?
 
2014-04-09 09:52:45 PM  
If congress had passed the bill though, all the people who bought the guns wouldn't look so stupid. And certain states passed stricter laws. For example, California banned semi automatic rifles that have removable magazines, but the governor vetoed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/california-semi-automatic-r if le-ban_n_4089278.html
 
KIA
2014-04-09 09:58:45 PM  

tripleseven: No, I don't. I could rather easily keep long guns at home. Just takes a background check, fingerprinting and registering them with the city. Pistols and concealed carry are a little more involved.


So, you're saying that all of that regulatory stuff has deterred you from your prior gun ownership.  Interesting.
 
2014-04-09 10:04:29 PM  

KIA: tripleseven: No, I don't. I could rather easily keep long guns at home. Just takes a background check, fingerprinting and registering them with the city. Pistols and concealed carry are a little more involved.

So, you're saying that all of that regulatory stuff has deterred you from your prior gun ownership.  Interesting.


Dufuq? Seriously is deficiency in comprehension run rampant on dark or just amongst the pro gun people?

Where, in what reality do you suss out that statement from my post?
 
2014-04-09 10:16:08 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

So much this.  The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!

What a talent to just be able to make up nonsense on demand like that.

Yeah. That's how reality works. You should check it or some time.

I've yet to hear anyone reference what a gun manufacturer has said that inspired them to be looking to buy something, probably because that doesn't really happen, ie, your made up fantasy beta male world of nonsense. I'm going to venture what prompted people to start buying heavily was the news.

Oh look, there's a graph someone conveniently posted that proves that.


Soo..

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?

Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?  Can you only connect the dots when Glenn Beck plays 27 degrees of doners for you?
 
2014-04-09 10:17:30 PM  

lilfry14: If congress had passed the bill though, all the people who bought the guns wouldn't look so stupid. And certain states passed stricter laws. For example, California banned semi automatic rifles that have removable magazines, but the governor vetoed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/california-semi-automatic-r if le-ban_n_4089278.html


Soo. your example of a law passed is a bill.... that was not signed into law?
 
2014-04-09 10:26:00 PM  

shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?


I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.
 
2014-04-09 10:27:40 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.


So, still can tell he answer:

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?
 
2014-04-09 10:29:19 PM  

shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.

So, still can tell he answer:

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?


Do you purposefully listen to Maroon 5, or is it part of your beta male instincts?
 
2014-04-09 10:31:56 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.


Until sandy hook there was no talk of gun control from Obama. The hysteria was brought up by the right based upon his previous legislation. I sincerely believe he had no intention whatsoever to enact any gun control legislation and he was praying to get through his tenure without a event forcing his hand.

But, he's a gun grabber so buy a farkon of ammo and all the guns you can get!
 
2014-04-09 10:41:51 PM  

shtychkn: lilfry14: If congress had passed the bill though, all the people who bought the guns wouldn't look so stupid. And certain states passed stricter laws. For example, California banned semi automatic rifles that have removable magazines, but the governor vetoed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/california-semi-automatic-r if le-ban_n_4089278.html

Soo. your example of a law passed is a bill.... that was not signed into law?


You are correct that that is not an example of a passed law. I was wrong to say "for example." What I should have said was certain states didn't know if they would be able to get certain guns in the future, such as California where it wasn't clear if the governor would sign in the proposed law.

As a more concrete example of AR style weapons being banned was in New York where the state passed the SAFE act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act  which according to wikipedia: "Possession of the newly defined assault weapons is allowed only if they were possessed at the time that the law was passed, and must be registered with the state within one year."
 
2014-04-09 10:42:24 PM  

tripleseven: Until sandy hook there was no talk of gun control from Obama. The hysteria was brought up by the right based upon his previous legislation. I sincerely believe he had no intention whatsoever to enact any gun control legislation and he was praying to get through his tenure without a event forcing his hand.


During his presidency there was no talk, but historically there has been. Shame on the right for assuming he wouldn't be a politically opportunistic little hack when in office. All that Hope and Change confused everyone into thinking he would be principled.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

The most striking is "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." Which is a defacto ban on on everything I own, which gets "taken" when I die. Truly a sinister way to approach public policy; "you're dead so what do you care?"
 
