Random Interesting Facts Compilation. Sources for the facts available @ . rewarded its employee of the dealwith a night with he to California will not sell or s facts Awesome amazing kickass
x
Click to expand

Random Interesting Facts Compilation

rewarded its employee of
the dealwith a night with
he to California
will not sell or service to any of Califonia' s law enforcement agencies
In 1945, a gmap of Soviet
school children presented the
a carved
US Seal as a gesture of
friendship. It hangin his
affine for chears before itwas
discovered that it contained a
listening device
Scientists have discovered (as big as 1 you in length], named
Because more than KM, of resemble nothing known
and cannot be traced back to any known cellular lineage. scientists
suggestive existence domain of life
Mahmud wrote an open ; declared
protection for churches and monasteries, and freedom to
practice their religion Muslim controlled areas. Muslims are
online puzzle game called Folded,'
specifically dissolving problems
drelated to proteins folding In 2011,
efan
t In! ‘ causes an Disslike
disease in monkeys. Researchers I
f _. _ had been working on that problem
tillet' arhg' , solved
it in mere three weeks i
There Msds a waterfall in ,
source completely devoid of
dissolved oxygen, containing
high
sodium. When the water is
finally exposed to air as it
V flaws out ofthe glacier, it
red making it look like the
V _ V gamer is bleeding C: _~
help form
addiction. Mick Jagger
seduced the therapist
In 2001, when Rowan Atkinson with subfamily on his private
plane, he had to take control of the plane afters's pilot passed out He had
to prevent imam crashing, despite never having piloted a plane. The pilot
was up Wilkinson repeatedly slapping him I
Norman Borlaug, an
agricultural scientist,
developed new strains of
crops which yielded as
much food. He is said to have
w a saved the lives of over a
billion people. making him
one of the most influential
men in human history
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1829
Views: 58545
Favorited: 264
Submitted: 08/16/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to foodabuser Subscribe to just4fun submit to reddit

Comments(597):

[ 597 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#127 - redbannerman (08/16/2014) [-]
WHY CAN'T YOU BEEE MORE LIKE JAGGER BOM-BASTIC OVER HERE!?
WHY CAN'T YOU BEEE MORE LIKE JAGGER BOM-BASTIC OVER HERE!?
#279 to #127 - paulthehero ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #359 to #279 - leafonthewind (08/17/2014) [-]
jaegarbombastic
your people need you
#366 to #359 - jaegarbombastic (08/17/2014) [-]
>Getting mentioned in comments.
>Getting mentioned in comments.
User avatar #369 to #366 - leafonthewind (08/17/2014) [-]
I do it for you bb
#370 to #369 - jaegarbombastic (08/17/2014) [-]
Dance with me bb gur.
Dance with me bb gur.
#373 to #370 - leafonthewind (08/17/2014) [-]
cant touch my fresh moves
#110 - tealcanaan ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
>MFW all these statist yuroucks talking about guns
>MFW all these statist yuroucks talking about guns
User avatar #259 to #110 - deathspawn (08/17/2014) [-]
If i had a dollar for all these stupid liberals who think they know anything about guns id be rich
#274 to #259 - innocentbabies (08/17/2014) [-]
I'm a liberal who owns six guns, is that a start to actually knowing about them?
User avatar #302 to #274 - meierme (08/17/2014) [-]
depends, what are they?
User avatar #276 to #274 - deathspawn (08/17/2014) [-]
I'm talking about the liberals that make people like you look bad
#264 to #259 - tealcanaan ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
IKR?!?
IKR?!?
#3 - lordtwothreeseven (08/16/2014) [-]
Therapist= The Rapist
User avatar #26 to #3 - nywrestler (08/16/2014) [-]
Analyst+Therapist = Analrapist
User avatar #5 to #3 - godtherapist (08/16/2014) [-]
You called?
#288 to #5 - MrShaggy (08/17/2014) [-]
take this
#6 to #5 - lordtwothreeseven (08/16/2014) [-]
Because that will decide my answer.
User avatar #7 to #6 - godtherapist (08/16/2014) [-]
Boy.
#50 - lirfy (08/16/2014) [-]
Hatano Yui's fw employee did not disgrace family
Hatano Yui's fw employee did not disgrace family
#399 to #50 - dasbrot ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Does she do "science"?
#411 to #399 - lirfy (08/17/2014) [-]
Unfortunately no, she's just a tumblr girl who goes by the name Cinnymon and liked making gifs of herself two years ago   
   
I really wish she did bro, I really do.
Unfortunately no, she's just a tumblr girl who goes by the name Cinnymon and liked making gifs of herself two years ago

I really wish she did bro, I really do.
#414 to #411 - dasbrot ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Nothing less from a tumblr twit.
Nothing less from a tumblr twit.
User avatar #555 to #414 - sharklazers (08/17/2014) [-]
"THIS GIRL WON'T DO DEGRADING PORN SO SHE'S A TWIT!
#567 to #555 - dasbrot ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#417 to #414 - lirfy (08/17/2014) [-]
Eh, not all tumblr users are fgts.   
   
She seems pretty nice judging from all of my 'research' of her but you never know
Eh, not all tumblr users are fgts.

She seems pretty nice judging from all of my 'research' of her but you never know
#568 to #417 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
now you're starting to sound like a beta faggot...
User avatar #482 to #50 - jellyman (08/17/2014) [-]
Famiry*
#58 - yellowcardraiden (08/16/2014) [-]
Anyone got any videos of Hatano Yui.
Anyone got any videos of Hatano Yui.
#189 to #186 - danili (08/16/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#182 to #70 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
more favorites than thumbs
way to go, FJ
#390 - scoobi (08/17/2014) [-]
Rowan Atkinson was on a trip to Kenya when that happened. That got me thinking. Who the hell would want to go to Kenya?
Rowan Atkinson was on a trip to Kenya when that happened. That got me thinking. Who the hell would want to go to Kenya?
User avatar #435 to #390 - shadowhorn (08/17/2014) [-]
I think it's a spectacularly beautiful place, and the sheer variety of wildlife is unmatched.
User avatar #438 to #390 - privatepumpanickel (08/17/2014) [-]
>just home from a night out
>saw this gif
>actually just pissed a little and stained my pants
#484 to #390 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
sex tourists who want to **** a cheap negroid for example.
kenya is one of the fav places for such a trip coz among all the crisis/hunger countries in africa, kenya is one of the rather save and peaceful places.
#18 - itumblr (08/16/2014) [-]
but who was barret
#114 to #18 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
#219 to #25 - keybladewarrior (08/16/2014) [-]
aw yesh
aw yesh
#227 - angelusprimus (08/16/2014) [-]
Every idiot who is against GMO food should read Borlaug's article from 2000, Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry

There are problems with genetic modification. Shady practices of companies like Monsanto, problems with providing seeds to sustenance farmers etc. But safety of the crops is not one of them.

