Coolest/Ugliest Weapons V5 - Bullpup AKs are the best
14,930 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42102242]Why? They're insanely common and they're still being produced today. They're not rare or hard to find by any means, even WWII original ones aren't tough to locate.[/QUOTE]
What's the point of having a gun and not shooting something with it?
[QUOTE=Tinter;42102646]What's the point of having a gun and not shooting something with it?[/QUOTE]
Technically the point of a gun is to kill someone.
So err.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;42102829]Technically the point of a gun is to kill someone.
So err.[/QUOTE]
you're dead wrong there bud
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WFICj6i5Egw/TkA5xSX5oVI/AAAAAAAAGyk/IQulXTY-Nv0/s1600/MTs57-1.jpg[/img]
Well it was the [I]original [/I]purpose of guns.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;42102829]Technically the point of a gun is to kill someone.
So err.[/QUOTE]
May as well say the point of a bow and arrow is to kill someone too
[QUOTE=Skyward;42102958]Well it was the [I]original [/I]purpose of guns.[/QUOTE]
The intended purpose of something is pretty much irrelevant. Computers are supposed to be used to increase efficiency and streamline the work place. But here we are looking at porn and talking to weirdos on the internet.
Oh no I agree, I'm just sayin'
Guns are a destructive force.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;42103718]Guns are a destructive force.[/QUOTE]
Unless you use them how almost all of civilian owners use them. They're not hand grenades or MK82's, it's possible to safely discharge one.
You can even safely discharge a grenade too if you know what you're doing.
'Guns are designed to kill people'
Many guns aren't, as evidenced by target rifles and .22s.
'Well, guns are designed to kill'
So are mousetraps. Hell, so are antibiotics.
'But guns are designed to kill, and they kill people too'
And I can buy rat poison over the counter, which kills people just as well as it kills rats.
There is no special cosmological significance to a gun, regardless of simplistic emotional arguments. It's a tool like any other, one that can kill if used in such a manner. There are ways to safely and responsibly own firearms. Let's not turn this thread into a debate.
nah bull shit dood just look at this lady terminator with her .22lr target pistol
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Elizabeth_Callahan,_women's_25-meter_sport_pistol_shooting.jpg[/t]
you can tell just by the look on her face that shes hunting down elementary school students
Part of the reason we have the weapons restrictions we do today are because we let a panel of nitwits decide that guns were for "sporting purposes". So, maybe I'm in the minority here, but that term/phrase/definition is aggravating just as much as "assault rifle" is.
If you reference the Federalist Papers (which is where I believe the quote is from), it is stated that the citizen (militia) should be able to possess any military arm short of cannon.
"The ATF consulted magazine editors, hunting guides, state game commissioners, and competitive shooting groups to determine whether certain rifles were importable under the ’89 import ban, and taking into consideration the “sporting purposes” test. On multiple occasions, the ATF asked them if rifles such as the SG550, FN FAL, AK-47, etc. had any useful “sporting purpose.” When polled directly in 1989, 0 (zero) of 14 magazine editors responded in the affirmative. When polled directly in 1997, only 2 of 13 responded that such rifles were appropriate for the hunting of medium to large game (why the ATF decided to exclude the hunting of small game from their report is not stated). Of 70 magazine articles reviewed by the ATF (again, the selection process is not described), only one described what the ATF calls “large capacity military magazine rifles,” or LCMM rifles, as being “excellent” for hunting. Two others described 7.62×39 as being acceptable for hunting. The ATF also put down the idea of action competition shooting as being sporting, for the simple reason that it wasn’t “traditional.” "
Rant over.
[editline]6th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42104389]nah bull shit dood just look at this lady terminator with her .22lr target pistol
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Elizabeth_Callahan,_women's_25-meter_sport_pistol_shooting.jpg[/t]
you can tell just by the look on her face that shes hunting down elementary school students[/QUOTE]
That eyeball behind the green lens looks psychotic...
Strange how defensive people get here when there really is no reason.
Of course guns were originally designed to kill, and of course they are tools for unleashing a destructive force.
Why is there a need to point this out? Why is there a need to argue about it?
[QUOTE=paul simon;42104791]Strange how defensive people get here when there really is no reason.
Of course guns were originally designed to kill, and of course they are tools for unleashing a destructive force.
