Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   80 gun dealers in one old mill? Outrageous to blue-state villagers. Most convenient shopping ever for their police, located right down the street   (boston.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Police, gun dealers, top town, Matthew Nordhaus, Assault weapon, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Crime, illegal activity  
•       •       •

3412 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2022 at 3:25 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-09-30 3:35:01 AM  
OHshiat... Are the guns okay?!

/dnrtfa
 
2022-09-30 3:41:53 AM  
The local mall has too many clothing stores.  Someone should investigate them.
 
2022-09-30 3:47:21 AM  

OgreMagi: The local mall has too many clothing stores.  Someone should investigate them.


Hire a plain clothes detective.  Your argument socks.
 
2022-09-30 4:00:23 AM  

OgreMagi: The local mall has too many clothing stores.  Someone should investigate them.


Is there a law against them? That would figure into it.
 
2022-09-30 4:39:02 AM  
Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm sure it's something like 'can't sell a gun with X features' so the gun stores don't. They just sell those features separately so the end user can do it themselves. No law violated but intended effect bypassed.

That's why knobs who know nothing about guns shouldn't be the ones writing laws on them
 
2022-09-30 5:08:30 AM  
So, all the dealers are sitting there, open to inspection? Would you rather have them dealing from their garages and basements? That's a bunch of eyes watching each other to keep them on the level.
 
2022-09-30 5:18:40 AM  
That many death merchants and ammosexuals in one place? Sounds like a good opportunity for the military drone pilots to have a live-fire practice.
 
2022-09-30 5:20:29 AM  
Democratic state Attorney General Maura Healy is running for governor of Massachusetts. Her republican opponent is Geoff Diehl is a Trumper who could replace Toucan Sam on the front of a Froot Loops box.

She needs to tread very carefully. MA likes to elect R governors for some reason. Healy could do something so egregiously tone-deaf or downright illegal that she spoils her own chances. It may be better to sort of let this fester quietly for a few more weeks.
 
2022-09-30 5:26:42 AM  
Would've gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids.
 
2022-09-30 5:52:36 AM  
US loves buying guns.
Us loves killing people with guns.
Carry on. Nothing ever changes.

Tip for civilised people - avoid the US.
 
2022-09-30 6:06:40 AM  
Who would have guessed that group of people who are notorious for getting around gun laws by adhering to the letter of the law instead of the intent behind the law would do exactly that?
 
2022-09-30 6:52:49 AM  

Subtle_Canary: That's why knobs who know nothing about guns shouldn't be the ones writing laws on them


How dare you suggest that our lawmakers sully their ideological purity with such forbidden knowledge?

If people would just obey the spirit of the law rather than what was actually written down, none of this would be happening. The fault is clearly on the group of people who insist on following the law that was passed, rather than what the lawmakers intended.
 
2022-09-30 6:58:08 AM  
Sounds like every gun show I've ever heard of.

How is this a problem?

If anyone is violating the law it's just like anyone else violating the law.
 
2022-09-30 7:08:04 AM  

hestheone: Sounds like every gun show I've ever heard of.

How is this a problem?

If anyone is violating the law it's just like anyone else violating the law.


I was thinking the same, but not a show, more like a never ending flea market
 
2022-09-30 7:13:06 AM  
"have not been found to have committed any illegal activity"

Irrelevant. They're guilty of liking something the Karens don't like.
 
2022-09-30 7:35:04 AM  

baka-san: hestheone: Sounds like every gun show I've ever heard of.

How is this a problem?

If anyone is violating the law it's just like anyone else violating the law.

I was thinking the same, but not a show, more like a never ending flea market


It sounds like this "Hunter's Mall" is a permanent facility, rather than a monthly or quarterly affair.

Question-Have the police traced any crime weapons directly to one of the dealers? If so, then they might have an issue to deal with.
 
2022-09-30 7:38:01 AM  

Subtle_Canary: Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm sure it's something like 'can't sell a gun with X features' so the gun stores don't. They just sell those features separately so the end user can do it themselves. No law violated but intended effect bypassed.

That's why knobs who know nothing about guns shouldn't be the ones writing laws on them


Don't worry, the one who wrote it is now running for Governor!  (And will probably win, too...)
 
2022-09-30 7:50:11 AM  
Are they open on Sundays and evenings unlike Detroit car dealers?
 