Article for those who want it:
www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/2/487
#275 to #227 - silentark (08/17/2014) [-]
The whole GMO thing is still a debate in rural Australia, not because of crop safety, but because the primary buyers are concerned about the long term effects of human consumption, i.e. will GM crops have negative long term effects on the human body, as of yet, there is no concrete study to draw conclusion from. (example, Japan, the biggest buyer of export grain, will refuse to buy it if farmers use modified seeds to suit drought conditions, which would greatly increase crop yield.)

Or to sum it up, not everyone against it is an anti-science nut, but some have genuine concerns.
#432 to #275 - angelusprimus (08/17/2014) [-]
GMO foods have been around since 1994. That is now 20 years. There has not been any cases, at all, of health problems caused by GMO food.
Animals fed GMOs for their entire life cycle have shown no difference in health from their organic food fed counterparts in over 100 independent studies. Most of them double blind tests.
We are as certain as possible that there are NO long term effects.

Modified crops in Asia and South America are responsible for saving more people from starvation then every other program in the world put together. If Borlaug was allowed to continue his program for Africa in 1980 Africa would be food self sufficient by now. But program was canceled because of eco-nuts.
He continued the program on smaller scale sponsored by a Japanese chairty and turned Ethiopia, country world famous for hunger, into a net exporter of food.
Scientific consensus is that GMO food is fine. Propaganda from people who are scared that its dangerous, without knowing the scientific research, is stronger though. And that's why we still have millions of people starving when we could easily feed them all.
User avatar #298 to #227 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
Eat all the chemically enhance food you want i stick to biological when you get a disease or a sort of cancer we will see who is the real idiot
User avatar #512 to #298 - testaburger (08/17/2014) [-]
A thousand cases of cancer versus a few billion people not starving.

Your argument is forever invalid.
User avatar #527 to #512 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
they will all get the cancer b0ss
User avatar #528 to #527 - testaburger (08/17/2014) [-]
Obviously we're not getting cancer
User avatar #531 to #528 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
You are the cancer
#428 to #298 - angelusprimus (08/17/2014) [-]
And idiots like you are exactly who the Borlaug was talking about antiscience zealots.
User avatar #466 to #428 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
Borlaug? listen buddy idk what kinda lord of the ring name is that but in science there is this thing called side effect of modified mood,Is not my fault if you are too stupid enough to see the flaw in your grand plan

and do you really thing the world gonna share food for free without making people pay for it?

I know you need to lower people by calling them idiot cuz you got self confidence issues but the real idiot is you,and eating food with chemical in it is bad for your health, seriously is not my fault if you are uneducated about this
#469 to #466 - angelusprimus (08/17/2014) [-]
Well you've just proven what kind of idiot you are by calling Borlaug "lord of the rings name".
We are talking about a man who's agricultural modifications saved India, Pakistan, Mexico and most of East Asia. Winner of Nobel peace prize, World food prize and about two dozen other scientific prizes. Until he died in 2009 he was undisputed leading agricultural scientist in the world. Its estimated that his work saved over a billion people from starvation. Mostly children.
So yeah, insulting me while making fun of the names of one of the greatest scientists that ever lived... not really helping your point.

And if you, and anti science idiots like you, actually bothered to read over a hundred published independent studies you would know that in over 20 years of existence of gmo crops there has been NO scientifically proven side effects. Neither on humans, some of who have eaten GMOs their whole lives, nor on animals. Rats have been fed on GMOs for GENERATIONS without any effect.

Every ******** story on internet about "danger of GMO" is a scientifically unsound hearsay, that fails basic rules of scientific method.

And no, I don't. No one needs to SHARE food. That's the ******* point. No one SHARED food with India and Pakistan. They were sold seed crops at a cost, major parts of the costs were covered by UN, WHO and WFO. Then their farmers raised the modified seed crops, and then the modified seed was bought from those farmers and distributed country wide at cost to the farmers. Turning country that was facing hundreds of millions of deaths from starvation, to a country that exports grain.

That could be done to Africa too, if people like you werent protesting it and going "No man, GMOs are bad!" because of idiots like you, and I emphasise idiots, children are dying every day from starvation, which could be avoided.
User avatar #354 to #298 - gammajk (08/17/2014) [-]
what
User avatar #467 to #354 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
I was telling angelprius that eating alot of modified genetically food is bad for your health due to the fact of chemical in it not opinion fact btw
#473 to #467 - angelusprimus (08/17/2014) [-]
No, not the fact, ignorance.
By people like you who do not understand biology and processes of how the things are created.
You are talking about pest resistant crops, which are only ones that have "chemicals" in them. Chemical in question is completely natural and comes from quinoa, a superfood that's not just safe, but possibly healthiest grain in the world.
The properties of quinoa's natural pest resistance have been cross polinated into wheat. More precisely, into wheat STALKS.
User avatar #474 to #473 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
First of all I'm very pro science we got internet do we not? how can i hate science? but in certain aspect i hate science cuz some of what they do is wrong and might have some side effect,and why will you want me to eat OGM food (is ho we say it here) if i live in canada and the food supply is abudant like seriously, do you not see the advantage in biological food over OGM

not to mention when you take bite of ogm food it taste like ****

stop being a sensitive bitch like those tumblr girl everybody got their opinion, your being a little kid if your like oh my opinion is right your's is wrong what are you a religious nutjob?
#486 to #474 - angelusprimus (08/17/2014) [-]
South of Canada, around the great lakes, is some of the best soil in the world. Add to that high rainfall and you get ideal circumstance for agriculture.
Canada also has low density population. So yeah, as things are Canada can feeds itself very easily on non modified crops.
Canada is lucky.
Most of the world especially around equator and south does not have very good soil (few exemptions being New Zealand and Argentina), sparse or seasonal rainfall and high density populations.
Solution to hunger isn't growing mass amounts of food in North America and Europe and then moving it around, its to make every part of the world able to feed themselves on locally produced food.
But what if conditions for producing food are bad? Then we need plants that will grow in bad soil, that do not need much water and grow lots of food per acre to feed all those people.
Plants like that have never grown naturally. Solution for India was dwarf wheat. They went from 750 kg/ha in 1950 to 2500 kg/ha today. It means they can feed three times as many people today as they could in 1950. Rice production went up even higher.
In africa anti crop modification crowd stopped UN and WHO to do the same program in Africa. Result? Starvation in the half the African continent.
And I'd be against GMOs if there was a SINGLE certified, reproducable, study done that shows any bad side effects. (well there is one, that shows people with alergies on certain plants can get an allergy attack from eating a plant that has been cross pollinated, but that is a minor issue compared to people dying from starvation now)
But the fact is, main problem with GMOs is that its new and people don't understand them. and yes, some of them taste bad. And we have a luxury of buying better. But ask a kid in africa if he'd rather eat food that don't taste very good, or not eat.
I think we both know the answer to that.
User avatar #488 to #486 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
Fine i guess logically speaking if things hit the fan, your method will be the most successful course of action to take, but still I'm very surprised there is no scientific fact that OGM food did not create any side effect or health issues, but if you think global helping using modify food then yes i agree with you

