ITT we post the weapon used in Dallas, the California legal assault rifle

ITT we post the weapon used in Dallas, the California legal assault rifle

fixed 10 round mag no black scary parts no pistol grip no tactical rails, even uses assault clips

A Yugo SKS was used? I have not heard any of those details yet but it would not be surprising if this was the case since it does not fit the EVIL BLACK RIFLE narrative. Also, these things are EVERYWHERE as for a long time they cost almost nothing along with the ammo so,... good luck with trying to deal with this new scourge of "Weapons of War".

Idiots

and that is relevant how?

He didnt use a fully automatic machine gun so i guess that means they should be completely legal too huh?

i find it incredible how every one of these gun threads is completely devoid of anyone with even basic logic and reasoning skills.

"anyone with even basic logic and reasoning skills"
>post contains no reasonable logic

the joke is news outlets keep calling it an assault rifle while the thing is 49 state legal

your bayonet is pointed the wrong way

You missed the point completely. This is a fully legal firearm within the most strict (or at least tied in the top 3) State on firearm ownership. This firearm is 2-3 design generations behind current tech and easily gotten. It fits into what the legislators are NOT going after and yet it was used to take out multiple officers at range.

So what you are missing is, all of the focus upon the AR-15 platform, calling them "Assault Rifles", calling them "Weapons of War", etc. is such an idiotic argument.

Either man up and say you want to disarm the populace by putting all of the firearms into the hands of those who demand power or realize that your current efforts are massively illogical and have NO effect of reducing crime.

...

>assault rifle
Want to know how we can tell you are a literal retard?

"sniper"
"sniper"
"sniper"

What type of gun was used? Caliber?

They announced today that the shooter acted alone... and yet there was gunfire from an elevated position, and a shooter in the streets going CQC.

This whole thing stinks.

They really use an sks? Is there a source on this. I would love to see more on this.

Supposedly an SKS in 7.62×39.

In before this fool goes full conspiritard.

Just saying it's kind of weird man.

>Supposedly
Supposedly? What the hell? It is a flat fact.
Drink bleach.

You want to chill the fuck out a little?

I'm saying it's what was reported. Why are you being such a faggot?

it was actually an assault nigger

Fair, but most nations with reasonable gun control laws would still make it illegal. 10 rounds is higher than is allowed in Canada. Being behind technologically still doesn't mean it isn't capable of doing some serious harm.

Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

No one reasonable is saying take away all guns, but it isn't unreasonable to make private sales illegal, have more comprehensive background checks and yeah, take away shit that no one should have real cause for. If you're hunting and bringing something that allows you miss 9 times and still kill it, you aren't hunting properly.

Kind of weird that in a firefight with a thousand unknowns and where the lives of you and your friends are in immediete danger, someone might say something thats incorrect over the radio to communicate a perceived, but not trully present danger?
I am nipping your future conspiracy bullshit in the bud now. People make mistakes constantly, and a man saying over the radio that he believes he is taking fire from an elevated position when he is not is an easy mistake to make.

I miss the days when niggers would just hold pistols sideways like retards. Now their learning how to shoot. Worrying.

This is that same exact gun, but as you can see it has been fitted with a nylon stock.

So now it is technically an assault rifle.

It's too late. Already been added to the 'false flag' list by the retards.

The sks can be easily modified to fit really, really shitty detachable magazines as well.
I did this a few years ago and went right back to the original after less than a week.

>it isn't unreasonable to make private sales illegal
Yes it is.
>take away shit that no one should have real cause for
Bill of Rights not a Bill of Needs faggot

That gun definitely looks scarier enough to be at least twice as deadly as the one OP posted.

god you're retarded.

This is a great post. Well said.

Retooled mine

>not a Bill of Needs faggot
You know what else the Bill of Rights isn't? Infallible.

Don't forget the whole assault rifle vs assault weapon thing. An assault rifle has a mostly fixed definition (intermediate cartridge, selectable fire mode, removable magazine), whereas assault weapon can mean different things depending on jurisdiction (can include things line retractable/folding stock, pistol grip, forward vertical grip, various muzzle devices, and so on). The SKS is not an assault rifle, but I suppose it could be modified to become one (just the same as an AR-15 could). I guess it could also be classified as an assault weapon, again it probably depends on what aftermarket shit you throw on it. That's begs the question though, should a firearm be defined by what it can be modified into (easy or not) or by the unmodified varaint?

