fixed 10 round mag no black scary parts no pistol grip no tactical rails, even uses assault clips

A Yugo SKS was used? I have not heard any of those details yet but it would not be surprising if this was the case since it does not fit the EVIL BLACK RIFLE narrative. Also, these things are EVERYWHERE as for a long time they cost almost nothing along with the ammo so,... good luck with trying to deal with this new scourge of "Weapons of War".

Idiots

>>693806754
and that is relevant how?

He didnt use a fully automatic machine gun so i guess that means they should be completely legal too huh?

i find it incredible how every one of these gun threads is completely devoid of anyone with even basic logic and reasoning skills.

>>693807504
"anyone with even basic logic and reasoning skills"
>post contains no reasonable logic

>>693807504
the joke is news outlets keep calling it an assault rifle while the thing is 49 state legal

>>693806754
your bayonet is pointed the wrong way

>>693807504

You missed the point completely. This is a fully legal firearm within the most strict (or at least tied in the top 3) State on firearm ownership. This firearm is 2-3 design generations behind current tech and easily gotten. It fits into what the legislators are NOT going after and yet it was used to take out multiple officers at range.

So what you are missing is, all of the focus upon the AR-15 platform, calling them "Assault Rifles", calling them "Weapons of War", etc. is such an idiotic argument.

Either man up and say you want to disarm the populace by putting all of the firearms into the hands of those who demand power or realize that your current efforts are massively illogical and have NO effect of reducing crime.

>>693806754
>assault rifle
Want to know how we can tell you are a literal retard?

File: sniper.png (140 KB, 862x957) Image search: [Google]

140 KB, 862x957

>>693808395
"sniper"
"sniper"
"sniper"

What type of gun was used? Caliber?

They announced today that the shooter acted alone... and yet there was gunfire from an elevated position, and a shooter in the streets going CQC.

This whole thing stinks.

>>693806754
They really use an sks? Is there a source on this. I would love to see more on this.

>>693808613
Supposedly an SKS in 7.62×39.

>>693808981
In before this fool goes full conspiritard.

>>693809083
Just saying it's kind of weird man.

>>693809063
>Supposedly
Supposedly? What the hell? It is a flat fact.
Drink bleach.

>>693809225
You want to chill the fuck out a little?

I'm saying it's what was reported. Why are you being such a faggot?

File: suspect 1.jpg (81 KB, 1024x819) Image search: [Google]

81 KB, 1024x819

it was actually an assault nigger

>>693808309
Fair, but most nations with reasonable gun control laws would still make it illegal. 10 rounds is higher than is allowed in Canada. Being behind technologically still doesn't mean it isn't capable of doing some serious harm.

Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

No one reasonable is saying take away all guns, but it isn't unreasonable to make private sales illegal, have more comprehensive background checks and yeah, take away shit that no one should have real cause for. If you're hunting and bringing something that allows you miss 9 times and still kill it, you aren't hunting properly.

>>693809203
Kind of weird that in a firefight with a thousand unknowns and where the lives of you and your friends are in immediete danger, someone might say something thats incorrect over the radio to communicate a perceived, but not trully present danger?
I am nipping your future conspiracy bullshit in the bud now. People make mistakes constantly, and a man saying over the radio that he believes he is taking fire from an elevated position when he is not is an easy mistake to make.

I miss the days when niggers would just hold pistols sideways like retards. Now their learning how to shoot. Worrying.

File: 760612_01_sks_with_dragunov_stock__640.jpg (41 KB, 640x480) Image search: [Google]

41 KB, 640x480

>>693806754
This is that same exact gun, but as you can see it has been fitted with a nylon stock.

So now it is technically an assault rifle.

>>693809760
It's too late. Already been added to the 'false flag' list by the retards.

>>693810070
The sks can be easily modified to fit really, really shitty detachable magazines as well.
I did this a few years ago and went right back to the original after less than a week.

