for educational purposes

Mar 18, 2017 10:10 PM

progunil

Views

75743

Likes

1588

Dislikes

393

both of these guns function in the same way and fire the same cartridge

all of the guns pictured here are semi automatic and will accept a magazine of any capacity. the "hunting" rifles shown here are typically displayed with smaller magazines that fit flush with the rifle stock.

semi automatic =/= fully automatic. none of the guns here are select fire and will not under any circumstances fire more than one round per trigger pull.

also, modifying a semi automatic to fire full automatic is not an easy thing to do and is very, very illegal

edit: most of these are referring to the federal assault weapons ban that sunsetted in 2004. that said there are many areas around the country where these laws are still in place like where i live (cook county il). there are also several people that want to put these laws back into place.
just know that when you hear the term "assault weapon" used in news sources they're referring to these cosmetic modifications on legal guns whether or not they are legal in the area they are used in.

You're quoting a 23yr old Bill?? Do you know how many hundreds/thousands (state&Fed) more Bills have been filed and failed since then? WTF?

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

Man the mini 14 ranch rifle is one of my favorite firearms...

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Me too.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 5

Australian here. You still have a problem, and it's got nothing to do with how a gun 'looks'.

9 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 19

Whats the rules in australia? i know hunting rifles are possible, but what else?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Handguns are pretty heavily regulated. Modification is highly limited (IE, attachments). Rate of fire and capacity is heavily regulated.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

From a Californian...+1 for the mini 14

9 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 5

I want the black one in the picture so bad but don't want to shell out for it

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Gotta look for those used ones. Got mine for 600 with 8 mags, only a few years old. Calguns.org ftw

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

If the US considered "a well-regulated militia" and required repeat training and excercises, then we wouldn't be having this conversation

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 14

Well related meant functional and militia is armed civilians. Might want to read up on what those terms meant in the time of theconstitution

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

Functional is not a term I'd use to describe a group of strangers who happen to own weapons but never once train together

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Doesn't matter what you would use. Matters how words were used at the time

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

the NFA is unconstitutional and racist

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 13

Why is that

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Was instituted around the 1920s to keep a certain ethnic group from possessing firearms and it wasn't the blacks.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act note the timing, "immediately after prohibition". A poll tax for firearms.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Like a lot of you said, getting the gun ban people on board with this doesn't sound likely, but I didn't know this and I'm glad I do now!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yup, the whole pistol grip being the difference is stupid.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

@OP, you might note that the S.150 referred to in #4 is from the 2013-14 session and is long dead. (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Current S.150 is the Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act of 2017. (2/2)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I've got Korean War surplus M1 Carbines and they were real war fighting guns. They look tame compared to these things.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fed Gun Control Bills authors want to manage the supply of SEMI-AUTO weapons. Calling them Assault Rifles is political spin. i.e the A.H.C.A

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Since when does a shotgun fire "bullets"?

9 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 7

magnum slugs. but that's about it

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Since hippies.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Slugs.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Only use them for sniping in Battlefield

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They're still essentially big bullets.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Small lead balls thrown by a sling are bullets; I think buck shot has a better claim on the word than rifle cartridges.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You're absolutely right, all of these should be restricted to public use, not just the "assault weapons"

9 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 24

SAVAGE

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

You've never even fired a gun, have you? No one who's actually used a gun thinks that nobody should be able to own them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I'm bored of this kind of thing. It's almost literally only an issue in the States.

9 years ago | Likes 116 Dislikes 57

So click right, sorry your country does not protect such amazing personal rights. We are far from perfect, but pry them from my cold hands

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 6

Then downvote and move on mate, imgur is for lots of people. A good bit of them are Americans

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 8

Definitely an issue in Canada too. Many guns are banned for completely arbitrary reasons.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I'm pretty sure there are active talks about updating the EU firearms directive and make it stricter.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Totally missed that... sources on the internet don't really give much information. Do you have a source?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I was trying to look up more specific information on it too and it was all pretty vague stuff.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not since this Tuesday. EU parliament passed similar restrictions, despite the objections of countries in the East (who have been [...]