2022-09-30 7:59:56 AM  

iheartscotch: Who would have guessed that group of people who are notorious for getting around gun laws by adhering to the letter of the law instead of the intent behind the law would do exactly that?


"notorious for following the law" doesn't have a very notorious ring to it.
 
2022-09-30 8:25:22 AM  

FightDirector: Subtle_Canary: That's why knobs who know nothing about guns shouldn't be the ones writing laws on them

How dare you suggest that our lawmakers sully their ideological purity with such forbidden knowledge?

If people would just obey the spirit of the law rather than what was actually written down, none of this would be happening. The fault is clearly on the group of people who insist on following the law that was passed, rather than what the lawmakers intended.


I've often found that when you refer to someone as a "rules lawyer" it means you dislike them.
 
2022-09-30 8:31:48 AM  
thefirearmblog.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-30 8:52:54 AM  

Subtle_Canary: Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm sure it's something like 'can't sell a gun with X features' so the gun stores don't. They just sell those features separately so the end user can do it themselves. No law violated but intended effect bypassed.

That's why knobs who know nothing about guns shouldn't be the ones writing laws on them


Bullshiat.  The law had to be vague like this or the gunhumpers would have stormed the bastille.
 
2022-09-30 9:57:05 AM  

Great_Milenko: Subtle_Canary: Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm sure it's something like 'can't sell a gun with X features' so the gun stores don't. They just sell those features separately so the end user can do it themselves. No law violated but intended effect bypassed.

That's why knobs who know nothing about guns shouldn't be the ones writing laws on them

Bullshiat.  The law had to be vague like this or the gunhumpers would have stormed the bastille.


Na they weren't vague, it was by name and type, cap, very specific. Healey as AG issued that letter stating that everyone was breaking the law while actually sticking to the letter of the law, but lucky them she wasn't going to arrest or sue people. It resulted in federal lawsuits against her. Basically under the state law a receiver is not a firearm. Which is correct. You can't shoot anything with a hunk of metal. She made this her personal issue and there's a lot bigger issues out there. MA has the lowest gun crime in the USA. All of New England does and it has no shortage of guns. We made/imported them for the rest of the country.
 
2022-09-30 10:00:59 AM  

wildcardjack: So, all the dealers are sitting there, open to inspection? Would you rather have them dealing from their garages and basements? That's a bunch of eyes watching each other to keep them on the level.


This^
And I bet that Littleton is also one of the safest towns in Massachusetts.
Too bad they're not open 24/7 with a drive-up window.
"An Armed Society Is A Polite Society"
 
2022-09-30 10:05:22 AM  
Black Guns Matter!  Suck it libs!
 
2022-09-30 10:08:33 AM  

Jemraine: That many death merchants and ammosexuals in one place? Sounds like a good opportunity for the military drone pilots to have a live-fire practice.


Really hit Poe's law out of the park. Good job.
 
2022-09-30 10:19:14 AM  
"dealers who sold semiautomatic weapons with modifications meant to ensure that they didn't meet the legal definition of a banned "assault weapon."

So...dealers who sold legal guns.
Or do I have the wrong understanding of "meeting the legal definition"?
 
2022-09-30 10:25:10 AM  
80 different dealers of the same thing, all in the same place.  It all makes sense.
 
2022-09-30 10:34:55 AM  

jakedata: Democratic state Attorney General Maura Healy is running for governor of Massachusetts. Her republican opponent is Geoff Diehl is a Trumper who could replace Toucan Sam on the front of a Froot Loops box.

She needs to tread very carefully. MA likes to elect R governors for some reason. Healy could do something so egregiously tone-deaf or downright illegal that she spoils her own chances. It may be better to sort of let this fester quietly for a few more weeks.


It happens, but the person who came in 3rd in the Dem primary received almost as  many votes as Diehl did in his.

When he loses, I just need to keep my shades down and try not to laugh too hard so my gun-f*cking racist authoritarian boot licking neighbor doesn't pop a few off in my direction.
 
2022-09-30 11:43:36 AM  
Article-ette is basically saying that the Massachusetts AG is throwing a hissy fit because gun makers are making, and gun sellers are selling, almost-but-not-quite-assault-weapons and the AG thinks that is violates the spirit of the law and that's enough to arrest somebody.

It's true that some, perhaps many, gun owners have gun fetishes.  It is also true that some anti-gun advocates have a combination of "assault-weapon-phobia" and a fetish for banning them.  They are perpetually outraged that rifles "look military" or have "military styling" exist and seek a simpleminded solution.  They then get outraged when their simpleminded solution is easily bypassed.

