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 164
    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 (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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

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

An assault rifle is a select-fire (semi and full automatic) carbine with a removable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge that is more powerful than a handgun cartridge but less powerful than a full sized rifle cartridge.
2014-04-09 02:32:03 PM  
8 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

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

...

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

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

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

Duly noted.
2014-04-09 04:43:12 PM  
5 votes:

CynicalLA: steve42: When you say:

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

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

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


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

img.fark.net
Because it couldn't be that I support other people's rights or anything like that, because that would be CRAZY!
2014-04-09 03:50:13 PM  
5 votes:
For everyone's edification, the 2009 AP Stylebook entry for assault rifle and assault weapon:

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

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

If you guys want, I can post the AP stylebook definition of "automatic" too.
2014-04-09 03:42:56 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:44:57 PM  
5 votes:

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.
2014-04-09 05:05:58 PM  
4 votes:

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


Actually Dittybopper is quite accurate in his statistics.  Here's some open-source gun data for you to peruse at your leisure.
2014-04-09 04:26:22 PM  
4 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


Semantics matter when you send people to jail over them.

Semantics matter when you want to deliberately confuse the public into thinking that a popular sporting rifle is a machine gun.
2014-04-09 04:19:30 PM  
4 votes:

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

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

Pages 202 and 203.


OK, let's look at that:

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


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

(i) a folding or telescoping stock

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

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

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


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

So the solution was to make a separate pistol grip.

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

(iii) a bayonet mount;

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

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


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

'(v) a grenade launcher

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

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

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

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

So what was the point again?
2014-04-09 03:44:34 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:00:13 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

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


Oh, you mean like this?

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
2014-04-09 02:22:10 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.
2014-04-09 02:18:35 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

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

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


Really, I mean, gun owners must have been *STUPID* to take Obama at his word.
KIA
2014-04-09 05:56:14 PM  
3 votes:
You're the same folks who claim that the right to vote is severely infringed by laws requiring that someone show a photo ID to prove they are voting only once in the correct district, aren't you?  You fought hard to get that overturned.  Why?  Because, rights!

But somehow requiring extensive BATF paperwork and background checks to exercise Second Amendment rights isn't an infringement.  Why? Because, wharrgarble!  And we need even greater infringements because wharrgarble II!

There are incidents of police abuse and brutality as well as any number of horrific crimes perpetrated against completely innocent people every day.  Well-established case law that says the police have no duty to come protect you personally.  Their duty is to the society as a whole, so if they can't get to you in time, that's pretty much too bad for you.

But if a person wants to keep a handgun concealed about their person to protect themselves, they should be subjected to mandatory licensing and regulations because... UNFOCUSED BUT ALL-ENCOMPASSING FEAR!


Look, we are a nation of rights.  Free speech, free religion, uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.  Any of these can be exercised for any reason at all or just because you feel like it.

You either believe in all of the rights or you don't.  Frankly, I don't care what you believe and I don't have to because I have my rights and I'm not giving them up.
2014-04-09 05:49:11 PM  
3 votes:

tripleseven: Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician that proposed legislation on said item once miss identified it.


FIFY.

If you can't even identify the damn thing, maybe quit trying to legislate it until you can actually educate yourself on what the hell you are talking about.
2014-04-09 05:35:00 PM  
3 votes:

CynicalLA: Like I said, paranoid. They are coming to take your guns. You better stock up.


I might be paranoid, but there are a number of people that really do want to start banning guns. To deny that they exist is just silly.

I'm not too worried though. There are fewer true believers on the opposing side every year. Their movement is in its death throes.

For myself, I have plenty of guns. If I'm honest with myself I have more than I'll ever need. Most of what I plan to have in the future I'll be building myself.
2014-04-09 05:07:40 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

It's an extra-ordinarily obscure firearms part and would be particularly useless on a semi-automatic firearm.... so,of course it must be banned!
2014-04-09 04:53:02 PM  
3 votes:

CynicalLA: steve42: When you say:

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

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

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


Nice.  Calling people names.

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

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

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


*One of the things I like about shooting is that it's all just applied physics.
2014-04-09 04:42:17 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


So he was lying?

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

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

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

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


In Australia, a ban did in fact mean the government went and took them away.  And since we all speak English...
2014-04-09 04:36:32 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

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


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
2014-04-09 04:19:35 PM  
3 votes:

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

My question to you: Is it an Assault Rifle?

No, it's not designed for military forces.


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

scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2014-04-09 04:12:54 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

She doesn't need to be Dr. Oakley, gun scientician, but she needs to show that she took the trouble to understand what she's doing.
2014-04-09 04:07:21 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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


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

i.imgur.com
2014-04-09 03:49:47 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

The reason why clip and magazine aren't interchangeable is because some guns do use actual clips and some use detachable magazines, and they're not the same kind of part. You can't just call up an auto parts store and expect them to know if you're talking about disc brakes or drum brakes when you just say "brakes". They're not the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable. Thinking they are just makes you wrong and ignorant. It's the same with magazine and clip. Using them interchangeably just shows you haven't actually learned what they mean yet.
2014-04-09 03:35:26 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:33:26 PM  
3 votes:

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.
KIA
2014-04-09 03:31:01 PM  
3 votes:
OMG, people own guns.  They also own knives and clubs and spears and swords and boomerangs.  Get over it.
2014-04-09 03:24:39 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2014-04-10 03:05:49 AM  
2 votes:

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: So I turn in the colt for a 125 dollar profit. Then I can buy another one and do the same. This will totally exhaust the gun supply since colt stopped making guns so long ago.

I'm really failing to see how this actually helps anything.

So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore. Or. you buy them out with taxpayer money and you convert the part of their factory that doesn't make guns for the military into making something else the government needs a lot of. Everyone keeps their job, the shareholders get happy, everyone's happy.


Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.
2014-04-09 10:48:45 PM  
2 votes:

shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.

So, still can tell he answer:

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?


Nope. He's right. Feinstein II: Thumbhole Bugaloo would have banned production, transfer, sale or inheritance of millions of currently legal guns. It would have made any "ugly" guns illegal for completely cosmetic reasons. President Obama supported it. When it died he said he would try to find other ways to make them illegal. That's all a matter of public record.

When Ugly Gun Ban I passed back in the 90s the usual suspects including Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein said it was "just the beginning". Their next bills included 4000% tax on all gun parts, limits on how many you could buy, arsenal licenses that would have made you pay hundreds or thousands. of dollars in fees for owning a couple boxes of .22 ammunition.

They also included bans on "high power sniper rifles" which would have made the bolt action hunting rifles they claimed to support illegal.

