[QUOTE=coldroll5;38912377]Anyone on here who doesn't believe assault weapons should be banned are obviously sheeple from this dumb conspiracy theory site.
[url]http://www.infowars.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=RAG Frag;38912235][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DPJYA8et4&list=UUtVC--6LR0ff2aOP8THpuEw&index=1[/media]
I'm glad this legislation was written by someone who knows what they're talking about
Got to get those dial down triggers off the streets[/QUOTE]
what a dumbass
if people don't have assault weapons they'll just use assault weapons that have been adapted to not be "assault" classification and/or handguns and the like. And why take away magazines?
"People have gotten tired of guns being used in mass shootings blah blah blah"
Well fuck me but I"M tired of the people who use these shootings as excuses to take away more rights and how the media only brings into light the anti-gun argument and barely gives any attention to the pro-gun argument
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=coldroll5;38912377]Anyone on here who doesn't believe assault weapons should be banned are obviously sheeple from this dumb conspiracy theory site.
[url]http://www.infowars.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
Anyone who believes so-called "assault weapons" should be banned are obviously sheeple who are heavily influenced by the biased, consistently inconsistent media
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38912379]In the modern day, I think that if the American airforce and navy were both demolished, then householders with guns wouldn't be able to stand up to whatever was coming their way.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, but surely militias would be formed in stronger areas. Individuals would not last long at all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38912379]In the modern day, I think that if the American airforce and navy were both demolished, then householders with guns wouldn't be able to stand up to whatever was coming their way.[/QUOTE]
Uhm. We totally would. We kind of have a fuck ton of surplus tanks stored up, and besides that, unless Canada invaded and just took Michigan, we'd have new things built within a week, ships no, but aircraft are easier to produce. Invading America would require a really complex plan and support would be impossible once they move inland.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38912903]Uhm. We totally would. We kind of have a fuck ton of surplus tanks stored up, and besides that, unless Canada invaded and just took Michigan, we'd have new things built within a week, ships no, but aircraft are easier to produce. Invading America would require a really complex plan and support would be impossible once they move inland.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure if America lost control of both their airspace and waters, it would see some of the following things:
-Collapse of infrastructure
-Skyrocketing inflation
-Lack of staple goods
-Food riots
-Cohesion of the country would be done for
-Various political and religious extremists would probably have uprisings
-Breakdown of central, then local government
-If none of those would do it, then strategic bombing and naval blockade would finish it off and force the USA to sue for peace.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38912945]Barrel shroud and flash hider.
Banned.[/QUOTE]
That's a handguard, not a barrel shroud. The flash hider isn't detachable either, so there's a good chance it would be ok
The problem is that it's ugly
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38913017]I'm pretty sure if America lost control of both their airspace and waters, it would see some of the following things:
-Collapse of infrastructure
-Skyrocketing inflation
-Lack of staple goods
-Food riots
-Cohesion of the country would be done for
-Various political and religious extremists would probably have uprisings
-Breakdown of central, then local government
-If none of those would do it, then strategic bombing and naval blockade would finish it off and force the USA to sue for peace.[/QUOTE]
It would be a slow collapse, but I think food and local infrastructure would go first. This has hooked my interest actually, might be pretty damn interesting doing a detailed study on what would happen should a fictional, superpowerful European or Asian country took down the US mainland. Sounds like a neat book concept.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38913064]That's a handguard, not a barrel shroud. The flash hider isn't detachable either, so there's a good chance it would be ok
The problem is that it's ugly[/QUOTE]
If you took off the back counterweight-thing I bet it'd be OK
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
[img]http://www.quarterbore.com/images/nfa-pistol.jpg[/img]
BAM
Fuck you again, AWB
-not military style
-is a pistol
-no folding/collapsible buttstock
-no barrel shroud
-NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SAME AS AN AR15 RIFLE IN BASIC DESIGN
/antigunlogic
[QUOTE=Mbbird;38913102]It would be a slow collapse, but I think food and local infrastructure would go first. This has hooked my interest actually, might be pretty damn interesting doing a detailed study on what would happen should a fictional, superpowerful European or Asian country took down the US mainland. Sounds like a neat book concept.[/QUOTE]
USN Nuclear submarines would surface in several locations and nuke the aggressor.
