|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 24 2013 08:12 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 07:19 Saryph wrote:
Look at that 15 year old kid in New Mexico yesterday who used a hunting rifle and AR-15 to kill his mom, three younger siblings (including his 2 year old sister), and finally his dad when he came home from work. Why aren't these guns locked up? Or the ammo kept separately from the weapons, somewhere the kids cannot access it? Look at the cop who recently killed his family in NV.. Lots of people think only law enforcement should have guns, but here's one who murdered his family and torched his home. The bad thing is I can find around 10 articles involving cops doing wrong or abusing their authority for every 1 you find about a kid shooting his parents. He was 15 years old.. At that age I'd trust him to take care of his siblings. In my house that would include a lesson about the guns that are present and how to use them. I don't know about where you live but the Is Your Son a Mass Murder take home test isn't offered here in my area.. And never during a check to buy a gun have I been asked the question, Do I think I have a child that might kill me unsuspectingly with the firearm I'm about to purchase? shit happens.. and bad things happen to good people.. But I'm sure we can all agree that the before mentioned cop's wife would get on this website and say "My husband, a trained law enforcement officer, should be one of the only people to have a gun because we just can't trust ANYONE to have one of those things." If I can't trust cops to do whats right.. how can I trust them to be one of those privileged few to carry a firearm.
The gun show accident a few days ago was a cop who fucked up as well. At the entrance they do a weapons check and when he removed the clip from a person's pistol he didn't clear it and he pulled the trigger and it hit 4 people some how.
People trust the police to do the right thing wayyyy too much. They aren't super hero's they are just normal people who can succumb to mental illness/mistakes like any one else.
|
On January 24 2013 08:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 08:41 AmericanNightmare wrote:On January 24 2013 07:12 white_horse wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? Most of the school shootings in recent times were used with guns bought legally. Making universal background checks is a no-brainer. What is a bigger issue is selling guns to otherwise normal and law-abiding people who live with other people who have health or mental issues, as in the case of the sandy hook shooting. You also have problems with "responsible" gun owners who can't seem to safely store their own guns and end up having their 4 year old kid bring it to preschool or shoot someone on accident with it. I agree that a dealer should have to do background check.. but I don't agree that I should have to do one to sell one of mine to a family member or friend I've known my whole life.. I also don't think I should have to check the background of someone buying a gun from me who already own them... This is absurd. You believe someone who is professionally familiar with the business of selling guns should be forced to abide by gun control laws but random people in the street shouldn't? I'm not accusing anyone you know of being unstable or questioning your judgement but a policy of "anyone who anyone else thinks is alright is good to have a gun" is not a good policy.
I'll agree that is is very absurd to sell a firearm to any random person you meet on the street. I would feel horrible if I sold a gun out of my trunk to some random dude who then used it to rob a bank.. but that's nowhere near what I said.
If I know a man who legally has 40 firearms and he wants to buy a pistol from me.. why do I need to get a BGC? Is something about that 41st gun gonna set him off? I like the policy we've got now. I can sell to anyone I please as long as I don't think they are a felon/threat to someone.
|
United States44216 Posts
On January 24 2013 11:01 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 08:44 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2013 08:41 AmericanNightmare wrote:On January 24 2013 07:12 white_horse wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? Most of the school shootings in recent times were used with guns bought legally. Making universal background checks is a no-brainer. What is a bigger issue is selling guns to otherwise normal and law-abiding people who live with other people who have health or mental issues, as in the case of the sandy hook shooting. You also have problems with "responsible" gun owners who can't seem to safely store their own guns and end up having their 4 year old kid bring it to preschool or shoot someone on accident with it. I agree that a dealer should have to do background check.. but I don't agree that I should have to do one to sell one of mine to a family member or friend I've known my whole life.. I also don't think I should have to check the background of someone buying a gun from me who already own them... This is absurd. You believe someone who is professionally familiar with the business of selling guns should be forced to abide by gun control laws but random people in the street shouldn't? I'm not accusing anyone you know of being unstable or questioning your judgement but a policy of "anyone who anyone else thinks is alright is good to have a gun" is not a good policy. I'll agree that is is very absurd to sell a firearm to any random person you meet on the street. I would feel horrible if I sold a gun out of my trunk to some random dude who then used it to rob a bank.. but that's nowhere near what I said. If I know a man who legally has 40 firearms and he wants to buy a pistol from me.. why do I need to get a BGC? Is something about that 41st gun gonna set him off? I like the policy we've got now. I can sell to anyone I please as long as I don't think they are a felon/threat to someone.
