07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 170171172173174 ...
tools
  1. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Unless you are going to destroy every "high capacity" mag in existence and every means of modifying existing mags, it is a stupid and pointless sanction that only effects law abiding citizens.

    A criminal does not care that the law says that the magazine in his gun is illegal. He will use a 30 round mag that he had before the sanction, buy one legally somewhere else, modify a 10 round mag, or obtain a 30 round mag illegally. This law does absolutely nothing to stop this. It is merely another law meant for criminals that only effects law abiding citizens. But you have the idiots in Washington that have stated on record that they believe magazines are only one use devices writing these laws.

    We need common sense gun control. Not garbage like this that stems from irrational fear and was written by people that know nothing about what they are talking about and don't care.
    By your logic if you can not stop murder why make it illegal? Trick is making them illegal you start killing off the supply even for criminals. Right now guns to criminals are throw away items. Clip and all. It needs to change to make them so costly that they can not do that.

    You are right we need common sense gun control. Limiting mag size falls under common sense. Give a reason why you would ever need more than 10 rounds (self defense is crap argument as pointed out in another post if you need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself you have bigger problems)
    02-17-2014 11:41 AM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    By your logic if you can not stop murder why make it illegal? Trick is making them illegal you start killing off the supply even for criminals. Right now guns to criminals are throw away items. Clip and all. It needs to change to make them so costly that they can not do that.

    You are right we need common sense gun control. Limiting mag size falls under common sense. Give a reason why you would ever need more than 10 rounds (self defense is crap argument as pointed out in another post if you need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself you have bigger problems)
    Magazines go nowhere. Criminals rarely throw a gun away unless they know that they are going to be investigated. Even if you made it illegal across the entire country to buy and carry 30 round mags, it would take 20+ years for any notable change in supply. Even then, they would be valued and kept. This of course means NOTHING to mass mass shooters that are going to do whatever it takes to get the best equipment and care nothing about the laws.

    "Well it is illegal to have this mag, so I am going to throw it away and get a lower capacity one to shoot up this mall" said no criminal ever.

    You realize that 10 rounds is an extremely low number right? Most modern hand guns carry more. A standard AR15 mag is 30. I have actually searched for 10 and 20 mags for an AR15 and could find no 10 at all. And 20's can be rare.

    You are right, if you need more than 10 rounds, you are in deep trouble, but it happens. Most rounds shot in defensive situations are wasted. Depending on the circumstances, it can easily take more than 10 for even single attacker situations. Much less multiple or when drugs are involved.

    And I stopped reading you previous post when you started saying that I rifle was terrible for home defense. Making an ignorant statement like that proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

    And then we have sport enthusiast reasons for needing more than 10 rounds...
    02-17-2014 01:15 PM
  3. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Magazines go nowhere. Criminals rarely throw a gun away unless they know that they are going to be investigated. Even if you made it illegal across the entire country to buy and carry 30 round mags, it would take 20+ years for any notable change in supply. Even then, they would be valued and kept. This of course means NOTHING to mass mass shooters that are going to do whatever it takes to get the best equipment and care nothing about the laws.

    "Well it is illegal to have this mag, so I am going to throw it away and get a lower capacity one to shoot up this mall" said no criminal ever.

    You realize that 10 rounds is an extremely low number right? Most modern hand guns carry more. A standard AR15 mag is 30. I have actually searched for 10 and 20 mags for an AR15 and could find no 10 at all. And 20's can be rare.

    You are right, if you need more than 10 rounds, you are in deep trouble, but it happens. Most rounds shot in defensive situations are wasted. Depending on the circumstances, it can easily take more than 10 for even single attacker situations. Much less multiple or when drugs are involved.

    And I stopped reading you previous post when you started saying that I rifle was terrible for home defense. Making an ignorant statement like that proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

    And then we have sport enthusiast reasons for needing more than 10 rounds...

    So again back to the same as before. We can not stop murder why should we make it illegal? It boils down to that. Criminals do not care so why should we try? Or make ID thief illegal?

    As for the rifle part being bad for home defense. If you had read it I pointed out why.

    In side the home you are at close range and the rifle is a little large to move around in the home case a handgun and and a shot gun are both better.
    I also pointed out and you agreed if it takes more than 10 rounds you have bigger fish. But you go with the normal answer and go with FUD. Not surprising.

    Hunting if you need more than 10 rounds you are a horrible hunter and no need there.