but i meant in canada or usa, i know i sound like a liberal faggot, but biological food is kinda better in taste and more in health in canada alot people eat modified food cuz it cost less but still

in conclusion for global help yes is good thing but for rich countries such as canada and usa if we got choice we rather eat healthy, I mean country has so much pollution are you in such of hurry to die more faster then the toxic air you breathe due to high amount of carbon dioxide

and scientific won't admit nor corporation of the damage around us because they make money by pollution, my advice try to keep close eye on your health cuz in the end is what it matters

i thumbed your last comment cuz you don't argue like others on the internet but you use fact and logic
User avatar #564 to #561 - alphagex (08/17/2014) [-]
excuse me for having my own opinion on something, nobody even use the trolling face anymore you noob,and check my profile i don't got a -300 dumb ****
#583 to #564 - testaburger (08/17/2014) [-]
Okay Mr. Edge
User avatar #263 to #227 - poutinesalad (08/17/2014) [-]
People act like all GMO products are the devil (I mean yes, like you said, they have their problems) What they dont realize that without GMO's we as a species would have starved to death by now.
#30 - robuntu (08/16/2014) [-]
Norman Borlaug saves 4 billion lives - but hipsters want to ban his GMO food. Crazy stuff, but true.
#250 - twofreegerbils (08/17/2014) [-]
>all these libfags wondering why you shouldn't be able to own a .50 BMG

You queers know that even Canadians and Britbongs can own .50, right? I don't think .50 BMG has ever been used in a crime, even once.
User avatar #313 to #250 - danrmanalt (08/17/2014) [-]
>I don't think .50 BMG has ever been used in a crime, even once.
I mean, you really can't guarantee that.
User avatar #415 to #313 - twofreegerbils (08/17/2014) [-]
Then I would like for you to provide evidence otherwise.

If you want to ban something, there should be a good reason to, right? "It may have been used in a crime, once, maybe" Isn't a good enough reason for me.
#314 to #250 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
Too big to be useful to the normal crazy killers and the ammo is so expensive these poor fags would only get 4 shots off and be broke.
User avatar #24 - wellimnotsure (08/16/2014) [-]
The Islam-Christianity one is leaving out a ton of information. The christians have to pay a tax or be exiled or executed and it was only done to keep them from openly rebelling against the Muslims who ruled over them
#481 to #24 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
So you're saying it was illegal not to pay taxes to the government, and that everyone had to do it, Muslim or not, except the Muslim had a different name for it.

And that just so happens to be the same system going on in pretty much all first world countries, where all adult citizens are obligated to pay their taxes to the government.
#61 to #24 - tittiemilk (08/16/2014) [-]
Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim subjects, who meet certain criteria. The tax is and was to be levied on able-bodied adult males of military age (but with specific exemptions).[1][2] From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws. In return, non-Muslim subjects are permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and from the zakat tax levied upon Muslim citizen.

To the averege making citizien the jizya is about 20% of their total income in a year. How much taxes do you pay today? about 50% of your total income? Also they dont have to pay zakat tax which every muslim is obligated to pay. If you are making less, then you pay less, and if you are making more then you pay more, but still the jizya does not exceed 33%. If you think about, thats one heck of a deal. Don't get the fuss people make about jizya, as if our tax system today isn't screwing us over.
User avatar #76 to #61 - schnizel (08/16/2014) [-]
>From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws.
>The highest rates ranged from 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce on land inside the Islamic empire.
>Other taxes payable, by or from the property of non-Muslim subjects, along with jizya were fai, ghanima and ushur. Fai (sometimes spelled fay) was non-Muslim property seized by a Muslim official; the non-Muslim was sometimes allowed to reclaim the seized property by paying 100% of assessed value of the seized property.
> Ghanima was the 20% tax paid by the Muslim army commander on the booty and plunder collected from non-Muslims by force (anwatan) after a war or after the commander launched a raid against non-Muslim trade posts, temples, or caravans. The commander and his Muslim soldiers were entitled to keep 80% of the booty.
>In Khurasan, the local aristocracy lowered the jizya, and increased taxation of the Muslim subjects, in order to prevent the non-Muslim conversion to Islam that jizya encouraged.
It was a tool for forcing the non-muslims in a harder economic situation and force them to convert to islam. They were truly good at economic warfare.
#27 to #24 - critizer (08/16/2014) [-]
it was an acceptable amount because they weren´t (aren´t) allowed to take advantage of the disadvantage of poor people or ripoffs and yields in general
User avatar #75 to #27 - schnizel (08/16/2014) [-]
That's why there was jizya tax, to make the non-christians poor, besides that you could not make a house bigger than a muslim one, have a sword, ride a horse, etc.
#332 to #75 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
It wasn't to make the non-Christians poor. It was to get them to convert to Islam.
User avatar #500 to #332 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
It was to do both.
A Persian man even begged the caliph to lower the jizya because he cant pay for basic stuff, he refused and the Persian killed him.
User avatar #121 to #24 - runescapewasgood ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
That was only during the rule of the Islamic Empire - after Muhammad (peace be upon him, SAW) had died. This also wasn't held for only Christians - it was held for all religions, and, considering the Crusades, I think they had the right to be a bit tentative to let them into the empire after 1097 CE
User avatar #195 to #121 - wellimnotsure (08/16/2014) [-]
no it wasnt for all religions, it was for Christians, Jews, and a select few other peoples. Everyone else was enslaved or killed.
User avatar #388 to #195 - runescapewasgood ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
next to that, you're also not taking into account yearly zakat, 2.5% of a muslim's earnings
User avatar #387 to #195 - runescapewasgood ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
wrong. just checked my ap world history notes from last year
gg
User avatar #421 to #387 - wellimnotsure (08/17/2014) [-]
You were taught incorrectly then. IT originally didnt account for hindu's Bhuddists or zoroastrians, they were added later. local and pagan religions were never added
User avatar #431 to #421 - attifyon (08/17/2014) [-]
"I was taught correctly, but you were not! "
User avatar #424 to #421 - runescapewasgood ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
my teacher and my ap world history book are better resources than you.
User avatar #535 to #424 - gharshi ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
google muslims relationship with zoroastrians, m8. the muslim arabs hated any religion that believed in a physical god. (in this case, fire). when they invaded persia, they executed every zoroastrian who refused to convert source: I'm persian
User avatar #501 to #121 - schnizel (08/17/2014) [-]
It was held for Christians and the Jews, muslims hated everything else.
#146 to #24 - hurzg (08/16/2014) [-]
Muslims pay 'zakat'. And by giving tax you don't have military obligation. And also it's per capita 'grown man(after puberty)' not all your family.
User avatar #21 - roliga (08/16/2014) [-]
Barret being based as **** .