Again, I don't doubt that you would feel terrible if you inadvertently armed a criminal but I do feel that in general feeling terrible whenever you get it wrong and facilitate a murder is an inadequate method of preventing it. While the threat of feeling terrible if you think a guy is legit but it turns out he isn't is obviously a deterrent there may be less than honourable gentlemen who feel less terrible or people with poor judgement who might, through their own too trusting nature, cause themselves to feel terrible.
|
On January 22 2013 21:28 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 19:49 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 22 2013 11:44 Jormundr wrote:On January 22 2013 10:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
A militia can be organized like a modern army and deployed by congress. Congress could even provide for a lot of the expensive equipment. The difference is it couldn't be deployed outside the country, and would be made up of ordinary citizens who stand up to defend their country when needed, and go back to their lives afterwards. The point of this is there wouldn't be a permanent standing army congress can use for various stupid, immoral, and costly endeavors they like to get involved in without thinking. Yes, this system would compromise our defense somewhat. It obviously could not be deployed as rapidly as an army already there and ready to go, and the soldiers wouldn't be as adequate as professionals, a problem exacerbated by the specialization needed for modern equipment. However, I think it would be adequate for our defense, and worth what we would gain. *taps buzzer* "What is the National Guard?" Correct! They can be deployed outside the country, and my whole argument was that we don't need nor should have an army. You've made a fool of yourself. I would love to see a militia operate aircraft carriers. And I do think it wasn't that bad of an idea to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But if you want to propose an isolationist stance I'm not sure if this is the thread for.
Yea, well, I'd like to see an army run them. :/
LOL
|
On January 24 2013 04:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition". And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find?
I didn't say they were the same, but "Background checks will destroy traditions" is an easier soundbyte than a huge amount of statistics and math. In a world where public opinion hangs on 5 second clips on the news, math tends to lose to poor rhetoric. I don't agree with LaPierre, just to be clear.
|
On January 24 2013 13:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 04:25 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition". And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find? I didn't say they were the same, but "Background checks will destroy traditions" is an easier soundbyte than a huge amount of statistics and math. In a world where public opinion hangs on 5 second clips on the news, math tends to lose to poor rhetoric. I don't agree with LaPierre, just to be clear.
Well, both sides have some ridiculous rhetoric. Funny thing about rhetoric, it tends to be a bit whackjob-ish.
For example, "Assault Weapons Ban", to the uninitiated, sounds reasonable. But, let's run down some of those features, and see which ones are particularly relevant to function of a weapon. Leaving out shotguns because I've got very limited experience there.
+ Show Spoiler +
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Comfort mostly, slightly quicker to shoulder if it's shortened, but there's no minimum stock size, so this only becomes a convenience feature there. Also, these tend to sacrifice a bit of accuracy at longer ranges as a tradeoff.
Pistol grip Utter shit, I hate these anyways.
Bayonet mount Most of the mass-bayonet incidents I've ever read about got someone the Medal of Honor, and these definitely do NOT help you shoot someone.
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate oneOooh. Guess I'd better get a muzzle brake for better accuracy instead. Trust me, you can still see the muzzle flash.