>>693809674
>it isn't unreasonable to make private sales illegal
Yes it is.
>take away shit that no one should have real cause for
Bill of Rights not a Bill of Needs faggot

>>693810070
That gun definitely looks scarier enough to be at least twice as deadly as the one OP posted.

>>693808981
god you're retarded.

File: normal_vlcsnap-712997.png (161 KB, 600x400) Image search: [Google]

161 KB, 600x400

>>693810452
This is a great post. Well said.

File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3264x2448

Retooled mine

>>693810452
>not a Bill of Needs faggot
You know what else the Bill of Rights isn't? Infallible.

Don't forget the whole assault rifle vs assault weapon thing. An assault rifle has a mostly fixed definition (intermediate cartridge, selectable fire mode, removable magazine), whereas assault weapon can mean different things depending on jurisdiction (can include things line retractable/folding stock, pistol grip, forward vertical grip, various muzzle devices, and so on). The SKS is not an assault rifle, but I suppose it could be modified to become one (just the same as an AR-15 could). I guess it could also be classified as an assault weapon, again it probably depends on what aftermarket shit you throw on it. That's begs the question though, should a firearm be defined by what it can be modified into (easy or not) or by the unmodified varaint?

>>693810938
>I don't agree with the rights of the people as the founders wrote them. I'm right and the people who founded this country after fighting a war with a tyrannical government are wrong. Please surrender your rights to better suit my point of view.

>>693810938
The bill of rights has been in place for roughly 220 years, but it only takes 15 years for people like you to fuck it up for everyone else who can responsibly have rights that every human being should have anyway (minus the attorney bit, that was just nice of them to add)

Basically, you can't even human being the right way....

>>693810070
still not an assault rifle

>>693810835
stop being a retard bubba

>>693812483
Until you get assaulted with it. Or an assault fist. That could be a thing too.

>>693807504
And you do know that machine guns are legal in the US, right?

>>693812721
He said "completely legal" there is still a lot of red tape to go through to own a machine gun.

>>693812847
fair enough

>>693812917
They legal to get in some states after you file for paperwork, have a lengthy wait time and pay some hefty fees. As far as I have seen, no legal fully automatic firearm (since they have been controlled) has been used in a crime.

Outside of a couple of instances, 99.99999% of CCW holders have not committed crimes (there were a couple of dudes that happened to have CCWs and they committed crimes with them on file).

Basically, if you are law abiding it does not matter what you own of the weapontry that is available to citizens since you are not a criminal.

Note: I can go down right now, take out a Ford F350 on a test drive and mow down 100 kids as they are getting out of school for the day. If someone is a criminal intent on doing harm they will find a way to do harm and there is no way to reasonably stop them other than ending the threat through violent means.

fucking gunfags turn the gun 360° and fire on yourselves. do the rest of us a favor.

>>693807504
>He didnt use a fully automatic machine gun so i guess that means they should be completely legal too huh?
yes it does actually
because the 2nd amendment says "arms" it doesn't say big scary arms not apply, here is an arbitrary list of handguns you CAN have.

it simply says "arms". you should really look into that

>>693813570
>turn the gun 360° and fire

>>693813474
>Note: I can go down right now, take out a Ford F350 on a test drive and mow down 100 kids as they are getting out of school for the day.

why do we see so few mass murders involving vehicles then?

I'm sure there's a reason.

>>693808198
It's on a hinge

>>693813570
The bullet would hit you, not me. Ah Darwin, you smart sumbitch.

>>693813746
>I'm sure there's a reason.
it's more practical to kill people with weapons and cars are not typically seen as weapons. are you a dumbass or something?

>>693806754
>2016
>Being American
ISHYGDDT

>>693813746
Because they simply have not started doing it. Once you make firearms impossible to get and knives will get you the death penalty, people will find other ways to kill other people.

The problem is not firearms, it is the culture that has access to them.

To move into the spirit of your comment, why weren't there more mass shootings back when everyone had firearms everywhere including in schools as part of programs?