Consider the Ruger Mini-14, for example.  It is a semiautomatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine.

This is not an "assault weapon" Mini-14:

ruger.comView Full Size


Under the failed federal assault-weapon ban of 2013 (as well as several current state bans) this would be an "assault weapon" Mini-14 SOLELY because it has a flash reducer at the end of the muzzle:

ruger.comView Full Size



Under the now-expired 1993 federal ban (and some current state bans) this is an "assault weapon" Mini-14 because it has a flash-reducer, a protruding pistol grip, and a quick-adjusting buttstock:

ruger.comView Full Size


The last version could only have one of those features I listed.  So if the 3rd example had ONLY a flash reducer, ONLY a pistol grip, or ONLY a quick-adjustable buttstock, it would not be an "assault weapon".

The black finish and all the attachment points for accessories on the last option?  Not "assault weapon" features.  At least, not yet.

So in theory, I could buy the top example with the plain wooden stock, and then buy as a seperate item a new stock that has a pistol grip and quick-adjustable buttstock... but as long as I don't removed the factory wooden stock and attach the new stock to the gun, I'm totally legal.

It's a stupid definition and has been since 1989, when an idiot California Assemblyman dreamed this up to make it look like he was doing something after a school shooting.

Maybe some people really think that the third option makes the Mini-14 "too deadly", which implies there is a standard out there that is "acceptably deadly".  Or maybe some people think they're dimishing the culture of incel violence and toxic masculinity.

It's bullshiat, and it motivates the right politically without motivating the left.


If you want to move semi-automatics to the same level as full-automatics... fine, then do it, with the understanding that re-opening the NFA registrly (which as been closed since 1986) will result in people going "if it's the same background check and tax as a full-auto, why would I buy a semi-auto?"

If you want to raise the purchase age of semi-automatic rifles (or all semi-automatic long guns) to 21, that's fine as well.

If you want to raise the purchase age to 21 and have a mandatory 7-day waiting period, that's also fine.

But STOP pretending that "assault weapons" are where the line is between legal and illegal.  Stop pretending that bans will stop mass shootings.  And stop pretending that bans will lower crime rates.

Democrats in office implementing progressive social and economic policies will lower crime and poverty rates.  Not Republicans, and not assault-weapons bans.
 
2022-09-30 11:48:48 AM  

mrmopar5287: [thefirearmblog.com image 800x242]


Thank you for posting.

Following up my above post, that is a non-assault-weapon AR-15.  It does not have a quick-adusting telescoping buttstock, a protruding pistol grip or a flash reducer.  It also doesn't have a bayonet mounting lug or a fitting for firing rifle grenades.  Ergo, it is NOT an assault weapon.

It still has the AR-15 trigger and firing mechanisms, it still takes AR-15 magazines, and still shoots .223 Rem, but it's not an assault weapon.
 
2022-09-30 11:50:52 AM  

winchester92: wildcardjack: So, all the dealers are sitting there, open to inspection? Would you rather have them dealing from their garages and basements? That's a bunch of eyes watching each other to keep them on the level.

This^
And I bet that Littleton is also one of the safest towns in Massachusetts.
Too bad they're not open 24/7 with a drive-up window.
"An Armed Society Is A Polite Society"


Lack of gun violence balances out all the crashes on I-495.  Three exits and a curve in a single town of 10,000 people is apparently just too much for drivers to handle.
 
2022-09-30 12:10:16 PM  

krispos42: Article-ette is basically saying that the Massachusetts AG is throwing a hissy fit because gun makers are making, and gun sellers are selling, almost-but-not-quite-assault-weapons and the AG thinks that is violates the spirit of the law and that's enough to arrest somebody.

It's true that some, perhaps many, gun owners have gun fetishes.  It is also true that some anti-gun advocates have a combination of "assault-weapon-phobia" and a fetish for banning them.  They are perpetually outraged that rifles "look military" or have "military styling" exist and seek a simpleminded solution.  They then get outraged when their simpleminded solution is easily bypassed.

Consider the Ruger Mini-14, for example.  It is a semiautomatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine.

