Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ghost in the Machine

(14,912 posts)
108. I find it funny that anti-gunners go straight to name-calling, right anti-gun NUT??
Mon May 13, 2013, 12:51 AM
May 2013
If you don't understand the advantages inherent in the design of assault weapons when compared to a standard rifle, then you've probably never fired one, let alone owned and maintained one.



Now, put your money where your big mouth is and I'll prove you wrong. I got my first BB gun at 6 years old, my first .22 at 7 years old and my first high powered rifle, a sporterized 8mm Mauser, along with a 12 GA shotgun, when I was 16. I've owned more guns than I can count. My uncle was a gunsmith and owned a gun shop, a shop I just happened to work in for a couple of years. I buy, sell and trade them all the time, just on a whim, if someone has something I want, need, or just like better than what I have at the time.

You ready throw some money down, or are you one of those types who just lets an alligator mouth overload a canary ass?

On second thought, fuck your money, you probably need it more than I do, so I'll just say it: YOU LOSE!! Here's one of my latest acquisitions:



That's a 1956 Romanian SKS dropped in a TAPCO INTRAFUSE Stock System, with a 20 round magazine. I also have a Remington Model 742 WoodsMaster Semi-Auto 30-06, a Marlin Model 60 Stainless Steel .22LR and, get this, A Benjamin Model 342 Pump-up .22 cal PELLET rifle that's over 30 years old.

Now, in case you want to try to say I lifted the SKS pic off the internet, PM me a cell phone number and I'll send you a picture of me holding it right in front of this post. I'll do the same with the 30-06 and the pellet rifle, but can't with the Marlin .22 because I let my son-in-law borrow it for raccoon that keeps attacking his cats, plus it chased my 6 year old grandson across the yard in the daylight. That's a sign of a rabid 'coon, in case you didn't know that.

In closing, just let me say this: Don't you EVER presume to know ANYTHING about me, because you don't know jackshit about who I am, or what I used to be. BTW, as for your assertion that "If you don't understand the advantages inherent in the design of assault weapons when compared to a standard rifle"... #1. The ergonomics of the pistol grip is a lot easier on my wrist, as I have bi-lateral carpal tunnel syndrome, coupled with cubital tunnel syndrome (that's like carpal tunnel, but in the elbow). #2. The adjustable stock allows for safer handling with multiple users, which include me (at 6' 3" ), my better half (all of 4' 11" and 98lbs), my son (5' 11&quot , and my daughter (5' 2&quot . #3. The 20 round mag lets us all take turns shooting without having to reload, we shoot 5 shots each. Total cost for one loaded mag: 4.97 + tax at Walmart for some cheap 7.62x.39 rounds.. 20 shells per box.