>>693813746
Gas prices are too high right now.

>>693809674
>Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

Don't forget that "well-regulated" in the 18th c. did not mean "subject to lots of laws" but rather "in good working order".

>>693813977
>2016
>living in a caliphate
I wouldn't

>>693813948
no. just trying to point out the stupidity of that comparison.

sure someone can do that, but you do realize there's always a sales rep riding in the car with you when you test drive something you don't own.

there's plenty of reasons why guns are optimal for killing. and sure, if you can't find a gun someone with the intent might just rent a car and kill some people with it, but that probably wouldn't work out quite as well as you'd think.

File: 1446158766877.jpg (5 KB, 250x140) Image search: [Google]

5 KB, 250x140

>>693810070
see:
>>693812483

It barely registers as an "assault weapon" according to most bans. Not sure if that one takes detachable mags or not, but it still lacks a true "pistol grip" and muzzle device, as well as a "barrel shroud" (this one is technically still part of the stock)...

Either way, configuration bans don't accomplish jack or shit... And to be quite honest, a ban on semi-automatic so-called "assault weapons" also won't do jack or shit!! The media hypes up the 50 killed in Orlando this year to the point that the people completely forget about the 400-600+ that will die on the streets of Chicago this year.

It's not a problem with firearms or the availability thereof; it's a problem with SOCIETY... When the President supports a group known for calling for the blood of law enforcement over an incident that had to do only with ONE or TWO officers, THAT is what causes an incident like we saw in Dallas....

>>693814034
>Once you make firearms impossible to get and knives will get you the death penalty, people will find other ways to kill other people.

because that's just what they do.

but wouldn't it be nice if one man couldn't kill an entire crowd of people in less than 30 minutes?

>>693809674

Best to look up the legal definition of Militia in US Code and state laws.

Face it, faggot, if we had an all white homeland we would not have had this problem. We have third world problems because of the mud hutters who are incapable of assimilating into modern civilization. What we need is nigger control.

>>693814265
who is talking about renting cars nigger that is a dumb hypothetical scenario? most kids who aren't poor as fuck these days get a hand me down jap car from their parents anyways. credit cards companies are so good at trapping niggers in credit that every idiot has a car on lease these days.
cars kill more people than guns do in america by a wide margin but nobody is suggesting an arbitrary ban on which model of car is "more effective at killing"

>>693812483
Under current California law I could tape a selfie stick capped with a shoe to a pistol and it'd count as an assault weapon.

>>693809674
>Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

I don't think you understand what a militia was in the context of the 18th century.

A militia were untrained civilians, whose only qualifier was that they were firearms owners, who could be called upon to defend the country from internal revolutionaries.

A militia was not the equivalent of the national guard today, it had no requirement for training or things like that. It was simply the men of the day, who were armed. It wasn't even a constant association or something that was maintained, a militia was simply something that could be called to action from nothing.

>>693814618
>cars kill more people than guns do in america
sources.
and how many of those lives are intentionally taken with cars?

>who is talking about renting cars
it's another scenario comparable to "taking a test drive" you fucking moron.

>nobody is suggesting an arbitrary ban on which model of car is "more effective at killing"
that's thanks to capitalism and the ideal use of recalls. but alas, capitalism says you don't need to recall a car until it kills so many people.

>>693815508
>>who is talking about renting cars
>it's another scenario comparable to "taking a test drive" you fucking moron.
i wasn't the anon you replied to about "taking a test drive" that is a dumbass scenario which doesn't mean shit because there are already one hundred million cars on the road you fucking turd nugget
>nobody is suggesting an arbitrary ban on which model of car is "more effective at killing"
that's thanks to capitalism and the ideal use of recalls. but alas, capitalism says you don't need to recall a car until it kills so many people.
wtff are you even saying? none of that is due to capitalism. the capitalists who make arms and ammunition to great profit aren't happy about arbitrary bans which infringe upon the 2A and limit their sources of income... retarded faggot
>cars kill more people than guns do in america
sources.
and how many of those lives are intentionally taken with cars?
are you fucking serious or is this trolling?

are you telling me you ACTUALLY think more people are killed per year with firearms than with cars in America?? woo fucking lad

>>693809674
>Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

This "gun nut" fear is unfounded. They're not the ones who do mass shootings.