    Home defense you are looking at what 20-30 ft max range here. Rifles are not designed for that. At that range a hand gun or a shotgun are by far a better home defense weapon so yeah a rifle should not be your defense weapon and people trying to argue that are spreading FUD as you and I both know at that range a shotgun or a handgun are by far better.
    02-17-2014 01:46 PM
  4. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Anyway....that rifle in the OP looks cool.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    02-17-2014 02:06 PM
  5. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I would refuse to recognize NYC's or New York State's various gun bans. Regardless of which type of gun is the most appropriate in any given situation, a state may not violate the Constitution. In my view, their laws in this regard do precisely that.

    This entire discussion on "definition on what constitutes an 'assault' weapon" and "what constitutes low-, medium-, and high-capacity magazines" etc. and so forth distracts from the real issue at hand: why are there these deviants in the first place, and what can we do to help them so we can reduce or eliminate their numbers from our society?
    02-17-2014 02:24 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    Query: Is there anything that would constitute new and productive insights to this "debate" that can be conveyed in a civil and solution seeking manner or did we just create yet another silly recipe for name calling and otherwise disruptive and lame behaviors?
    msndrstood and Scott7217 like this.
    02-17-2014 02:46 PM
  7. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Query: Is there anything that would constitute new and productive insights to this "debate" that can be conveyed in a civil and solution seeking manner or did we just create yet another silly recipe for name calling and otherwise disruptive and lame behaviors?
    This is the "Politics" area, NothingIsTrue. This isn't the area for meaningful discussion or insightful debate. Most message boards don't have or even allow this kind of an area.
    02-17-2014 02:57 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    This is the "Politics" area, NothingIsTrue. This isn't the area for meaningful discussion or insightful debate. Most message boards don't have or even allow this kind of an area.
    lol, yeah I get that it's the right section for partisan theatrics, it's just that we've gone through "gun control" (very little discussion of ways to curb trends that disturb people) discussions several times and it seems to bring out the absolute worst in some members. If we're not going to try a different approach, I'm inclined to discourage revisiting the same habit of figuratively slamming all of our own heads into a wall believing that doing so enough times will convince those who also have aching heads that our way of solving a problem (via head banging walls approach) is superior to their imitation of the same thing. In the end it's just dizziness, nausea and headaches and I'm not sure if we've gotten through one without someone being banned. Is there sufficient need to bring that side of folks out? Also, as was wisely pointed out by another a couple of times, the OP wasn't about politics, so I'm not sure there is a requirement for us "to go there".
    02-17-2014 03:21 PM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    lol, yeah I get that it's the right section for partisan theatrics, it's just that we've gone through "gun control" (very little discussion of ways to curb trends that disturb people) discussions several times and it seems to bring out the absolute worst in some members. If we're not going to try a different approach, I'm inclined to discourage revisiting the same habit of figuratively slamming all of our own heads into a wall believing that doing so enough times will convince those who also have aching heads that our way of solving a problem (via head banging walls approach) is superior to their imitation of the same thing. In the end it's just dizziness, nausea and headaches and I'm not sure if we've gotten through one without someone being banned. Is there sufficient need to bring that side of folks out? Also, as was wisely pointed out by another a couple of times, the OP wasn't about politics, so I'm not sure there is a requirement for us "to go there".
    You are completely right, but this happens is every thread. No matter what the topic. I may have missed it, but this is the first thread I recall that is specifically about magazine limits. That is different I guess...

    At least this one has not devolved into bickering about which "news" organization is more corrupt yet. Every thread in the last month has for some reason. I am sure the same people will steer this one that way as well before long...
    02-17-2014 03:28 PM
  10. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    You are completely right, but this happens is every thread. No matter what the topic. I may have missed it, but this is the first thread I recall that is specifically about magazine limits. That is different I guess...

    At least this one has not devolved into bickering about which "news" organization is more corrupt yet. Every thread in the last month has for some reason. I am sure the same people will steer this one that way as well before long...
    It was actually about a specific rifle and it's design until the first reply.

    Then it devolved. Nobody tried to stop it. (I should say, nobody cared to listen and really didn't even answer the Mod's question. Justifying the existence of a thread isn't an answer to the question.)

    People (like myself) stop posting in these threads because we're tired of having the same discussion over and over again.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    msndrstood and Scott7217 like this.
    02-17-2014 04:08 PM
  11. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I have to admit I've given serious consideration to responding in Haiku to these go-nowhere threads. I'm by no means the world's greatest poet, but what the heck...
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-17-2014 05:22 PM
  12. Live2ride883's Avatar
    By your logic if you can not stop murder why make it illegal? Trick is making them illegal you start killing off the supply even for criminals. Right now guns to criminals are throw away items. Clip and all. It needs to change to make them so costly that they can not do that.