>I don't agree with the rights of the people as the founders wrote them. I'm right and the people who founded this country after fighting a war with a tyrannical government are wrong. Please surrender your rights to better suit my point of view.

The bill of rights has been in place for roughly 220 years, but it only takes 15 years for people like you to fuck it up for everyone else who can responsibly have rights that every human being should have anyway (minus the attorney bit, that was just nice of them to add)

Basically, you can't even human being the right way....

still not an assault rifle

stop being a retard bubba

Until you get assaulted with it. Or an assault fist. That could be a thing too.

And you do know that machine guns are legal in the US, right?

He said "completely legal" there is still a lot of red tape to go through to own a machine gun.

fair enough

They legal to get in some states after you file for paperwork, have a lengthy wait time and pay some hefty fees. As far as I have seen, no legal fully automatic firearm (since they have been controlled) has been used in a crime.

Outside of a couple of instances, 99.99999% of CCW holders have not committed crimes (there were a couple of dudes that happened to have CCWs and they committed crimes with them on file).

Basically, if you are law abiding it does not matter what you own of the weapontry that is available to citizens since you are not a criminal.

Note: I can go down right now, take out a Ford F350 on a test drive and mow down 100 kids as they are getting out of school for the day. If someone is a criminal intent on doing harm they will find a way to do harm and there is no way to reasonably stop them other than ending the threat through violent means.

fucking gunfags turn the gun 360° and fire on yourselves. do the rest of us a favor.

>He didnt use a fully automatic machine gun so i guess that means they should be completely legal too huh?
yes it does actually
because the 2nd amendment says "arms" it doesn't say big scary arms not apply, here is an arbitrary list of handguns you CAN have.

it simply says "arms". you should really look into that

>turn the gun 360° and fire

>Note: I can go down right now, take out a Ford F350 on a test drive and mow down 100 kids as they are getting out of school for the day.

why do we see so few mass murders involving vehicles then?

I'm sure there's a reason.

It's on a hinge

The bullet would hit you, not me. Ah Darwin, you smart sumbitch.

>I'm sure there's a reason.
it's more practical to kill people with weapons and cars are not typically seen as weapons. are you a dumbass or something?

>2016
>Being American
ISHYGDDT

Because they simply have not started doing it. Once you make firearms impossible to get and knives will get you the death penalty, people will find other ways to kill other people.

The problem is not firearms, it is the culture that has access to them.

To move into the spirit of your comment, why weren't there more mass shootings back when everyone had firearms everywhere including in schools as part of programs?

Gas prices are too high right now.

>Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

Don't forget that "well-regulated" in the 18th c. did not mean "subject to lots of laws" but rather "in good working order".

>2016
>living in a caliphate
I wouldn't

no. just trying to point out the stupidity of that comparison.

sure someone can do that, but you do realize there's always a sales rep riding in the car with you when you test drive something you don't own.

there's plenty of reasons why guns are optimal for killing. and sure, if you can't find a gun someone with the intent might just rent a car and kill some people with it, but that probably wouldn't work out quite as well as you'd think.

see:
It barely registers as an "assault weapon" according to most bans. Not sure if that one takes detachable mags or not, but it still lacks a true "pistol grip" and muzzle device, as well as a "barrel shroud" (this one is technically still part of the stock)...

Either way, configuration bans don't accomplish jack or shit... And to be quite honest, a ban on semi-automatic so-called "assault weapons" also won't do jack or shit!! The media hypes up the 50 killed in Orlando this year to the point that the people completely forget about the 400-600+ that will die on the streets of Chicago this year.

It's not a problem with firearms or the availability thereof; it's a problem with SOCIETY... When the President supports a group known for calling for the blood of law enforcement over an incident that had to do only with ONE or TWO officers, THAT is what causes an incident like we saw in Dallas....

>Once you make firearms impossible to get and knives will get you the death penalty, people will find other ways to kill other people.

because that's just what they do.

but wouldn't it be nice if one man couldn't kill an entire crowd of people in less than 30 minutes?

Best to look up the legal definition of Militia in US Code and state laws.

Face it, faggot, if we had an all white homeland we would not have had this problem. We have third world problems because of the mud hutters who are incapable of assimilating into modern civilization. What we need is nigger control.

who is talking about renting cars nigger that is a dumb hypothetical scenario? most kids who aren't poor as fuck these days get a hand me down jap car from their parents anyways. credit cards companies are so good at trapping niggers in credit that every idiot has a car on lease these days.
cars kill more people than guns do in america by a wide margin but nobody is suggesting an arbitrary ban on which model of car is "more effective at killing"

Under current California law I could tape a selfie stick capped with a shoe to a pistol and it'd count as an assault weapon.

>Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

I don't think you understand what a militia was in the context of the 18th century.

A militia were untrained civilians, whose only qualifier was that they were firearms owners, who could be called upon to defend the country from internal revolutionaries.

A militia was not the equivalent of the national guard today, it had no requirement for training or things like that. It was simply the men of the day, who were armed. It wasn't even a constant association or something that was maintained, a militia was simply something that could be called to action from nothing.

>cars kill more people than guns do in america
sources.
and how many of those lives are intentionally taken with cars?

>who is talking about renting cars
it's another scenario comparable to "taking a test drive" you fucking moron.

>nobody is suggesting an arbitrary ban on which model of car is "more effective at killing"
that's thanks to capitalism and the ideal use of recalls. but alas, capitalism says you don't need to recall a car until it kills so many people.

>>who is talking about renting cars
>it's another scenario comparable to "taking a test drive" you fucking moron.
i wasn't the user you replied to about "taking a test drive" that is a dumbass scenario which doesn't mean shit because there are already one hundred million cars on the road you fucking turd nugget
>nobody is suggesting an arbitrary ban on which model of car is "more effective at killing"
that's thanks to capitalism and the ideal use of recalls. but alas, capitalism says you don't need to recall a car until it kills so many people.
wtff are you even saying? none of that is due to capitalism. the capitalists who make arms and ammunition to great profit aren't happy about arbitrary bans which infringe upon the 2A and limit their sources of income... retarded faggot
>cars kill more people than guns do in america
sources.
and how many of those lives are intentionally taken with cars?
are you fucking serious or is this trolling?

are you telling me you ACTUALLY think more people are killed per year with firearms than with cars in America?? woo fucking lad

>Also, don't forget the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. Gun nuts are hardly an organized collective and they are hardly well-regulated.

This "gun nut" fear is unfounded. They're not the ones who do mass shootings.

"Well-regulated" just means "working." A clock in the 18th century was "well-regulated" if it was working or accurate, not under government regulation.

What "well-regulated militia" means, is a militia that can quickly be called up to action. Not well trained, or the equivalent of the national guard that we have today. Simply the means are in place to call to arms, the civilians (men) of the day, who are firearms owners.

>are you telling me you ACTUALLY think more people are killed per year with firearms than with cars in America

nope. I'm saying more deaths caused by firearms are intentional, than those done with vehicles.

it may happen more frequently, but by many discrete individuals in discrete situations.

most gun deaths tend to happen in large numbers commited by a small group or single person.

You could take out a couple of dozen civilians before anyone can stop you using a .22LR rifle if you're a good shot and choose a good position. Should all rifles be banned? There are good reasons modern armies choose the features that distinguish their weapons from those of civilians and it doesn't all come down to selective fire which in the real world soldiers wouldn't use 90%+ of the time. The argument here is reductio ad absurdum, "if any gun can be used this way all guns should be legal" is about as legitimate an idea as "if any gun can be used this way all guns should be banned" it misses nuance and proportion. Why not make .50 cal sniper rifles legal? I'm sure someone exists who will argue there's legitimate purposes for such... In fact I'd be surprised if these are not already legal to use in America...

Anyone who uses a tacti-cool rifle is a moron, there's no real advantage to them only painting a traget on yourself for law enforcement. Trained militarycan cause a lot of harm even with household items, do you think a demolitions expert can't make a bomb on the stuff you find at Home Depot? You people are shooting yourselves in the foot with your insistence on looking like special forces for hunting squirrels...

The reason why I stated that you can do a test drive because, at least here in CA, all you need is an ID and the sales reps mostly let you go on your own as long as you don't look like a thug.

This means that without any prior investment you can get a device which can take out an entire group in seconds while getting a firearm requires you to either go through legal means and pay money OR commit a crime and get one illegally,... which means you are already a criminal who doesn't care about laws.