The invasion of the mainland United States is effectively impossible unless you are willing to lose your entire host nation and all of your satellites in orbit.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38913017]I'm pretty sure if America lost control of both their airspace and waters, it would see some of the following things:
-Collapse of infrastructure
-Skyrocketing inflation
-Lack of staple goods
-Food riots
-Cohesion of the country would be done for
-Various political and religious extremists would probably have uprisings
-Breakdown of central, then local government
-If none of those would do it, then strategic bombing and naval blockade would finish it off and force the USA to sue for peace.[/QUOTE]
What has this got to do with the AWB? Is there a point to this bitching? I thought we already established that you were uninformed when it comes to gun politics and straw man all the time.
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;38913195]USN Nuclear submarines would surface in several locations and nuke the aggressor.
The invasion of the mainland United States is effectively impossible unless you are willing to lose your entire host nation and all of your satellites in orbit.[/QUOTE]
Then the US gets fucking nuked. You act as if the US is the only country with nuclear subs and ICBM's.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38913145]If you took off the back counterweight-thing I bet it'd be OK
[/QUOTE]
You can't, AR-15's have a buffer tube that is necessary to their operation. It is why any folding stock for an AR-15 is going to look pretty weird.
LR-300's get around this with a change to the internals:
[img]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1848/zmlr3002000.jpg[/img]
Though they are front heavy.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38913017]I'm pretty sure if America lost control of both their airspace and waters, it would see some of the following things:
-Collapse of infrastructure
-Skyrocketing inflation
-Lack of staple goods
-Food riots
-Cohesion of the country would be done for
-Various political and religious extremists would probably have uprisings
-Breakdown of central, then local government
-If none of those would do it, then strategic bombing and naval blockade would finish it off and force the USA to sue for peace.[/QUOTE]
Hold up hold up. Collapse of infrastructure? You do realize how fucking extensive our road networks are...right?
[QUOTE=GunFox;38913195]USN Nuclear submarines would surface in several locations and nuke the aggressor.
The invasion of the mainland United States is effectively impossible unless you are willing to lose your entire host nation and all of your satellites in orbit.[/QUOTE]
There are a thousand things I'm not taking into account. Humanity would be losing more than their entire host nation if nukes got involved; and from a robotic perspective I don't think nukes could stay out of a modern conflict of that scale.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38913244]
Then the US gets fucking nuked. You act as if the US is the only country with nuclear subs and ICBM's.[/QUOTE]
If you invade the mainland US, you are getting nuked. The point is that no matter how well you orchestrate your invasion, there isn't any remotely reasonable series of events that doesn't result in the attacking nation getting nuked into nothingness.
Assuming you could somehow disable the entire network of missile silos the US has, we intentionally do not know where our nuclear subs are. No amount of espionage can reveal their position because we flat out don't know (aside from a very general region of operations).
Sure, we would too, but that is how MAD works. The point isn't that it will ever actually happen, it is that nobody would ever actually do it because they are assured that attacking the US will result in their demise.
I'm sure if our fleet somehow got decimated, we wouldn't care in the end and would destroy them before they can do any real significant damage. The costal areas would be a bit fucked up, but people keep forgetting something about america. Go east or go west, and there is A LOT OF LAND. It's the same with the Russians, we're unlike the UK or some other European country, in the fact that if there was a nuclear war, unless all our soil was decimated by the other nation, we could just resettle in the middle and within two generations move back into that land.
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
It's not about debating semantics at this point. The USA just has too many natural and man made fortifications.
source: quarterbore.com
[quote]
The key to building a post ban AR-15 pistol is to find a way around the crime bill, then buy yourself a new stripped AR-15 lower and build the pistol in a way that the crime bill does not apply to your pistol. To do this, it is essential to understand the definition of a Semi Automatic Assault Pistol as the crime bill defines it:
A Semi-Auto pistol with an ability to accept a detachable magazine can not have two (2) or more of the following features:
an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip.
a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer.
a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned.
a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
Over the years I have thought of three ways around these rules.
bullet Make non-semi auto pistol
The AR-15 and M-16 rifle system uses a gas tube to allow it's semi-auto or full-auto operation. The easiest way to make a non-semiauto AR-15 pistol is to simply remove the gas tube. After removing the gas tube I like to tap the opening inside the gas block where the gas tube was removed and thread in an allen headed set screw. This in itself creates a charging handle operated bolt action. This can be further improved through milling the upper receiver and adding a bolt handle that is mounted to the AR-15 bolt carrier. In this design, you have about the fastest bolt action in the world as you pull the bolt back to eject the spent cartridge and let it fly forward to load the next cartridge. If the bolt handle is added to the left side (for right handed shooters) this will also assist the shooter for the shooting hand can remain on the pistol grip for firing.