This also gave Congress to the Greedy Old Pedo Party.
2014-04-09 09:52:45 PM  
2 votes:
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
2014-04-09 05:28:52 PM  
2 votes:
dittybopper: Actually, I view him as the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry in my nearly 50 years of life.

not only that, but he signed into law the ability for people to carry weapons in national parks.

media3.washingtonpost.com

this fruitcake with the sign was at that rally with his tri-cornered-hat-wearing buddies because they were allowed to be; yet they were protesting Obama, and guns, and tyranny, and whatever the fark else was on their minds. These farks bought up the guns. These farks bought up the ammo. These farks drove prices high, and me out of the market. These farks make gun owners look like shiat.

and all in response to Obama expanding gun rights.
2014-04-09 05:11:51 PM  
2 votes:

mcmnky: Buying a new gun or rifle is sorta like getting a puppy from the mall pet store: if you do either, you probably aren't qualified to own a firearm / dog.

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

Unless it's for a gift or ceremonial purpose, buying new is for suckers.


Ah No; please post photo of your Flintstones Foot-mobile! Would love to see your Alexander Graham Bell, hand crank phone box; next to your wood fired Ben Franklin Stove! Oh wait, hard to scan image of your non-new goods with glass plate Mathew Brady~esque wooden box camera.

Many new firearms are made with different/ increased safety features, made out of new materials; and shoot new calibers of ammunition. Plus, new innovations in bolt technology to include Kriss Vector design, FN P-90 carbine, or even Glock Striker fire design...

Please sit down, thank you for playing, there are some nice party gifts for you as you leave to go back to your basement.
2014-04-09 05:01:27 PM  
2 votes:

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

I'll give you a very specific example.

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

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

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


So why does she feel that it's OK for just her to carry a gun, then? Besides, I watched my mother get beaten to death when I was 5, you don't see me advocating for the outlawing of work boots, do you?
2014-04-09 04:35:25 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


So he was lying?

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

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


OK, so, let me get this straight:  He wasn't coming for our guns, except that he said he was, but he was totally lying and we should have known that, because subsequent events have shown that he couldn't get any of his wish-list passed in Congress, right?
2014-04-09 04:31:00 PM  
2 votes:
When you say:

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


I hear: "All private gun ownership should be outlawed because violence."
2014-04-09 04:30:34 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

/also plenty of people in this thread seem to care
//welcome to fark
2014-04-09 03:55:28 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

I'm wrong because reasons, obviously.


Yeah. AP stylebook says Mr CNN is wrong in the article. Manufacturers, the ATF, militaries, and people who fix and sell them all disagree with you. Do you have a particular authority outside of non subject matter experts that you'd like to consult?
2014-04-09 03:46:32 PM  
2 votes:

Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: So he was lying?

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

And that's why the gun lobby loves you.


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

http://www.ala.org/
2014-04-09 03:43:56 PM  
2 votes:
Few things give me greater pleasure than seeing a butthurt gun nut.
2014-04-09 03:40:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:38:27 PM  
2 votes:
cybermech.net
2014-04-09 03:33:21 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:32:04 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:28:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:21:55 PM  
2 votes:

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.
wee
2014-04-09 02:47:39 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Duly noted.


Dude, the guy's just trolling you.  Ignore the ignorant.
2014-04-09 01:52:58 PM  
2 votes:
The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.
2014-04-10 11:54:08 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Please show me evidence documenting that criminals are widely being granted ccws and that this is a serious problem worthy of restricting the rights of others. Shall issue has been abused countless times in the past to deny people their rights. A few random cases of criminals being caught with ccws does not pass muster for massive trespasses on people's rights. Would you be ok with your local sheriff approving your right to free speech? To vote? You don't think those two things have caused a lot of death and carnage?

I didn't say that criminals were "widely being granted" CCW. Once again, you're responding to something I never said. Please read what I actually say and respond to that. I am not going to defend what you are arguing, because I never said it.

I stated that "shall issue" is not a Good Thing. I was asked to provide examples of why this was a Bad Thing. I stated a few circumstances in which it would be prudent for law enforcement to deny a permit. I was ridiculed. I answered with citations of that exact thing occurring. I was told that that is a very rare occurrence, to which I reply, "Yes! It is indeed very rare! That's exactly what I'm saying - there are certain times when it is in society's best interests to deny someone a permit to tote a gun around!" I never once said that there circumstances would occur on a regular basis. I said that when they do occur, the sheriff's hands are tied and he must allow someone he knows to be dangerous to carry a gun in the community he is charged with keeping safe.


If criminals aren't widely being granted ccw permits than it's a non-issue and you have no point. If a sheriff "knows" someone is a dangerous individual then he should do his job, collect evidence, and have him imprisoned in order to remove said danger from society. This legislation you're proposing would do little to keep a truly dangerous individual from obtaining a firearm. What you are doing is making the ccw process for law abiding citizens to be at the whim of government officials and their prejudices where denials can be met with expensive and lengthy appeals that have no guarantee of a good outcome. Raise the barrier of entry as high as you can. Your agenda is very transparent and it scares me that people like you can advocate for such disgusting social injustices with a straight face.
2014-04-10 01:00:58 PM  
1 votes:

redmid17: "First shot's a warning"


That is so 2009.  The new sticker is this:

sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net
2014-04-10 03:59:03 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fark It: You are absolutely delusional.

I think the only delusion I have is that some people might view gun crime and gun deaths as a problem that needs a solution


End the drug war

without believing that the slightest bit of gun control is an interference with their God-given rights to own every gun they can possibly own, and that their 2nd Amendment rights will still exist if there are fewer than one gun for every man, woman, and child in this country..

Except this isn't the slightest bit of gun control, you're talking about driving gun companies out of business, nationalizing them, and pricing the poor out of the 2nd Amendment via market manipulation.
2014-04-10 03:45:52 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: No one can provide any argument as to why it's a bad idea, or would infringe on anyone's rights. All I hear is complete non sequiturs of "what an idiotic idea" with absolutely no cited references (which I've happily provided) or even logical conclusions.


You are absolutely delusional.
2014-04-10 03:40:24 AM  
1 votes:

Doom MD: Your idea is pants-on-head retarded and I'm starting to wonder if I'm arguing with a 14 year old.


That's all I'm hearing is "that's retarded" and "that's stupid". No one can provide any argument as to why it's a bad idea, or would infringe on anyone's rights. All I hear is complete non sequiturs of "what an idiotic idea" with absolutely no cited references (which I've happily provided) or even logical conclusions.

Step up your game, man! You have to say why this is pants-on-head-retarded!

Pants-on-head retarded to me is the people who believe that their "right" to own any gun they want to and carry it wherever they want to is more important than anyone else's right to not risk getting shot by accident, or even a business owner's right to tell people what's allowed and not allowed in his establishment.