This is not an "assault weapon" Mini-14:

[ruger.com image 825x160]

Under the failed federal assault-weapon ban of 2013 (as well as several current state bans) this would be an "assault weapon" Mini-14 SOLELY because it has a flash reducer at the end of the muzzle:

[ruger.com image 825x160]


Under the now-expired 1993 federal ban (and some current state bans) this is an "assault weapon" Mini-14 because it has a flash-reducer, a protruding pistol grip, and a quick-adjusting buttstock:

[ruger.com image 825x178]

The last version could only have one of those features I listed.  So if the 3rd example had ONLY a flash reducer, ONLY a pistol grip, or ONLY a quick-adjustable buttstock, it would not be an "assault weapon".

The black finish and all the attachment points for accessories on the last option?  Not "assault weapon" features.  At least, not yet.

So in theory, I could buy the top example with the plain wooden stock, and then buy as a seperate item a new stock that has a pistol grip and quick-adjustable buttstock... but as long as I don't removed the factory wooden stock and attach the new stock to the gun, I'm totally legal.

It's a stupid definition and has been since 1989, when an idiot Califo ...


Years ago a farker seriously said that "circumventing" gun bans by manufacturing guns that "go around" bans by not having banned features and thus being actually legal should itself be a crime.

So obeying the law should become a crime.
 
2022-09-30 12:11:34 PM  

iheartscotch: Who would have guessed that group of people who are notorious for getting around gun laws by adhering to the letter of the law instead of the intent behind the law would do exactly that?


Yes, they "get around gun laws" by "obeying the law".  Outrageous.
 
2022-09-30 12:38:07 PM  
krispos42:

Snipped out everything since it's just too much.

In my opinion, the only definition for assault weapon that makes any sense is what US Army uses.  Which is "Carbine chambering a medium caliber round with select fire".

The key feature is "select fire", either full auto or burst.  Those are already effectively illegally to own (not completely illegal, but damn hard to obtain).
 
2022-09-30 12:59:42 PM  

krispos42: Democrats in office implementing progressive social and economic policies will lower crime and poverty rates. Not Republicans, and not assault-weapons bans.


This. If you have the worst public schools, racist policies, no prison training and education, shiat wages, shiat jobs, no affordable housing, no social safety nets, no drug addiction help... welcome to more gun violence.
 
2022-09-30 1:35:38 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: krispos42: Democrats in office implementing progressive social and economic policies will lower crime and poverty rates. Not Republicans, and not assault-weapons bans.

This. If you have the worst public schools, racist policies, no prison training and education, shiat wages, shiat jobs, no affordable housing, no social safety nets, no drug addiction help... welcome to more gun violence.


And more non-gun violence as well.

In a generation, all those states that are banning abortion will start to see a rise in violent crime, as both the proportion of 14-25 year- olds jumps as well as the percentage born in crappy home environments in neighborhoods with violent crime normalized.

But...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-30 2:34:09 PM  
But we don't like Gun Dealers. Make them go away.
 
2022-09-30 3:09:54 PM  

Subtle_Canary: Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm sure it's something like 'can't sell a gun with X features' so the gun stores don't. They just sell those features separately so the end user can do it themselves. No law violated but intended effect bypassed.

That's why knobs who know nothing about guns shouldn't be the ones writing laws on them


The fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" only has a pornography definition (I know it when I see it, but no matter how you define it you get edge cases), in the real world it's a spectrum.  It's like suppose the government defines "red" as light with a wavelength of 700um.  The gun maker comes along and makes 699um light.  The idiot official is coming along and saying "that's red" when it clearly isn't.
 
2022-09-30 5:46:22 PM  

krispos42: Article-ette is basically saying that the Massachusetts AG is throwing a hissy fit because gun makers are making, and gun sellers are selling, almost-but-not-quite-assault-weapons and the AG thinks that is violates the spirit of the law and that's enough to arrest somebody.

It's true that some, perhaps many, gun owners have gun fetishes.  It is also true that some anti-gun advocates have a combination of "assault-weapon-phobia" and a fetish for banning them.  They are perpetually outraged that rifles "look military" or have "military styling" exist and seek a simpleminded solution.  They then get outraged when their simpleminded solution is easily bypassed.

Consider the Ruger Mini-14, for example.  It is a semiautomatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine.