Why is there a need to point this out? Why is there a need to argue about it?[/QUOTE]
because it's not really true
[QUOTE=paul simon;42104791]and of course they are tools for unleashing a destructive force.
[/QUOTE]
No, they harness a destructive force (an explosion) to do a task (propel a projectile)
cars also harness a destructive force (an explosion) to do a task (propel a vehicle)
[QUOTE=paul simon;42104791]Strange how defensive people get here when there really is no reason.
Of course guns were originally designed to kill, and of course they are tools for unleashing a destructive force.
Why is there a need to point this out? Why is there a need to argue about it?[/QUOTE]
Maybe this will clear things up:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Zs9DFnr.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;42104874]No, they harness a destructive force (an explosion) to do a task (propel a projectile)
cars also harness a destructive force (an explosion) to do a task (propel a vehicle)[/QUOTE]
I don't see the point of the comparison, but do you mean to say that the projectile doesn't posess a destructive force?
Because in that case you would be wrong.
[QUOTE=paul simon;42105002]I don't see the point of the comparison, but do you mean to say that the projectile doesn't posess a destructive force?
Because in that case you would be wrong.[/QUOTE]
You're missing his point. A car, if used without proper safety measures, can easily harm a person. Same thing goes with a firearm, it's very easy to safely discharge a firearm, just as easy as it is to safely drive a car!
oh my god stop the stupid philosophy of use stuff you guys sound like nutnfaggy.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42084700]I'll just wait till the NFA is repealed before I pay 5 grand for a small piece of metal.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/3ifn3og.jpg[/t]
Syrian FSA soldier finds the meaning of life in a mortar shell made in a garage.[/QUOTE]
That haircut and beard makes me think of Dom from Gears of War 3, it's as if Epic went forwards in time, took that photo, went back to their time, and modeled Dom after him.
[QUOTE=MAC21500;42104932]Maybe this will clear things up:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Zs9DFnr.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Oh my shitfucking god. I seriously hope you posted that as fucking satire.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42103798]Unless you use them how almost all of civilian owners use them. They're not hand grenades or MK82's, it's possible to safely discharge one.[/QUOTE]
No I know, and that was actually beside the point because of course we would know how to use them. It's just an interesting question as to what were guns designed for in the first place.
But I would still have to say guns were designed to kill people, and to kill people only, despite everything. Despite mousetraps or rat poisons, these things were not even designed to kill people. Even despite the fact that we probably have a lot of guns that will never actually kill anyone.
[editline]7th September 2013[/editline]
Also, this isn't argument against guns or anything obviously... as some people like to take it.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/xUm7Bbl.jpg[/img]
I want one of these, I love revolvers.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42105521]You're missing his point. A car, if used without proper safety measures, can easily harm a person. Same thing goes with a firearm, it's very easy to safely discharge a firearm, just as easy as it is to safely drive a car![/QUOTE]
I'm not missing his point at all, you're missing mine :v:
I'm talking physics here.
[editline]7th September 2013[/editline]
And the car comparison just shows that you're completely missing my point.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;42107604]No I know, and that was actually beside the point because of course we would know how to use them. It's just an interesting question as to what were guns designed for in the first place.
But I would still have to say guns were designed to kill people, and to kill people only, despite everything. Despite mousetraps or rat poisons, these things were not even designed to kill people. Even despite the fact that we probably have a lot of guns that will never actually kill anyone.
[editline]7th September 2013[/editline]
Also, this isn't argument against guns or anything obviously... as some people like to take it.[/QUOTE]
Theres a good chunk of guns that were designed for hunting. In fact, the musket cap was invented by a priest because the flash from his flintlock was scaring away the birds he was trying to hunt. Musket caps were probably the biggest innovation for firearms ever until repeating rifles were invented.
Indeed, 'guns' is a pretty wide term after all. But most weapons.
[QUOTE=MrBacon;42107777][img]http://i.imgur.com/xUm7Bbl.jpg[/img]
I want one of these, I love revolvers.[/QUOTE]
Have a Magnum Research BFR in .45-70 while you're at it:
[img]http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz50/billt460/MagnumResearchBFR45-70.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://www.safari101book.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/600-Nitro-Express.jpg[/IMG]
Oh my
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