Pants-on-head retarded is the people that won't even acknowledge there is a problem with gun crime, much less offer any realistic solution other than "give everyone more guns!"
2014-04-10 03:29:13 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: And once again, no one is being "denied their rights". No one has to sell. Many will choose to because the money is worth more to them than having a gun around. But no one, not even the gun manufacturers, will have to sell.


.......

Earlier:

So I turn in the colt for a 125 dollar profit. Then I can buy another one and do the same. This will totally exhaust the gun supply since colt stopped making guns so long ago.

I'm really failing to see how this actually helps anything.

So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore. Or. you buy them out with taxpayer money and you convert the part of their factory that doesn't make guns for the military into making something else the government needs a lot of. Everyone keeps their job, the shareholders get happy, everyone's happy


I can't wait to see you try to worm your way out of this one.

Errr.... fewer guns equals less gun crime. Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case?

It would appear not, since the amount of guns in circulation is at a record high, while crime is at a record low, even compared to countries with stricter gun control laws.  Like Mexico and every Central American country.

Are you also arguing that cheaper guns are not statistically more likely to be used in a crime than more expensive ones?

No, I'm saying that cheap handguns are statistically more likely to be used in crimes (not cheap shotguns and .22s), and that "buybacks" are ineffective.

See:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/29/gun-buybacks-mostly- a -waste-of-time-and-money-experts-say.html

For the fifth or sixth time, in case you haven't read it.  Or in case you are ignoring it, in which case, LOOK EVERYONE!

Wait, wait, wait... so you really believe that guns should be cheap and readily available to anyone who wants one?

I believe that the poor should have the same access to their Constitutional Rights as the rich, that they follow the same rules, and that the accessibility of their rights not be arbitrarily and maliciously manipulated and hampered by statist, ideologically-driven anti-gun lunatics.
2014-04-10 03:22:11 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fark It: End the drug war.

Hey, that sounds good to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that that by itself would reduce gun violence so much that it would be decades before we would see the next major gun restriction attempt.

Here's another one from me - get rid of "Shall Issue". Leave it up to the local sheriff to decide, with an appeals process in place to limit abuse of authority. Sometimes a local sheriff might think it's not a good idea to give a handgun carry permit to a guy with a history of off-the-books or misdemeanor-only domestic violence. Sometimes it takes someone local to know that a particular individual deals meth but keeps it very quiet, or another individual has mental issues but has never been officially diagnosed and can't be forced to get help because they're not really a danger to anyone - as long as they don't have a gun.


Yeah, because as demonstrated in so many "Shall Issue" states, counties and what have you, it wont be used as a tool to hook up those that are in some politicians inner circle, donor or a privileged class while denying regular law abiding citizens the opportunity to exercise one of our constitutional rights. This coming from a guy that has to deal with those that use guns against myself and the general public on a regular basis, sir your lacking in common sense. That or you need to move back to Venezuela.
2014-04-10 03:21:36 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: violentsalvation: I keep hearing this specific rhetoric, like now the adults are at the table and the hammer is coming down. But then I read the proposals and I have a hard time keeping a straight face. Yeah 3.5% of unwanted guns bought back at an undervalued, mere $4 billion dollars. That will be an easy sell, and it will totally do something to prevent the next such and so on.

I'm sorry for interrupting, I forgot the adults were seated.

So what's your counterproposal? What policy are you in favor of that will reduce gun violence?


Well there's the drug war, which I'm sure you're already in favor of ending. And better health care, single payer, which I'm sure you're in favor of. True mental health parity which I'm sure, yeah that again, getting redundant. Better wages, jobs programs, more scholarships, cheaper tuition - of all things we throw money at, we should throw more at hungry minds. Development incentives in inner cities (dog whistle?). Etc. There is so much we could, and should actually do to make violence an afterthought for those who resort to it now. But if we are stuck on guns, I'd throw out the idea of tax incentives on newly bought, properly installed gun safes.
2014-04-10 03:17:59 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fark It: End the drug war.

Hey, that sounds good to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that that by itself would reduce gun violence so much that it would be decades before we would see the next major gun restriction attempt.

Here's another one from me - get rid of "Shall Issue". Leave it up to the local sheriff to decide, with an appeals process in place to limit abuse of authority. Sometimes a local sheriff might think it's not a good idea to give a handgun carry permit to a guy with a history of off-the-books or misdemeanor-only domestic violence. Sometimes it takes someone local to know that a particular individual deals meth but keeps it very quiet, or another individual has mental issues but has never been officially diagnosed and can't be forced to get help because they're not really a danger to anyone - as long as they don't have a gun.


Shall issue has been abused countless times. So no. Does no work for you?
2014-04-10 03:15:54 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fark It: End the drug war.

Hey, that sounds good to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that that by itself would reduce gun violence so much that it would be decades before we would see the next major gun restriction attempt.

Here's another one from me - get rid of "Shall Issue". Leave it up to the local sheriff to decide, with an appeals process in place to limit abuse of authority.


No.  Self-defense ought not to be predicated on the whims of the Barney Fiefs and Sheriff Joes of the world.

Sometimes a local sheriff might think it's not a good idea to give a handgun carry permit to a guy with a history of off-the-books or misdemeanor-only domestic violence.

Law enforcement should be allowed to object to concealed carry applicants in states that regulate concealed carry.

Sometimes it takes someone local to know that a particular individual deals meth but keeps it very quiet, or another individual has mental issues but has never been officially diagnosed and can't be forced to get help because they're not really a danger to anyone - as long as they don't have a gun.

So, a judge or psychiatrist?
2014-04-10 03:11:02 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore.


Colt hasn't made revolvers in a long time.

Doom MD: Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.


He's offering up a compromise!  He's not some lunatic who wants to take all of your guns, he just wants to nationalize gun manufacturers so they can't sell you any.  If we don't listen to his voice of reason then the gun grabbers will enact gun control that you won't like because you won't agree to gun control that you don't like.
2014-04-10 03:05:56 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Ummmm... I'm th guy that's provided citations to back up everything I've been questioned on; you seem to be on the side that has to stoop to non sequiturs because you can't argue facts when they're not on your side.


Going on to gunsamerica or gunbroker and throwing together a list of guns that cost under $400 to prove your point is not a "citation."  It's not scholarly, it means nothing, especially when you've been questioned on your baseless, unfounded, and flat-out incorrect assertion that gun buybacks targeting cheap guns in the inventory of FFLs or in the possession of the poor/lower middle class will have any effect on crime.

