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  
•       •       •

9772 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (36 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 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?
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report