This is not an "assault weapon" Mini-14:

[ruger.com image 825x160]

Under the failed federal assault-weapon ban of 2013 (as well as several current state bans) this would be an "assault weapon" Mini-14 SOLELY because it has a flash reducer at the end of the muzzle:

[ruger.com image 825x160]


Under the now-expired 1993 federal ban (and some current state bans) this is an "assault weapon" Mini-14 because it has a flash-reducer, a protruding pistol grip, and a quick-adjusting buttstock:

[ruger.com image 825x178]

The last version could only have one of those features I listed.  So if the 3rd example had ONLY a flash reducer, ONLY a pistol grip, or ONLY a quick-adjustable buttstock, it would not be an "assault weapon".

The black finish and all the attachment points for accessories on the last option?  Not "assault weapon" features.  At least, not yet.

So in theory, I could buy the top example with the plain wooden stock, and then buy as a seperate item a new stock that has a pistol grip and quick-adjustable buttstock... but as long as I don't removed the factory wooden stock and attach the new stock to the gun, I'm totally legal.

It's a stupid definition and has been since 1989, when an idiot Califo ...


All good, logical, and clear information - and on Fark.

You're ruining the narrative.
 
2022-09-30 11:31:16 PM  

Loren: The fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" only has a pornography definition


You would be wrong.  The US Army has a definition for assault rifle.  See my previous post.  It's not that difficult.  And the best part is anything that meets that definition is already illegal for a civilian to own.  There is no ambiguity.  Anything beyond the military definition is pure politics in an attempt to do and end-run around the Constitution.
 
2022-10-01 8:14:40 AM  

sugar_fetus: krispos42: Article-ette is basically saying that the Massachusetts AG is throwing a hissy fit because gun makers are making, and gun sellers are selling, almost-but-not-quite-assault-weapons and the AG thinks that is violates the spirit of the law and that's enough to arrest somebody.

It's true that some, perhaps many, gun owners have gun fetishes.  It is also true that some anti-gun advocates have a combination of "assault-weapon-phobia" and a fetish for banning them.  They are perpetually outraged that rifles "look military" or have "military styling" exist and seek a simpleminded solution.  They then get outraged when their simpleminded solution is easily bypassed.

Consider the Ruger Mini-14, for example.  It is a semiautomatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine.

This is not an "assault weapon" Mini-14:

[ruger.com image 825x160]

Under the failed federal assault-weapon ban of 2013 (as well as several current state bans) this would be an "assault weapon" Mini-14 SOLELY because it has a flash reducer at the end of the muzzle:

[ruger.com image 825x160]


Under the now-expired 1993 federal ban (and some current state bans) this is an "assault weapon" Mini-14 because it has a flash-reducer, a protruding pistol grip, and a quick-adjusting buttstock:

[ruger.com image 825x178]

The last version could only have one of those features I listed.  So if the 3rd example had ONLY a flash reducer, ONLY a pistol grip, or ONLY a quick-adjustable buttstock, it would not be an "assault weapon".

The black finish and all the attachment points for accessories on the last option?  Not "assault weapon" features.  At least, not yet.

So in theory, I could buy the top example with the plain wooden stock, and then buy as a seperate item a new stock that has a pistol grip and quick-adjustable buttstock... but as long as I don't removed the factory wooden stock and attach the new stock to the gun, I'm totally legal.

It's a stupid definition and has been since 1989, when an idiot Califo ...

All good, logical, and clear information - and on Fark.

You're ruining the narrative.


I've noted that facts like this often shut down discussion of the hand-wringing variety.

Unless I link it to Democratic political losses, then people for some reason find it funny.
 
2022-10-01 12:03:38 PM  

OgreMagi: Loren: The fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" only has a pornography definition

You would be wrong.  The US Army has a definition for assault rifle.  See my previous post.  It's not that difficult.  And the best part is anything that meets that definition is already illegal for a civilian to own.  There is no ambiguity.  Anything beyond the military definition is pure politics in an attempt to do and end-run around the Constitution.


Even the army definition is flawed.  What exactly constitutes a "carbine"?  There are always edge cases.
 
2022-10-01 3:11:20 PM  

Loren: OgreMagi: Loren: The fundamental problem is that "assault weapon" only has a pornography definition

You would be wrong.  The US Army has a definition for assault rifle.  See my previous post.  It's not that difficult.  And the best part is anything that meets that definition is already illegal for a civilian to own.  There is no ambiguity.  Anything beyond the military definition is pure politics in an attempt to do and end-run around the Constitution.

Even the army definition is flawed.  What exactly constitutes a "carbine"?  There are always edge cases.


Select fire is the only thing that matters.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.