Your grand idea is to take something that can be generously called "mostly a waste of time," rather than a complete waste of time, and upscale it to the point where the cost of implementation runs into the low 11-figures.  At best, your idea will increase the value of the guns (tools) that no criminal in their right mind would give up and make it easier for them to trade up to something more effective.  It also has the added benefit of effectively barring the poor from gun ownership.
2014-04-10 02:58:56 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: You lost me with the rest. It's like you're trying your best to not see what I'm writing


What you're writing makes absolutely no sense.

Let's hear a counterproposal for reducing the number of guns in this country - not eliminating, mind you, just reducing a bit,

Why am I under any obligation to offer up a proposal to reduce the number of guns in this country?  There are a record number of guns in this country and crime is at a record low.

and also reducing gun crime by keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill.

End the drug war.
2014-04-10 02:47:27 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fark It: I'm going to offer something only slightly more credible than rectally-recovered figures and offer a personal anecdote, that the average used gun costs significantly in excess of $400, as pretty much the only used guns that go for less are certain FFL 03 C&R guns (mostly long guns, and bolt-action ones at that).  Like the Mosin Nagant, Czech Mausers, etc.

Yeah, too bad I've already linked to a ton of handguns priced well below $400 - from FFL dealers, at the first gun sales site I found on a Google search. You think they'd be more or less from a private seller?

Oh, look! here's some revolvers as well. , including a Colt .38 Police for $275, and a decent selection of S&W .38 special for $389.


Yeah, and it sure looks like they're just sitting on the shelves.  It totally looks like these gun shops need billions of dollars from the federal government to clear out their inventory.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/29/gun-buybacks-mostly -a -waste-of-time-and-money-experts-say.html

/what makes you think that these types of guns aren't, in fact, undervalued, and that a soft confiscation/buyback won't increase the demand, and therefore drive up the prices?  You think the market value would remain static after a "buyback"?
2014-04-10 02:47:16 AM  
1 votes:

Doom MD: Serious question, do you actually think gun buybacks have any impact on crime? If you have any evidence for it that would be fantastic.

That being said, I'll gather every single raven in my city and gladly sell it to you for 400 a pop.


By themselves? If they do, it's pretty minimal, as most of the guns are crap and nonworking. That's why you do it differently than they have in the past - target the FFL dealers. You get them to sell off huge parts of their inventory that aren't selling, and you'll get them flush with both cash and inventory room. This gets more guns off the street. Limit new sales of firearms as well, and you wind up driving up the price. Then gun crime will start to come down. And once again, not a single person has been involuntarily deprived of any gun they own.
2014-04-10 02:28:35 AM  
1 votes:
2014-04-10 02:27:51 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: You're saying that no one will sell a crappy handgun for $100?


Not somebody who uses crappy, $100 handguns....

AR-15's repurchased will bring more money than $400. Crappy Saturday night specials and old 1950's era rusted-up 20-gauge shotguns will bring less. If, as you said, the vast majority of AR-15 owners love love love their guns, they probably wouldn't sell them back to the government at any price - thereby proving my point for me, so thanks for that. The vast majority of guns purchased would be of the crappy variety, and $400 is not an unreasonable estimate for the average price of all the firearms repurchased.

Let's read the rest of what you posted.  Shockingly, it got stupider.

At an liberal (heh!) estimate of $400 per gun, we can get rid of 10 million guns for the low, low price of 4 billion dollars.

10 million guns that are likely barely functioning and statistically unlikely to be used in a crime.  And if your hope is to get crime guns off of the street, I pity your thinking.  The average criminal is not going to dispose of evidence by handing it over to the police, it's going to end up at the bottom of a large body of water or buried in the desert.  They're not going to dispose of a tool of their trade for less than the utility it brings to them.  The average street hood with a $100 Raven won't turn it in for $110, not when they can use it to bump off rival drug dealers or knock over a liquor store.

This is only about 3 1/2% of the number of guns currently in the country, but they're the most important ones to take off the streets.

See above.

Most of the guns will come from gun shops,

How do you figure?

which means they will have lots of inventory room to buy more guns from people.

If these are guns nobody wants what are gun shops doing with them in the first place?

This is a good thing for taking guns off the streets,

I thought we were talking about gun dealers/FFLs

since FFL dealers

OK, now you are, four words ago you were talking about taking guns off the streets.

are not only heavily regulated, but also go to great pains to secure the guns they own.

But you just said that we need to get these guns out of their shops to keep them off the streets...

The remainder of the guns will come almost exclusively from poor people who need the money.

But who had enough money for a gun in the first place...

These are the people who are more likely to turn to crime due to poverty, and they also are less likely to keep their guns secure because they don't have the money for a safe, and they live in poor neighborhoods where burglary is more common.

If the GOP was anti-gun, this is what they would sound like.
2014-04-10 02:15:20 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fark It: No criminal is going to give up a tool of their trade for $100.  Or $110.  Or however much they can sell/trade it for on the street.

LOL wut

You're saying that no one will sell a crappy handgun for $100?

Let me give you a tour of Atlanta, my friend.

Fark It: The AR-15 is the most popular firearm in America.  The vast, overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners will ridicule your proposal.  If you want to buyback/confiscate them, you're going to need a lot of money, since there is a huge cottage industry in aftermarket parts that will now be relatively useless.  An AR owner who submits to a buyback is going to have scopes, optics, magazines, accessories, and probably even ammo that they can't use in any of their other guns.

Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I wrote. Or perhaps you really did "stop reading there" when you said you did, and are just responding to what you think I said instead of what I actually said. I never said $400 for an AR-15, I said $400 as the "average" price for ALL guns being bought back. I have no idea where in the world you came up with "AR-15", as that series of letters was not in the post you were replying to. I also said that most would be coming from overstock of FFL dealers, crap guns that they can't get rid of anyways - why would they sell an AR-15 for $400, unless it wasn't in good repair?

AR-15's repurchased will bring more money than $400. Crappy Saturday night specials and old 1950's era rusted-up 20-gauge shotguns will bring less. If, as you said, the vast majority of AR-15 owners love love love their guns, they probably wouldn't sell them back to the government at any price - thereby proving my point for me, so thanks for that. The vast majority of guns purchased would be of the crappy variety, and $400 is not an unreasonable estimate for the average price of all the firearms repurchased.


Serious question, do you actually think gun buybacks have any impact on crime? If you have any evidence for it that would be fantastic.

That being said, I'll gather every single raven in my city and gladly sell it to you for 400 a pop.
2014-04-10 02:11:54 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: You've got to include the .22's and .20 gauge shotguns and crappy .25 cal "ladies' guns"


And how often are these guns used in crimes, since the desired effect is to reduce crime?

I stand by my numbers that I pulled out of my ass until you can disprove my baseless claim show that the average sale price of all used firearms is significantly different.