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

working to improve defence readiness and to engage armed civilians in defence since 2014), because French Socialist wanted to show how [...]

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

they are stopping terrorism in France. By making muskets licence-only and mandating they be kept in safes. Seriously.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

This made me curious. I looked up, but the only sources I found was some juristical gibberish I don't understand. You have more information?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Not in English, I'm afraid.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Other countries make laws based on evidential science whilst the US tells other countries their laws wont work when they've worked for 20 yr

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 9

Other countries also have generally homogeneous cultures, while the US can have wildly varying cultures from one street to the next.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Im very sorry for you, that your education has led you think that your comment makes a rational, informed, factual, comparative argument.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

There is also something the OP blatantly disregards. "Scary" rifle mods are, scary. you cant identify them as semi or single on the spot 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 7

I'm sorry that you are in a situation where the discussion over protecting the life of kids differentiates guns, any gun can kill or harm

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it matters if someone, lets say robs a bank. What scaryier, that hunting ruger 14 or its maybe full auto lookalike?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

As far as I know, the Ruger Mini-14 isn't available in full auto. As in, it's not manufactured in that configuration and never has been.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

You don't get the point. YOU know that about the ruger 14. you know it can be modded and can't easily be put into full auto. But 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I can't fathom the releveance of you argument. A gun is a gun. If any gun was pointed at me I'd be scared

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A.) Repost B.) Lighter weight and more bullets and collapsible profile are all functional, not superficial differences.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

a)my repost. i do it about once a month. b) specify

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

But pistol grips and black make them scary!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Good luck trying to educate the brainwashed. I always here AR described as high power assault rifle though it isn't at all high power

9 years ago | Likes 249 Dislikes 57

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:35 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Can't deny that!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

High and low powered rifle have different meanings in different contexts. I typically hear high vs low in reference to air vs gun powder.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am educated, I can understand the mechanics of a rifle / round.... And you are still wrong to argue against common sense legislation

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I don't think power is the most important factor. An easy to handle gun is more deadly, especially with a poorly trained owner.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

A semi auto gun is a lot more scary because of quicker targeting after each shot. He misses? heres 4 more. a well aimed .22lr is deadly.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

It's not about power, it's about the fact that it is designed for killing people. And few guns do a better job.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

The ar 15 isn't high powered? Tf are you smoking

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 12

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:36 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Maybe if your metric is caliber. The ar15's muzzle velocity is impressive

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I'm smoking reality while you bathe in fantasy land because you don't knkw wtf you are talking about

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Power is a relative term. .223 can zip through certain classes of body armor that .308 cannot. And vise versa

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 14

Your arguments may hold more weight if you don't start off naming dissenters "brainwashed". Food for thought.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

They only call them assault rifles because the media does hence why I called them that.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's also not at all an assault rifle since it doesn't have select fire capability and only fires semi-automatically.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Speaking of education, it is "hear" not "here.

9 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 13

Yep it sure is. Thanks to technology, it seems to choose my words for me and I don't give 2 fucks about proof reading

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 13

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Thanks to people like you our written language will be completely unrecognizable within 20 years.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

You are welcome. Welcome to suck my fucking dick

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thank you for proving my point with your guttural eloquence.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I like the way you deal with nit picking that is irrelevant to the argument

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 8

Bill fucking Murray! I know that's not his real name

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

Especially since the whole concept of the assault rifle came about because the full-size cartridges in battle rifles were more powerful 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

than required and limited the amount of ammunition soldiers could reasonably carry. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

in most states you can't even hunt deer with a .223 because it's underpowered

9 years ago | Likes 114 Dislikes 9

Most ar's also fire 5.56 tho which is same caliber but a little higher power. I put a tennis ball sized hole in a buck with one

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

underpowered? no .. that's not the word you're looking for.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What people fail to realize is almost any .223 is rarely used in any shooting besides war and even then, they are not designed to kill

9 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 9

Wait. I used ammunition in Afghanistan that weren't meant to kill? Man I learn new things every day.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I guess you do since 5.56 has become more adopted to injure combatants without killing to hurt morale and supplies.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I think you're an idiot.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

It seems to be a common misconception about 5.56/.223 not being designed to kill, because the round tumbles as soon as it hits anything.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

this is why M2 .50 cals are for "equipment"

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

Good thing I shot that RPG that dude was pointing as us. I missed the RPG though I think.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

exactly

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am equipped to blow a hole the size of a grapefruit through them and anyone else within a mile radius

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 2

yea if anybody just happens to be between the muzzle and that "equipment" then oh well.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

If they are the same, why are you upset that one of them is banned? Just buy the other one.

