1. Post #41
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2010
    6,554 Posts
    No. Nothing in this bills makes anything illegal.

    Thats talking about kits that convert semi-autos to full autos
    No it doesn't. Read the thing. It says that a conversion kit is something that turns a "Firearm" into a "Semi automatic assault weapon".
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  2. Post #42
    Fight until death, shoot until empty.

    November 2009
    15,856 Posts
    You know. I see what they're doing, and from this I can assume that we can no longer hold firearms because of this bill.

    How the fuck else are you going to hold it if you cant have a grip.
    Get it through your head that this bill isnt banning anything.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  3. Post #43
    No. Nothing in this bills makes anything illegal.

    Thats talking about kits that convert semi-autos to full autos
    No it's actually talking about turning your typical ruger 10/22 into an "assault weapon". IE buying a kit that makes it look like an AR-15 or a G36 or something similar. Kits like that are already banned, it's been illegal to make more full auto's since the 80's.
    EDIT:
    Kits or stock sets that add a pistol grip to guns like a mini 14, ruger 10/22, SKS, and many others would be defined as assault weapons
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  4. Post #44
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Zillamaster55's Avatar
    June 2010
    18,593 Posts
    Thats talking about kits that convert semi-autos to full autos
    You mean SEARs?

    Those are illegal in non-class 3 states, they have to be made pre-1986 and must be registered as a machine-gun and cost upwards to $4,000 dollars. They are extremely rare and no one would just hand them over.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2010
    6,554 Posts
    Get it through your head that this bill isnt banning anything.
    It's an extension to the awb coming up and it's further defining what an "Assault weapon" is.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 7Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,301 Posts
    This word jumble really threw me off. Like seriously, What the fuck does it even mean?
    Okay, so in other words the 1911, Benelli M4, Remington 870 (America's most popular shotgun), any Glock or S&W, AR-15, and the Remington 700 bolt-action rifle are all "assault weapons" because military/law enforcement use them, and they therefore cannot have a sporting purpose, regardless of the 10 million 870s in circulation, being used by police forces and duck hunters across the globe.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  7. Post #47
    Fight until death, shoot until empty.

    November 2009
    15,856 Posts
    It's an extension to the awb coming up and it's further defining what an "Assault weapon" is.
    (c) Assault Weapon.--For purposes of this section--

  8. Post #48
    Gold Member
    UziXxX's Avatar
    June 2006
    992 Posts
    Okay, so in other words the 1911, Benelli M4, Remington 870 (America's most popular shotgun), any Glock or S&W, AR-15, and the Remington 700 bolt-action rifle are all "assault weapons" because military/law enforcement use them, and they therefore cannot have a sporting purpose, regardless of the 10 million 870s in circulation, being used by police forces and duck hunters across the globe.
    This bill is 100% outrageous.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 12 (list)

  9. Post #49
    Gold Member
    Timebomb575's Avatar
    January 2011
    5,713 Posts
    Get it through your head that this bill isnt banning anything.
    You're right, its just defining really REALLY stupid shit as "assault weapons"

    Seriously? A fucking C96 pistol from the early 1900s is an assault weapon?

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2010
    6,554 Posts
    And it's further defining what an "Assault Weapon" is. Not even our wacky looking thumbhole stocks are safe.

    Edited:

    (iv) the capacity to accept a detachable
    magazine at a location outside of the pistol
    grip.
    That's not how pistols work guys.

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    POLOPOZOZO's Avatar
    May 2006
    14,991 Posts
    SKS with detachable magazine

    fuck
    FUCK

    time to go shopping
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  12. Post #52
    Fight until death, shoot until empty.

    November 2009
    15,856 Posts
    You're right, its just defining really REALLY stupid shit as "assault weapons"

    Seriously? A fucking C96 pistol from the early 1900s is an assault weapon?
    Its defining it FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX CREDIT. NOT FEDERAL DEFINITION. They're not taking your guns. They're not banning anything. This bill would have 0 affect on you if you want to keep your guns.

  13. Post #53
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Zillamaster55's Avatar
    June 2010
    18,593 Posts
    Its defining it FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX CREDIT. NOT FEDERAL DEFINITION. They're not taking your guns. They're not banning anything. This bill would have 0 affect on you if you want to keep your guns.
    I don't personally think it's going to ban anything or change definitions. However, political figures may take this as a reason to define/ban something.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    Timebomb575's Avatar
    January 2011
    5,713 Posts
    Its defining it FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX CREDIT. NOT FEDERAL DEFINITION. They're not taking your guns. They're not banning anything. This bill would have 0 affect on you if you want to keep your guns.
    Yeah I get it, you've only said it 15 times


    My point is that the definitions are still retarded, and this could potentially set precedents, IE: they could become the federal definition at some point.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Late Late x 1 (list)

  15. Post #55
    Fight until death, shoot until empty.

    November 2009
    15,856 Posts
    It's an extension to the awb coming up and it's further defining what an "Assault weapon" is.
    It actually isnt, at the top it says that its a bill to

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
    tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
    Nothing to do with the ban. Its amendment to the tax code.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 3 (list)

  16. Post #56
    Crash15's Avatar
    July 2011
    6,504 Posts
    (xix) Tavor,
    ``(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or
    Thompson 1927 Commando, or
    ``(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil
    Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz)
    .

    What the fuck
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 7 (list)

  17. Post #57
    Eudoxia's Avatar
    July 2009
    6,009 Posts
    Truly, we are living in the end times.

    FORGIVE ME RON PAUL
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux Uruguay Show Events Funny Funny x 4Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  18. Post #58
    Craig Willmore's Avatar
    February 2011
    1,416 Posts
    don't worry FP, obama isn't taking all of your guns! stop whining!
    you'll still have bolt actions and single-shot (until we get rid of those too, LOL)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 17 (list)

  19. Post #59
    Don't Worry, I'm a Marine
    UncleJimmema's Avatar
    October 2005
    3,016 Posts
    And it's further defining what an "Assault Weapon" is. Not even our wacky looking thumbhole stocks are safe.

    Edited:



    That's not how pistols work guys.

    Seeing as AK-74u's without stocks are classified as pistols by the ATF, that is how it works.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    hypno-toad's Avatar
    October 2006
    14,794 Posts
    Why don't they do a handgun turn-in act, handguns are used to commit the vast majority of firearm homicides. .22 lr handguns to be specific since IIRC they are accountable for the further majority of handgun murders.

    This "assault weapon" shit is becoming beyond inane and I'd seriously be surprised if this measure even prevented a single firearm homicide from happening.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  21. Post #61
    Why don't they do a handgun turn-in act, handguns are used to commit the vast majority of firearm homicides. .22 lr handguns to be specific since IIRC they are accountable for the further majority of handgun murders.

    This "assault weapon" shit is becoming beyond inane and I'd seriously be surprised if this measure even prevented a single firearm homicide from happening.
    Because it's easier to pass a feel good bill than it is to actually address and fix the problem. The goal of bills like this aren't to protect the public, but to give soccer moms a false sense of security when they drop their children off at school. It makes it look like congress accomplished something.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 16Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    Mr. Someguy's Avatar
    March 2006
    24,387 Posts
    I wonder if they'll take 100 dollar 22lr's for 2k credit
    Section 1-A-3 "Denial of double benefit" states that the tax credit is only available once, regardless of how many firearms you turn in. Giving them 1 rifle is the same as giving them 100.

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,301 Posts
    Section 1-A-3 "Denial of double benefit" states that the tax credit is only available once, regardless of how many firearms you turn in. Giving them 1 rifle is the same as giving them 100.
    He wasn't asking about giving them 100 .22s for $2k each, he was wondering about giving them a $100 .22 and getting a $2k tax break due to how overly broad this act defines "assault weapons."

  24. Post #64
    Viking Chest hair simulator 2012
    TheDestroyerOfall's Avatar
    June 2009
    2,476 Posts
    I find it somewhat funny they didn't ban semi auto rifles when they banned full auto. Semi auto rifles can be just as deadly, if not more deadly than a full auto rifle. With a semi auto if you're fast enough with only ten bullets you could hit ten targets, With a full auto, most of the time you're going to do half that with even 20 if you use the full auto setting. On the range i was able to hit 9/10 with a semi auto, and 6/15 with a full auto with a 30 round mag. the recoil plus the recovery time was higher. leading to miss three outta 4 shots. I'm not a gun owner, but i've been to rifle ranges considering how hard it is to get a rifle/handgun in CA. the range owners are mostly police in my area, so they have access to m16 variants and put them on the rifle range for gun safety.

  25. Post #65
    RISC MASTER RACE.
    MIPS's Avatar
    August 2010
    7,103 Posts
    ITT: The gun owning userbase of Facepunch squabbles over guns and their rights like wimps.

    Edited: Yay! I kicked the hornets nest this time!

    (User was banned for this post ("Shitstorm reply" - Craptasket))
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Canada Show Events Dumb Dumb x 35Agree Agree x 4Funny Funny x 1Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  26. Post #66
    Gold Member
    Mr. Someguy's Avatar
    March 2006
    24,387 Posts
    ITT: The american userbase of Facepunch squabbles over guns and their rights like wimps.
    Banning "Assault Weapons" to enforce gun control is like banning Ricers to enforce speed limits.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Funny Funny x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  27. Post #67
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2010
    6,554 Posts
    ITT: The american userbase of Facepunch squabbles over guns and their rights like wimps.
    And I feel entitled to. This bill is so broad and defines most semi automatic guns as assault weapons.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 8Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    October 2008
    11,747 Posts
    ITT: The american userbase of Facepunch squabbles over guns and their rights like wimps.
    Uh... We're actually complaining about how useless our government is when provided actual numbers.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 8Dumb Dumb x 3Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  29. Post #69
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Zillamaster55's Avatar
    June 2010
    18,593 Posts
    ITT: The american userbase of Facepunch squabbles over guns and their rights like wimps.
    Wow, brilliant post man, your intelligence far supersedes ours.

    But not really. Present a reasonable post or leave.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member
    hypno-toad's Avatar
    October 2006
    14,794 Posts
    Banning "Assault Weapons" to enforce gun control is like banning Ricers to enforce speed limits.
    Actually it's more comparable to banning scooters to enforce speed limits

    Some very sinister looking scooters, mind you.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  31. Post #71
    ITT: The american userbase of Facepunch squabbles over guns and their rights like wimps.
    I don't go into your silly hardware threads and say "ITT: The Canadian userbase of Facepunch squables over their old CPU's and electronics hoarding like wimps"
    You should return the favor bud.

    Edited:

    Banning "Assault Weapons" to enforce gun control is like banning Ricers to enforce speed limits.
    It's like banning 3 crotch rockets then a bunch of Minksk's and scooters because someone used them in a driveby once.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Zing Zing x 1Disagree Disagree x 1Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    hypno-toad's Avatar
    October 2006
    14,794 Posts
    Just look at that racing stripe, whoever drives this thing is almost certain to plow it into a daycare at 200 m/ph

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Funny Funny x 11Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  33. Post #73
    RISC MASTER RACE.
    MIPS's Avatar
    August 2010
    7,103 Posts
    Banning "Assault Weapons" to enforce gun control is like banning Ricers to enforce speed limits.
    I really don't see the point beyond owning anything other than a handgun(undescribed, this CAN be a massive fucking loophole) and a wooden stock hunting rifle or shotgun.
    There's no fucking point you need to own a gun that shoots armour piercing rounds.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Canada Show Events Dumb Dumb x 17Agree Agree x 1Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  34. Post #74
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,301 Posts
    ITT: The american userbase of Facepunch squabbles over guns and their rights like wimps.
    I am no American an I still find this ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 3Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    July 2010
    6,554 Posts
    I really don't see the point beyond owning anything other than a handgun and a wooden stock hunting rifle or shotgun.
    There's no fucking point you need to own a gun that shoots armour piercing rounds.
    Any bullet is armor piercing to a degree. And it's fine for you not to see the point. Having an opinion is good. Setting a restrictive ban on cosmetic features is a dumb idea though. A black stock doesn't make it any less different than a wooden one. Well, it's like half a pound lighter.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  36. Post #76
    Gold Member
    sHiBaN's Avatar
    April 2006
    4,108 Posts
    They fill the wording with so much incomprehensible nonsense that they can allow for loopholes.

    Just what the fuck defines an "assault weapon?" I'm sure a battering-ram or a raised truck can be turned-in for $2000 tax break as well?

    Obama has wording too along the lines of "Americans have to push to enforce gun control." Putting words in our mouths and he mentions Sandy Hook as well. Dude, leave the guns alone imo

  37. Post #77
    Gordy H.'s Avatar
    April 2010
    1,206 Posts
    I really don't see the point beyond owning anything other than a handgun(undescribed, this CAN be a massive fucking loophole) and a wooden stock hunting rifle or shotgun.
    There's no fucking point you need to own a gun that shoots armour piercing rounds.
    So what you're saying is that guns with wooden stocks are safer than guns with synthetic stocks?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Zing Zing x 3 (list)

  38. Post #78
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,301 Posts
    I really don't see the point beyond owning anything other than a handgun and a wooden stock hunting rifle or shotgun.
    There's no fucking point you need to own a gun that shoots armour piercing rounds.
    ANY gun can shoot armour-piercing rounds, you don't need an AR-15 to do that. We've also been over the reasons numerous times in other threads. You can even get an AR-15 in Canada, it's an incredibly popular competition rifle, and semi-autos are used quite often in bird and coyote hunting.

    I'm sure you don't need all those old computer parts, which consume electricity causing pollution and contain dangerous chemicals, but I'm sure you don't want to be told to hand in your collection of old computer shit just because it contains mercury or some shit, or because one time a hacker used that model of computer to breach a government database, and then told that you don't need them so you shouldn't complain.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 7 (list)

  39. Post #79
    I really don't see the point beyond owning anything other than a handgun(undescribed, this CAN be a massive fucking loophole) and a wooden stock hunting rifle or shotgun.
    There's no fucking point you need to own a gun that shoots armour piercing rounds.
    hey hey it's THIS argument again! Whether someone needs something is not justification to ban something. Owning an "assault weapon" does not make you a murderer, it does not harm you or anyone else. It does not degrade your mental health and make you want to kill people. Theres over 300 million firearms in the US in over 50 million households. Several million of which are AR-15's and several million more are AK variants. Homicide involving rifles and "assault weapons" is still between 1-4% of all firearms murders. So, the several million "assault weapons" owners are obviously doing something right and are not a danger to the public.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Winner Winner x 3 (list)

  40. Post #80
    Gold Member
    Timebomb575's Avatar
    January 2011
    5,713 Posts
    I really don't see the point beyond owning anything other than a handgun(undescribed, this CAN be a massive fucking loophole) and a wooden stock hunting rifle or shotgun.
    There's no fucking point you need to own a gun that shoots armour piercing rounds.
    why the fuck does it need to have a wood stock, what a bunch of arbitrary nonsense

    and why would you be ok with handguns (Which the vast majority of crimes are committed with) and not ok with assault rifles, which are used in basically no crimes?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)