Your video, Full auto Gauss machine gun firing slugs into a laptop., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Full auto Gauss machine gun firing slugs into a laptop. has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Full auto Gauss machine gun firing slugs into a laptop. has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

a squad machine gun sized version would be fun

I have never heard such a bunch of codswaddle in my years of studying psychology. Aside from the outdated and wildly prejudiced anti-Freud ramble, which is apparently still 'hip' to do, the entire field of existential psychology dedicates decades of study to this approach, whereas this twit makes it sound like something you can pick up as you go along as long as you're young and think you're Diana Troy.

You can't 'just be' with someone in psychosis. It takes a lot of training and experience to even navigate to the place in consciousness of an ordinary individual, never mind that of someone having a psychotic break.

Also, the perpetual stream of images of people having 'happy moments' all over the place like a hallmark card machine gun should be the first indicator to you that this is shameless profiteering.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Machine Gun, Take Apart, Assemble, Queue, Students, Russia' to 'Machine Gun, Assault Rifle, Take Apart, Assemble, Queue, Students, Russia' - edited by calvados

When I said "just about any" kind of firearm should be legally obtainable, I should clarify that I mean guns. Explosive ordinance, anti-vehicle weapons, fully-auto vehicle mounted machine guns, etc. is where I see the line between reasonable and unreasonable.

My problem with getting into regulating "assault weapons" is that I see it as a very real slippery-slope hazard -- unlike restrictions like waiting periods, registration, legal obligations to keep guns locked in cabinets when not in use, etc. etc.

Here's an example: my gun-nut friends had in their extensive arsenal 2 rifles, an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14. The AR-15 is basically equivalent to a military M-16, except the one they had didn't have selectors for 3-shot burst or full-auto (semi-auto only). The Mini-14 was designed around the M-14, which was the military standard-issue rifle until being replaced by the M-16.

Trying to get the government to regulate those firearms seems like a nightmare to me. Is just the AR-15 (M-16) an "assault weapon"? Are they both? I've fired both and I don't think that there is any reasonable way to say that the AR-15 is "over the line" of what a civilian owner should have with the Mini-14 being "ok". The Mini-14 is a fantastic farm/hunter rifle; safe, reliable, and easy to handle -- but in the event of somebody going off the deep end and shooting people up, it is going to be just as deadly/tragic as if they had an M-16.

Basically I think that the right-wing types have a pretty legitimate beef when they say that gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and that therefore most heavy restrictions just affect legitimate, responsible gun owners while doing very little to keep guns out of the hands that you really want them out of. I should look for data about gun crime rates comparing legally purchased guns versus black market sources, and gun-related injury and death rates between gun-nut havens like Texas and my neck of the woods in Kansas compared to more liberal urban areas.

Finally, I guess that I should make it clear that I'm OK with restrictions that require you to prove that you are a responsible owner to have any firearm. Waiting periods, background checks, loss of privileges to anyone with a criminal record, having to register and periodically present your firearms to prove that you aren't re-selling them, etc. I consider all that kind of stuff reasonable limitations on our right/privilege to own firearms. But getting into trying to figure out what does or does not classify as an "assault weapon" goes the wrong direction in my opinion.

Some rich guy bought the Aston Martin used in the very first two James Bond films. Complete with machine guns that pop out of behind the head lights.

Not sure why this video made me think of that.

Nope. Not sure at all.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Tank, Machine Gun, Rocket Launcher, Slow Motion, Clear' to 'Tank, Machine Gun, Rocket Launcher, Slow Motion, Clear, mortar' - edited by xxovercastxx

No, I don't need to research "properly cleared" firearm. You do.

By definition if it is properly cleared then it has no cartridge in the chamber and is safe.

If a person makes a mistake and assumes a firearm is cleared when it is not - then they have not - by definition - properly cleared the firearm.

If a person is shot by a firearm they assumed was cleared or they did not clear properly then by definition they have not cleared it properly.

"not a single one of them saw the bullet in the barrel" is usually caused by a squib load. It is easily detected both when it happens and visually by looking for light down the chamber end of the barrel (no light = projectile stuck in barrel). If you mean to say that you had a cartridge in the chamber and 30 people familiar with cleaning firearms didn't see it then you have 30 people in need of reeducation.

A self discharing firearm is not common but yes it does happen. That's why we practice muzzle safety at all times with a loaded firearm.

"Now, if you truly believe a firearm was invented for sport, you have seriously deluded yourself."
I don't know where you got this from. I never wrote any sentiment similar to this. I wrote about the difference between design and use. A firearms first use was for killing animals (people included). This is now outnumbered by sports shooters by an order of magnitude.