I'm going to offer something only slightly more credible than rectally-recovered figures and offer a personal anecdote, that the average used gun costs significantly in excess of $400, as pretty much the only used guns that go for less are certain FFL 03 C&R guns (mostly long guns, and bolt-action ones at that).  Like the Mosin Nagant, Czech Mausers, etc.
2014-04-10 02:08:50 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: It's cute he thinks the average gun is 400 dollars.

It's cute that you think the average gun is worth more than $400. You've got to include the .22's and .20 gauge shotguns and crappy .25 cal "ladies' guns" as well as the Mossbergs and H&K's.

I'm referring to the average price of a used gun that would be purchased through a buyback program, not the average sale price of a brand new gun.

$400 is waaaay overpriced for a lousy .25 or a 30-year-old Walmart special bird gun. I stand by my numbers until you can show that the average sale price of all used firearms is significantly different.


How many ravens does it take to offset the cost of a single Barrett rifle? Please retake statistics 101.
2014-04-10 02:06:16 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fark It: You paraphrased this from the New Yorker/The Atlantic/Mother Jones, right?  You're a gun owner?  That claim means nothing, there are 80 million gun owners in this country, and 80 million different opinions on gun control.

Nope, that's all my own.

Do you feel an estimate of $400 for the average gun purchased through a buyback plan is an unreasonable estimate? Keep in mind that many will be barely serviceable Saturday Night Specials that might be worth $100 on the street but a legitimate firearms dealer would never touch. On the other side of the fence, there are some AR-15 clones that will be bringing the average back up.

I find it fascinating how you respond to me by accusing me of plagiarizing at the same time you're saying you didn't bother reading what I typed. Once again, this is why the majority of people who don't own guns will soon decide to put a stop to the gun violence without the gun owners having a say in the matter. Gun owners need to have a seat at the table now or they'll be excluded from it later.


Do you even know what guns retail for? 400 dollars? You could get a decent shotgun, plinker, or a second hand polymer pistol for around that, maybe, and not much else. Certainly no safe queen. Legal gun owners don't generally run around with $100 ravens. Please find me the politician willing to pay joe citizen fair market value +10% for his Barrett rifle. You are literally plucking numbers out of the air. To be fair, this puts you roughly at the average of most gun control advocate politicians, I'll even throw in an extra 10%
2014-04-10 01:58:26 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Do you feel an estimate of $400 for the average gun purchased through a buyback plan is an unreasonable estimate?


Yes.

Keep in mind that many will be barely serviceable Saturday Night Specials that might be worth $100 on the street but a legitimate firearms dealer would never touch.

No criminal is going to give up a tool of their trade for $100.  Or $110.  Or however much they can sell/trade it for on the street.

On the other side of the fence, there are some AR-15 clones that will be bringing the average back up.

The AR-15 is the most popular firearm in America.  The vast, overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners will ridicule your proposal.  If you want to buyback/confiscate them, you're going to need a lot of money, since there is a huge cottage industry in aftermarket parts that will now be relatively useless.  An AR owner who submits to a buyback is going to have scopes, optics, magazines, accessories, and probably even ammo that they can't use in any of their other guns.

Once again, this is why the majority of people who don't own guns will soon decide to put a stop to the gun violence without the gun owners having a say in the matter. Gun owners need to have a seat at the table now or they'll be excluded from it later.

"Give us what we want now, or we'll take more later."

Get farked.
2014-04-10 01:43:32 AM  
1 votes:

Doom MD: It's cute he thinks the average gun is 400 dollars.


There was a columnist for WaPo, Matt Miller, who wrote an embarrassingly stupid editorial in the wake of Newtown, where he held up Australia's "buyback" (without referring to it as what it really was, a confiscation) as a model, and then threw out the lowball of $500 per gun, which would magically make America's streets safer because we would somehow turn in the same amount of guns as Australians were severely overestimated to have turned in.  The disarmament advocates quickly fell in line and began parroting this nonsense, although they smartly have stopped referencing Australia's confiscation program (for the most part).
2014-04-10 01:23:55 AM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Put up a gun buyback program offering market value plus, say 10% on guns


....

At an liberal (heh!) estimate of $400 per gun

img.4plebs.org

You paraphrased this from the New Yorker/The Atlantic/Mother Jones, right?  You're a gun owner?  That claim means nothing, there are 80 million gun owners in this country, and 80 million different opinions on gun control.
2014-04-10 01:17:46 AM  
1 votes:

sugar_fetus: It would take decades, or longer for the supply of 'assault weapons' to dry up in the US - more time than everyone here alive has.


I think you missed something in what I said:

ox45tallboy: Couple this with a buyback program, and tons of people will willingly give up their guns in exchange for money.


Put up a gun buyback program offering market value plus, say 10% on guns. There are plenty of people who will take this, especially those that bought up all of the guns that the NRA claimed Obama was about to ban. Of course there will be tons of people who will refuse on general principle, but there will be tons of others, especially gun shops, who will cash in on this deal to get rid of old inventory.

At an liberal (heh!) estimate of $400 per gun, we can get rid of 10 million guns for the low, low price of 4 billion dollars. This is only about 3 1/2% of the number of guns currently in the country, but they're the most important ones to take off the streets. Most of the guns will come from gun shops, which means they will have lots of inventory room to buy more guns from people. This is a good thing for taking guns off the streets, since FFL dealers are not only heavily regulated, but also go to great pains to secure the guns they own.

The remainder of the guns will come almost exclusively from poor people who need the money. These are the people who are more likely to turn to crime due to poverty, and they also are less likely to keep their guns secure because they don't have the money for a safe, and they live in poor neighborhoods where burglary is more common.

The beauty of this is that everything is strictly voluntary. No one gets forced to give up their guns. Attrition brings the numbers down to something reasonable (i.e., less than the almost one gun per man, woman, and child we have now).

sugar_fetus: If it's 'too dangerous' to sell, it's too dangerous to own. Period. People advocating 'banning but grandfathering' are beingintellectual dishonest and actually advocate banning and confiscation,. as long as the confiscation takesplace after the original owner is dead. It's theepitome of "I got mine - fsck you!"


That argument bears no weight with regards to what I am advocating. People are free to bequeath their firearms, or sell them to other mentally stable individuals without criminal records. Nothing mandatory at all.

sugar_fetus: Not much of a difference in the long run, and I'm looking out for not just our rights, butour posterity. I will not trade my future descendants rights away.


I hear this rhetoric all the time. I'm a gun owner, and this offends me deeply. The dudes who built this country started it with the Declaration of Independence, in which the inherent rights endowed by the Creator were listed with "life" being first and foremost. They didn't get around to listing "the right to keep and bear arms" until after the Constitution had already been signed and approved!