Ghost

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I've seen more of an issue with the term assault weapon being applied to a semi-auto. Megalo_Man May 2013 #1
I've never seen anyone use assault-weapon and "semi-auto" interchangeably. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #2
but they are gejohnston May 2013 #9
No they are not. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #12
they are not what? gejohnston May 2013 #19
Semi-automatic and assault weapon are not interchangeable terms. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #20
did you read the links? gejohnston May 2013 #21
Yeah I did. And the links don't support your argument. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #28
Then I misunderstood what you were talking about gejohnston May 2013 #29
"Assault Weapon" is a made up term, to confuse with "Assault Rifle". Hell, your MOUTH can be an .... Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #65
I always find it funny that gun nuts immediately go to the .22LR. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #72
I find it funny that anti-gunners go straight to name-calling, right anti-gun NUT?? Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #108
Thank you. Because in your slightly disturbing level of rage you have proved my point. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #109
No rage at all, dude, I just don't like people, especially strangers, making assumptions about me... Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #121
I know what anger looks like. And you are angry. Really over something completely trivial. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #127
Awww, look!! Internet Psychology 101! Have you gotten to the chapter on "Projection" yet?? Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #132
No one who gloats about owning assault weapons cares about peace. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #133
Apparently reading comprehension isn't at the top of your skill set, just like debate tactics aren't Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #137
Put anyone who indulges in that sort of juvenile nonsense on Ignore. Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #123
That is sort of a confused definition. 1-Old-Man May 2013 #6
A fully-auto weapon is a Type II weapon, which is jazzimov May 2013 #10
Wrong term. ManiacJoe May 2013 #17
Actually, there is a lot of discussion about the origin jazzimov May 2013 #23
Wrong term here too? ManiacJoe May 2013 #25
Previous thread from February: ManiacJoe May 2013 #3
You are right. Those supposed cosmetic changes significantly alter the firearm's capability. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #4
You missed the point. Jenoch May 2013 #5
No, you missed the point. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #7
You have that wrong. ManiacJoe May 2013 #8
Wrong again. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #11
You are obviously confused about the subject at hand. ManiacJoe May 2013 #13
It would seem that you are the one confused about jazzimov May 2013 #15
Gotta love the newbies. ManiacJoe May 2013 #18
Thanks! But I've been visiting this site jazzimov May 2013 #22
I know more than enough about the subject under discussion. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #16
Question TnDem May 2013 #118
Actually, many of the functions jazzimov May 2013 #14
What about the rifles Jenoch May 2013 #26
That's the reason for limiting the magazine capacity, jazzimov May 2013 #30
They never can Duckhunter935 May 2013 #31
I just did. nt jazzimov May 2013 #34
Huh? Jenoch May 2013 #38
Oh please, the gun industry and the NRA are responsible. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #43
The gun industry is Jenoch May 2013 #60
They are NRA talking points regardless of whether or not you are conscious of that fact. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #66
You have to explain to me Jenoch May 2013 #77
Are you joking? You've never even shot an assault weapon and you're on here lecturing... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #80
I have never fired an 'assault weapon'. Jenoch May 2013 #84
What exactly did the AR-15 that you fired lack that would otherwise make it an assault weapon? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #85
It was made during the AWB. Jenoch May 2013 #90
I've never seen an AR-15 that lacked a pistol grip. You sure it was an AR-15? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #98
See post #100. There are alternatives to pistol grips. n/t X_Digger May 2013 #101
Are you not aware that there were Jenoch May 2013 #106
Are you not aware pistol grips were legal under the ban? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #107
I am aware that there Jenoch May 2013 #110
I did last week if a AR10 is also considered one newmember May 2013 #91
An AR-10 is an assault weapon. It's just chambered in 7.62. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #94
Actually it's because gun cultists are attracted tp the most lethal and menacing weapons Hoyt May 2013 #61
Have you ever seen people at the range with "zombie" AR-15s? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #73
There's a gun store in Georgia that does video ads about best guns for zombies and Hoyt May 2013 #76
Even when I was really into firearms, I always thought those people were dumbasses. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #78
We are similar in that respect. Brought up around guns, but detested the yahoos Hoyt May 2013 #83
They don't alter the performance Abq_Sarah May 2013 #134
I've already the ".22 argument" up thread. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #135
Okay... Abq_Sarah May 2013 #136
