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  
•       •       •

9769 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 723 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report