"Well-regulated" just means "working." A clock in the 18th century was "well-regulated" if it was working or accurate, not under government regulation.

What "well-regulated militia" means, is a militia that can quickly be called up to action. Not well trained, or the equivalent of the national guard that we have today. Simply the means are in place to call to arms, the civilians (men) of the day, who are firearms owners.

>>693815847
>are you telling me you ACTUALLY think more people are killed per year with firearms than with cars in America

nope. I'm saying more deaths caused by firearms are intentional, than those done with vehicles.

it may happen more frequently, but by many discrete individuals in discrete situations.

most gun deaths tend to happen in large numbers commited by a small group or single person.

>>693806754
You could take out a couple of dozen civilians before anyone can stop you using a .22LR rifle if you're a good shot and choose a good position. Should all rifles be banned? There are good reasons modern armies choose the features that distinguish their weapons from those of civilians and it doesn't all come down to selective fire which in the real world soldiers wouldn't use 90%+ of the time. The argument here is reductio ad absurdum, "if any gun can be used this way all guns should be legal" is about as legitimate an idea as "if any gun can be used this way all guns should be banned" it misses nuance and proportion. Why not make .50 cal sniper rifles legal? I'm sure someone exists who will argue there's legitimate purposes for such... In fact I'd be surprised if these are not already legal to use in America...

Anyone who uses a tacti-cool rifle is a moron, there's no real advantage to them only painting a traget on yourself for law enforcement. Trained militarycan cause a lot of harm even with household items, do you think a demolitions expert can't make a bomb on the stuff you find at Home Depot? You people are shooting yourselves in the foot with your insistence on looking like special forces for hunting squirrels...

The reason why I stated that you can do a test drive because, at least here in CA, all you need is an ID and the sales reps mostly let you go on your own as long as you don't look like a thug.

This means that without any prior investment you can get a device which can take out an entire group in seconds while getting a firearm requires you to either go through legal means and pay money OR commit a crime and get one illegally,... which means you are already a criminal who doesn't care about laws.

>>693816479
>most gun deaths tend to happen in large numbers commited by a small group or single person.
yes niggers. but it's 2016 and it is getting harder to tell the difference between black niggers and white niggers. they all blend together sometimes

>>693814478
>but wouldn't it be nice if one man couldn't kill an entire crowd of people in less than 30 minutes?

People will just make at home explosives to do this, you dense motherfucker.

>>693816807
true, but doing so is much more difficult than finding a gun.

and then what? they're just going to start banning bombs, the fascists.

>>693814594
It was the right thing to do to outlaw slavery but a mistake was made when the former slaves were given citizenship.

>>693816955
No. not harder at all. A few google searches is not that hard. Your density went up to gold level.

>>693816752
you do realize cars are left on the side of the road, like everywhere

>>693816807
>People will just make at home explosives

People have. At least Anders Breivik did.

>>693816955
Ever heard of fertilizer bombs? Or remember the Boston massacre a pressure cooker bomb? Or a thermite bomb? Make in bombs are so easy anon and they kill just the same amount of people.

>>693817136
it's a wonder why more bombs aren't used in mass murders then, being so easy to make.

>>693816748
.50 rifles are totally legal

>>693816955
Yea, you are pretty fucking stupid anon.

>>693807504
Here's the thing, if your argument it should be illegal because its used in so many mass shootings then your argument falls apart due to inconsistency. If you think AR-15s should be illegal based on principle alone, then you are the one being illogical.

>>693817344
There are bombings every day. Albeit here or in Syria. Your density just keeps rising.