9 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 23

Pistol grips are more comfortable for some people and it's harder to mount sights, lasers etc without picatinny rails.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Because it is a false argument that has nothing to do with preventing crime. And when you can ban one for something as frivolous as looks...

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

1 They're the same in operation. It's like saying that you should get the same car as me since they both operate essentially the same.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2 different configurations are better for different scenarios, allowing you to adapt for skill, comfort, and environment.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Collectors like to collect things that look differently. He's pointing out the stupidity of said ban

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

Might I interest you in collecting TCG cards or coins instead?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

because they are all the same. banning one cuz it looks scary sets the next step to saying "i don't like wood color" and so on and on and on

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 6

When they came for the assault weapons, i said nothing, because i was not an assault weapon...

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Your quick dismissal of it by saying it's "the same" makes me question whether you're glossing over anything.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 12

If you cant see the point here then you're dense af. If they can ban/restrict a right because it's an"assault wep"which just means"scary"1/2

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

the whole point of this post is that they're all the same

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

Then they'll ban anything they want under the same logic. People, med practices, media, news, and anything else they can paint in that light

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Adding a stock to my pistol? Not according to the atf.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

FWIW, full-auto is almost never used even in actual combat because it's impractical.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 7

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:32 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

According to anyone who has ever been in combat. You can't hit shit on full auto.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:37 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Suppression on full auto is pointless. Firing in quick secession provides the same effect with more accuracy. Also conservation of ammo.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Hi there, government sponsored killer here, you're wrong. That is all.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

That's nice, and you're still wrong. What do you think people do in a fight when the 249 or 240 goes down. Volume till they're back up.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm against gun bans primarily because the criminals that commit firearm-related crimes are by definition criminal and don't give two (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

(2/2) shits about your absurd gun rules and will get those weapons anyway.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

AND will feel safe to victimize law abiding citizens who are known to be unarmed.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm all for common sense gun control but the problem is, their ideas lack common sense

9 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 19

And are a violation of my 2nd amendment rights, not permissions, RIGHTS

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

How does a mental health background check lack common sense?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Do you need a backround check to speak? How about the other tools of revolution recognized by the bill of rights?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Can a mentally unstable individual murder someone with worlds...?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:35 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Maybe fund police precincts better so there are more better trained and equipped officers to combat illegal gun usage.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Well, stopping illegal imports would surely be helpful. Instead of building a fucking wall, we need to stop the tunnels and watch ports bett

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I really don't have the answer. I guess harsh punishments for violent crimes involving guns would be a good start

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

We have them already but are rarely used especially for repeat offenders

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I don't think that's a great solution. The US has some of the harshest punishments in the world but has among the highest gun violence rates

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

US already doles out some of the harhests sentences in the western world.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We do but it's mostly for people who can't afford a good lawyer. So many inner city folks get arrested 30 times before 30

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That makes it better?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I know this argument is very sound. The question I've always had: why does the military use the other 'clothing'. P.s I like weapons no hate

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

they're cheap and easily adaptable to many people. no need for special fitting and whatnot.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That probably should have been more obvious to me. But if they are more easily adaptable doesn't this mean it's not just cosmetic?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

doesn't make it more killier

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I completely agree. It reminds me of showing my friend a kitche knife and a 'bayonet'. The bayonet was a shitty knockoff; probably break 1/?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's not even legal to own airsoft and you need a gun safe and licence to own a paintball gun. Would love more education and less fear. 4/4

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

is a weapon. I find it ridiculous; ignorance fueling fear. I'm in Australia which sadly limits my ability to collect things I like. 3/?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

from any use. The kitchen knife was made out of a high grade of steel and had a MUCH MUCH sharper edge. One is fine and normal the other 2/?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Very pro-gun and ARs are a blast, but when you have enough firepower to clear nightclubs, movie theaters and classrooms...