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).How about we just ban the fucking ammo? Let people have a nonfunctional toy if they want it. 40mm HE grenades aren't exactly easy to make in your fucking basement.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip How does the location of the magazine make it more dangerous, exactly? The pistol grip is generally the desirable place anyways, you want it underneath for balance, and the further back the more of the length of the pistol can be barrel, meaning improved accuracy and muzzle velocity.
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor This ain't the movies, kids. Aside from a longer barrel, none of these are some sort of major threat, and suppressors in particular make them WAY bulkier, and reduce muzzle velocity, you can still hear the fucking thing shoot.
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold I already have a place to put my hands. The pistol grip. Putting both hands there seems to work for the military and the police, so the "it's law enforcement only type shit" argument doesn't even apply.
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more So making it harder to conceal, carry, and aim quickly makes it more deadly? Sure, if it's being used like a limp-dick baseball bat.
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm.
|
Gun control is the most important thing. For those who want to own a gun should also be tested if they are mentally fit to own one.
|
On January 24 2013 14:34 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 13:15 Millitron wrote:On January 24 2013 04:25 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition". And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find? I didn't say they were the same, but "Background checks will destroy traditions" is an easier soundbyte than a huge amount of statistics and math. In a world where public opinion hangs on 5 second clips on the news, math tends to lose to poor rhetoric. I don't agree with LaPierre, just to be clear. Well, both sides have some ridiculous rhetoric. Funny thing about rhetoric, it tends to be a bit whackjob-ish. For example, "Assault Weapons Ban", to the uninitiated, sounds reasonable. But, let's run down some of those features, and see which ones are particularly relevant to function of a weapon. Leaving out shotguns because I've got very limited experience there. + Show Spoiler +
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Comfort mostly, slightly quicker to shoulder if it's shortened, but there's no minimum stock size, so this only becomes a convenience feature there. Also, these tend to sacrifice a bit of accuracy at longer ranges as a tradeoff.
Pistol grip Utter shit, I hate these anyways.
Bayonet mount Most of the mass-bayonet incidents I've ever read about got someone the Medal of Honor, and these definitely do NOT help you shoot someone.
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate oneOooh. Guess I'd better get a muzzle brake for better accuracy instead. Trust me, you can still see the muzzle flash.
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).How about we just ban the fucking ammo? Let people have a nonfunctional toy if they want it. 40mm HE grenades aren't exactly easy to make in your fucking basement.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip How does the location of the magazine make it more dangerous, exactly? The pistol grip is generally the desirable place anyways, you want it underneath for balance, and the further back the more of the length of the pistol can be barrel, meaning improved accuracy and muzzle velocity.
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor This ain't the movies, kids. Aside from a longer barrel, none of these are some sort of major threat, and suppressors in particular make them WAY bulkier, and reduce muzzle velocity, you can still hear the fucking thing shoot.
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold I already have a place to put my hands. The pistol grip. Putting both hands there seems to work for the military and the police, so the "it's law enforcement only type shit" argument doesn't even apply.
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more So making it harder to conceal, carry, and aim quickly makes it more deadly? Sure, if it's being used like a limp-dick baseball bat.
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm.
"Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm."
Because one looks scary, you redneck, gun toting, religion clinging, dynamite fishing, cousin fucker. Don't you understand that the aesthetics of a gun are directly proportional to it's ability to unleash hot lead death onto frolicking children and sad eyed puppies.
You're a monster. Go jump off a cliff.
....pfffttttt.
hahaha, I couldn't even type that with a straight face xD
Seriously though, being informed is something the public at large sucks at.
|
On January 24 2013 16:02 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 14:34 JingleHell wrote:On January 24 2013 13:15 Millitron wrote:On January 24 2013 04:25 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition". And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find? I didn't say they were the same, but "Background checks will destroy traditions" is an easier soundbyte than a huge amount of statistics and math. In a world where public opinion hangs on 5 second clips on the news, math tends to lose to poor rhetoric. I don't agree with LaPierre, just to be clear. Well, both sides have some ridiculous rhetoric. Funny thing about rhetoric, it tends to be a bit whackjob-ish. For example, "Assault Weapons Ban", to the uninitiated, sounds reasonable. But, let's run down some of those features, and see which ones are particularly relevant to function of a weapon. Leaving out shotguns because I've got very limited experience there. + Show Spoiler +
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Comfort mostly, slightly quicker to shoulder if it's shortened, but there's no minimum stock size, so this only becomes a convenience feature there. Also, these tend to sacrifice a bit of accuracy at longer ranges as a tradeoff.