2014-04-09 10:44:20 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Until sandy hook there was no talk of gun control from Obama. The hysteria was brought up by the right based upon his previous legislation. I sincerely believe he had no intention whatsoever to enact any gun control legislation and he was praying to get through his tenure without a event forcing his hand.

During his presidency there was no talk, but historically there has been. Shame on the right for assuming he wouldn't be a politically opportunistic little hack when in office. All that Hope and Change confused everyone into thinking he would be principled.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

The most striking is "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." Which is a defacto ban on on everything I own, which gets "taken" when I die. Truly a sinister way to approach public policy; "you're dead so what do you care?"


You got played.
 
2014-04-09 10:46:32 PM  

sugar_fetus: Carn:Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

I never understood why you would want to ban something and not confiscate it as well. Does that mean the 'assault weapons' that are owned arent dangerous - or at least not dangerous enough to confiscate, and that only new ones are?


- Because if you're in favor of gun control (I'm elucidating the argument, not necessarily agreeing with it) you might want to take what you can get, rather than nothing at all.

Doesn't this create two types of citizens - those that can legally own 'assault weapons' because they owned them before the ban, and those who cannot own them? Is this how people want the laws to apply? How do you prove you owned the rifle before the ban? The last 'assault weapon' ban allowed you to buy and sell rifles that already existed, but not make new ones/ How was that supposed to lower crime?

- My understanding is similar to what someone else posted; reduction over time, through attrition.  "The perfect is the enemy of the good", would be the underlying thinking.

Afa "two types of citizens", well...it's a nice theory, but that ship sailed a LONG time ago.
 
2014-04-09 10:48:37 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.

So, still can tell he answer:

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?

Do you purposefully listen to Maroon 5, or is it part of your beta male instincts?


That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.
 
2014-04-09 10:48:45 PM  

shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.

So, still can tell he answer:

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?


Nope. He's right. Feinstein II: Thumbhole Bugaloo would have banned production, transfer, sale or inheritance of millions of currently legal guns. It would have made any "ugly" guns illegal for completely cosmetic reasons. President Obama supported it. When it died he said he would try to find other ways to make them illegal. That's all a matter of public record.

When Ugly Gun Ban I passed back in the 90s the usual suspects including Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein said it was "just the beginning". Their next bills included 4000% tax on all gun parts, limits on how many you could buy, arsenal licenses that would have made you pay hundreds or thousands. of dollars in fees for owning a couple boxes of .22 ammunition.

They also included bans on "high power sniper rifles" which would have made the bolt action hunting rifles they claimed to support illegal.

This also gave Congress to the Greedy Old Pedo Party.
 
2014-04-09 10:49:19 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Until sandy hook there was no talk of gun control from Obama. The hysteria was brought up by the right based upon his previous legislation. I sincerely believe he had no intention whatsoever to enact any gun control legislation and he was praying to get through his tenure without a event forcing his hand.

During his presidency there was no talk, but historically there has been. Shame on the right for assuming he wouldn't be a politically opportunistic little hack when in office. All that Hope and Change confused everyone into thinking he would be principled.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

The most striking is "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." Which is a defacto ban on on everything I own, which gets "taken" when I die. Truly a sinister way to approach public policy; "you're dead so what do you care?"

You got played.


I know right? It's like, he takes these positions and then denies taking them at a later date.

Seems familiar...
 
2014-04-09 10:49:53 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: 

Barrel shrouds don't allow or prevent rapid fire, and gun control advocates could care less if they prevent burns or not, they believe they assist in rapid fire WHICH IS WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

So, in short, Derp! ?


In short, he's right. You're wrong. And since you know you're wrong but lampshade it by croaking "derp" you're also a liar
 
2014-04-09 10:52:01 PM  

anuran: tripleseven: USP .45: 

Barrel shrouds don't allow or prevent rapid fire, and gun control advocates could care less if they prevent burns or not, they believe they assist in rapid fire WHICH IS WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

So, in short, Derp! ?

In short, he's right. You're wrong. And since you know you're wrong but lampshade it by croaking "derp" you're also a liar


Maybe you should read the entire thread.
 
2014-04-09 10:55:40 PM  

shtychkn: That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.


Obama must be the the gelding of the bunch then, sprinkling MRAPs all around the country like he's a tactical Johnny Appleseed. Strange how he says we need to get weapons of war off the streets, then in a very literal way, puts weapons of war on the streets...like ones that actually drive around on the streets.