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 14

... in the hands of sick assholes, society will come down hard on all guns. 2nd ammendment doest specify it as and individual's right...

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 17

The Supreme Court disagrees.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

...And if there isn't responsible laws we may end up with broader bans.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 8

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:36 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Someone who is on certain watch lists, and has a violent criminal record shouldn't be able to buy ANY gun. Remember the Orlando shooter

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:35 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

and then the next sick asshole clears a club with an 11-87. and the next sick asshole does it with a 10-22 and then next guy does it 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

with a pistol. there's no line on this. it's all or none. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

But assault type firearms were banned for a reason though. The are efficient weapons, they aren't a defensive weapon, but offensive.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Yes, scumbag fucks would just use other weapons, but the situation is very different when something that good is used.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

the term persists because it feeds into fear of people. this is to educate those that don't know the difference. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

they were banned in 1994 and the ban sunsetted in 2004 because there was no reason for it. local municipalities hold on to the ban and 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

And during the ban firearm deaths went up, then fell after repeal

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Body counts are lower with other weapons. And it's a much different story for law enforcement to go up against someone with an AR

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Always upvote freedom. Most gun control arguments are based on fear and false narratives.

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 22

Americans are the only folks who have gun addictions Any other Civilised country has been able to put them down after the 1st school shootin

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

You're right about FEAR!!!!!! People FEAR being one the 30,000 Americans shot to death each year. Sounds reasonable to me.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That nations like the UK that heavily regulate guns are worse off? Yeah. Fear and false narratives.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

"If" false narratives are used, it'd be because facts of hundreds of mass shootings per yr & over 30,000 gun deaths per yr somehow sell guns

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Mostly by handguns too but keep trying to ban the big scary tactical looking ones.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Australian here. Strict gun control laws. Not afraid over such things.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The same could probably be said about marijuana.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

What really needs to be banned are handguns. Used in a disproportionate number of crimes, loved by criminals b/c they're easy to steal, use-

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 14

Then women,small,weak,elderly, & ill would be unable to defend themselves against stronger attackers.You consider them disposable apparantly

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Then women, weak, handicapped, elderly would have no way to protect against larger attackers, who would then feel safe in victimizing them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

cause the ban on everything else has worked sooo well.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 10

See Australia.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

The USA is not Australia.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Funny how the U.S. is the only 1st world state where gun crime is a thing, eh? We're never gonna stop it now, but we can stem the worst bit.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 7

Chicago is throwing off the curve on your stats. maby THAY should have more harsh laws...oh wait thay do. Criminals don't care about law.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 5

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:35 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

1)what is the point of the gun debate. it affects 10 or so per 100k. most of that is gang activity,over drugs. Decriminalization is the only

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

-, conceal, and dispose of.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

Banning hand guns is a horrible idea. Criminals don't follow gun bans or they will just commit the crime with a knife.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

The two worst arguments against gun regulation.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I know they are horrible and played out but honestly it's true. Where there is a will there is a way.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Criminals don't follow laws because that is the definition of a criminal. Guns are way more deadly than knives.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I don't really care about what kind of gun you have. I'm fine with banning fully automatic weapons and permitting "scary looking" semis.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

full auto guns have been banned for manufacture since 1986. you can still buy one but they're in the 10s of thousands of dollars and you 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

need a class III license to get one. it's not something you can just go to walmart and get 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:35 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

go get one for me and then i'll give you $50 behind the CVS next week

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:34 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:34 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

then we're kosher. what kind of gun did that guy use who killed 50 people in the florida nightclub?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sig Sauer MCX and Glock 17.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

regular semi auto ar-15. i have one in my safe right now next to my AK

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

It was a Sig Sauer MCX. You're perpetuating the problem of labeling everything an AR-15 and demonizing it as the murderers weapon of choice.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

i'm sorry, my AR is actually a colt 6920, or would you prefer i call it an M4? i don't wanna offend anyone

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

all we need is a restriction on who can own guns, have them registered and clear laws about how you can store and transport them.