Pistol grip Utter shit, I hate these anyways.
Bayonet mount Most of the mass-bayonet incidents I've ever read about got someone the Medal of Honor, and these definitely do NOT help you shoot someone.
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate oneOooh. Guess I'd better get a muzzle brake for better accuracy instead. Trust me, you can still see the muzzle flash.
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).How about we just ban the fucking ammo? Let people have a nonfunctional toy if they want it. 40mm HE grenades aren't exactly easy to make in your fucking basement.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip How does the location of the magazine make it more dangerous, exactly? The pistol grip is generally the desirable place anyways, you want it underneath for balance, and the further back the more of the length of the pistol can be barrel, meaning improved accuracy and muzzle velocity.
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor This ain't the movies, kids. Aside from a longer barrel, none of these are some sort of major threat, and suppressors in particular make them WAY bulkier, and reduce muzzle velocity, you can still hear the fucking thing shoot.
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold I already have a place to put my hands. The pistol grip. Putting both hands there seems to work for the military and the police, so the "it's law enforcement only type shit" argument doesn't even apply.
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more So making it harder to conceal, carry, and aim quickly makes it more deadly? Sure, if it's being used like a limp-dick baseball bat.
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm.
"Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm." Because one looks scary, you redneck, gun toting, religion clinging, dynamite fishing, cousin fucker. Don't you understand that the aesthetics of a gun are directly proportional to it's ability to unleash hot lead death onto frolicking children and sad eyed puppies. You're a monster. Go jump off a cliff. ....pfffttttt. hahaha, I couldn't even type that with a straight face xD Seriously though, being informed is something the public at large sucks at.
Woah, you mean you're not afraid of babyseeking cop-killer armor piercing .50 caliber military style assault rifles?
|
I think I might get in on the mad scramble for a Saiga:
http://www.mississippiautoarms.com/
There are only seven of us here normally to process orders, so we can only do two to four hundred orders per day at a maximum. We have temporary helpers to help get orders shipped as fast as possible. Once the order is made, please do not contact us to check the status. Constantly checking the status only makes it more difficult for everyone else involved. If you are not sure that you can be patient and wait for the order to process, please do not make an order.
Who's Online: There currently are 11895 guests and 222 members online.
34 different Saiga-12 variants/configuations on their website. All sold out.
|
On January 25 2013 01:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 16:02 Kimaker wrote:On January 24 2013 14:34 JingleHell wrote:On January 24 2013 13:15 Millitron wrote:On January 24 2013 04:25 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition". And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find? I didn't say they were the same, but "Background checks will destroy traditions" is an easier soundbyte than a huge amount of statistics and math. In a world where public opinion hangs on 5 second clips on the news, math tends to lose to poor rhetoric. I don't agree with LaPierre, just to be clear. Well, both sides have some ridiculous rhetoric. Funny thing about rhetoric, it tends to be a bit whackjob-ish. For example, "Assault Weapons Ban", to the uninitiated, sounds reasonable. But, let's run down some of those features, and see which ones are particularly relevant to function of a weapon. Leaving out shotguns because I've got very limited experience there. + Show Spoiler +
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Comfort mostly, slightly quicker to shoulder if it's shortened, but there's no minimum stock size, so this only becomes a convenience feature there. Also, these tend to sacrifice a bit of accuracy at longer ranges as a tradeoff.
Pistol grip Utter shit, I hate these anyways.
