Utterly ridiculous: 20 MM Rifle w/3 round magazine...

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm



You know you are reaching the outer limits of absurdity when you need two full size cases to carry your rifle and when a single round costs 10 dollars.


.223, .338, .50 BMG, 20 MM


And all for less than $12,000.



What the fuck...

to own a functioning version.

but when Bush came to Richfield Ohio on a rainy dreary day in September 2003, even his invited and thoroughly screened guests weren't allowed to bring one (an umbrella) into the event ...

He is no longer in office. So how are his actions relevant to what I said?

Your feelings may be irrational.
Nobody is ever secure there will be no violence.
Nobody brandished a firearm.

Lastly you think it would be good policy for Obama to use "vauge Bush era anti-terrorism laws". You want a second President to operate outside the law?

Tazing peaceful protestors, arresting anyone who attends? All those are examples of gross violation of civil rights. Why would you want to see such policies continued.

Perhaps you could point us to the story where they brandished their gun?

Brandishing indicates they pulled the gun from the holster and threatened someone with it. In most cases it's considered a felony and they'd lose their right to ever own any firearm if convicted.

Or are you extrapolating that since they had a firearm and it scares you personally they should be wrestled to the ground and forcibly restrained, even if they are a half mile or more from the event.

A few things to get straight

1. No one has brought a firearm into a Presidential event. All of these people have been out on the street nowhere near the motorcade or the building the president is actually speaking in.

2. The Secret Service has the ultimate authority to define the safety parameters for the President. Most of us trust their judgement a hell of a lot more than yours.

3. This is undoubtedly not the first time a gun owner had been in the crowd somewhere "nearby" since 48 states allow concealed carry and a Presidential appearance always draws huge crowds both in and outside of the venue.

4. The Secret Service is a lot less concerned with a guy wearing a gun openly 4 or 5 blocks away with a big ass protest sign than some mook in the building who is wearing a coat, sweating profusely with eyes darting around that might have a gun hidden somewhere.

5. What they are doing is legal in the states they are in. Perhaps you'd like to ignore the laws and do what you think needs to be done. We used to have a whole administration that thought that way.

Brandishing indicates they pulled the gun from the holster and threatened someone with it. In most cases it's considered a felony and they'd lose their right to ever own any firearm if convicted.

A lot of the rest of us speak ordinary English.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brandish

bran·dish
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.


Gosh, if that isn't pretty much the, er, dictionary definition of what the gun thugs are doing.


Or are you extrapolating that since they had a firearm and it scares you personally they should be wrestled to the ground and forcibly restrained, even if they are a half mile or more from the event.

Hmm, could you be speaking in that fine right-wing code wherein you make shit up and pretend somebody else said/implied/suggested/thought/dreamed them, when it fact you were the only one who did?

Rhetorical question. I assure you.

Brandishing is shorthand for various misdemeanors, in various state codes..

FL- 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

VA- VA Code § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

Virginia also has open carry- cases have established that merely carrying a handgun on one's hip does not constitute a 'reasonable inducement of fear in the mind of another'.

In Texas, unintentional exposure of a concealed weapon is not brandishing, but intentional is, if drawing the weapon under the self-defense statute would not have been legal.

Generally, in states that do not have open carry, open carry is illegal as some variant of brandishing. In states that do have open carry, it does not equate to brandishing without further action like "pulled the gun from the holster and threatened someone with it".

that I don't give a flying fuck.

Apparently (the message is deleted) someone said something about guns being brandished.

"Brandishing" firearms, in one sense, is commonly outlawed.

Big whup. You have no basis whatsoever for asserting that whoever it was who used the expression used it to mean what is described in the relevant statutes.

You see, you don't actually get to decide what the meaning of a word in someone else's text is.

So your efforts here are wasted.

You go ahead and speak in gunhead code if you like. Don't bother pretending that the rest of the world does, or must be doing. The rest of the world gets to use words to convey the meaning that those words convey when used by normal people.

The deleted post was about how the poster felt about something s/he saw as illegal, and wondered why the post-9/11 security measures weren't applied to them.

Since the point was made re illegality, I think it perfectly appropriate to discuss exactly what 'brandishing' consists of, don't you? Or did you jump into the thread after the initial post was deleted and just assume, eh?

I jumped into the thread and said that nobody here was obliged to speak in secret gunhead code, or to have their words construed using the secret gunhead decoder ring.

Nobody is.

if you dont give a flying fuck.

They are important.
...unless you want to convict someone of crimes that don't exist.

Or maybe not.

"2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish."

The normal, legal mode of handgun carry, is in a holster, open or concealed.

"Ostentatiously" would imply something outside the norm.