It's not that people shouldn't have a right to defend themselves, it's that the proliferation of ridiculous amounts of guns due to rampant market manipulation by such people as the industry trade group National Rifle Association is starting to affect people's lives. People that get killed by guns don't have any 2nd Amendment rights anymore, because even if you stick a gun in their coffin, they're not likely to keep and bear it. They'll just kind of lie there and ignore it. Why isn't anyone thinking about the 2nd Amendment rights of gun victims, instead of only their own?

Let's reduce the number of guns, and work on getting them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, in order to protect the right to Life. Then we'll work on Liberty and the Purfuit of Happinefs. If gun advocates don't start proposing their own ideas of how to reduce gun violence, they'll soon be left out of the discussion while the majority, non-gun-owning population does something about the problem.
2014-04-10 12:44:11 AM  
1 votes:

Geotpf: dk47: The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and use the ...

I agree.  Attempting to ban  types of guns (beyond the long existing near total ban on full autos) just results in petty arguments about how the ban is stupid, as it's nearly impossible for such a ban to be of any use unless it's massively broad, so you end up just banning things randomly (like the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which (as mentioned many times) banned guns that were no more lethal than ones it didn't ban).

The proper response, IMHO, after Newtown would have been something along the lines of the following:

1. The Federal government would take control of all regulation of guns.  No state or local restriction could be tougher (or weaker) than the Federal one.  (Local gun control laws are useless because there a device called an automobile that allows criminals to drive from a place with weak laws and buy guns there and then take them to a place with strict laws, plus the Feds have the constitutional right to "well-regulate the milita").

2. There would be a website and toll free number which would need to be checked before any gun transfer of any kind (sale, gift, whatever).  The buyer would have to supply something like first and last name and date of birth, and it would shoot back a "Ok to sell" or a "Not ok to sell" binary answer to the seller when he looks them up.  The data on felons and people with mental health issues would be strengthened to make sure the "Not ok to sell" list was up to date and accurate as possible.

3. There would be a standard, nationwide, concealed carry permit process, run by the Federal government.

I think this type of thing could have passed Congress (including the House) and would have helped keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (as well as expanding the rights of others to buy, own, and use guns for non-evil purposes).  But, nope, compromise is dead.


This would be a proposal that would invoke compromise and give gun owners things they would want in the process. This is really against the bad faith negotiations invoked by gun control advocates
2014-04-10 12:38:03 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Josh Sugarmann, director of the Violence Policy Center:

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

What you meant to say is that propagandists decide what words mean, and people like you decide whether or not to follow them.
2014-04-09 11:31:51 PM  
1 votes:
ox45tallboy: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.

It would take decades, or longer for the supply of 'assault weapons' to dry up in the US - more time than everyone here alive has.

If it's 'too dangerous' to sell, it's too dangerous to own. Period. People advocating 'banning but grandfathering' are being
intellectual dishonest and actually advocate banning and confiscation,. as long as the confiscation takesplace after the original owner is dead. It's theepitome of "I got mine - fsck you!"

Not much of a difference in the long run, and I'm looking out for not just our rights, but
our posterity. I will not trade my future descendants rights away.
2014-04-09 11:19:58 PM  
1 votes:
2014-04-09 10:49:53 PM  
1 votes:

tripleseven: USP .45: 

Barrel shrouds don't allow or prevent rapid fire, and gun control advocates could care less if they prevent burns or not, they believe they assist in rapid fire WHICH IS WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

So, in short, Derp! ?


In short, he's right. You're wrong. And since you know you're wrong but lampshade it by croaking "derp" you're also a liar
2014-04-09 10:41:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:26:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:44:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:31:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:18:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:17:59 PM  
1 votes:
*Sees headline*

*Sees number of comments*

50% of these are  dittybopper's, right?

*scans thread*

*closes thread*
2014-04-09 07:59:52 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:41:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:38:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:34:03 PM  
1 votes:

tripleseven: Because an argument can be made that a shroud (since it protects the user from a hot barrel usually caused by rapid fire) is an assistance to rapid fire.


And why should rapid fire be outlawed, discouraged or otherwise legislated against?  Even more, why should firearms be intentionally made harder to aim at their intended targets, thus increasing the likelihood of innocent people becoming victimized during the lawful use of firearms?
2014-04-09 07:32:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:32:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:08:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:46:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:46:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:42:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:40:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:35:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:32:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:12:59 PM  
1 votes:

tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Are you going to tell me again that all Mossberg 500 series have barrel shroubds? That's also provably false

I'm glad it's false, because lacking a shroud would make zero difference in being able to sustain fire with it. You don't hold it by the barrel genius.

Goalpost shift. Nice.


No no sweetie, when the entire crux of your argument is that a barrel shroud allows for rapid fire, me stating that a shroud would make zero difference on any Mossberg's rate of fire isn't shifting the goalposts.

If anything, it's shifting them to exactly what you were trying to argue and burying that idiocy in the dirt. You should thank me for being so accommodating.
2014-04-09 06:02:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.


Huh, I guess I should tell my bolt action nagant to stop firing so fast; then I won't need a wooden barrel shroud.

/ you don't need to fire rapidly to get your barrel hot; even my over-under shotgun has a partial barrel shroud
2014-04-09 05:54:53 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Oh for farks sake. Another gun nut trotting out the "barrel shroud' argument because a politician once miss identified it.


A politician who was trying to get something banned and had no clue what that something was.  Is it too much to ask that you actually know what the hell it is you're banning, Congressman?

A barrel shroud allows a gun user to protect himself from a hot barrel. Howdo you get a hot barrel? Rapid fire.

Therefore a barrel shroud assists the user to use the weapon with a hot barrel due to rapid fire. Its a perfectly rational argument in the assault rifle argument.


You know how many rounds it takes an average barrel to get too hot to hold?  One, maybe two or three.  Almost every rifle including bolt actions have some form of stock, handguard, shroud, or whatever.

But keep farking that chicken, I guess.

Yes, please do.  It's not gonna fark itself.
2014-04-09 05:48:49 PM  
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Rifles, sure.  But can i get .22 ammo yet?


I'll be honest the severe 22 ammo shortage must be regional. I have yet to go to a cabelas, disks, bass pro or something similar that didn't have 22s. Most had limits but they were available.

/Chicago tri state area
2014-04-09 05:46:50 PM  
1 votes:

impaler: Correct, the collection of all the "ban guns" type rhetoric is so small, 40 years of it can fit in one post in an Internet thread.


So you actually think that is the entire collection of these?  Are you that dumb or do you just play that way on Fark?
2014-04-09 05:40:36 PM  
1 votes:

Geotpf: But, nope, compromise is dead.