Bayonet mount Most of the mass-bayonet incidents I've ever read about got someone the Medal of Honor, and these definitely do NOT help you shoot someone.
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate oneOooh. Guess I'd better get a muzzle brake for better accuracy instead. Trust me, you can still see the muzzle flash.
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).How about we just ban the fucking ammo? Let people have a nonfunctional toy if they want it. 40mm HE grenades aren't exactly easy to make in your fucking basement.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip How does the location of the magazine make it more dangerous, exactly? The pistol grip is generally the desirable place anyways, you want it underneath for balance, and the further back the more of the length of the pistol can be barrel, meaning improved accuracy and muzzle velocity.
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor This ain't the movies, kids. Aside from a longer barrel, none of these are some sort of major threat, and suppressors in particular make them WAY bulkier, and reduce muzzle velocity, you can still hear the fucking thing shoot.
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold I already have a place to put my hands. The pistol grip. Putting both hands there seems to work for the military and the police, so the "it's law enforcement only type shit" argument doesn't even apply.
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more So making it harder to conceal, carry, and aim quickly makes it more deadly? Sure, if it's being used like a limp-dick baseball bat.
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm.
"Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm." Because one looks scary, you redneck, gun toting, religion clinging, dynamite fishing, cousin fucker. Don't you understand that the aesthetics of a gun are directly proportional to it's ability to unleash hot lead death onto frolicking children and sad eyed puppies. You're a monster. Go jump off a cliff. ....pfffttttt. hahaha, I couldn't even type that with a straight face xD Seriously though, being informed is something the public at large sucks at. Woah, you mean you're not afraid of babyseeking cop-killer armor piercing .50 caliber military style assault rifles?
.50 caliber assault rifles? link one
|
|
|
On January 25 2013 06:08 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 01:00 Millitron wrote:On January 24 2013 16:02 Kimaker wrote:On January 24 2013 14:34 JingleHell wrote:On January 24 2013 13:15 Millitron wrote:On January 24 2013 04:25 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition". And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find? I didn't say they were the same, but "Background checks will destroy traditions" is an easier soundbyte than a huge amount of statistics and math. In a world where public opinion hangs on 5 second clips on the news, math tends to lose to poor rhetoric. I don't agree with LaPierre, just to be clear. Well, both sides have some ridiculous rhetoric. Funny thing about rhetoric, it tends to be a bit whackjob-ish. For example, "Assault Weapons Ban", to the uninitiated, sounds reasonable. But, let's run down some of those features, and see which ones are particularly relevant to function of a weapon. Leaving out shotguns because I've got very limited experience there. + Show Spoiler +
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Comfort mostly, slightly quicker to shoulder if it's shortened, but there's no minimum stock size, so this only becomes a convenience feature there. Also, these tend to sacrifice a bit of accuracy at longer ranges as a tradeoff.
Pistol grip Utter shit, I hate these anyways.
Bayonet mount Most of the mass-bayonet incidents I've ever read about got someone the Medal of Honor, and these definitely do NOT help you shoot someone.
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate oneOooh. Guess I'd better get a muzzle brake for better accuracy instead. Trust me, you can still see the muzzle flash.
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).How about we just ban the fucking ammo? Let people have a nonfunctional toy if they want it. 40mm HE grenades aren't exactly easy to make in your fucking basement.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip How does the location of the magazine make it more dangerous, exactly? The pistol grip is generally the desirable place anyways, you want it underneath for balance, and the further back the more of the length of the pistol can be barrel, meaning improved accuracy and muzzle velocity.
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor This ain't the movies, kids. Aside from a longer barrel, none of these are some sort of major threat, and suppressors in particular make them WAY bulkier, and reduce muzzle velocity, you can still hear the fucking thing shoot.
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold I already have a place to put my hands. The pistol grip. Putting both hands there seems to work for the military and the police, so the "it's law enforcement only type shit" argument doesn't even apply.
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more So making it harder to conceal, carry, and aim quickly makes it more deadly? Sure, if it's being used like a limp-dick baseball bat.
