Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

WillJi    

Rank #24320 on Comments
no avatar Level 50 Comments: Sammich eater
Offline
Send mail to WillJi Block WillJi Invite WillJi to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/23/2010
Last Login:7/25/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#24320
Highest Comment Rank:#13877
Comment Thumbs: 112 total,  173 ,  61
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 50 Comments: Sammich eater → Level 51 Comments: Sammich eater
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:68
FJ Points:100

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#48 - If I recall, these pictures were from a photographer that plac… 06/26/2014 on Spiders with Water Hats 0
#598 - You can call them silencers or suppressors. Neither is technic…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/13/2014 on Edumacation +3
User avatar #602 - kamikazikraut (06/13/2014) [-]
Agreed, there are also repurposed rifles as well. The common 91/30 Mosin Nagant was designed to shoot and kill humans. Now is is the poor mans deer rifle.
User avatar #601 - kwanzalord (06/13/2014) [-]
Good to know, thanks for going into more details.
#142 - Looks like you and I have the exact same viewpoint of this who…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/12/2014 on aiming with google glasses 0
User avatar #146 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I agree.

The problem is even a lot of gun owners don't know the history or technicalities of a lot of firearms. I mean, I'm not saying every firearm owner needs to have a degree in some sort of gunsmithing field or firearms history (even if there is such a thing) but it helps makes things easier on the people that actually know what they're talking about.

I'd have a lot more respect for the anti-gun agenda if they..y'know...actually knew things about guns. But I guess that's a bit much to ask.


#133 - I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics. I consider …  [+] (4 new replies) 06/12/2014 on aiming with google glasses 0
User avatar #138 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Also especially with the left trying to label the entire AR-15 family as "assault weapons".
#142 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
Looks like you and I have the exact same viewpoint of this whole thing and debated for no reason, haha. Yeah, if you say "AR-15" I would first think of the civilian model in colloquial terms. But I would still call the assault variants "AR-15" by technicality. I'm kinda leftish but completely disagree on the gun control issue. The labeling of semi-auto's as assault rifles makes me cringe. Guns are both neat and useful, and can be used responsibly by most people.
User avatar #146 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I agree.

The problem is even a lot of gun owners don't know the history or technicalities of a lot of firearms. I mean, I'm not saying every firearm owner needs to have a degree in some sort of gunsmithing field or firearms history (even if there is such a thing) but it helps makes things easier on the people that actually know what they're talking about.

I'd have a lot more respect for the anti-gun agenda if they..y'know...actually knew things about guns. But I guess that's a bit much to ask.


User avatar #136 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I'd still refer to them as the AR-15 family.

I'm not disagreeing with you it seems per se. Let's say, if I owned a gun store, and some one came in and asked me what's the difference between civilian AR-15s and military M4's and M16s etc etc. Of course I'd tell them the select fire differences, blah blah blah all the little stuff. But yes, I'd still say they're both apart of the AR-15 family.

Just as of 2014, it's easier to designate between the two as AR-15s (for civilians) and M4's M16's etc for military.

The thing is, most people aren't looking for such an in depth analysis of it. I just don't like to consider AR-15s in the civilian sense to be Title II weapons because of the fact they're rare and expensive.
#125 - Note, that I do acknowledge the majority of what people call &… 06/12/2014 on aiming with google glasses 0
#122 - The one is this video? There's no way of telling whether it ha…  [+] (8 new replies) 06/12/2014 on aiming with google glasses +1
#137 - billywonka (06/12/2014) [-]
>civilian model
before 1986 and a shitty politician from Joisey, everything was a 'civilian model'
#126 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Yes.

Back when Eugene Stoner and his partners designed the AR-15 design in the late 1950's and early 60's by Armalite and then sold it to Colt which started manufacturing rifles designated as M16's and later M4's which could be defined as assault rifles.

However, today we typically call civilian after market AR-15 rifles...AR-15s...because that's what they're designated as by the companies that make them.

That being said, it's designation doesn't entirely matter. I own a Colt LE6920 M4 that fires 5.56 (an intermediate cartridge) and uses detachable magazines but doesn't have select fire. Of course, it's rare to see civilian AR-15s use select fire, as it's extremely expensive and you know....your normal citizen can't exactly just manufacture an NFA AR-15 (Full Auto) without proper licensing. Specifically Class III SOT 07 for example.