If someone said "Hey you, you aren't allowed to sell to all these people, but hey, can I buy one?" Would you sell anything to them? No. The California government is literally scum.
User avatar #78 to #21 - reginleif ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
I'm californian and liberal, but yeah you're right, it's **** .
User avatar #95 to #78 - meierme (08/16/2014) [-]
finally a liberal i can agree with
#221 - baldraun (08/16/2014) [-]
>These gungrabbers in the comments

How many of you guys would ban this? It's a .50 cal!
#223 to #221 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
that optic appears to be on backwards....
User avatar #226 to #223 - baldraun (08/16/2014) [-]
It is not. Keep looking for it.
#290 to #223 - achmedmuhammed ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Not backwards but blocked by that bipod? It appears so
#238 to #221 - sohisohi (08/17/2014) [-]
These rifles have been banned in Illinois, apparently they feared we would start shooting plains down around Chicago. . .
User avatar #245 to #238 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Jokes on you. That picture is of a civil war era .50 cal percussion MUSKET.

It was meant to be a commentary on the assault weapons ban, about how banning cosmetic features like pistol grips and collapsible stocks was ******* dumb.

Also, there is legitimately no way to shoot down a plane without access to weapons that are federally classed as destructive devices, and illegal.
#256 to #245 - sohisohi (08/17/2014) [-]
Your trap card was countered, I was talking about 50 cal rifles in general, not just this particular weapon.

Likewise, I never stated I agreed with the ban here in Illinois, simply that it exists and why it does. So. . . Now what?
#265 to #256 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
We both walk away in agreement that government restriction of large caliber rifles is stupid?
#272 to #265 - sohisohi (08/17/2014) [-]
Perhaps, I have no problem with .50 cal but I know some state allow one to build their own artillery (i.e. cannons and/or mortars). I have not yet come to any conclusion about that.
#318 to #272 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
Look up rocket candy.
#277 to #272 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
You can build your own artillery, but to my knowledge the ammunition is classified as a destructive device by federal law - which means you need to be federally licensed as either a military contractor or something equally as fitting in order to even purchase a single artillery shell, which can go for thousands of dollars on the civilian market even without the $200 dollar tax stamp per shell.

So sure you can build your own artillery - but unless you spend tens of thousands of dollars in licensing and still have cash lying around to pay for thousand-dollar federally prohibited ammunition, your homemade artillery is just going to be a rather tacky lawn ornament.
#291 to #277 - achmedmuhammed ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Here's something that applies! Anyone can apply for a class 9 or 10 FFL in the states, that is dealing or manufacturing destructive devices, whether the ATF grants me, a 21 year old aircraft mechanic, or not is another question.
#295 to #277 - sohisohi (08/17/2014) [-]
I'd imagine if you have both the ability and resources to make your own cannon, making your own shell / round shout would not be all that difficult.
User avatar #304 to #295 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
As for cannons - I don't see any real means of enforcing "cannon control". Its just a metal tube with a hole for a fuse.
#300 to #295 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Well artillery shells aren't like rifle rounds, they require actual machining as well as access to impact explosives (which can't be purchased by any legal means that I know of), so if you're buying up those kinds of materials you better lube up for an ATF ass ******* .

But seriously, if someone has the resources to manufacture artillery, AND manages to create or purchase artillery round, then they must have a lot of money at their disposal - more than say, the average lunatic who's is looking to commit a crime or kill a lot of people.

I don't think there is anything in the books about artillery being used in any domestic crimes either.
#344 to #300 - sohisohi (08/17/2014) [-]
I was thinking more long the lines of round shot, though I don't know enough about artillery shells to counter that point.

Regardless, I don't think I've ever heard of a crime committed viva cannon.

Is there even a case? I'm sure there must be. . .
#348 to #344 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
I would pay to see that 			****		 happen -   
   
"ayoo what the fug you say about my bitch?"   
"I said she nasty dawg"   
"muhfugga wait here imma load up my gat wit some grapeshot and volley yo ass"
I would pay to see that **** happen -

"ayoo what the fug you say about my bitch?"
"I said she nasty dawg"
"muhfugga wait here imma load up my gat wit some grapeshot and volley yo ass"
#394 to #348 - sohisohi (08/17/2014) [-]
I tried to find a record of any crimes committed viva cannon. Seems the last one was committed, was during the America Revolution & Civil War.
I tried to find a record of any crimes committed viva cannon. Seems the last one was committed, was during the America Revolution & Civil War.
User avatar #317 to #300 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
Do you think I could make a cannon and make my own kinetic impact rounds?
#322 to #317 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Define "kinetic impact rounds". If you mean rounds that explode on contact like WWI and WWII artillery, no. You would need a full metal working and machining workshop, numerous licenses from the ATF that could cost you in total nearly $100 000, and they usually just flat out deny you the permits unless you are a PMC or a manufacturer. You would also need permits to purchase some of the chemicals necessary to make the actual explosives.

If you mean like old school Cannon ball **** like Civil War era and stuff sure. Cannons can be easily made, and in some cases purchased for even cheaper. Black powder is really only a mix of a couple bench ingredients (way less complicated than smokeless "modern" gunpowder) that you can buy at a chemistry shop or sometimes Home Depot. Cannonballs are still abundant from wars of the past, but even if you wanted to cast your own metal shops will do it fairly cheaply.