File: .50 caliber.jpg (16 KB, 500x327) Image search: [Google]

16 KB, 500x327

>>693817346
What pray tell is the legit use for this?

>>693817344
fucking retard.. news flash that incident in orlando that had you changing your jewbook profile pic so that your friends will think you are liberal.. remember the 50 who got shot in the nightclub?.... well the VERY NEXT DAY suicide bombs in afghanistan killed like 100+ easily

did you know about that?? I bet you didn't you fucking stupid kike lover

>>693817528
again, why aren't there more bombs instead of shootings.

literally sounds like it would be cheaper, easier to hide, easier to use, easier to get away with.

yet no one will explain why they don't use more bombs? why is all I hear about shootings all day and maybe 1 or 2 bombings a year.

>>693817715
Defending house family and home when the police get out of control.

>>693817715
home protection

>>693817715
it shoots bullets... that is its use you fucking retarded faggot
what is the use of the 1st amendment? why should you be allowed to free thought?

>>693817881
Did you not just read the comment above. Really you are telling me it is easy to hide a pressure cooker. Are you just retarded or trolling?

>>693817528
that's SYRIA
>>693817826
that's AFGHANISTAN

you don't give one flying shit about the laws or the people in that country.

in this thread, we're talking about AMERICA so get your shitskin bullshit out of here.

>>693818056
America gets bombed too. Shooting is just more interactive that's probably one reason why shooters do it.

>>693818041
wait... so you're saying it's... hard to hide a bomb? you mean... it's not as feasible to kill a large group of people with one because someone might notice you before you get a chance to set it off?

>>693818198
No. you just said it sounds easy to hide one. Also, you are trying to argue as to why guns should be illegal. Which makes zero sense because then only police have guns.

>>693818317
Also, there is a large black market and grenades exist.

>>693817715
Bill of Rights not Bill of things we have legitimate uses for.

>>693818056
>that's AFGHANISTAN
>you don't give one flying shit about the laws or the people in that country.
>in this thread, we're talking about AMERICA so get your shitskin bullshit out of here.
the point is that you are whining like a little bitch that people can "rent a car of mass destruction wahhhh" fucking stupid ass faggot

and then you are whining "people have big scary ass guns wahhh i don't like them"
then you get told people make bombs who kill in the 100s with ease and you say it doesn't matter?

you really are a piece of work, faggot

>>693817715

Why does it need a use? This is a free society. We have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

>>693817929
>>693817914
You need a long range sniper rifle to protect a two story home? Can you even set it up in a reasonable time or is it reasonable for you to have a fucking machine gun nest on top of a garage? Do you also put barbed wire all around it? And your average home invaders I imagine they use military grade body armor...

>>693818317
>Also, you are trying to argue as to why guns should be illegal

I've never said that.

now you're putting words in my mouth. why does everybody think a discussion about gun control will inevitably lead to banning and making firearms illegal.

>>693818424
>the point is that you are whining like a little bitch that people can "rent a car of mass destruction wahhhh"

your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I was arguing that comparing guns to cars (and their respective deaths) is ridiculous.

>you really are a piece of work, faggot
it's tough playing the devil's advocate.

>>693818486
Are civilians also allowed to own and operate tanks in the US? How about mounting hard points on aircraft? Fuck, why not homemade tactical nukes or dirty bombs for when SHTF?

File: Guns Cars.jpg (48 KB, 380x400) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 380x400

>>693818506

Which country do you think you're in?

>>693818748
no it isn't and you aren't a good devil's advocate you are just a fucking run of the mill shitposter who is also a faggot who doesn't into freedom

good luck using your 1A rights to repeal 2A rights... but you might have better luck sticking your dick in blender. but your dick is too small to reach the blades of course

>>693818851
Civilians are absolutely allowed to own tanks, and fighter jets too. You just cant get the ordinance for them.

>>693818925
>you aren't a good devil's advocate

never said that either. probably more on par with the average shitposter.