But hey, keep trying to twist the language. If I could spin wool the way you spin words, I could stock your wardrobe with sweaters.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ostentatious

1. ostentatious - intended to attract notice and impress others; "an ostentatious sable coat"
2. ostentatious - (of a display) tawdry or vulgar


Either one's fine by me.



But hey, keep trying to twist the language.

Yeah, yeah, huffle puffle humph.

The twisting was done by the first person to try to assign a meaning to a word used by someone else that was not the meaning intended by the speaker.

"Equivocation". Can you look that one up for yourself?

Let me move the bolding here:

"2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish."

This term comes up a lot in cases, especially here in Washington State where open carry was, until recently, a contentious legal issue. A practical example of 'displaying ostentatiously' (or flourishing) would be to gesture toward the weapon, or maybe pull back a jacket lapel to reveal the weapon intentionally.

It's more subtle than drawing the weapon and pointing it at someone for the purpose of threatening them, but it's still brandishing. Wearing it on your hip, isn't. No one I've ever met, using ordinary english, would accuse a police officer of brandishing a weapon by having one in a holster on his or her hip at lunch at a local eatery.

I agree with the rest of the post though.

The idiots on TV with their pistols and rifles were hundreds of yards away at a rally.

Brining would probably ruin the finish...
:rofl:


Sorry, the devil made me do it...

Pretty goddamn expensive fun however.

I could seriously atomize the gophers around here with one of them.

You can atomize gophers "over there" as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_97_20_mm_anti-tank_rifle

Do note, dear opponents of private firearms ownership, that anything in this caliber is classed as "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and requires mucho ATF paperwork to acquire and own.

I'll admit I don't see the point of this weapon. 20mm rifles had some use back in the late 1930s against the light tanks of the time, but these days, there are more practical weapons available to use against anything that will be harmed by a single 20mm round, and it just isn't going to do much of anything against armored fighting vehicles, attack helicopters, etc.

Oh well, if you've got 13 grand to spare (which, in the current economic climate, seems implausible), go nuts, I guess.

"I'll admit I don't see the point of this weapon. 20mm rifles had some use back in the late 1930s against the light tanks of the time, but these days, there are more practical weapons available to use against anything that will be harmed by a single 20mm round, and it just isn't going to do much of anything against armored fighting vehicles, attack helicopters, etc."

Something like this would be excellent against static APVs, and parked or hovering light aircraft, as long as the user was a good marksman. APV's and attack choppers have LOTS of "soft spots" and exposed machinery, if you know what you are looking for. Even well applied .50's can disable an APV, helicopters in flight can be taken with AK47's and if you added AP/explosive rounds to your 20mm, Bob's yer uncle.

And the payment of a $200 tax per round. They are available, at around $300-$400 EACH + the $200 tax.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Yet, we can't afford to have Single Payer Health care.

Just because you don't like what some people "waste" their money on does not mean that money will be available for you to spend on what you want it spent on.

Some people choose to spend their money on organic food and "fair trade" coffee, bottled water, gym memberships and hybrid cars. Most of the extra money spent doesn't provide any added value other than making the buyer feel better, and hey, if you blow $13K on one of these useless behemoths, at least you're supporting American workers!

I don't understand your post. Someone has a large amount of discretionary income, why does it matter to you what they blow it on?

Just because someone has a large amount of discretionary income doesn't mean that they have to use that money for "the good of the people", it is their money after all.

Just because someone has a large amount of discretionary income doesn't mean that they have to use that money for "the good of the people", it is their money after all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA

It is not the peoples money. I dont QUITE know what country you THOUGHT were talking about, but the rest of us are discussing the United States.

Maybe in some third-world backwater it is all the "people's" money, but not here.

you have no basis for making and every reason to believe is purely false, thus demonstrating your total contempt for the truth and democratic discourse?

Oh look! Aren't we lucky to have those little question mark thingies?

How this statement:

"ONLY IN AMERICA
Edited on Fri Aug-21-09 07:30 AM by dotymed
Yet, we can't afford to have Single Payer Health care. That
would actually save our nation billions of dollars annually.
not to mention the pain, suffering and the loss of lives. Of
course, who would PROFIT from that?"

In response to the OP to be interpreted?

Whatever is the connection between this:

"And all for less than $12,000."

And this?:

"Yet, we can't afford to have Single Payer Health care."

I can draw a conclusion, but am not certain if it is the correct interpretation of the author's statement. Hence, my question.

Yesssss, and such a sincere "question" it was. So dripping with good faith and candour.

I know good faith and candour when I see 'em.

... Excuse me while I see whether I can find any ...

How do you hold your protest sign, too?

The blue-tipped condom is a nice touch, though.

have the case drilled but pre WWII blue was live not training but I bet thats all you can shoot as the rest are probably ap,wp or he

or compensation for a much smaller penis.

that there is no way to see to it that the money wasted on that foolish rifle would find it's way into federal coffers to support health care.

