Gun Control & RKBA

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)

69. "I've got to buy it! I've got to buy it!"

Reply to hack89 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:40 PM

Feb 2014

"I've gotta buy, Buy BUYYY!!!"

That's honestly how I feel about this crap.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

AR-15 redesigned to be legal under NY's new AWB [View all] hack89 Feb 2014 OP

All guns are ugly as hell. tridim Feb 2014 #1

Mine must be defective - in 30 years they have never killed anything. nt hack89 Feb 2014 #2

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder clffrdjk Feb 2014 #3

I'm not talking about physical ugliness tridim Feb 2014 #4

Then you believe that humans are also ugly, look in the mirror. oneshooter Feb 2014 #8

I believe all life is beautiful. I don't even kill spiders. tridim Feb 2014 #30

No insult, only truth. oneshooter Feb 2014 #34

Supernovi are the ultimate killing machines. tridim Feb 2014 #35

woah man that was deep clffrdjk Feb 2014 #38

Right clffrdjk Feb 2014 #11

The OP said the gun was ugly, and I responded. tridim Feb 2014 #31

No you specifically said clffrdjk Feb 2014 #33

Right, I said nothing about guns having a soul. tridim Feb 2014 #36

sorry was soul the wrong word? clffrdjk Feb 2014 #37

And yet one of the most popular galleries at the Met is Arms and Armor (graphic images, I guess) sir pball Feb 2014 #21

Yes, old (and new) weapons should be recycled and used for good. tridim Feb 2014 #32

"We have met the enemy..." Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #12

Sure is ugly. jeepnstein Feb 2014 #28

Mine are life saving machines...and some of them are beautiful. ileus Feb 2014 #39

That's an aesthetic choice. Adrahil Feb 2014 #51

Um, no. Deep13 Feb 2014 #53

This is why limits should be based on firepower, not cosmetics. Scuba Feb 2014 #5

Not going to happen hack89 Feb 2014 #6

It's already happening. Just try to buy a Tomahawk missile. Scuba Feb 2014 #7

Is there a law against owning a Tamahawk missile? gejohnston Feb 2014 #9

Assuming you could and did own one... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2014 #20

Note the clumsy attempt to pretend to be "on our team" friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #42

I can afford the 1.5 million price tag. Travis_0004 Feb 2014 #49

Cruise missiles have never been covered by the 2A hack89 Feb 2014 #13

"...a backlash that will hurt us in the long run." friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #41

Are you suggesting that I don't really own three shotguns, two rifles and a handgun? Scuba Feb 2014 #44

Looks like "MGAFYGAE" and/or a case of Second Amendment Butt friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #47

This is, at least, honest, if not practical. Bazinga Feb 2014 #10

What sort of limits would you place? Adrahil Feb 2014 #52

There was a long discussion about this a year or so ago ... Scuba Feb 2014 #56

I disagree that attacker vs defender is a wash. Bazinga Feb 2014 #58

Attackers are willing to break the law now, and will be after any limits are imposed. Wash. Scuba Feb 2014 #60

Currently: attackers > 10 rds, defenders > 10rds. Mag limits: attackers >10 rds, defenders=10 rds. Bazinga Feb 2014 #61

The parity is attackers can now break the law and bomb your home. You can't legally have a bomb. Scuba Feb 2014 #62

It shows that firepower limits widen the gap between attackers and defenders. Bazinga Feb 2014 #63

How can one deploy a bomb in self fefense? Scuba Feb 2014 #64

A claymore?! Seriously?! And I'm the one who doesn't want to have an honest discussion?! Bazinga Feb 2014 #67

Sorry, I didn't say most of the things you are attributing to me. Discussion ended. Scuba Feb 2014 #68

Discussion ended, exactly my point. Bazinga Feb 2014 #70

If I'm defending myself or family from a home invader.... Adrahil Feb 2014 #66

I think it's the wrong argument altogether. Adrahil Feb 2014 #65

So all of the hullabaloo is about the stock? truebrit71 Feb 2014 #14

That and the pistol grip. AWBs are based on cosmetic features, not functionality. nt hack89 Feb 2014 #15

gun toters have a long history mwrguy Feb 2014 #16

Gun controllers have a long history of writing crappy laws that ignore reality. hack89 Feb 2014 #17

not skirting the law at all gejohnston Feb 2014 #18

History and intent. Straw Man Feb 2014 #19

What do you see as the "intent" of these laws? sir pball Feb 2014 #22

Wll then Sir,............. oneshooter Feb 2014 #26

not as innovative as the UK gun companies gejohnston Feb 2014 #29

The "Prohibition through incremental criminalization" approach isn't working, eh? friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #40

When there is irreconcilable disagreement about whether the spirit of a law is a good thing... Lizzie Poppet Feb 2014 #45

My guess is that either he dosen't know the "spirit" of the law............... oneshooter Feb 2014 #46

That sort like to play coy about their real motives... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #48

If this is the case then the SAFE act was a huge waste of time Packerowner740 Feb 2014 #23

It is the same for all AWBs hack89 Feb 2014 #24

Any rifle with a semi-automatic action and a removable magazine Adrahil Feb 2014 #54

Would that be legal in Caliphornia? NYC_SKP Feb 2014 #25

not without the "bullet button" gejohnston Feb 2014 #27

There's a very apt and very funny comment at the link: friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #43

We need to ban scary things on guns. Travis_0004 Feb 2014 #50

Yep, that's ugly Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #55

It's ugly but at least it's legal for New Yorkers to buy 30cal Feb 2014 #57

Nice to see this fine firearm is still available to our friends in NY. ileus Feb 2014 #59

"I've got to buy it! I've got to buy it!" bobclark86 Feb 2014 #69