Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

9778 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (1 year 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 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.
 
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 »
Advertisement
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