>>693818506
the people selling it and the people buying it keep convincing the US govt to allow it so let's jump on board

File: Weatherby Vanguard.jpg (250 KB, 508x271) Image search: [Google]

250 KB, 508x271

Daily reminder that it literally, non-meme autism to try and use reason and evidence with anti-gun leftists. They are not "misinformed" they are generally not "dumb" and yes they know full fucking well what the fucking words of the 2nd Amendment mean.

They're not stupid, they're evil. They want to forcibly disarm citizens (strangely not the government however, because they can definitely be trusted with a monopoly on gun ownership) and create a little r-selected world where everyone is a defenseless rabbit like they are.

They don't need infographics, they need to be thrown out of fucking helicopters.

>>693818851

If the state does not prohibit it, then yes, you can have tanks with functional guns.

>>693819067
>They don't need infographics, they need to be thrown out of fucking helicopters.

>they disagree with me!
>better just kill them
>autism levels are off the charts

>>693808012
>"guns are bad and should be illegal!!"
>complains about people without logic
Pick one

>>693818892
Again, it's common sense and proportion...

ITT Gun nuts defend owning .50 sniper rifles

You people have been so brainwashed by your NRA you'll defend the stupidest of things on "principle" why not stand up for exploding ammo while you're at it...

File: He's_right_you_know.jpg (72 KB, 800x598) Image search: [Google]

72 KB, 800x598

>>693819067

>>693818975
>>693819103
You people are retarded...

>>693819288
>exploding ammo

you're damn right I'll stand up for exploding ammo

The real problem is the niggers, America is letting them run riot, having their marches and stuff, hopefully Donald Trump gets into power and enacts a final solution to the U.S nigger problem.

File: Solved Dallas quickly.jpg (54 KB, 615x346) Image search: [Google]

54 KB, 615x346

>>693806754
Another weapon of Dallas.

>>693819288
what is wrong with exploding ammo anon?

File: leftists.png (152 KB, 1200x1620) Image search: [Google]

152 KB, 1200x1620

>>693819190
>Yeah I'm going to try my hardest to get the government to strip you of your firearms and right to self defense and leave you and your loved ones at the mercy of whoever might decide to harm them, with resistance to this (ironically) resulting in the police using their guns against you
>DUDE IT'S JUST A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION LMAO

Advocating that I should be thrown in prison, and killed if I resist, if I own an inanimate fucking object like a gun (or certain type of gun that they just don't like) is a threat against me. I don't take those "opinions" lightly and if you're going to advocate violence against me I have no fucking problem advocating it against you.

Eat shit, cuck.

>>693819288

Nobody cares faggot

Some people want to play with big toys in the desert. If I want to demolish some pest hogs with a .50, I can, so fuck you, come and take it yourself fuckboi.

>>693819190
Well when I come to throw you out of a helicopter you can defend yourself with--

Oh wait, thats right.

>>693819413
I love how I'm the retarded one for just knowing what things are legal to own. Tell me, without the ordinance, what is the difference between a civilian owning a jet fighter and a civilian owning any other type of aircraft? Without ammunition it's just an aircraft.
Tanks are obviously not street legal so without the ammunition what is the argument against them being legal to own? Without the ammunition its just an armored car, which are already legal for private citizens to own.

>sniper

So he was shooting .308 Lapua or .50 BMG? Or some other caliber capable of lobg range. None of those? He was using 7.62x39 you say.

How far down the street was he? Just in the next building or so? Sounds more like a gunman with an elevated position more than a sniper.

>>693819288

Hmm, exploding ammo, I dind't even think of that! But you're right, we should demand exploding ammo rights! It's so cool!

>>693819918
Exploding ammunition is considered a grenade round and grenades are illegal for private citizens.

File: Burning_Man_Swar_33x16_1600[1].jpg (162 KB, 1600x786) Image search: [Google]

162 KB, 1600x786

>>693818851

Yes, you can own and operate tanks.