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 25

So...exactly like it is now? Cool!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Already done.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

How will that stop mentally ill from mass shootings, criminals from shooting whom they please & drug cartels from arming their people here?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not sure if serious

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We already have gun ownership laws that honest people obey, criminals have no fucks to give, they steal from you fucks.

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 8

I'm with you as long as it's also applied to 1, 3, 4 and 5. As long as you register and transport words properly, you are allowed to speak.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Has that been proven to reduce gun violence?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Store and transport rules should reduce accidents and the amount of stolen or lost guns.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

Did you know the US already has laws like that in some form or another?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes. Australia had a mass shooting in 1996. 35 people died. We then completely restricted what guns could be owned as well as how they 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

Could be stored. And guess what? Gun crime fell significantly. We haven't had any mass shootings since. 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

Not a valid argument as you are the prodigny of a bunch of convicts sent to an island to get you out of England buecause you were unwanted

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

And your politicians disarmed you, and you idiots let them

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Wasn't there also no significant drop in the overall violent crime rate during the ban though, since criminals used other methods?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

that's not constitutional

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 28

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 1:00 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

SCOTUS

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I love my guns. But that's not exactly what i would call unconstitutional.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 5

what you would all unconstitutional and what is actually unconstitutional are two different things

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 16

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:36 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

SCOTUS

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

We already have certain restrictions on gun ownership(felons and domestic abusers) you think that's unconstitutional?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The constitution isn't a dead or enduring document. The second ammendment can be stricken from it. I don't want that but it's a possibility

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

yeah, but that random guy from the internet isn't SCOTUS. he can say whatever he wants but that doesn't make it law

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 9

Are you in a well regulated militia?

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 11

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

And look up what "Well regulated" meant at the time. It means well armed with proper equipment.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The second amendment wasn't just for "a well regulated malitia". It was also intended for the civilian population. 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A lot of the Constitution was written because we wanted exactly the opposite of what The Crown allowed.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

no. i am of the people.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 13

This is were people assume EVERYONE has a right to bear arms, by only paying attention to what they want to see in the 2nd ammendment

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

A well regulated militia isn't fine print, written like that for a reason

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 6

So @op you're saying both types should be banned. Stick to bolt action

9 years ago | Likes 95 Dislikes 54

In New York state, rifle magazine is capped at 5 rounds max (handgun, 10).

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wait till the argument gets made against that deadly sniper rifle with over a 1000 yard range. You know, 300 win mag bolt gun.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

Which is often used legitimately for big game hunting or long range competition.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

Muskets only. As the founding fathers intended.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 12

there's only one type of gun shown here. bolt action is a different class.

9 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 20

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:36 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

they tried that. not constitutional.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 9

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Mar 19, 2017 11:36 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

I meant both looks.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 7

I mean, if I worked hard enough, I could make a bolt-action rifle that looked like an AR-15, or other "tactical" weapons

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

but looks don't mean anything

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 12

Next you'll be telling me red cars don't go any faster than other cars ;)

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

shut the fuck up right now or they're gonna ban racing stripes and spoilers and then i'll have some dirt on my car one day and get ticketed

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 6

Just do what Australia does, bad semi automatic altogether. Problem solved

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 18

Australia is like the one country where I'd want to be heavily armed.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm a hunter and I would be on board for that. Revolvers, pump shotguns, and bolt actions are fine anything else nope.1/2

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 11

Some semis can have high capacity mags. Those guns in previous comment have slower rate of fire/reloads I'm fine with that.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 9

In mass shooting situations the reload and rechambering times would give people and police time to react.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 11

Thank God we don't have "hunters" deciding what's legal for us peasants to own.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I do make a lot of money. We should just put the peasants on rail cars and gas them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4