    You are right we need common sense gun control. Limiting mag size falls under common sense. Give a reason why you would ever need more than 10 rounds (self defense is crap argument as pointed out in another post if you need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself you have bigger problems)
    First up, I think you should read up on why we have a second amanedment. This link should help Sipsey Street Irregulars: What is a "Three Percenter"?.

    If you don't think an ar15, and other similar weapons are going to do any good against an oppressive government, then tell me why we are providing them to rebels in places like Syria, where they are currently fighting an oppressive government..

    How is it that you are so familiar with criminal activity that you just know that they just throw their guns away including the "clip", and by clip I have to assume that you mean magazine. Because they are 2 totally different items but are commonly improperly used in situations where someone is trying to make a statement about something they know nothing about, and have little or no personal experience with.

    To back that up I refer to your statement about the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, he committed suicide before he was captured. Now here I have to make another assumption that you were actually referring to James Holmes who was captured after he killed 12 people, including one of my best friends at the midnight premier of Batman at a theater in Aurora, CO.

    I find your use of the word crap offensive, it is NOT for you to decide what I can have to defend myself, my family, or my property with. Just because you disagree, or dislike my choice/opinion does not make them " crap".

    Now for the generic stuff, if you come at someone with a switchblade and this perceived victim of yours pulls out a kbar your gonna have second thoughts about continuing your course of action. If you have a snub nosed .38 police special, and as you round the corner into my living room and you see me with an ar15, or even a shotgun your gonna have second thoughts pretty quick. Do not underestimate the power of intimitadation.

    Going back to Sandy Hook, did you know that Adam Lanza broke 41 laws that day: http://partneringwitheagles.wordpres...13/01/02/5407/
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-17-2014 10:15 PM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    Magazine Capacity: 10 rounds
    The original law specified a maximum of 7 rounds per magazine, but that portion was struck down by a federal court.
    02-17-2014 10:27 PM
  14. Timelessblur's Avatar
    First up, I think you should read up on why we have a second amanedment. This link should help Sipsey Street Irregulars: What is a "Three Percenter"?.

    If you don't think an ar15, and other similar weapons are going to do any good against an oppressive government, then tell me why we are providing them to rebels in places like Syria, where they are currently fighting an oppressive government..

    How is it that you are so familiar with criminal activity that you just know that they just throw their guns away including the "clip", and by clip I have to assume that you mean magazine. Because they are 2 totally different items but are commonly improperly used in situations where someone is trying to make a statement about something they know nothing about, and have little or no personal experience with.

    To back that up I refer to your statement about the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, he committed suicide before he was captured. Now here I have to make another assumption that you were actually referring to James Holmes who was captured after he killed 12 people, including one of my best friends at the midnight premier of Batman at a theater in Aurora, CO.

    I find your use of the word crap offensive, it is NOT for you to decide what I can have to defend myself, my family, or my property with. Just because you disagree, or dislike my choice/opinion does not make them " crap".

    Now for the generic stuff, if you come at someone with a switchblade and this perceived victim of yours pulls out a kbar your gonna have second thoughts about continuing your course of action. If you have a snub nosed .38 police special, and as you round the corner into my living room and you see me with an ar15, or even a shotgun your gonna have second thoughts pretty quick. Do not underestimate the power of intimitadation.

    Going back to Sandy Hook, did you know that Adam Lanza broke 41 laws that day: 41 Laws Did Not Protect The Innocent | partneringwitheagles
    I am going to cut to the chase. Most of your argument falls under the right wing gun nut argument. Hell I read the standard FUD spread by gun nuts.

    Come back when you support basic gun control.
    Example of basic that has been block
    1. Modernizing the entire ATF system. It is in the dark ages with paper files.
    2. Enhanced background checks with a modern system that needs to be updated. This means if you are a felon in another state no way to buy a gun.
    3. Private seller required to have a background check.
    4. All guns needs to be registered and track. Tracking in who owns the gun. This means it can guns can quickly and easily be traced back to the gun store that owned them. This means you will quickly find gun shops that are not following the current laws in place or have a shell buyer.

    Personally I would say if a gun is used in a crime the owner of said gun is fined a few $100 bucks if the gun had not been reported stolen before hand. This would push for responsible ownership.