TrackingPoint Labs - Shotview App & Wearable Technology Here's the full video by the way. The company is based in Austin, Texas. I honestly doubt they spent the money to get a Full Auto AR-15. Considering they never do shoot it in Full Auto, nor would they have a need to get one.

The point is civilian manufactured NFA AR-15s are extremely rare and expensive to get when you do find one. It's highly unlikely they used one.
User avatar #143 - adunsaveme (06/12/2014) [-]
man you guys get real serious about this

And I'm just sitting here like "yep, that's a gun"
#133 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics. I consider M16's, M4's and such to still be AR-15's, despite their military designation because on paper, they are still an AR-15 platform. In my mind, AR-15 is an umbrella term that encompasses both assault and civilian variants. You consider AR-15's to only refer to civilian models because that's how they are marketed. Understandable, but I'm curious; if you call the assault rifles whatever military designation given and the civilian models "AR-15", what term would use to refer to the overall family that the two groups belong to?
User avatar #138 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Also especially with the left trying to label the entire AR-15 family as "assault weapons".
#142 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
Looks like you and I have the exact same viewpoint of this whole thing and debated for no reason, haha. Yeah, if you say "AR-15" I would first think of the civilian model in colloquial terms. But I would still call the assault variants "AR-15" by technicality. I'm kinda leftish but completely disagree on the gun control issue. The labeling of semi-auto's as assault rifles makes me cringe. Guns are both neat and useful, and can be used responsibly by most people.
User avatar #146 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I agree.

The problem is even a lot of gun owners don't know the history or technicalities of a lot of firearms. I mean, I'm not saying every firearm owner needs to have a degree in some sort of gunsmithing field or firearms history (even if there is such a thing) but it helps makes things easier on the people that actually know what they're talking about.

I'd have a lot more respect for the anti-gun agenda if they..y'know...actually knew things about guns. But I guess that's a bit much to ask.


User avatar #136 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I'd still refer to them as the AR-15 family.

I'm not disagreeing with you it seems per se. Let's say, if I owned a gun store, and some one came in and asked me what's the difference between civilian AR-15s and military M4's and M16s etc etc. Of course I'd tell them the select fire differences, blah blah blah all the little stuff. But yes, I'd still say they're both apart of the AR-15 family.

Just as of 2014, it's easier to designate between the two as AR-15s (for civilians) and M4's M16's etc for military.

The thing is, most people aren't looking for such an in depth analysis of it. I just don't like to consider AR-15s in the civilian sense to be Title II weapons because of the fact they're rare and expensive.
#112 - AR-15's ARE assault rifles. And it's the type of platform used…  [+] (13 new replies) 06/12/2014 on aiming with google glasses 0
User avatar #113 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
No. They are not.

An Assault Rifle is something that has a detachable magazine, uses an intermediate sized cartridge, and is select fire.

I highly doubt this AR-15 in this is select fire.
#125 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
Note, that I do acknowledge the majority of what people call "AR-15's" are simply civilian variants that are just rifles. My point is that the AR-15 PLATFORM is an assault rifle, with the civilian and military models being derivatives.
#122 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
The one is this video? There's no way of telling whether it has select fire, we can only speculate. But the original AR-15 was designed as an assault rifle. All of its derivatives are assault rifles and given a different name (M4, M16, HK416), but they are still in the AR-15 family. However, since a lot of popular civilian models have retained their AR-15 branding, it's simpler to refer to the civilian models are AR-15's and the assault rifles as whatever military designation they were given.

The fact remains, however, that the military versions are still technically AR-15's. The base AR-15 platform is an assault rifle and only became a civilian model through modification. AND there are still select-fire AR-15's in use that retain their AR-15 name.
#137 - billywonka (06/12/2014) [-]
>civilian model
before 1986 and a shitty politician from Joisey, everything was a 'civilian model'
#126 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Yes.

Back when Eugene Stoner and his partners designed the AR-15 design in the late 1950's and early 60's by Armalite and then sold it to Colt which started manufacturing rifles designated as M16's and later M4's which could be defined as assault rifles.