Basically:
Cannons and black powder = Yes
Artillery, Explosives shells and mortars = Bend Over, ATF is gonna rape you dry.
User avatar #323 to #322 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
No I mean like high velocity armor piercing rounds, or possibly sabot rounds, with no explosive power.
#324 to #323 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
What would you be shooting this out of, hypothetically?
User avatar #325 to #324 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
I was thinking something resembling an anti aircraft gun, or a tank's turret minus the tank.
User avatar #341 to #325 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Anti Aircraft guns count as large bore weaponry (destructive device), which makes if fall into the same category as WW1&2 artillery. You would need extensive background checks, NFA license of some sort, sell your child to be raised by the government as a sleeper agent, saw off your arms and legs to sell to the ATF and then they would refuse to license you since you aren't a PMC or a Manufacturer - and that's just to buy or manufacture the ammunition. Anti Aircraft guns themselves are automatics, which means that you would need another permit, which would have a cost in the tens of thousands. If you were buying it instead of manufacturing it, you would have to find one made before 1989 because it is illegal to possess automatic weaponry made after 1989 unless its homemade.

Tank turrets aren't purpose built for tanks, they're usually just mounted machine guns. This makes them automatics as well, so be prepared to drop $40 000 dollars in licensing and a $200 dollar tax stamp to the NFA just to possess or build one - however, since they are just regular machine guns they're usually chambered in regular rifle rounds you can buy at any gun store, so the ammo doesn't need any licensing.

My advice - if you desperately want something that shoots "high velocity armor piercing rounds", buy a semi-automatic in 7.62x51 or .308 and just buy steel core ammo. It'll shoot as fast as your finger can go, and steel core (light armor piercing) ammo is legal to own buy and sell without any permitting or licensing as long as it is rifle ammunition.
User avatar #347 to #341 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
Well I've been looking for a while into buying either anti tank or anti materiel rifles, but I was just wondering if there was anything bigger I could get.

So what's the largest rifled barrel you think I could make myself without requiring special a special license?
User avatar #350 to #347 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Largest you can legally get without a large-bore permit is something called 2 Bore, but only something like 13 guns were made. If you're set on big and dont care about cost, 700 or 600 nitro express is the way to go since the guns are still being manufactured. In all honestly those guns are too huge of a caliber to be of any practical use.

How much experience do you have with firearms/ why are you looking into an anti material rifle?
User avatar #357 to #350 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
The reason is really just for the hell of it/sport.

I don't really have any experience with firearms. I attend a military academy, so I have to know in theory how to use and take care of different forms of firearms, but the funny thing is they don't teach us how to actually use them. Besides the times I've shot weapons with my family any knowledge I have is theoretical, other than cleaning and dissasembling a rifle. I can do that for real.
User avatar #367 to #357 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
If you want to shoot a big rifle round that makes things go boom and can punch a hole through most thin metal bits from a REALLY long way away, check out some rifles in .308 or preferably .300 win mag. .50 bmg is the cheapest "anti-material" rifle round out there right now, and its $5.00 every time you pull the trigger thanks to this ammo crisis.

.300 win mag has pretty good long distance ballistics for the cost and its pretty stinking big too. If you can find it in steel core, it will do whatever hole-punching watermelon exploding job you ask and won't break the bank.
User avatar #371 to #367 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
My dream is to make a wall of cinder blocks, point gun at cinder block wall, pull trigger, and suddenly there's no more wall.
User avatar #372 to #371 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
Also the excruciating shoulder pain.
User avatar #307 to #221 - meganinja (08/17/2014) [-]
Is that a.... muzzle loader?
#308 to #307 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Yup. Somebody bubba'd a percussion cap musket to make a point about the AWB.
User avatar #374 to #221 - borishaha (08/17/2014) [-]
dude its not tacticool enough you need the pick a tin rails 200 round clip and call it a machine gun them the liberals will cry
User avatar #368 to #221 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
That's easily the most tacticool muzzle loader in existence.
#375 to #368 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
>not practicing tactically deploying ramrod
>not operationally packing powder like an operator operating operationally
#379 to #375 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
>No 30 round magazine   
>No barrel shroud   
>No grenade launcher    
   
			****		, we haven't pissed off Feinstein enough.
>No 30 round magazine
>No barrel shroud
>No grenade launcher

**** , we haven't pissed off Feinstein enough.
#380 to #379 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Think of the children!

:^)
#383 to #380 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
OH NO THE EVIL AR 15s ARE GOING TO KILL OUR CHILDREN!!1!!!
User avatar #398 to #385 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
You seem like a knowledgeable fellow. What do you think about mosin nagants.
(I'm kinda curious since /k/ has that weird obsession with them).
#403 to #398 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
Actually, /k/ is my primary place to lurk, I only come to FJ every once in a while.

/k/ likes mosin nagants because they're cheap. They're not accurate, but they won't really break on you, and ammo is still relatively cheap everywhere.

It really depends on what you're looking for. First rifle for learning how to shoot? A mosin wouldn't be my first choice, but it certainly isn't a bad one at all.
User avatar #413 to #403 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Cool thanks. I've been thinking about getting a weapon for awhile now, but I like to take the time to do my homework before biting the bullet haha so punny .

Any suggestions? I'm not exactly a novice, I've shot in the past but nothing regularly. Firearms were never a thing in my family and I'm kinda lost trying to figure out where to start off.
User avatar #418 to #413 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
If you're set on bolt action though K31s are pretty sweet if you can find ammo for them.
User avatar #416 to #413 - baldraun (08/17/2014) [-]
I'd get an SKS to be honest. They're still cheap, factory ammo is still relatively in expensive, its semi auto, reliable and comes with a tacticool bayonet!

But really. Reliable gun, lots of ammo and aftermarket support, and cheap.
#419 to #416 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Cool, thanks for the advice!
Not really set on bolt action, would be cool from a historical perspective but really just looking for a reliable weapon that doesn't break the bank.
#404 - Byte ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
O'l Jagger forgot to turn off his swagger.
#16 - noonelikesdan ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
I now have an image of Rowan Atkinson shouting wake up in a Mr. Bean accent while he is slapping the guy.
User avatar #231 to #16 - comedytrash (08/16/2014) [-]
Finally, thoughout the talk of guns, I finally found the Brit.
#35 to #16 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
But.. Mr. Bean doesn't talk.
#102 to #35 - noonelikesdan ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
yes he does...
#2 - meringueluka ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
the 2nd one is just stupid. so the California government don't let citizens have a incredibly high powered killing device for the fact that it can do a **** tone of damage with no warning what so ever and from a great distance.

so barret through a hissy fit and don't sell them to people who could, you know, actually use them for something other than shooting fake targets/animals and do some good with the bloody things.
#248 to #2 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
Name one single time that a .50 BMG has ever been used to commit a crime in the United States.

Now tell me why you want to ban something that people don't even use to kill each other with.
User avatar #122 to #2 - fargfive ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
You talk about "not needing them" and "excessive for hunting" now, but when the ******* Decpeticons invade your ass is grass.
User avatar #185 to #2 - adrianking ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
That's because you don't know what the 2nd Amendment is for.