Because the people suggesting ideas like yours in DC have no credibility when it comes to good-faith gun control. "Yes, let's get this passed so we can just defund article 2. No ability do a background check, no gun sales."
2014-04-09 05:34:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

not only that, but he signed into law the ability for people to carry weapons in national parks.

[media3.washingtonpost.com image 707x470]

this fruitcake with the sign was at that rally with his tri-cornered-hat-wearing buddies because they were allowed to be; yet they were protesting Obama, and guns, and tyranny, and whatever the fark else was on their minds. These farks bought up the guns. These farks bought up the ammo. These farks drove prices high, and me out of the market. These farks make gun owners look like shiat.

and all in response to Obama expanding gun rights.


That's the one he specifically let die in court before he signed it because it was a rider attached to the largest economic bill he signed?
2014-04-09 05:31:34 PM  
1 votes:

dk47: The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and use the ...


I agree.  Attempting to ban  types of guns (beyond the long existing near total ban on full autos) just results in petty arguments about how the ban is stupid, as it's nearly impossible for such a ban to be of any use unless it's massively broad, so you end up just banning things randomly (like the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which (as mentioned many times) banned guns that were no more lethal than ones it didn't ban).

The proper response, IMHO, after Newtown would have been something along the lines of the following:

1. The Federal government would take control of all regulation of guns.  No state or local restriction could be tougher (or weaker) than the Federal one.  (Local gun control laws are useless because there a device called an automobile that allows criminals to drive from a place with weak laws and buy guns there and then take them to a place with strict laws, plus the Feds have the constitutional right to "well-regulate the milita").

2. There would be a website and toll free number which would need to be checked before any gun transfer of any kind (sale, gift, whatever).  The buyer would have to supply something like first and last name and date of birth, and it would shoot back a "Ok to sell" or a "Not ok to sell" binary answer to the seller when he looks them up.  The data on felons and people with mental health issues would be strengthened to make sure the "Not ok to sell" list was up to date and accurate as possible.

3. There would be a standard, nationwide, concealed carry permit process, run by the Federal government.

I think this type of thing could have passed Congress (including the House) and would have helped keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (as well as expanding the rights of others to buy, own, and use guns for non-evil purposes).  But, nope, compromise is dead.
2014-04-09 05:29:33 PM  
1 votes:

JesseL: CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that directio ...


Like I said, paranoid.  They are coming to take your guns.  You better stock up.
2014-04-09 05:27:42 PM  
1 votes:

CynicalLA: The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.


"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress
"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."
The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."
USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,"
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
            (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
            (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
            (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."
Legislation introduced in Missouri. 2013

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013
"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?)
Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

"the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don't give their weapons up in a buy-back program.  Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,"
Iowa state Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013


California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of "Assault Weapons" to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of "Assault Weapons" to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the "bullet button" or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were "grandfathered " for possession if registered in previous "Assault Weapons" gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered "high-cap" magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. ("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

"We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There's no question about it...We're on a roll now, and I think we've got to take the-you know, we're gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can."
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, 'moment of opportunity' and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed."
Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed?  "Final Solution" anyone?)

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate."
Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

"No one in this country should have guns."
Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

Proposed Missouri Bill to ban "assault weapons":
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
2014-04-09 05:27:05 PM  
1 votes:
I could use the the exact same rationale as the anti gun folks in this thread and elsewhere to make an argument for the temperance movement. I don't think many folks would be quite as gung ho about that though.
2014-04-09 05:23:25 PM  
1 votes:

CynicalLA: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Carn: Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

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

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.

Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...

This is the silver lining.  It makes me happy to think that some fat old white dude is wasting all his money stocking up on ammo.


So racism is OK when talking about White folk? Clear as a bell.
2014-04-09 05:22:20 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


No one in the country has benefited more from less-strict gun laws than Dianne Feinstein. She owes most of her $100M net worth to the assassination of Harvey Milk.
2014-04-09 05:22:00 PM  
1 votes:

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

Actually Dittybopper is quite accurate in his statistics.  Here's some open-source gun data for you to peruse at your leisure.


Accurate or not, there's also the issue of paranoia...

I used to enjoy the gun threads here. But for the last couple of years now, they've become shameless circle-jerks slanted towards one side or the other, with more dick references than a Robert Schimmel comedy special (and yes, I'm aware that I've probably just did the same thing), and the paranoia has gone to plaid. To hear the usual posters in these threads tell it, I'm either a complete monster for just knowing what I do about guns - not even owning any; I don't - or I'm damn near a traitor for thinking that perhaps 100-round C-mags aren't really something that needs to be available to civilians. No middle ground.
2014-04-09 05:17:50 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Ban != confiscation. Assault weapons != all firearms

And you wonder why we call you gun  nuts


Oh really?
2014-04-09 05:16:16 PM  
1 votes:

CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: BgJonson79: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?

The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.

Aren't there several respectable links above me to direct President Obama quotes on the subject?

So Obama wants to ban guns?


He wants to re-up the assault weapons ban.  Isn't that the definition of banning guns?
2014-04-09 05:14:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x400]

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.


Not to gun owners though. Nobody can find ammo, and guns cost twice as much as they used to. These paranoid freaks are pissing me off. I got lucky and bought ammo for my SKS right before the first wave of "Obama's coming!" paranoia, and managed to find .45 ammo right before he got elected again, and people pulled out the fainting couches for the second time. Otherwise, I'd be totally screwed...
2014-04-09 05:12:02 PM  
1 votes:

BgJonson79: CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.

If crime is that low, why ban guns to lower crime?


The only people talking about banning guns are idiot gun nuts.  You guys are delusional.  It's like you are fighting your own paranoia.
2014-04-09 05:11:30 PM  
1 votes:

CynicalLA: steve42: CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.

I'm sure you are all set to save the day when your fantasy home invasion happens.


Or when dozens of 6-year-old kids get shot and there's no one around that can do anything about it.
2014-04-09 05:08:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

Or I can call my mountain bike a motorcycle?

Or I can call my Persian cats Pugs?

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

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

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

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


The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and use the firearms they want.

Then we need to educate people about giving said guns to their mentally ill children/friends/lovers.
2014-04-09 05:07:54 PM  
1 votes:
CynicalLA: gun nuts, cowards, retards, pu**ies, nuts...

Don't strain your vocabulary too much, now.