    None of those items have anything to do with banning a gun or limiting a magazine size. It is just getting a handle of the guns out their and tracking them.
    02-17-2014 11:15 PM
  15. nolittdroid's Avatar
    We don't have any ARs but allll this does is make it more expensive and more difficult for hobbyists and law abiding citizens.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-18-2014 07:25 PM
  16. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I am going to cut to the chase. Most of your argument falls under the right wing gun nut argument. Hell I read the standard FUD spread by gun nuts.

    Come back when you support basic gun control.
    Example of basic that has been block
    1. Modernizing the entire ATF system. It is in the dark ages with paper files.
    2. Enhanced background checks with a modern system that needs to be updated. This means if you are a felon in another state no way to buy a gun.
    3. Private seller required to have a background check.
    4. All guns needs to be registered and track. Tracking in who owns the gun. This means it can guns can quickly and easily be traced back to the gun store that owned them. This means you will quickly find gun shops that are not following the current laws in place or have a shell buyer.

    Personally I would say if a gun is used in a crime the owner of said gun is fined a few $100 bucks if the gun had not been reported stolen before hand. This would push for responsible ownership.

    None of those items have anything to do with banning a gun or limiting a magazine size. It is just getting a handle of the guns out their and tracking them.
    You've already lost any credibility you might have had with me. So I'm done.
    02-18-2014 10:20 PM
  17. Timelessblur's Avatar
    You've already lost any credibility you might have had with me. So I'm done.
    Well your responses make it clear you want nothing to do with basic gun control and have no interest in addressing it. I knew the second I read well right wing gun crazy crap FUD arguments this was pointless. Come on Fear Uncertainty Doubt seem to the the only tool in trade if that is your argument. FUD arguments are crap. Your first entire point to attack me was fear based. Seem honestly weak. It lets start a civil war. Yeah does not bold well for respect or credibility.

    Gun nuts have block anything locking it down. I listed basic things that would not restrict any rights. It would OMG help keep guns out of people's hands who should not have them and force more responsibility on gun owners.

    You refuse to consider it and shows a massive part of the problem. Not that the standard well fear uncertainty and doubt help change anything. Instead it just reinforced my view of the problem.

    As I said before come back with some reasonable gun control. I listed off several solution that would not effect anything. But you want nothing to do with it.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    02-18-2014 11:50 PM
  18. plumbrich's Avatar
    Amadou Diallo, 22 New York City police officers who fired 41 shots

    The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer,

    145th Street Subway Shootout Though he was hit in the left bicep, Herlihy, who was just 10 feet away, returned fire 13 times, hitting McBride once in the chest.

    Just did a New York police shooting search and grabbed the first 3. Law enforcement in allot of cases expend a heck of allot of rounds just to put a threat down and they are supposedly trained in protecting the public and themselves. Somehow as a citizen protecting oneself we only need 8 rounds of ammo?? Makes no sense.

    No law enforcement or military I now of puts down there M4 or AR15 and grabs a pistol to enter an enclosed building when a threat is there. An AR15 is a much better choice than any pistol when protecting oneself. We/they only carry a pistol because it is more practical in daily carry, if someone is going into a known shootout and has a compact semi auto rifle available they should take it over a pistol every time.

    Taking the pistol grip off an AR15 is dumb, passing a law to take off a pistol grip on an AR15 is even dumber. Passing laws to limit magazines and pistol grips is the pinnacle of ignorance of guns and the 2nd amendment.

    We can't register or document all the illegal aliens in the country and they are human beings and walk around in plain sight, but somehow we are going to register 310 million guns?
    02-19-2014 05:16 AM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    IMO the best way to approach this is to try to get into the minds of the people that think owning a gun is a personal attachment to their being. If you look at the average gun owner (No I'm not talking about the small percentage of gun owners, as someone in the past pointed out) then it's obvious why they cling so much to their weapon. Look at some of the non-mass shootings. The guy that shot someone at the movie theater because he was texting, the guy that shot and killed a teen because his music was too loud, both older white males that are well beyond their prime.

    What is happening is you have a large demographic of people that used to be "alpha males" or thought they were alpha males. A gun to them is an extension of masculinity. As much as people joke about gun owners as trying to "compensate", I actually believe that there is some truth to it. I've even been in the company of guys that without a gun in their possession, they're about as intimidating as a wilted pansy, but put a gun in their hands and they think they're King Kong.