I would say the answer is both 'yes' and 'no' petronius May 2013 #24
Magazine capacity may depend on the length of the cartridge FarCenter May 2013 #27
The Sandy Hook rifle was approved for ownership under the 1994 AWB ban aikoaiko May 2013 #32
This is true. HooptieWagon May 2013 #33
Uh, no. It was an AR-15 which was specifically banned. jazzimov May 2013 #36
By name AR15 was banned, but that wasn't the name of the Sandy Hook rifle. aikoaiko May 2013 #40
Although it was a Bushmaster, it was an AR-15 clone jazzimov May 2013 #67
AR-15 clones were not banned during the "ban". X_Digger May 2013 #82
No it wasn't. Its hard to accept, but that is just how flawed the AWB was. aikoaiko May 2013 #89
Yes, ban them all... HooptieWagon May 2013 #35
Which one of those "increase gun safety"? nt jazzimov May 2013 #37
Pistol grip, heat shield, adjustable stock, HooptieWagon May 2013 #129
So your point is to ban all semi auto ? newmember May 2013 #39
The point of the OP was to point out jazzimov May 2013 #44
Other than mag capacity and being a semiauto , the rest is all fluff newmember May 2013 #46
"The rest is all fluff" - the OP disproves that. Which was the point. jazzimov May 2013 #53
If you want to think so newmember May 2013 #57
Said. That would all but stop proliferation of guns. Gun cultists don't get all excited Hoyt May 2013 #62
That's what's bothering me about the OP point newmember May 2013 #71
The fascination is created by marketeers who pander to baser instincts of gun culture. Hoyt May 2013 #74
Yes I have seen the bushmaster add in threads here. newmember May 2013 #79
I hear you, but anyone who would vote for a Republican over guns is not much of a Dem. Hoyt May 2013 #81
I guess I agree but I've seen members here almost come out and say I won't newmember May 2013 #99
You seem to be a tad late to the party derby378 May 2013 #41
In answer to the question posed by the OP Crepuscular May 2013 #42
Then there's no need for them. If they're banned, you won't miss them. jazzimov May 2013 #47
They have no impact on the lethality of the firearms X_Digger May 2013 #49
Pretty much all of them where such features were used. jazzimov May 2013 #54
That's a non-answer. X_Digger May 2013 #75
A tactical or "pistol grip" stock would increase potential lethality. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #86
As compared to a thumbhole (non-pistol-gripped) stock? Bullshit. n/t X_Digger May 2013 #87
Now you're just blatantly moving the goal posts. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #92
Read post #49 again. I moved nothing. X_Digger May 2013 #93
Still trying to move those posts. Respond to what I said not what you wanted me to say. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #95
The fact that you didn't notice me mentioning thumbhole stocks isn't my problem, it's yours. X_Digger May 2013 #100
When gun industry pricks try to sneak around it, just amend the goddamn law. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #102
They are all *not* pistol grips. X_Digger May 2013 #104
Ha ha... TnDem May 2013 #120
Thumbhole TnDem May 2013 #96
I'm not arguing the efficacy of the 94 AWB. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #97
Untrue TnDem May 2013 #103
Yep, no functional difference... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #105
It's obvious... TnDem May 2013 #116
So you would ban thumbhole stocks? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #111
Silly conclusion and certainly not justification for banning them. Crepuscular May 2013 #50
"Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun before?" jazzimov May 2013 #58
It seems to be the case that gun control advocates in here know more about firearms. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #88
What about this video TnDem May 2013 #119
No, I'm sorry but it's not a false statement Crepuscular May 2013 #126
Any ergonomic feature of any firarm is intended to make it more effective. rrneck May 2013 #45
Thank you. That is a discussion we should be having. nt jazzimov May 2013 #48
a more relevant question might be Crepuscular May 2013 #52
Then why pay for them? jazzimov May 2013 #55
Do any of those features come with a premium? Recursion May 2013 #114
For the same reason Crepuscular May 2013 #124
Gun culture loves to shoot all day without reloading while relaxing in recliner. Hoyt May 2013 #63
Arrogant assholes like to shoot off their mouths with computer keyboards without thinking about it. rrneck May 2013 #68
Anger and guns don't mix well. Better lock yours up for awhile. Hoyt May 2013 #69
If I were angry you'd know it. rrneck May 2013 #70
I was wondering how many posts it would take for you... Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #122
yes and no Deep13 May 2013 #51
If they're only cosmetic, why are gun nuts so gung-ho for them? Hugabear May 2013 #56
For the AR platform it's ergonomics... Deep13 May 2013 #59
Don't forget it's what a generation of vets trained on Recursion May 2013 #115
Good point. Gun marketers know what excites the yahoos that covet lethal weapons. Hoyt May 2013 #64
Well, the pistol grip makes a rifle safer, which is why I think they should be mandated if anything Recursion May 2013 #113
Some make the gun safer and more accurate; others are entirely unused Recursion May 2013 #112
Finally.... TnDem May 2013 #117
If the features that make them "assault weapons" are functional, they should be regulated. baldguy May 2013 #125
What would be the point of regulating them? ManiacJoe May 2013 #128
of all those, the collapsible stocks are the most useful ileus May 2013 #130
this thread shows how emotional the debate over gun control is 0rganism May 2013 #131
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Are attributes of differe...»Reply #108