But overconsumption in this country is at the root of a whole host of problems not the least of which is health care.

I did buy one new car for 18k, but that was when I was young. The last two vehicles I have owned cost $650 and $800 respectively. I'm a legendary cheap bastard.

Of course I do have a thousand dollar backbacking rig...

Yeah, pot meet kettle.

how do you get the zombies to all stand in single file?

and possession without such authorization (BATFE Form 4), outside of police/military/government duty, is a 10-year Federal felony.

In the United States, guns that can be freely owned by citizens are limited to those under .51 caliber, except for over-.51 shotguns and a few larger-caliber hunting guns.

I'm sure it's fun to shoot, but so few people are able to own them it would be hard to put a match together.

I'm just kidding. I don't have one of those things.

It's not as if you can go to Wally-World and pick up a few boxes.

I've never shot more than about 20 rounds in any given day, and there aren't a lot of places where it's practical to shoot.

I have a nice bucket full of fired brass, so when I run out of ammo I'll buy reloading equipment for it and roll my own.

A bit pricey. A regular reloading press won't do.

The reloads will probably be of better quality than surplus. There are some high quality projectiles out there for the serious competitor.

to steal ammo from the Air Force these days. Hell, it's almost impossible to get a pocketful of used 7.62mm brass.

And thanks for the vote of confidence in our personnel.

(Maybe a mountain out of a mole hil)
What's with the skinhead comment?

Yeah it's silly and unnecessary but so is a $90,000 Benz or a boat but if you have the money, time and desire...why not?

I realize those who dislike guns want to BELIEVE that, but the fact is, you're absolutely wrong.

and that's how you know?

It's what a lot of humans do. I'd consider it part of the 'human condition'.

For shooters, more specifically, it would be higher foot-pounds of energy, higher velocity, smaller minute of angle. Maybe sub in cyclic rate for one of the three.

Some of us look at a small kit Trebuchet that elementary school kids might build as a science or history project, and immediately start thinking about how much of the lumber yard it would take to launch a ford pinto 3 counties down-range. If you don't have it, i'm not sure the impetus can be adequately described. It's not always healthy, like anything else it can be taken to excessive and potentially dangerous levels.


For some, there may be some sort of link, but for many of us, the phallus thing doesn't even map to firearms. Sure, you'll find guys that tattoo and pierce it, but they are rare. Not so for those that fall into some category of shooters, adorning their weapons with scrollwork, or carving inlays, or even accurizing modifications like glass bedding. All of which require cutting, gouging, or replacement. And i've never heard of men trying to impregnate people in the next state from their backyard...

and have an error value, and correlation coefficient to back that statement up?

to add. Thanks for that.

Must have hit a nerve. I expected at least someone would retort with "I only shoot 20 ga. and .22 longs!"

Go bug Horsey at the Seattle PI if you want to argue...

it makes more sense to say the grabbers have penis envy.

1) they are obsessed with penis size (I don't think we've had a thread where they didn't bring it up).
2) They see large guns as a penis substitute (no gun owner I've met has referred to his gun as a such).
3) they are enraged and jealous of men with larger, "guns", than they have and want to take that away from them. Interestingly enough they are particularly enraged by the black ones, or any with "modifications".

From this I can conclude that gun grabbers have tiny genitalia, which has driven their near pathological desire to strip men of what they perceive to be larger genitalia.

It's ok, you can stop being jealous and resentful of all those big, black guns others are displaying. No one is judging you for not having one.

I carry this:

That guy with the .22short pistol must be very well endowed!

What is with this nonsensical garbage? There is no correlation between the size of one's genitals and the size of one's firearm/truck/boat/TV/whatever.

An aquaintance in OKC that had a freight salvage business had one for sale that came in with a lot of goods. I told him it wouldn't fit in the trunk of my VW.

He eventually called ATF.

not a m-61 its a GAU-8 it made me think of you

I lived next door to Tinker AFB for a while. At the time, they rebuilt B-52s there. The engine test cells were about 500 Meters from where I lived. Very loud.

The M-61 was still in a sealed crate from General Electric, the manufacturer at the time.

but then again, this is a luxury item. And every luxury item is going to be seen as a waste of money to some.

No different than people who buy a pair of shoes for several hundred dollars, or a fancy sports car, or trendy coffees, or organic food.

Makes them feel good, and stimulates the economy so who cares (this was at least built in the US most likely).

Of course if he were planning on assassinating someone this would be the last weapon to choose as it would be immediately traced to him, cannot be concealed or easily transported and wouldn't offer any real advantage over a cheap hunting rifle.