However, today we typically call civilian after market AR-15 rifles...AR-15s...because that's what they're designated as by the companies that make them.

That being said, it's designation doesn't entirely matter. I own a Colt LE6920 M4 that fires 5.56 (an intermediate cartridge) and uses detachable magazines but doesn't have select fire. Of course, it's rare to see civilian AR-15s use select fire, as it's extremely expensive and you know....your normal citizen can't exactly just manufacture an NFA AR-15 (Full Auto) without proper licensing. Specifically Class III SOT 07 for example.

TrackingPoint Labs - Shotview App & Wearable Technology Here's the full video by the way. The company is based in Austin, Texas. I honestly doubt they spent the money to get a Full Auto AR-15. Considering they never do shoot it in Full Auto, nor would they have a need to get one.

The point is civilian manufactured NFA AR-15s are extremely rare and expensive to get when you do find one. It's highly unlikely they used one.
User avatar #143 - adunsaveme (06/12/2014) [-]
man you guys get real serious about this

And I'm just sitting here like "yep, that's a gun"
#133 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics. I consider M16's, M4's and such to still be AR-15's, despite their military designation because on paper, they are still an AR-15 platform. In my mind, AR-15 is an umbrella term that encompasses both assault and civilian variants. You consider AR-15's to only refer to civilian models because that's how they are marketed. Understandable, but I'm curious; if you call the assault rifles whatever military designation given and the civilian models "AR-15", what term would use to refer to the overall family that the two groups belong to?
User avatar #138 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Also especially with the left trying to label the entire AR-15 family as "assault weapons".
#142 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
Looks like you and I have the exact same viewpoint of this whole thing and debated for no reason, haha. Yeah, if you say "AR-15" I would first think of the civilian model in colloquial terms. But I would still call the assault variants "AR-15" by technicality. I'm kinda leftish but completely disagree on the gun control issue. The labeling of semi-auto's as assault rifles makes me cringe. Guns are both neat and useful, and can be used responsibly by most people.
User avatar #146 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I agree.

The problem is even a lot of gun owners don't know the history or technicalities of a lot of firearms. I mean, I'm not saying every firearm owner needs to have a degree in some sort of gunsmithing field or firearms history (even if there is such a thing) but it helps makes things easier on the people that actually know what they're talking about.

I'd have a lot more respect for the anti-gun agenda if they..y'know...actually knew things about guns. But I guess that's a bit much to ask.


User avatar #136 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I'd still refer to them as the AR-15 family.

I'm not disagreeing with you it seems per se. Let's say, if I owned a gun store, and some one came in and asked me what's the difference between civilian AR-15s and military M4's and M16s etc etc. Of course I'd tell them the select fire differences, blah blah blah all the little stuff. But yes, I'd still say they're both apart of the AR-15 family.

Just as of 2014, it's easier to designate between the two as AR-15s (for civilians) and M4's M16's etc for military.

The thing is, most people aren't looking for such an in depth analysis of it. I just don't like to consider AR-15s in the civilian sense to be Title II weapons because of the fact they're rare and expensive.
#117 - captainstinkypinky (06/12/2014) [-]
mah nigga. Finally someone who knows the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle
User avatar #119 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
You're welcome.

And to be clear, it is possible to find full auto AR-15s. But it's not only rare, but extremely expensive. And most of the time they're modified with a full auto sear or lightning link for example.

Typically now a days Full Auto "AR-15's" are designated as military M4's and M16's. But that's not always the case. I own a Colt M4 LE6920 but doesnt shoot select fire still.

But to call the rifle in this video, M4, M16, AR-15, whatever it is an assault rifle is asinine.
#108 - Example: 06/12/2014 on aiming with google glasses 0
#107 - Recoil in assault rifles (particularly the M4/M16 Variants) ar…  [+] (16 new replies) 06/12/2014 on aiming with google glasses +3
User avatar #110 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Can we savor the term assault rifles and stop calling AR-15's assault rifles.

#112 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
AR-15's ARE assault rifles. And it's the type of platform used in the post.
User avatar #113 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
No. They are not.

An Assault Rifle is something that has a detachable magazine, uses an intermediate sized cartridge, and is select fire.