The 2nd Amendment is protecting the possibility of another revolution. In order to do that, the common people need to be reasonably supplied in order to combat the government and its armies.

Now, in a revolutionary setting, can you see why a civilian might have use of an incredibly high powered killing device that can do a **** ton of damage with no warning what so ever and from a great distance?
#305 to #2 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
Because they don't want dumbass cops blasting through densly populated areas. **** the pigs anyway they're just like you and me only a few of them have the ********** by bullies in highschool attitude and are taking it out on everyone else.
#346 to #2 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
How else am I going to take out a helicopter when USA turns into martial law.
User avatar #513 to #2 - capslockrage (08/17/2014) [-]
Listen here, retard.

Banning those guns is retarded, I'd like to see you go on a killing spree with those, it wouldn't be any more effective than a hunting rifle, those things aren't easy to use, and sure, I guess they could be used to ambush vehicles, but anybody doing that **** wouldn't be buying it legally anyway.

California cut off a large chunk of business to a company, the company doesn't want to support their law enforcement, barret did nothing wrong.
#9 to #2 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
I'm gonna have to agree with you there, unless you're trying to shoot the engine block out of a ******* tank, why the hell do you need an anti-materiel rifle? Not even the police need that **** .
#32 to #9 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
what ******* modern Tank can't handle 50 bmg you ******** ?
#72 to #9 - kmichel (08/16/2014) [-]
Fortunately our guns laws are not based on something as subjective as 'need'
User avatar #349 to #9 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
A private citizen should not have to justify such a purchase to the federal government.
#79 to #2 - meierme (08/16/2014) [-]
shut the **** up you ignorant ******* cunt. the .50 BMG is fun to shoot, on top of that it would be to fight the government or any other entity that would be armored and wanting to do us harm. the US has pissed off a lot of people, however good luck winning a war on our soil. we have enough armed vets to take on most of the worlds armed forces.
and most importantly my libtarded friend, the thing costs about $20,000 with a decent scope. There are very few people in america that can even purchase this item without going in to massive dept. An even smaller number would buy this for the sole purpose of doing a mass killing. it is unpractical in every way. 10 people in and you would have a dislocated shoulder, you cant even without some serious training walk around and shoot it from the shoulder, you would have to go prone for every shot.
User avatar #286 to #79 - jimmyrustlinhustla (08/17/2014) [-]
thank you based /k/
#326 to #2 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
How many civilians have used a .50 bmg let alone an AR platform to kill people?

Now how many gun deaths have been attributed to 9mil handguns?

LETS BAN BIG CARS CAUSE THEY'RE DANNNGERROUUUSSS



THINK OF THE CHILDREN
User avatar #119 to #2 - niggastolemyname ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
tyranny is defined as what can be had by the government but not by the population
User avatar #129 to #119 - meringueluka ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
tyranny
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly:
#169 to #2 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
**** off liberal scum.
User avatar #20 to #2 - roliga (08/16/2014) [-]
They're denying Barret business and room to grow as a company, Barret has every right to say " **** you we'll take our business somewhere else."
#22 to #20 - meringueluka ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
yes, because Barrett needs to grow as a business. it's not like they sell millions guns to almost every western millatery force.
User avatar #23 to #22 - roliga (08/16/2014) [-]
"Okay well we're big enough as a company, let's not grow and make any more profit, we're good." - Said no company, ever.
#31 to #2 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
i have never, not ever heard of a civilian using 50bmg in a crime, i have heard of long range shooting competitions using 50bmg 300 win mag 338 lapua 408 cheytec.

Also why is the police treated different than civilians they are civil officers and the law must and will treat them the same. They not Soldiers they have no business acting like a military, that's what the ARMY NATIONAL GUARD is for.
User avatar #117 to #2 - bobindun (08/16/2014) [-]
Thats business
User avatar #331 to #2 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Yes, the super-wise benevolent Californian government is ever so insightful in preventing the people from having a weapon that never ever gets used in crime.
The weapon is a 30 lb anti-materiel rifle, perhaps one of the most inconvenient and expensive things you could choose to kill a man with.
I'd confidently bet all the money that the only reason this was banned is because a bunch of corrupt, uniformed politicians saw it and thought that it looked scary. (Remember, the bigger and blacker the gun, the more dangerous it is! Grrr!)

Good on Barrett for standing up to a bunch of reactionary, uniformed politicians making arbitrary decisions.
User avatar #67 to #2 - oharo (08/16/2014) [-]
It's a business. Someone hurts your sales? Don't sell to them to ensure that other states don't follow.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective here.
User avatar #556 to #2 - mindsculptorjace (08/17/2014) [-]
miku is better
#557 to #556 - mindsculptorjace (08/17/2014) [-]
pic didn't finish uploading
#559 to #557 - meringueluka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
hmmm, why not both?
#560 to #559 - mindsculptorjace (08/17/2014) [-]
both is good, but miku is still better.
#562 to #560 - meringueluka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
well, that just your wrong opinion
User avatar #38 to #2 - drewbridge (08/16/2014) [-]
It's no more dangerous than a normal gun.
Infact, they are so large, unwieldy and expensive (10,000$ or more, usually) they aren't practical for civilians to use.

**** off you statist bootlicking faggot
#425 to #2 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
liberal scum go vote for that socialist obama again
User avatar #255 to #2 - deathspawn (08/17/2014) [-]
Spot the liberal
User avatar #316 to #2 - hulgan (08/17/2014) [-]
They could do some good...or bad.
User avatar #228 to #2 - flnonymousseven ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
weighing in at around 100lbs and costing as much as a car, this thing is literally one of the least threatening rifles for civilians to own. just because it looks big and scary, doesn't mean it poses any more threat to people than a hunting rifle.
User avatar #241 to #2 - twofreegerbils (08/17/2014) [-]
I would trust my life with the nastiest California gangs before I trusted LAPD.