It's a hobby, and likely a safe one as he's now watched by the FBI, and having blown 12 grand, and 10 bucks per shot he isn't likely to fire it randomly in to the air for kicks.

And I'm supposed to believe the rich can't afford to pay for public health care when people are buying $12,000 guns that are all but useless.

Just wondering.

If someone is rich by their own means whether it be inheriting it or earning it, why should they be forced to give away their money to others?

No, they got it for somewhere, someone. They should compensate society for enabling them to generate such wealth.


Why do you feel you should pay taxes at all?

Why do you feel you should pay taxes at all?

I think you'll find that to our new friend, that is an unanswerable loaded question, akin to asking you why you beat your dog.

;)

If someone is rich by their own means whether it be inheriting it or earning it, why should they be forced to give away their money to others?
Why should you have to pay taxes? It is exactly what he asked. It is in no way unanswerable, loaded, or akin to asking him why he beats his dog.

If people are so obscenely wealthy they can buy $12,000 toys, they can afford health care for everyone. You Canadians seem to be affording it.

It would seem you as a Canadian can explain to them why wealthy people should pay taxes for public health care.

The vitriol and bile are just blinding, aren't they?

You asked him:

Why do you feel you should pay taxes at all?

How could someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE he should pay taxes at all answer that question?


It would seem you as a Canadian can explain to them why wealthy people should pay taxes for public health care.

I could, and I'm always happy to.

But I find talking to right-wing loonytarian morons to be less than gratifying. That is what the individual toting the AR15 is, and that is what I saw pretty good evidence of in the close proximity of this post.

Someone who believes that he should not pay taxes cannot tell you why he feels he should pay taxes at all.

I was not the one confused. I'll take your apology as written.

I didn't expect that level of freeptastic stupidity on DU. Who has the tombstone graphic?

Two posts so far --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=249171&mesg_id=249268

-- both spewing the loonytarian line.

In both cases, yammering about health care in the Guns forum.

Odd.

You aren't an American citizen, yet frequently post on a discussion board devoted primarily to the support of an American political party and the discussion of American political, social, and economic issues through that party's lens.

Are you a member of the Democratic party? If not, why are you here?

Are you a member of the Democratic party? If not, why are you here?

I'll tell if everybody else here does!

I'm a member of the New Democratic Party. An actual card-carrying, dues-paying member.

That's a pretty automatic 'in' for the category of 'progressive', I assure you.


You folks down here sure do get hopped up on your nationalism, doncha?

Too bad for you the site owners don't. Eh?


Now as far as our new chum here, you might want to notice that I'm not the only one wondering whether he's lost his way.

That the vast majority of posts, discussions, etc which are found on this boards relate to the American Democratic party and American social, political, and economic issues. Regardless of whether or not the site owners specify nationality as a requirement for membership or participation, this fact renders your point of view rather irrelevant.

As for your "progressive" credentials:

"I think that most people who advocate stringent firearms regulations are highly intelligent, and are simply cognizant of the unfortunate but certain fact that much of any given population is stupid as a bag of hammers. And/or chronically drunk."

Is the underlined a progressive attitude? Sounds like paternalism to me, or perhaps something worse.

Does the NPD leadership know that you represent the party on this discussion board with statements such as this?

:hi:

$20-$100 a shot... typically people reload their own.

Also the rifle is registered as a destructive device (same law that restricts machine guns and sawed off rifles/shotguns)

To be anti-material, or just to show off to your friends. Hitting a running human with that, unless if you're a good shot, would be extremely difficult.

It's hard to hit a running human being with any sized round at great distance.

Standing still, you'd probably tear the person in two.

Even the 30mm on the A-10 is becoming obsolete against modern composite armors.

You are right at one time 20 to 35mm rifles were useful anti tank systems but that day is long past.
ATGMs have completely replaced rifles, and rockets as infantry portable antitank systems.

20mm rifle really has no use today on the battlefield.

It could be used to destroy bunkers but ATGMs like Javelin or TOW work well against hardened installations and have the advantage of being able to defeat modern armor also.

Anything lighter armored (radar dish, lightly armored vehicles, supply depots) can easily be destroyed by 0.50 cal with less cost and weight.

The 20mm rifle is a relic of the past like the bazooka or recoiless rifle. At one time very lethal but now a victim of technological progress in both offensive and defensive systems.

more than 3 tries to hit a moving satellite.

Then again, if the first two rounds were tracers.......

Seems like quite a bargain at 12,000 dollars . Hell , Flemming sears are bringing that much right now , and you can put one in your shirt pocket !

For a little perspective , here is one that comes with both 1200 and 3200 round " clips " .
http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=15770&query=retrieval

Dig around ,and you will see that Mendiola has a real Lathi for 10.8 . Use the 1200 samolies you saved on ammo .