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm.
"Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm." Because one looks scary, you redneck, gun toting, religion clinging, dynamite fishing, cousin fucker. Don't you understand that the aesthetics of a gun are directly proportional to it's ability to unleash hot lead death onto frolicking children and sad eyed puppies. You're a monster. Go jump off a cliff. ....pfffttttt. hahaha, I couldn't even type that with a straight face xD Seriously though, being informed is something the public at large sucks at. Woah, you mean you're not afraid of babyseeking cop-killer armor piercing .50 caliber military style assault rifles? .50 caliber assault rifles? link one
I'll just go ahead and google that for you.
http://www.shopalexanderarms.com/Products-.50_Beowulf.html
http://www.gunblast.com/50Beowulf.htm
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L8Nyc6t.jpg)
|
On January 25 2013 09:47 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 06:08 Voltaire wrote:On January 25 2013 01:00 Millitron wrote:On January 24 2013 16:02 Kimaker wrote:On January 24 2013 14:34 JingleHell wrote:On January 24 2013 13:15 Millitron wrote:On January 24 2013 04:25 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2013 03:33 Millitron wrote:On January 23 2013 15:58 Saryph wrote:
Oh I agree, but it is still something you can and should point out when on the campaign trail, something to reassure a few undecideds, etc etc.
Did anyone catch LaPierre's speech in Nevada tonight? I wonder if he ignored or built on the shootings in Texas and New Mexico today, considering how close those states are to Nevada.
Edit: Apparently he said that universal background checks for gun sales would 'put an end to American traditions.' Doesn't that have something like 90% support by the American population? Seems like a bad place to make a stand, and something to easily give up to quiet the masses. I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference. Most guns used in crimes are illegally owned already, so a background check wouldn't stop them. It may not be worth checking 1000 people only to find 999 of them perfectly able to own a weapon. Especially when the 1 who wasn't was only going to hold up a convenience store or two. Maybe LaPierre had the same idea? How are "I'm in favor of background checks, but I'm not sure it'll make a difference" and "universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions" at all the same? Millitron, I may vehemently disagree with you on gun control, but its clear that even you are not above the simple truth of the necessity of background checks; even if they only prevent one murder via restricted access, the notion that bipolar ex-felons ought have no check when it comes to legally getting a gun is absolutely ridiculous, and I find it quite telling in regards to the NRA's motivations. Those being the bottom line of their donors rather than any far flung defense of the "American Tradition". And I also find it hilarious that La Pierre is the NRA's spokesman; is some evil younger brother of Donald Rumsfeld looking dude really the most photogenic and personable mouthpiece they could find? I didn't say they were the same, but "Background checks will destroy traditions" is an easier soundbyte than a huge amount of statistics and math. In a world where public opinion hangs on 5 second clips on the news, math tends to lose to poor rhetoric. I don't agree with LaPierre, just to be clear. Well, both sides have some ridiculous rhetoric. Funny thing about rhetoric, it tends to be a bit whackjob-ish. For example, "Assault Weapons Ban", to the uninitiated, sounds reasonable. But, let's run down some of those features, and see which ones are particularly relevant to function of a weapon. Leaving out shotguns because I've got very limited experience there. + Show Spoiler +
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Comfort mostly, slightly quicker to shoulder if it's shortened, but there's no minimum stock size, so this only becomes a convenience feature there. Also, these tend to sacrifice a bit of accuracy at longer ranges as a tradeoff.
Pistol grip Utter shit, I hate these anyways.
Bayonet mount Most of the mass-bayonet incidents I've ever read about got someone the Medal of Honor, and these definitely do NOT help you shoot someone.
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate oneOooh. Guess I'd better get a muzzle brake for better accuracy instead. Trust me, you can still see the muzzle flash.