#154 to #2 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
Will not be infringed
User avatar #4 to #2 - Kasura (08/16/2014) [-]
What exactly would the police need with a high powered anti material rifle that they could't do with a standard marksman rifle?
#209 to #4 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
Shooting engine blocks. Coast Guard uses them for just that if they are chasing a suspected drug running boat that won't pull over/surrender.
#230 to #4 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
shoot more black teens
User avatar #436 to #230 - alexkarino (08/17/2014) [-]
Whoever blows the most arms off of any black kid wins!
User avatar #149 to #4 - hourlyb ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Theoretically could be used against vehicles.
User avatar #39 to #4 - gunni (08/16/2014) [-]
Barrett produces a lot more than just .50bmg cal rifles
User avatar #94 to #39 - lifesavers ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Not really... All they make are prohibitively expensive but hella fancy and accurate high-powered rifles, with the exception of the REC-7.
User avatar #123 to #4 - sinonyx (08/16/2014) [-]
more penetration power?
User avatar #472 to #4 - pickstar ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
That one guy somewhere stole a tank
User avatar #193 to #4 - DmOnZ ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Maybe stopping a criminal in a fleeing vehicle with one shot to the engine block.
User avatar #208 to #193 - thefates ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Because they don't have much more conventional ways to stop vehicles.
#283 to #208 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
with rocket launchers?
User avatar #210 to #208 - DmOnZ ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Drop the sarcasm you cunt. I'm merely putting a possible scenario out there. In my honest opinion, from what I've seen in person and heard on the news nobody in the US deserves the right to own a gun at the moment. Y'all are a bunch of right cunts who are stuck so far up your own asses you can't even recognize the fact you have a rampant gun violence problem.
User avatar #213 to #210 - thefates ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Are you honestly trying to say that nobody in the US is responsible. That's like me saying everyone who isn't in the US is a terrorist or a commie.
User avatar #409 to #213 - wooyoungkim (08/17/2014) [-]
I dunno if you guys agree, but personally, I think if a gun was outlawed in a country for a while, they should keep it outlawed. However in a country like in the US, where firearms are spread all over the country, trying to take it away is useless. Anybody who'll actually hand in the guns willingly are going to be law abiding citizens while criminals who likely purchased their weapons illegally still hold on to it to commit crimes, at that point there won't be any "good guys" with weapons that can stand up to them.

Just my personal thought. I only lived in LA for a few years so I'm not too familiar with the 2nd amendment thing.
User avatar #220 to #213 - DmOnZ ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
They can't have civil conversation to find a compromise or viable solution without either side plugging their ears and screaming "muh freedoms" or "muh utopic dream".

If there are responsible gun owners they obviously haven't done much to help curb the existence of irresponsible gun owners, and in my mind sitting to the sidelines and allowing somebody to tarnish your reputation or kill your children is woefully irresponsible. The whole situation is made out to be "Us and Them", when in reality it's everybody being a selfish turd pointing fingers.
User avatar #235 to #220 - thefates ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
I'll give you that much I guess. However, the biggest problem is the people not the guns. If it wasn't guns it would be knives and if it wasn't knives it would be pencils.
User avatar #334 to #235 - incognitoad (08/17/2014) [-]
On the other hand guns don't need any skill (They do require some skill to hit things accurately consistently, but anyone can pick up a gun, point and shoot) . Knives and pencils, albeit don't need much skill, the person being attacked has a much better chance of defending themselves against a knife than a gun in my opinion.
Just to be clear I don't give a **** what people do with their guns, that's their business within reason. .

TL;DR: If I had to choose to be attacked by a person with a gun or a person with a knife, I'd probably choose the guy with the knife.
#342 to #334 - thefates ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Reasonable enough. Still, guns =/= violence.
Reasonable enough. Still, guns =/= violence.
User avatar #345 to #342 - incognitoad (08/17/2014) [-]
I completely agree with you. Not all people with guns will cause violence. Not all people with guitars will write music. But, with guns it does become easier to do more damage with less skill required.
#211 to #210 - thefates ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Or I don't own a gun and I wasn't being sarcastic. We have much more easy ways to stop vehicles. Even armored ones can be stopped with the use of multiple police cars specially built to be able to box in vehicles.

PS don' act lik litle bich
User avatar #215 to #211 - DmOnZ ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
"Because they don't have much more conventional ways to stop vehicles."

Sarcasm is saying something but meaning the opposite. This is an exact, down to the t, example of what sarcasm is.
User avatar #337 to #193 - durkadurka ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Firing large-caliber ordinance from a large expensive weapon is neither the safest nor cheapest way of stopping a fleeing vehicle.

There really is no good reason for the police to have those weapons.
User avatar #131 to #4 - securityexplain (08/16/2014) [-]
Maybe they don't need it, but straight up refusing to deal with people that are actually tasked with saving human lives and maintaining law and order? Furthermore, all of that being in a country notorious for amount of guns in civilian property? Thats just being a ******* douchebag.

And for what? For lawmakers actually being reasonable and prohibiting an extremely dangerous weapons from being sold willy-nilly? For what possible reason could you own this gun except bragging rights? Two main reasons for owning guns would be for hunt and for self-protection. Neither of which you need this gun for. Unless you saw attackers coming at your house from a kilometer away, its ******* useless. It could be used for hunt, but considering it would blow cleanly head off of pretty much any animal you could legally hunt, we're coming back to douchebagery and bragging rights, and no real reason.
User avatar #150 to #131 - makomirocket ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
hey, there's a product that is way too expensive and requires an insane amount of skill to use effectively, if at all, that no random gunman is going to purchase....lets stop that product... but hey, although we've costs you tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of $ in lost revenue, we would still like to do business with you.

If I was barratt, I would tell them to go **** themselves as well
User avatar #490 to #150 - securityexplain (08/17/2014) [-]
There's no way in hell they lost more revenue through not selling to citizens than they've lost by not selling to enforcement agencies. At very least, its comparable. So once again, they are being straight up assholes. They could have gone past this one considering that this is a state known for problems such as drug cartels. And this would have been extremely negative marketing pretty much anywhere in world. Except in bloody 'murica, apparently.

Second, its not about product being expensive. When you provide a supply, I can ******* guarantee you on my life that these weapons will find their way in nefarious hands. And they will find a very real reason and way to use them. As opposed to simply getting a hard on for having the gun.

