|
 I bet one of you can guess what this once was.
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2010 23:35 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 05:56 |
|
|
K31, isn't it? I remember it appearing waaaaaaaay back in this thread at some point.
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2010 23:37 |
|
|
Uncle Caveman posted:K31, isn't it? I remember it appearing waaaaaaaay back in this thread at some point. Yup, and it still makes me want to vomit, yet at the same time tickles my intrigued button.
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2010 23:38 |
|
|
I have to admit, I kinda like that abomination. If it were black I would be all  and that KTOG link is full of WTF
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2010 23:49 |
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:
The bottom of the magazine gives it away. What the gently caress is the point of that stuff between the gun and scope?
|
| # ? Dec 23, 2010 23:57 |
|
|
I admit for my first firearm purchase I am looking hard at a Sub-2000 in .40S&W Just need NJ to give me my drat FPID
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 00:00 |
|
|
nnnnghhhhgnnngh posted:The bottom of the magazine gives it away. For me it's the shape of the exposed bit of receiver above it. Only the K31 has that ridge there.
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 00:03 |
|
|
nnnnghhhhgnnngh posted:The bottom of the magazine gives it away. to look baller, of course.
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 00:04 |
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 00:16 |
|
|
11b1p posted:I admit for my first firearm purchase I am looking hard at a Sub-2000 in .40S&W No, you need to get the gently caress out of NJ. For so many reasons.
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 04:05 |
|
|
Inspector_71 posted:No, you need to get the gently caress out of NJ. For so many reasons. NJ is rear end when it comes to firearms. $62 for fingerprints and they needed two references that aren't relatives
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 08:14 |
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:
I have to ask- is there a thread on how he did it?
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 08:52 |
|
|
11b1p posted:I admit for my first firearm purchase I am looking hard at a Sub-2000 in .40S&W I'll admit, I have one and it's a lot of fun to shoot. As long as you don't have long facial hair.
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2010 22:29 |
|
|
11b1p posted:NJ is rear end when it comes to firearms. $62 for fingerprints and they needed two references that aren't relatives New Jersey is one of those states that I think about to make me feel better when I'm down about the gun laws in California. We have some stuff that sucks here more than NJ (10rd mags as opposed to 15, handgun registry), but at least I don't have to file some paperwork, have references, and wait a month or something for the ability to buy a handgun. I just have to wait a month between purchases.  .For god's sake you can't even own a loving M1 Carbine in NJ. If you love guns and you can move, move. Damo fucked around with this message at Dec 25, 2010 around 08:14 |
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 08:09 |
|
|
Damo posted:handgun registry 18 USC §921 (2)(a) "Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986" posted:No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. Just sayin'.
|
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 19:26 |
|
|
Exit Strategy posted:Just sayin'.
|
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 19:37 |
|
|
Pitch posted:What are you trying to say? FOPA prohibits the Department of Justice from establishing a registry even if they keep it on state government property. It doesn't say anything at all about states establishing their own. I was sort of under the impression that the prohibition of records maintenance at any "facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof" included the states and individual political entities "below" them, as well. I guess that's a bit silly, though. Right? Especially considering that the police forces who would maintain such records and registration systems are the thin blue line separating society from chaos, anarchy, and cupcakes.
|
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 19:42 |
|
|
Exit Strategy posted:I guess that's a bit silly, though. Right?
|
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 19:49 |
|
|
Pitch posted:Yes, it's a bit silly to read laws entirely out of context and assume you know what they're saying. The entire section specifically refers to the Department of Justice establishing registries. "No such" does not mean "none", it means no rule of the kind already under discussion before you decided to start quoting. Point made. Still! A man can dream. 
|
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 20:00 |
|
|
Pitch posted:Yes, it's a bit silly to read laws entirely out of context and assume you know what they're saying. The entire section specifically refers to the Department of Justice establishing registries. "No such" does not mean "none", it means no rule of the kind already under discussion before you decided to start quoting. It's worth noting that at least one state (Colorado) explicitly forbids itself from maintaining a registry. It's somewhat of a toothless provision, though, considering any future legislature could repeal that law and do whatever.
|
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 22:37 |
|
|
Wasn't there some fuss about a county keeping track when it wasn't supposed to? Was it something like someone putting up a list of people with CHPs? I can't remember.
|
| # ? Dec 25, 2010 22:54 |
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Wasn't there some fuss about a county keeping track when it wasn't supposed to? Was it something like someone putting up a list of people with CHPs? I can't remember. A few counties in other states have had their CHL lists published. I think the most recent spat to make it in the news was in Oregon. I don't know about anything Colorado specific, though.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2010 00:13 |
|
|
thermobollocks posted:It's worth noting that at least one state (Colorado) explicitly forbids itself from maintaining a registry. It's somewhat of a toothless provision, though, considering any future legislature could repeal that law and do whatever. Georgia had a similar thing at one time. Because we apparently needed another guarantee that Southern state governments would NOT do something.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2010 19:35 |
|
|
Oh man, the Zombie Squad gun forum is some kind of leprechaun's pot-o-gold of tacticlol. http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/...php?f=16&t=2833
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 02:24 |
|
|
wkarma posted:Oh man, the Zombie Squad gun forum is some kind of leprechaun's pot-o-gold of tacticlol. If that's an AK, that's not particularly bad. This poor bastard, however:  
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 02:49 |
|
|
I believe it's an SKS. As for the Garand, it's not terrible. Yes, I do need sunglasses to look at it, but it doesn't seem like the guy did anything permanently destructive.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 02:57 |
|
|
thermobollocks posted:If that's an AK, that's not particularly bad. 
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 03:51 |
|
|
 I've done more ridiculous things in my life...
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 10:26 |
|
|
thermobollocks posted:If that's an AK, that's not particularly bad. Maybe it's an SA repro? If that's the case then it's 100% awesome.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 11:05 |
|
|
Aside from the laminate stock and muzzle device, what's different about that Garand? 
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 12:04 |
|
|
 
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 12:38 |
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 13:45 |
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The worst thing about this is the fiskars hatchet. They don't need white paint to be lovely.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 13:54 |
|
|
I'm sure the white paint is actual some form of "sand" color because, you know, the sandbox and all. Also I think single points on shotguns that aren't SBSs are lame. 
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 17:36 |
|
|
wkarma posted:Oh man, the Zombie Squad gun forum is some kind of leprechaun's pot-o-gold of tacticlol. Gotta love the front BUIS that's reversed to gain that tiny extra bit of distance between the front and rear sights.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 23:20 |
|
|
Looks like it's a whole lotta fun to change a mag, too.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2010 23:51 |
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Even that 'shop job is tacticlol "I'll throw a cheap rail on my shotgun and a lovely filter on my image. Perfect!"
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2011 01:25 |
|
|
thermobollocks posted:If that's an AK, that's not particularly bad. I don't care what anyone says, that owns.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2011 01:35 |
|
|
Uncle Caveman posted:Aside from the laminate stock and muzzle device, what's different about that Garand? That looks like one of those .458 conversions.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2011 05:15 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 05:56 |
|
|
infrared35 posted:That looks like one of those .458 conversions. The OP claims it's .308. I'm unfamiliar with the provenance of...any .308 Garands, so it set off my WTF-o-meter. I understand sporters sometimes go from European to US caliber conversions, but why someone would need to do that on a .30-06 does not compute.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2011 05:33 |
|