After all, if the only home defense you have is your rapier wit, you might need to conserve ammo.
2014-04-09 05:05:41 PM  
1 votes:
This is an assault GUN

olive-drab.com
2014-04-09 05:02:10 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


So the associate property doesn't work for stupidity?
2014-04-09 05:00:48 PM  
1 votes:
Hmm

I guess the AP definition of assault rifles did not match up with the MW definition, which was contradicted in the same entry, of assault rifle.
2014-04-09 04:56:04 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: CynicalLA: steve42: When you say:

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

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

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

Nice.  Calling people names.

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

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

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


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


I own a couple guns and always skip your posts.  You are the biggest gun nut on this site and have no credibility.
2014-04-09 04:55:04 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

1.bp.blogspot.com

/Haven't bought a gun since before the turn of the century.
//Sold a couple since then, though.
2014-04-09 04:53:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


You can't even think for yourself.  You really are a stupid person.
2014-04-09 04:53:28 PM  
1 votes:

impaler: See Uzi.


An Uzi isn't a rifle.
2014-04-09 04:53:22 PM  
1 votes:

CynicalLA: I was talking about gun nuts.


Please, define gun nuts.
2014-04-09 04:53:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


To be fair, the last few years have seen an increase in the 'Well, we're using the word wrong, but enough people are doing it that we're just going to change the definition"...
2014-04-09 04:52:16 PM  
1 votes:

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

[img.fark.net image 500x333]

Cowards that like to intimidate people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This is based on what? The fact that they have something in their possession that would be dangerous if it were in your possession?
2014-04-09 04:51:35 PM  
1 votes:

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

*YES*.

SO VERY MUCH FARKING *THIS*.

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

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

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

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

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


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

I'll give you a very specific example.

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

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

Of course, Harvey Milk was shot by an ex-cop with his former service revolver, so basically no gun control law could have ever prevented his murder (other than banning all guns by all private citizens).
2014-04-09 04:49:39 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


So he was lying?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

/ with link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_TB6onHVE&sns=em (copy/pasta)
2014-04-09 04:46:25 PM  
1 votes:

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

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.


American flag outfit with an AK?  Seems conflicted.
2014-04-09 04:45:19 PM  
1 votes:

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


Not anymore they don't.
2014-04-09 04:33:55 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


If gun owners think a President makes laws without both houses of Congress having their say first, then, yes, they were quite stupid indeed.
2014-04-09 04:30:28 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Is that reason enough?
2014-04-09 04:26:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Someone should put the brakes on that.
2014-04-09 04:20:33 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


The real question is "Who cares?". Everyone is discussing the same thing ... gun nuts are just trying to use semantics to discredit opinions that have nothing to do with the minutia of gun terminology.
2014-04-09 04:20:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


In a gun store, yes, they are definitely distinct terms.  In a law, they damn well better be spelled out.  Talking head or otherwise discussing the broad idea that they want guns with a maximum load of 10 rounds, I could give a shiat what word he or she uses, because the effect they're trying to achieve is indistinguishable.
2014-04-09 04:20:08 PM  
1 votes:

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

*YES*.

SO VERY MUCH FARKING *THIS*.

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

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

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

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

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


That is why I am a Compassionate Liberal. I often take out my gun collection, clean them, check my ammo stores, check my stock of rags and glass bottles. For when the revolution comes and we take back this country from the Republitards, the 1%ers, the Christians, and bankers I will eagerly be on the front lines burning, shooting and rapeing those people I don't insto submission. Compassionate Liberalism at it's finest.
2014-04-09 04:01:12 PM  
1 votes:
Sheesh!

Yes, rifles have been really expensive lately.

But my question is this... when the hell is .22 lr going to be back in stock again and cheap. Because holy shiat am I tired of having to scrape around for whatever i can find. 22lr is just about as hard to find as hens teeth still.
2014-04-09 04:00:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Funny that you guys would rather talk about this meaningless bullsh*t that you're wrong on and avoid the topic of why cosmetic items are used to differentiate different types of firearms.
2014-04-09 04:00:28 PM  
1 votes:
Is anyone old enough to remember the "Liberator" guns from WWII, they'd drop them behind enemy lines in Europe, it was a single shot .45, intended for close range, with a single .45 "dum-dum" round. made for short range targets, due to the smooth bore. I've head stories of people getting shot with those kinda rounds, they'll messed someone up when a round goes whizzing through the body, on a roller coaster ride. Nowadays it's different:
www.therpf.com  Time to ban epoxy now, I guess?
2014-04-09 03:55:14 PM  
1 votes:
Can we at least agree on the open-carry attention whores? I mean, I think they're hurting the pro-gun proliferators, not helping.

img.fark.net
2014-04-09 03:50:59 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


I read it and you're wrong, to put it bluntly.
2014-04-09 03:50:44 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

this is not a joke


That's nonsense.  Commieneticut is going to do it first.  They're already trying with great success.
2014-04-09 03:45:03 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


So he was lying?

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


 Ban != confiscation. Assault weapons != all firearms

And you wonder why we call you gun  nuts.
2014-04-09 03:44:58 PM  
1 votes:
You have to be pretty damn stupid to be a gun nut so this is not surprising.
2014-04-09 03:38:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:36:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:32:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:30:25 PM  
1 votes:
www.gunnuts.net
2014-04-09 03:27:56 PM  
1 votes:
ERberrrmerr is gonna come to take your guns any day now.
2014-04-09 03:25:27 PM  
1 votes:
But Obummer is gonna take 'em soon. A gun industry trade group said so.
2014-04-09 03:24:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:22:00 PM  
1 votes:
Oh good!  Time to buy.
2014-04-09 03:21:29 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:21:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:21:25 PM  
1 votes:
Fools and their money yadda yadda yadda.
2014-04-09 03:17:49 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:44:45 PM  
1 votes:
Someone with a number of modern sporting rifles could have made quite a bit of money selling them off since Black Oblacka took office and started scaring the sh*t out of gun owners.  If they haven't sold theirs, especially after all the hot air about Newtown and Aurora I'd say they're pretty foolish.  Sure, keep one because even though they're totally the same as a traditional, wooden-stock semi-auto, they are cool and those accessory rails are like swiss army knives in their potential.  But why not sell the rest and buy a hunting cabin share with the profits?
2014-04-09 02:17:27 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

Merriam-Webster:

assault rifle
 noun

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


Don't waste your time getting into a semantic argument over gun words.
2014-04-09 02:02:33 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

this is not a joke



Did you tell him that "gullible" was being taken out of the dictionary?
2014-04-09 02:02:17 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

this is not a joke


Did he then try to sell you a gun?

"You better buy this pop gun, Uncle Herring.  Obama's going to ban them pretty soon!  Only $500!"
2014-04-09 01:51:26 PM  
1 votes:
ooh, but at least you got your "man card" reissue for the penii-impaired
img.fark.net
2014-04-09 01:50:50 PM  
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

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