I think it is pretty obvious I'm familiar with firearms and you don't need to describe a 22lr Hammerli, 22lr Anschutz, etc. sports pistol or rifle to me. These are not nearly as common as other multi-use sporting firearms. Sporting includes all the disciplines in my link a few posts back and hunting game animals.

"if you truly truly deep down in your gun loving heart believe an AR-15 was invented for sport . . . well, there's nothing anyone can ever say to make you see reason."
I never suggested I did.

"If you truly believe hallow point bullets were made for sport, then we live in a very strange world."
I never suggested I did. They're for expansion upon contact with body fluids to help bring about hydrostatic shock and give a larger hole with expansion of the bullet. They may have been intended for hunting (which is a sport) by its designer - I don't know and I doubt it's recorded in the history books.

"If you truly believe a recoiless machine gun that fires 30 rounds per minute was made for sport"
This is getting boring.

Look it's pretty obvious you're confusing "intent of design/invention", with "design", and "purpose of use". They are three different things.

The intent of the original design for firearms was for it to be used as a weapon to kill animals (again people are animals). No two ways about that.

A firearm is designed to accelerate a projectile down the barrel.

A firearm is used for more than it's original intention. So nowadays we use it more for sports using paper, cardboard or clay targets than hunting (which is also a sport) or killing other people.

"Guns, well, you're just in fantasy land there."
Now that you've finished your embarrassing diatribe could you try to be a little nicer and pay attention to what I write - not what you imagine I wrote.

I'd suggest you do some research on "properly cleared" gun shootings. The whole reason people get shot with a "properly cleared" firearm is because humans make mistakes. Also, the use of quotations is to illustrate a point, which I apparently need to spell out. People get shot when they THINK the gun is cleared. I've sat there and asked 30 people in a room, most familiar with cleaning and the whole 9 yards, and not a single one of them saw the bullet in the barrel. Every single person said the gun was clear, and was completely safe. Now, repeat that several times a week and the numbers really add up.

There have also been cases off firearms discharging on their own. I believe Colt was being sued due to the number of rifles that were discharging without a trigger pull. People died.

Now, if you truly believe a firearm was invented for sport, you have seriously deluded yourself. A firearm is NOT intended for sport. A sporting rifle, yes. They're usually a 22cal, well, sporting rifle/pistol. They look a little funnier, they don't have high capacity magazines, and they fire a small bullet.

However, if you truly truly deep down in your gun loving heart believe an AR-15 was invented for sport . . . well, there's nothing anyone can ever say to make you see reason. If you truly believe hallow point bullets were made for sport, then we live in a very strange world. If you truly believe a recoiless machine gun that fires 30 rounds per minute was made for sport, then the military needs to step up it's game. They really should be using weapons designed to kill their enemy, not shoot little paper targets at a gun range.

I hear napalm was really invented to cure toe fungus, not kill large swaths of enemy soldiers. Swords were made to butter bread. Tanks were made for picking up groceries.

BTW, historical fun fact, black powder is one of the few items originally designed for recreation that was later used for war (Chinese fireworks.) Things like forks, scissors etc were originally designed to kill people, until later other uses were discovered. Like rockets. Our government didn't care that people wanted to go to space, they wanted a rocket that COULD make it to space, but half way there would make a sudden turn and go kaboom. So I guess rockets are 50/50. Guns, well, you're just in fantasy land there.

actually, it isn't.
machine guns - m-60, browning 50 cal m2, thompson submachine gun, the bren
assault rifles - m-16 (including civilian ar-15), ak-47, ....here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles

they're different.

machine guns are classified differently that assault rifles. just sayin. it appears that it is pretty difficult to own a machine gun.
a machine gun is fully auto, large capacity.
submachine gun - same, but shoots pistol bullets.
a quick glance through the web indicates:

to own a machine gun in the states, generally:
1. You must live in a State that will allow you to own a machine gun.
2. You must pass the backgound check.
3. You must find a pre-1986 machine gun and an owner willing to part with it.
4. You must pay the asking price: $5,000 to $50,000.
5. $200. tax.
6. you MUST have an endorsement letter from the local Chief-of-Police or County Sheriff saying that it is 'okay' for you to own a machine gun.

i'm not bothering to verify this info. i'm not a gun nut. but that's what's out there. at least start to get the language correct. an assault rifle IS NOT classified as a "machine gun".

Whew, that is better than what I was imagining. I was thinking about how they used to fire machine guns through prop planes.

Reminds me of a scene in Waltz With Bashir where guys a moving along in a vehicle convoy and they're just blasting away with mounted machine guns and one guy stops and asks "What are we shooting at?" and the other turns to him and says "I don't know, just keep shooting."