    Most adamant pro gun people will have stopped reading my opinion after maybe 1 or 2 of my sentences, which only leads me to believe that there is some truth and that they're in a state of self denial. Many will insist that they love guns not because they feel it empowers them, but because they love hunting, but when you consider what is involved with hunting in this day and age (a person going out and killing an animal, not for food, not for its pelt, but as a "sport" that gives that person a false sense of manhood) then it goes back to my original claim.

    I go back to this clip from the movie Friday, and I still think what the father says is true, we have been sissified, and we are punks for the most part when it comes to guns in this country.

    02-19-2014 05:23 AM
  20. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Something to think about: (Quoted from a post on Facebook)

    True gun control begins with eliminating the problem at it's roots. That big evil NRA is the place to begin, but is it really? Let's take a look at the real issue here.

    In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

    In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.

    In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

    In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

    In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

    In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

    In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

    In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

    In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.

    In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

    In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

    In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

    In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

    In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

    In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

    In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

    In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

    In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

    As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

    One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

    Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, nor Republican conservative was involved in these shootings and murders.

    The logical solution is to take away guns from all registered Democrats and allow guns to only those who are responsible Americans
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-19-2014 02:59 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    Query: Is there anything that would constitute new and productive insights to this "debate" that can be conveyed in a civil and solution seeking manner or did we just create yet another silly recipe for name calling and otherwise disruptive and lame behaviors?
    The OP gave details on a single product from a particular company. No question was asked in the first post of this forum thread, nor were there any hints on how to shape the discussion. If I had to guess from ONLY looking at the first post (and not the replies), I would say the OP would want us to:

    1. Evaluate Stag Arms as a company.

    2. Discuss the pros and cons of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (NY SAFE ACT).

    3. Give our opinion on the various attributes of the AR15 rifle cited (i.e. crowned barrel, FRS 15 buttstock with cheek riser, lack of bayonet lug).

    4. Talk about the 10-round magazine capacity.

    Of course, people are free to expand the discussion to other areas. Whether they want a constructive debate or not is up to them.
    02-19-2014 03:41 PM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    Something to think about: (Quoted from a post on Facebook)

    True gun control begins with eliminating the problem at it's roots. That big evil NRA is the place to begin, but is it really? Let's take a look at the real issue here.

    In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

    In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.

    In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

    In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

    In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

    In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

    In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

    In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

    In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.

    In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

    In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

    In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

    In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

    In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

    In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

    In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

    In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

    In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

    As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

    One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

    Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, nor Republican conservative was involved in these shootings and murders.

    The logical solution is to take away guns from all registered Democrats and allow guns to only those who are responsible Americans

    So based on that logic, we can find a common theme with mass murders and Caucasians, does that mean we should keep all extended clip and assault rifles away from white people? I can list a bunch of drive-by shootings perpetrated by black and hispanic people, so should we keep all blacks and hispanics from buying cars and/or guns?
    02-19-2014 05:06 PM
  23. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I meant to be more sarcastic with this than anything else
    02-19-2014 06:39 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    People (like myself) stop posting in these threads because we're tired of having the same discussion over and over again.
    I can understand your view about not having the same discussion over and over again. What would you prefer to discuss instead?

    For example, I am curious about the NY SAFE ACT that was referenced previously. New York has a website dedicated to it. For example, they have an interactive tool to determine whether you need to register your weapon:

    NY SAFE ACT - Registration Questionnaire

    You need to register a rifle if it has the following characteristics:

    A. It is semi-automatic.

    B. It can accept a detachable magazine.

    C. It has one or more of these features:

    1. Folding or Telescoping stock
    2. Thumbhole stock
    3. Second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by non shooting hand
    4. Protruding pistol grip
    5. Bayonet mount
    6. Flash suppressor
    7. Muzzle brake
    8. Muzzle compensator
    9. Threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash supressor, muzzle brake or compensator
    10. Grenade launcher

    Edit: If the rifle has a feature from Section C above, you need to consider Sections D and E below:

    D. It has not been rendered permanently inoperable.

    E. It is able to accept a detachable magazine holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition.

    So, if your rifle doesn't meet these requirements, you don't need to register it under the NY SAFE ACT. Whether the law is good or not is up to debate, and that can be discussed on this forum.
    02-19-2014 06:57 PM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    10. Grenade launcher
    :what:

    Oh well, at least a laser sight doesn't fall into those guidelines, which is kinda surprising.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-19-2014 07:21 PM
4,617 ... 170171172173174 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD