Buy a truck and get a free AK-47!!!! - Page 2

Max2147 · 07-18-09, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Pentagon metro stop ?

Wall to wall adverts for defense contractors, all claiming how wonderfully patriotic they are and how they're the best choice for defending freedom.

Onkel Neal · 07-18-09, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

In the UK I think we'd be happy to settle for a full tank of petrol

Yeah, with the price of gas, that could be a better deal

SUBMAN1 · 07-18-09, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

A step up from the Kiwi's!

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...rticleId=63483

Oh man! Goats are pretty much outlawed over here in any city. You can't have a goat in America.

That's why they give us guns instead!

So yes, one up'd!

-S

Platapus · 07-18-09, 11:30 AM

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but this touched a nerve with me.

The manufacture needs to come up with a different name for the Semi-automatic version of the AK-47. The AK-47 is a selectable fire assault rifle. What civilians buy (with out the federal stamp) is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK-47.

This auto dealer is NOT giving away AK-47s! He is giving away a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK-47. To me there is a huge difference.

This keeps getting the anti-gun people all spun up. "Why should civilians be allowed to own the "same" weapon as terrorists use?" Sheesh, they don't. Civilians, in almost all cases, are not buying AK-47s but a different weapon that looks a lot like an AK-47. Unfortunately, because there is no different name, this gives ammunition to deliberately confuse the two different weapons for political purposes.

The manufactures need to come up with a different name for the Semi-automatic rifle that looks like the AK-57.

A good example would be the M-16 and AR-15.

Even though the AR-15 came first, its common usage is the semi-automatic version of the M-16. Most citizens don't buy M-16's, they buy AR-15s.

When an anti-gun nut exclaims that civilians have no need for M-16s, the gun community can agree. We don't need M-16s, but we do want AR-15s. Different weapons that happen to look alike... but are not alike.

In my opinion, civilians should not be allowed to own fully automatic or selectively automatic assault weapons without special training and accountability.

However, civilians should be able to own semi-automatic weapons that look like Assault Weapons.

This is my major gripe about the so called "Assault Weapon Ban" It is not a ban on assault weapons. It is a ban on weapons that look like Assault Weapons.

By keeping the same nomenclature for both the fully automatic AK-47 and the semi-automatic AK-47 look-a-like, it confuses the issue and only makes it easier for anti-gun organizations.

Sorry for the hijack, just had to vent.

SUBMAN1 · 07-18-09, 11:32 AM

Can't agree more man.

-S

Jimbuna · 07-19-09, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

A step up from the Kiwi's!

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...rticleId=63483

Comes ready equipped with a 'horn'

Spoon 11th · 07-19-09, 08:16 PM

My offer would be: Buy a truck and get a free abortion, since you're going to have sex in this car anyway.

07-18-09, 11:30 AM	#19
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,361 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Don't mean to hijack the thread, but this touched a nerve with me. The manufacture needs to come up with a different name for the Semi-automatic version of the AK-47. The AK-47 is a selectable fire assault rifle. What civilians buy (with out the federal stamp) is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK-47. This auto dealer is NOT giving away AK-47s! He is giving away a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK-47. To me there is a huge difference. This keeps getting the anti-gun people all spun up. "Why should civilians be allowed to own the "same" weapon as terrorists use?" Sheesh, they don't. Civilians, in almost all cases, are not buying AK-47s but a different weapon that looks a lot like an AK-47. Unfortunately, because there is no different name, this gives ammunition to deliberately confuse the two different weapons for political purposes. The manufactures need to come up with a different name for the Semi-automatic rifle that looks like the AK-57. A good example would be the M-16 and AR-15. Even though the AR-15 came first, its common usage is the semi-automatic version of the M-16. Most citizens don't buy M-16's, they buy AR-15s. When an anti-gun nut exclaims that civilians have no need for M-16s, the gun community can agree. We don't need M-16s, but we do want AR-15s. Different weapons that happen to look alike... but are not alike. In my opinion, civilians should not be allowed to own fully automatic or selectively automatic assault weapons without special training and accountability. However, civilians should be able to own semi-automatic weapons that look like Assault Weapons. This is my major gripe about the so called "Assault Weapon Ban" It is not a ban on assault weapons. It is a ban on weapons that look like Assault Weapons. By keeping the same nomenclature for both the fully automatic AK-47 and the semi-automatic AK-47 look-a-like, it confuses the issue and only makes it easier for anti-gun organizations. Sorry for the hijack, just had to vent. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

07-18-09, 11:32 AM	#20
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Can't agree more man. -S __________________

07-19-09, 08:16 PM	#22
Spoon 11th Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Finland Posts: 689 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	My offer would be: Buy a truck and get a free abortion, since you're going to have sex in this car anyway.