• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

BARF Militia

sohijiro said:
so are they saying june is the list date now?
Click to expand...

Just a guess.

Quite a few folks beleive that is the most likely time. BMG reg. ends, a lttle time to clean up, run the list on June 2nd.

We'll see.

I'm just pissed that it is taking so fucking long to get the upper.
 
The VPC just performed another completely meaningless study, and Josh Sugarmann bragged all about it on the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/price-of-freedom-contin_b_20302.html


And he's getting ripped! :laughing

I posted a comment yesterday, but it hasn't shown up yet. I want more info from the study, like where did the incidents take place (NY, DC, where guns are heavily controlled), were the killers already prohibited from owning guns, etc.
 
Was thinkin over the earlier arguments given in here to justify ownership of all and every kind of gun in the States. Did anyone mention yet that the only reason to own an assault rifle is an intention to kill another human being (or several)?

Just wondering if any of the enthusiastic gun owners here --of any persuasion-- had, cuz so far I've never heard or seen anyone in the country that I've had first or second hand contact with admit that one.

*raises an eyebrow and waits*
 
Why is the intention to kill a human the only reason to have an "assault rifle"? Why can't you just have it to have it? Why can't I just take it to the shooting range and plink at paper?

(all "assault rifle" means is that it shoots a smaller, less powerful cartridge than a regular rifle)

Why is it so evil?

Because it has a pistol grip?

Nope, that's an ergonomic reason. Your wrist hurts like hell after a day of shooting a straight stock.

Is it because it's more powerful?

Nope, shoots a smaller bullet than hunting rifles

Is it because it has a high rate of fire?

No, because semi-automatic rifles all shoot at the same rate: one trigger pull = one bullet

Is it because they can readily accept a magazine of 20, 30, 50, 100 rounds? That surely has to be for mass murder, huh?

Or for not having to reload a million times at the shooting range while you're target shooting. I can modify my pump shotgun to shoot a 30rd drum. Who decided that the acceptable number of people dead between reloading is 10, anyway?


And here's another thing to think about:

In 1776, if the colonists weren't allowed to have modern, military-grade muskets, how effective do you think the independence movement would have been? If all the households had bows and arrows and slingshots? Not very, huh?
People these days disregard the possibility of turmoil within our own borders. Yeah, we have this great untouchable nation and yada yada yada. That's what everyone in Yugoslavia thought in the 80s, then 1991 rolled around and you had genocides, ethnic cleansing, and other war crimes, aside from regular old soldier-on-soldier combat.
Should a time arise when American citizens have to defend themselves from their own State, or from a foreign invader, or hell, a looter after a major catastrophe, I would much rather that people had whatever they felt was most effective at getting the job done.
Besides, modern military assault rifles all shoot the 5.56mm NATO round, so if you had an AR-15 (oooh, evil black gun), it would be easy to find ammunition in a crisis.
 
Last edited:
Webberstyle said:
That's what everyone in Yugoslavia thought in the 80s, then 1991 rolled around and you had genocides, ethnic cleansing, and other war crimes, aside from regular old soldier-on-soldier combat.
Click to expand...

And speaking of Yugoslavia.. I just ordered a Yugo SKS this morning. Yay me!!! Who wants to go shooting?
 
hoax said:
And speaking of Yugoslavia.. I just ordered a Yugo SKS this morning. Yay me!!! Who wants to go shooting?
Click to expand...

Awesome! :banana
Now we can be SKS buddies! I have some stripper clips for you if you want. There's no way I'm going to need an entire pack of 20 :laughing
 
BMWBard said:
Was thinkin over the earlier arguments given in here to justify ownership of all and every kind of gun in the States. Did anyone mention yet that the only reason to own an assault rifle is an intention to kill another human being (or several)?

Just wondering if any of the enthusiastic gun owners here --of any persuasion-- had, cuz so far I've never heard or seen anyone in the country that I've had first or second hand contact with admit that one.
Click to expand...

It's confusing the way you worded that - are you asking if any of the enthusiastic gun owners will admit that the only reason to own an assault weapons is an intention to shoot people, and they haven't admitted it? Or are you asking if they have shot people (or several) and haven't admitted it?

Remember - assault weapons only exist in California, where they have been defined based on exterior shape. Everywhere else you've been in the country, they are just semi-automatic firearms.
 
Webberstyle said:
I have some stripper clips for you if you want. There's no way I'm going to need an entire pack of 20 :laughing
Click to expand...

Sweet.
 
Mike, you're right in that only California defines an "assault weapon" but many people use the term "assault rifle" to distinguish between modern battle rifles with intermediate cartridges (AK, M16, G36, etc) and old-style large cartridge "battle rifles" (M14, Mosin-Nagant, FAL, etc)
 
Nah, most people use the term "assault weapon" to describe machine guns currently used by the military (AK, M16, G36, etc) rather than the semi-automatic rifles that normal civilians can buy, which look similar to military guns.

When someone throws out the generic & abused term "assault weapon," there's no way of knowing what they are referring to, which is why you first must agree on what you are talking about, and then go from there.
 
zefflyn said:
Nah, most people use the term "assault weapon" to describe machine guns currently used by the military (AK, M16, G36, etc) rather than the semi-automatic rifles that normal civilians can buy, which look similar to military guns.

When someone throws out the generic & abused term "assault weapon," there's no way of knowing what they are referring to, which is why you first must agree on what you are talking about, and then go from there.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the steer, zef, I had no idea tehre was any confusion about the term.

kay, let's refer way back when someone talked about owning an AK and use it (or any of the others like it, per your list) for the purpose of the question. We can agree that there are people in this country who do own such things individually also, can't we?
 
Ocurred to me I should also mention that shape means zip to me...possibly because while I was medcorp and won;t ever say I am well informed on gun specs overall and in general I WAS AD military. I tend to define based on that....you may also see me comment on, for example, sniper rifles. A nice generic lable, I agree, but you may infer what I mean exactly by remembering the bit about my background.

Just reread your other post, Zef...to be honest I can't see where the confusion lies. Upon re reading I see very clearly that the question still is whether anyone had admitted that the only reason for anyone to have such a weapon is because they have the intention of killing humans with it.

Such weapons are clearly no good for and not meant for anything else. Therefore advocation of their ownership by private citizens is advocation merely of keeping a weapon for the express purpose of killing humans.

That clear it up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top