My main concern is actually Mexico. It is estimated that 70% of all guns in hands of criminals and drug cartels in Mexico come from USA. Its pretty much internationally regarded that USAs attitude toward guns is one of main issues that is ******* up Mexico, as often testified by Mexicans themselves.
#157 to #131 - zeittergiest (08/16/2014) [-]
neither of the reasons you list are the actual reason the 2nd amendment was a thing. the reason it's in the bill of rights is that the founders wanted the people to have the capability to rise up and violently overthrow the government in the case it became oppressive. what that means in today's world is that private citizens are fully within their rights to own modern warfare equipment, like jets and tanks, which is frickin' sweet
User avatar #136 to #131 - Kasura (08/16/2014) [-]
Armored bears
User avatar #138 to #136 - securityexplain (08/16/2014) [-]
Why would you want to shoot them, and not bow to our new steel overlords?
User avatar #17 to #4 - mistafishy (08/16/2014) [-]
You call it an Anti-Material rifle, but it's got the same stopping power as a Browning machine gun. Shooting the engine block out of a tank with it isn't really possible though- through a car, sure. And as it turns out, a sucker like that does LESS damage to a human than smaller caliber rounds because it just makes a nice, neat hole through the person- no splintering or anything complicated. It also fires freaking slowly and has a capacity of 6 rounds, so, in reality, it's LESS dangerous than a handgun because you can't sneak the ******* thing into a movie theater and shoot 13 times in the course of 20 seconds.

my 2 cents.
User avatar #47 to #17 - drldrl (08/16/2014) [-]
Um. There's a chance that you may be slightly retarded. Saying .50bmg does LESS damage than smaller caliber? That's 100% wrong in every scenario. 50 bmg vs. deer.mpeg
User avatar #175 to #47 - mistafishy (08/16/2014) [-]
A .22 hollow point will **** up flesh more than a clean hole will, that's my point.
User avatar #179 to #175 - drldrl (08/16/2014) [-]
lolwut
Go look at the video I posted with the ballistics gel. I wanna see any type of .22 do that.
User avatar #64 to #47 - Kasura (08/16/2014) [-]
Hey, if it was to center mass I'd rather have a high powered round go straight through than a pistol round shatter inside me
User avatar #65 to #64 - drldrl (08/16/2014) [-]
lolwut
It won't go straight through. Videogames aren't real life. That big mass of bone in your chest? That round will get stopped by it. But it will also shatter, sending bone fragments throughout your chest. Piercing your lungs and heart. Immense pain, then death. See, a 9mm round won't cause that. You can actually survive a round like that.
User avatar #66 to #65 - Kasura (08/16/2014) [-]
Hey, if it was to center mass and didn't hit bone etc.

there
User avatar #68 to #66 - drldrl (08/16/2014) [-]
If it's going to be center mass, it'll still hit bone. But sure, let's say it magically didn't. Check out the entry wounds it would cause. 50BMG Hornady 750gr A-Max slow motion ballistic gelatin
You'd still die and I could fit my head inside your chest.
User avatar #338 to #68 - incognitoad (08/17/2014) [-]
Holy **** . If that was a person that'd be a bitch to clean up.
#54 to #17 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
"Anti-Material"

too much cod or what?
#126 to #54 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
kristiandiamond lifesavers roadrager selkez

It's called Anti-Materiel. Material and Materiel are completely different things. Look it up and educate yourselves
#19 to #4 - theXsjados ONLINE (08/16/2014) [-]
Man steals tank and goes rampage, before shot by cops!!
User avatar #103 to #19 - meierme (08/16/2014) [-]
sorry to burst your bubble but a .50 BMG can not penetrate a tank. at most a highly trained marksman can disable its tracks.
#135 to #4 - jdizzleoffthehizzl (08/16/2014) [-]
I ask the same thing about civilians
User avatar #29 to #4 - mountainyard (08/16/2014) [-]
What if they need to shoot a guy with another guy that's standing on the opposite side of a tank?
#28 to #4 - anon (08/16/2014) [-]
User avatar #566 to #4 - Kasura (08/17/2014) [-]
Why the **** is my comment in the top ten? It wasn't meant to be funny and has been successfully countered by like 4 people
#550 to #4 - puzzlr (08/17/2014) [-]
To get wall-bang kills.
User avatar #491 to #4 - CptSoapMacTavish (08/17/2014) [-]
You're correct that a standard marksman rifle covers most situations, but an anti-material rifle is used to shoot engine blocks of vehicles or if necessary to shoot through solid objects like walls.
User avatar #514 to #491 - capslockrage (08/17/2014) [-]
Don't need a barret .50 to do that though, there are lots of guns that do that.

A simple desert eagle does that, though not from long range.
User avatar #522 to #514 - sursum (08/17/2014) [-]
It would be nice to do it from range though.
#378 to #4 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
I dunno maybe they could deal with **** like criminals that acquired body armor or shoot people through walls. It didn't say the police is just said any law enforcement meaning the ones that deal with **** like terrorists and highly organized crime to.

I mean there probably aren't to many situations where anyone is ever going to put high powered weaponry to constructive use but law enforcement is pretty much the only good one.
User avatar #405 to #378 - wooyoungkim (08/17/2014) [-]
I'm not too sure but if something so big occurs that an anti-material rifle needs to come in, I'm sure the national guard will arrive.
User avatar #309 to #4 - matamune (08/17/2014) [-]
360 noscope headsot laddershot wallshots of course.
User avatar #243 to #4 - killermoosed (08/17/2014) [-]
If I'm right I believe Barrett has refused to sell them any of their products do to that. If so that includes a lot of merchandise including other weapons, optics, and ammunition.
#543 - metobi (08/17/2014) [-]
Guys, finally i have my target in sight.
Find out the name of the said Chinese company for me.
I now know a fool-proof method to get a woman/girl/(anything else she was earlier).
She is finally within my grasp.
and all you guys are talking about guns....and overlooked the best point .Get your priority straight.
#545 to #543 - psychotayto (08/17/2014) [-]
>implying you'll find that company before me
>implying you can beat me in being employee of the year
#549 to #545 - metobi (08/17/2014) [-]
I cannot believe this.....*laughs*
Employee of the year ....huh? I m not even worried man.....Its in my BLOOD.
>Indian and a smart one.....
*pic not related*
#541 - frostbeard ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
#542 to #541 - frostbeard ONLINE (08/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#254 - poutinesalad (08/17/2014) [-]
I can see why they banned it.  (I love hunting, i love just shooting targets, i'm all for guns.)  The only reason I can see it, is because of what the gun is capable of.  It's like that archer line,    
“I'm spooning a Barett 50 cal—I could kill a building!"      
   
Having said that, I still dont believe it should be illegal, I just can see their thought process behind it.
I can see why they banned it. (I love hunting, i love just shooting targets, i'm all for guns.) The only reason I can see it, is because of what the gun is capable of. It's like that archer line,
“I'm spooning a Barett 50 cal—I could kill a building!"

Having said that, I still dont believe it should be illegal, I just can see their thought process behind it.
#312 to #254 - anon (08/17/2014) [-]
My thought process is taking a 60k ton truck and taking down people as they walk along a crowded city sidewalk. Watch as they try to get out of the way but you are driving too fast. After that you have to have a background check 9 forms of ID and a top secret security clearance to own one.
#120 - juha (08/16/2014) [-]
So what exactly is peoples problem with genetically modified food? It is done since thousands of years ago, and we must continue this to feed those billions of people.
[ 597 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)