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).How about we just ban the fucking ammo? Let people have a nonfunctional toy if they want it. 40mm HE grenades aren't exactly easy to make in your fucking basement.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip How does the location of the magazine make it more dangerous, exactly? The pistol grip is generally the desirable place anyways, you want it underneath for balance, and the further back the more of the length of the pistol can be barrel, meaning improved accuracy and muzzle velocity.
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor This ain't the movies, kids. Aside from a longer barrel, none of these are some sort of major threat, and suppressors in particular make them WAY bulkier, and reduce muzzle velocity, you can still hear the fucking thing shoot.
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold I already have a place to put my hands. The pistol grip. Putting both hands there seems to work for the military and the police, so the "it's law enforcement only type shit" argument doesn't even apply.
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more So making it harder to conceal, carry, and aim quickly makes it more deadly? Sure, if it's being used like a limp-dick baseball bat.
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm.
"Please explain to me how a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm is more dangerous than a semi-automatic version of an otherwise functionally identical semi-automatic firearm." Because one looks scary, you redneck, gun toting, religion clinging, dynamite fishing, cousin fucker. Don't you understand that the aesthetics of a gun are directly proportional to it's ability to unleash hot lead death onto frolicking children and sad eyed puppies. You're a monster. Go jump off a cliff. ....pfffttttt. hahaha, I couldn't even type that with a straight face xD Seriously though, being informed is something the public at large sucks at. Woah, you mean you're not afraid of babyseeking cop-killer armor piercing .50 caliber military style assault rifles? .50 caliber assault rifles? link one I'll just go ahead and google that for you.
I was going to start a semantical argument about the definition of an assault rifle, but meh, there's no point.
Regardless of what you call them, guns like that are used in an extremely low percentage of crimes. Going after those guns won't help anyone. It will simply criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens that wish to own them.
|
I shot an AK-47 today, no laws were broken and no one was hurt. We did have a good time though.
|
On January 26 2013 06:48 Rhino85 wrote:
I shot an AK-47 today, no laws were broken and no one was hurt. We did have a good time though.
Woot, the AK-47 is a venerable and awesome rifle. If you have only one gun, it should be an AK-47.
|
On January 26 2013 08:29 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 06:48 Rhino85 wrote:
I shot an AK-47 today, no laws were broken and no one was hurt. We did have a good time though. Woot, the AK-47 is a venerable and awesome rifle. If you have only one gun, it should be an AK-47.
It was my co-workers, most of the fire arms I own are more of the traditional hunting variety. But the AK-47 was pretty fun to target shoot.
|
On January 26 2013 11:47 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 08:29 Zealotdriver wrote:On January 26 2013 06:48 Rhino85 wrote:
I shot an AK-47 today, no laws were broken and no one was hurt. We did have a good time though. Woot, the AK-47 is a venerable and awesome rifle. If you have only one gun, it should be an AK-47. It was my co-workers, most of the fire arms I own are more of the traditional hunting variety. But the AK-47 was pretty fun to target shoot.
Any rifle is a hunting rifle.
|
On January 26 2013 12:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 11:47 Rhino85 wrote:On January 26 2013 08:29 Zealotdriver wrote:On January 26 2013 06:48 Rhino85 wrote:
I shot an AK-47 today, no laws were broken and no one was hurt. We did have a good time though. Woot, the AK-47 is a venerable and awesome rifle. If you have only one gun, it should be an AK-47. It was my co-workers, most of the fire arms I own are more of the traditional hunting variety. But the AK-47 was pretty fun to target shoot. Any rifle is a hunting rifle.
I agree, that's why I said "traditional."
|
On January 26 2013 08:29 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 06:48 Rhino85 wrote:
I shot an AK-47 today, no laws were broken and no one was hurt. We did have a good time though. Woot, the AK-47 is a venerable and awesome rifle. If you have only one gun, it should be an AK-47.
The AK-47 was a marvel of engineering in its time, but today it leaves something to be desired in terms of effective range and weight.
If you only have one assault rifle today, it should be a HK416.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