>most gun deaths tend to happen in large numbers commited by a small group or single person.
yes niggers. but it's 2016 and it is getting harder to tell the difference between black niggers and white niggers. they all blend together sometimes

>but wouldn't it be nice if one man couldn't kill an entire crowd of people in less than 30 minutes?

People will just make at home explosives to do this, you dense motherfucker.

true, but doing so is much more difficult than finding a gun.

and then what? they're just going to start banning bombs, the fascists.

It was the right thing to do to outlaw slavery but a mistake was made when the former slaves were given citizenship.

No. not harder at all. A few google searches is not that hard. Your density went up to gold level.

you do realize cars are left on the side of the road, like everywhere

>People will just make at home explosives

People have. At least Anders Breivik did.

Ever heard of fertilizer bombs? Or remember the Boston massacre a pressure cooker bomb? Or a thermite bomb? Make in bombs are so easy user and they kill just the same amount of people.

it's a wonder why more bombs aren't used in mass murders then, being so easy to make.

.50 rifles are totally legal

Yea, you are pretty fucking stupid user.

Here's the thing, if your argument it should be illegal because its used in so many mass shootings then your argument falls apart due to inconsistency. If you think AR-15s should be illegal based on principle alone, then you are the one being illogical.

There are bombings every day. Albeit here or in Syria. Your density just keeps rising.

What pray tell is the legit use for this?

fucking retard.. news flash that incident in orlando that had you changing your jewbook profile pic so that your friends will think you are liberal.. remember the 50 who got shot in the nightclub?.... well the VERY NEXT DAY suicide bombs in afghanistan killed like 100+ easily

did you know about that?? I bet you didn't you fucking stupid kike lover

again, why aren't there more bombs instead of shootings.

literally sounds like it would be cheaper, easier to hide, easier to use, easier to get away with.

yet no one will explain why they don't use more bombs? why is all I hear about shootings all day and maybe 1 or 2 bombings a year.

Defending house family and home when the police get out of control.

home protection

it shoots bullets... that is its use you fucking retarded faggot
what is the use of the 1st amendment? why should you be allowed to free thought?

Did you not just read the comment above. Really you are telling me it is easy to hide a pressure cooker. Are you just retarded or trolling?

that's SYRIA
that's AFGHANISTAN

you don't give one flying shit about the laws or the people in that country.

in this thread, we're talking about AMERICA so get your shitskin bullshit out of here.

America gets bombed too. Shooting is just more interactive that's probably one reason why shooters do it.

wait... so you're saying it's... hard to hide a bomb? you mean... it's not as feasible to kill a large group of people with one because someone might notice you before you get a chance to set it off?

No. you just said it sounds easy to hide one. Also, you are trying to argue as to why guns should be illegal. Which makes zero sense because then only police have guns.

Also, there is a large black market and grenades exist.

Bill of Rights not Bill of things we have legitimate uses for.

>that's AFGHANISTAN
>you don't give one flying shit about the laws or the people in that country.
>in this thread, we're talking about AMERICA so get your shitskin bullshit out of here.
the point is that you are whining like a little bitch that people can "rent a car of mass destruction wahhhh" fucking stupid ass faggot

and then you are whining "people have big scary ass guns wahhh i don't like them"
then you get told people make bombs who kill in the 100s with ease and you say it doesn't matter?

you really are a piece of work, faggot

Why does it need a use? This is a free society. We have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

You need a long range sniper rifle to protect a two story home? Can you even set it up in a reasonable time or is it reasonable for you to have a fucking machine gun nest on top of a garage? Do you also put barbed wire all around it? And your average home invaders I imagine they use military grade body armor...

>Also, you are trying to argue as to why guns should be illegal

I've never said that.

now you're putting words in my mouth. why does everybody think a discussion about gun control will inevitably lead to banning and making firearms illegal.

>the point is that you are whining like a little bitch that people can "rent a car of mass destruction wahhhh"

your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I was arguing that comparing guns to cars (and their respective deaths) is ridiculous.

>you really are a piece of work, faggot
it's tough playing the devil's advocate.

Are civilians also allowed to own and operate tanks in the US? How about mounting hard points on aircraft? Fuck, why not homemade tactical nukes or dirty bombs for when SHTF?

Which country do you think you're in?