Nice strawman argument though, are you getting setup for this years Burning Man?

1 nig takes out 5 whites ,proof blacks are better shot than whitefags.

>>693820009
Grenades arent illegal, per se. The caps are. You can own a live grenade, just not the blast cap igniter.

>>693819772

unabomber talks about "oversocialization" which from his perspective is any socialization.

File: Dylann_Roof_mugshot[1].jpg (33 KB, 274x320) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 274x320

>>693820117
Ahem.

>>693807504
Do you own a gun or logic. The guns have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. But please tell me more about how crazy people and social issues arent the problem and its all about the gun

>>693808039
which state is it illegal in?

File: bd2b3772ca3f4155f9a298681b11f4f70e585b4cfcc3e8471f61d8e8eb8f09b7.jpg (24 KB, 342x400) Image search: [Google]

24 KB, 342x400

>>693807504
A single shot musket could have been used, so lets ban the shit out of single ball muskets,right? or a knife or a baseball bat could've been used, so lets ban those in spite of those legitimate uses,right?

please indicate on the doll where the big scary AR-15 touched you, special snowflake.

>>693819772
>I'm going to read into this like you said something sane when you replied and didn't just spew a ton of non-sense that had no correlation to what you were even replying to.

DUDE WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. I told you it was fine to fuck my sister so long as you didn't force her to do anal! and then you do this! you disrespect my family, my home, my country! and for what? she didn't want to break you off a piece so you shit in the punch bowl like you have any idea what the fuck you're doing?!? you can't say it for very long but when you kick in the gates of hell, you'll know it wasn't really your fault in the end, but it could have been left alone but instead you had to mess around like a goddamn nigger.

see, I can type random stuff too.

>>693820384
Probably California. Perhaps New York.

>>693819817
>Tanks are obviously not street legal so without the ammunition what is the argument against them being legal to own? Without the ammunition its just an armored car, which are already legal for private citizens to own.

You have a second amendment right to have the turret operational too. When the second amendment was written you could own a triple decker warship with a 100+ cannons on it that could level a town.

This endlessly shrinking definition of the second amendment is fucking aggravating and it's going to incrementally leave us arguing about whether a 7-shot 1911 is constitutionally protected or not.

>>693819811
my... fists, because firing a gun in a helicopter wouldn't be the best option either, idiot.

>>693808309
The bayonette actually makes it illegal in alot of those 49 states so your wrong with pic related however your are right about everything else

>>693813919
>>693813681
fucking retards
first day on the internet I see

>>693820463
No its legal in california without the bayonette. As long as its under a 10 round capacity

File: 6fcef22e7ef7cd6d02cab00c30b3aec5.jpg (83 KB, 600x600) Image search: [Google]

83 KB, 600x600

>>693820458
I own an AR-15

The state says "lol those are banned now"

I say "fuck you, I'm not turning it in"

Now tell me, what is the state going to have the police do to me if I resist confiscation?

Irishfag here

I used to be brainwashed into thinking every mass shooting was carried out by people with machine guns. I used to be one of the "hurr durr ban the guns" idiots. When I actually opened my eyes and did some research, I saw how retarded the gun control lobby is. You can't stop psychos from going on a rampage no matter what.

File: RONG.gif (1 MB, 270x150) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 270x150

>>693820512

>>693820568
>first day on the internet I see
>doesn't recognize a turn 360 joke
>facepalm.jpeg

>>693820469
I didn't say the turret had to be inoperable I said you can't get the shells for it.

>>693820819
>I didn't say the turret had to be inoperable I said you can't get the shells for it.

Well you can't really operate the turret in any meaningful capacity whatsoever if you don't have ammo or a functioning firing system, can you?

>>693817715
Why does it need one, can't it just be for fun!?

>>693821059
Obviously not, I didn't write the law so don't bitch at me. I suppose with a little know how you could manufacture your own shells.