Another option which I have seen done is to build a pump action upper. DPMS makes a pump action upper and I know that these were also built by some skilled do-it-yourselfers but I am going to postpone discussion on these uppers to a later time. If you have information on these uppers or have built one, I welcome you to E-mail me and I will add the info here!
bullet Make the magazine non-removable
The way this has been accomplished by the major manufactures ihas been to either build a lower that was never designed to have a removable magazine, as with the FAB 10, or make a modified lower that had a magazine pinned and welded in place as in the case of the OA-96. As with the OA-96, an individual could pin and/or weld a magazine to the lower. In either of these solutions, the weapon would be loaded by pivoting the upper open and loading from inside the action using stripper clips. I am also working on some drawings of a modified flattop upper receiver that would incorporate a small back up iron sight as an ARMS #40 with the flattop in front of the rear sight would be milled out to allow for loading of the internal magazine with stripper clips. This mechanism combined with some type of protective cover would create an appealing option in my humble opinion.
Another option that I have considered is a replacement of the Mag-Release button with a nut. It WAS my understanding that the ATF considered a removable magazine as one that can be removed without tools. I have read that the ATF may be interpreting the crime bill to indicate that the magazine must be something of a more permanent form so I encourage you to contact the ATF for clarification before you try that route! I will write the ATF myself on this when I get a chance to try and have them clarify just what the ATF defines to be a DETACHABLE MAGAZINE!
bullet Make a single shot AUTO UNLOADER!
DPMS makes a single shot AR-15 lower. If this lower was used in conjunction with a pistol upper, the single shot lower should be exempt from the crime bill as given there is no magazine it can not be a semi auto. Where this configuration is interesting to me is in the aspect that the pistol would auto eject the spent cartridge after every round creating a very fast single shot pistol. PLEASE NOTE, I am working to write the ATF to confirm that they consider a single shot lower to NOT be a semi-auto. I assume this would be the case but I believe in writing to the ATF before proceeding.
bullet Build a AR pistol if the weight was under 50 ozs. The limit is without sights or magazine. You could do this a couple of different ways. The shorter the barrel the lighter. Use plastic/carbon fiber upper and/or lower receivers. Or use a flat top upper, short barrel, no front sight, and drill/cut lightening holes in the lower like the Olympic OA-98 pistol. So, these are the ways that I know of to get a pistol AR-15 in these days.
[/quote]
YOU SEE THAT? You think of laws to restrict guns, we'll find a way around them.
The only disadvantage to us is that now our guns are a little more retarded than before.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38913378]I'm sure if our fleet somehow got decimated, we wouldn't care in the end and would destroy them before they can do any real significant damage. The costal areas would be a bit fucked up, but people keep forgetting something about america. Go east or go west, and there is A LOT OF LAND. It's the same with the Russians, we're unlike the UK or some other European country, in the fact that if there was a nuclear war, unless all our soil was decimated by the other nation, we could just resettle in the middle and within two generations move back into that land.
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
It's not about debating semantics at this point. The USA just has too many natural and man made fortifications.[/QUOTE]
Radiation, among nuclear weaponry's other damages, does not spread in simple circles.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;38913447]Radiation, among nuclear weaponry's other damages, does not spread in simple circles.[/QUOTE]
And I understand that. We have this giant ass mountain in the west of the country that is a natural barrier against those sorts of things.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38913244]Then the US gets fucking nuked. You act as if the US is the only country with nuclear subs and ICBM's.[/QUOTE]
We are already on the fringes of reality when talking about some force invading the mainland US. I don't think anyone was saying that the US simply wouldn't get nuked in a situation like that.
MAD and all that jazz.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38913288]Hold up hold up. Collapse of infrastructure? You do realize how fucking extensive our road networks are...right?[/QUOTE]
Infrastructure tends to do badly during wartime.
Your infrastructure network is heavily reliant upon oil.
Also the roads would need to be kept clear by the military so as to allow critical supply shipments and soldiers/vehicles to move around. Keeping the roads clear and undamaged, plus refueling all the vehicles and maintaining fuel depos is not something trivial.
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38913378]I'm sure if our fleet somehow got decimated, we wouldn't care in the end and would destroy them before they can do any real significant damage. The costal areas would be a bit fucked up, but people keep forgetting something about america. Go east or go west, and there is A LOT OF LAND. It's the same with the Russians, we're unlike the UK or some other European country, in the fact that if there was a nuclear war, unless all our soil was decimated by the other nation, we could just resettle in the middle and within two generations move back into that land.
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
It's not about debating semantics at this point. The USA just has too many natural and man made fortifications.[/QUOTE]
Erm, if the USA entered a nuclear war, they would lose.
This isn't debatable. The whole country would collapse and millions would die instantly.
The same would happen to their opponent.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38913750]Infrastructure tends to do badly during wartime.
Your infrastructure network is heavily reliant upon oil.
Also the roads would need to be kept clear by the military so as to allow critical supply shipments and soldiers/vehicles to move around. Keeping the roads clear and undamaged, plus refueling all the vehicles and maintaining fuel depos is not something trivial.[/QUOTE]
Are you aware of how much fuel the military has specifically set aside for contingencies such as this?
This whole nuclear thing is rather arbitrary and pointless. Obviously everything would get glassed.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38913962]Are you aware of how much fuel the military has specifically set aside for contingencies such as this?
This whole nuclear thing is rather arbitrary and pointless. Obviously everything would get glassed.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve[/url]
[quote]The current inventory is displayed on the SPR's website. As of October 12, 2012, the inventory was 694.9 million barrels (110,480,000 m3). This equates to 36 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 19.5 million barrels per day (3,100,000 m3/d).[1][/quote]
It's also unrefined.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38913750]Infrastructure tends to do badly during wartime.
Your infrastructure network is heavily reliant upon oil.
Also the roads would need to be kept clear by the military so as to allow critical supply shipments and soldiers/vehicles to move around. Keeping the roads clear and undamaged, plus refueling all the vehicles and maintaining fuel depos is not something trivial.
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
Erm, if the USA entered a nuclear war, they would lose.
This isn't debatable. The whole country would collapse and millions would die instantly.
The same would happen to their opponent.[/QUOTE]
Man, you're on a roll. Like just asking, have you even researched anything? Do you have any idea how massive our strategic reserve for fuel is?
I have literally no idea how this equates to gun control.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38914021][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve[/url]
[/QUOTE]
And that's the known amount. You do realize that the cold war infrastructure is still in place, right?
[QUOTE=RAG Frag;38912235][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DPJYA8et4&list=UUtVC--6LR0ff2aOP8THpuEw&index=1[/media]
I'm glad this legislation was written by someone who knows what they're talking about
Got to get those dial down triggers off the streets[/QUOTE]
What a brainwashed dumb woman. It's such a shame people don't realize what the second amendment really says. Also sucks for her I already got my ak47. It is true you can fine tune triggers somewhat, but it doesn't matter as you still need to pull it with EVERY shot. Wonder if they will go after slidefires... probably counts as an adjustable stock I suppose.
Also the nutjob fuckwits in Columbine and Virginia Tech used handguns and carbines, not ar's or ak's.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38914034]Man, you're on a roll. Like just asking, have you even researched anything? Do you have any idea how massive our strategic reserve for fuel is?[/QUOTE]
It would last 36 days at current consumption rates.
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38914056]And that's the known amount. You do realize that the cold war infrastructure is still in place, right?[/QUOTE]
Can you give me a number for how much oil it holds in reserve?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38913145]If you took off the back counterweight-thing I bet it'd be OK
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
[img]http://www.quarterbore.com/images/nfa-pistol.jpg[/img]
BAM
Fuck you again, AWB
-not military style
-is a pistol
-no folding/collapsible buttstock
-no barrel shroud
-NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SAME AS AN AR15 RIFLE IN BASIC DESIGN
/antigunlogic[/QUOTE]
too heavy and has a bayonet lug
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.