I highly doubt this AR-15 in this is select fire.
#125 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
Note, that I do acknowledge the majority of what people call "AR-15's" are simply civilian variants that are just rifles. My point is that the AR-15 PLATFORM is an assault rifle, with the civilian and military models being derivatives.
#122 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
The one is this video? There's no way of telling whether it has select fire, we can only speculate. But the original AR-15 was designed as an assault rifle. All of its derivatives are assault rifles and given a different name (M4, M16, HK416), but they are still in the AR-15 family. However, since a lot of popular civilian models have retained their AR-15 branding, it's simpler to refer to the civilian models are AR-15's and the assault rifles as whatever military designation they were given.

The fact remains, however, that the military versions are still technically AR-15's. The base AR-15 platform is an assault rifle and only became a civilian model through modification. AND there are still select-fire AR-15's in use that retain their AR-15 name.
#137 - billywonka (06/12/2014) [-]
>civilian model
before 1986 and a shitty politician from Joisey, everything was a 'civilian model'
#126 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Yes.

Back when Eugene Stoner and his partners designed the AR-15 design in the late 1950's and early 60's by Armalite and then sold it to Colt which started manufacturing rifles designated as M16's and later M4's which could be defined as assault rifles.

However, today we typically call civilian after market AR-15 rifles...AR-15s...because that's what they're designated as by the companies that make them.

That being said, it's designation doesn't entirely matter. I own a Colt LE6920 M4 that fires 5.56 (an intermediate cartridge) and uses detachable magazines but doesn't have select fire. Of course, it's rare to see civilian AR-15s use select fire, as it's extremely expensive and you know....your normal citizen can't exactly just manufacture an NFA AR-15 (Full Auto) without proper licensing. Specifically Class III SOT 07 for example.

TrackingPoint Labs - Shotview App & Wearable Technology Here's the full video by the way. The company is based in Austin, Texas. I honestly doubt they spent the money to get a Full Auto AR-15. Considering they never do shoot it in Full Auto, nor would they have a need to get one.

The point is civilian manufactured NFA AR-15s are extremely rare and expensive to get when you do find one. It's highly unlikely they used one.
User avatar #143 - adunsaveme (06/12/2014) [-]
man you guys get real serious about this

And I'm just sitting here like "yep, that's a gun"
#133 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics. I consider M16's, M4's and such to still be AR-15's, despite their military designation because on paper, they are still an AR-15 platform. In my mind, AR-15 is an umbrella term that encompasses both assault and civilian variants. You consider AR-15's to only refer to civilian models because that's how they are marketed. Understandable, but I'm curious; if you call the assault rifles whatever military designation given and the civilian models "AR-15", what term would use to refer to the overall family that the two groups belong to?
User avatar #138 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
Also especially with the left trying to label the entire AR-15 family as "assault weapons".
#142 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
Looks like you and I have the exact same viewpoint of this whole thing and debated for no reason, haha. Yeah, if you say "AR-15" I would first think of the civilian model in colloquial terms. But I would still call the assault variants "AR-15" by technicality. I'm kinda leftish but completely disagree on the gun control issue. The labeling of semi-auto's as assault rifles makes me cringe. Guns are both neat and useful, and can be used responsibly by most people.
User avatar #146 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I agree.

The problem is even a lot of gun owners don't know the history or technicalities of a lot of firearms. I mean, I'm not saying every firearm owner needs to have a degree in some sort of gunsmithing field or firearms history (even if there is such a thing) but it helps makes things easier on the people that actually know what they're talking about.

I'd have a lot more respect for the anti-gun agenda if they..y'know...actually knew things about guns. But I guess that's a bit much to ask.


User avatar #136 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
I'd still refer to them as the AR-15 family.

I'm not disagreeing with you it seems per se. Let's say, if I owned a gun store, and some one came in and asked me what's the difference between civilian AR-15s and military M4's and M16s etc etc. Of course I'd tell them the select fire differences, blah blah blah all the little stuff. But yes, I'd still say they're both apart of the AR-15 family.

Just as of 2014, it's easier to designate between the two as AR-15s (for civilians) and M4's M16's etc for military.

The thing is, most people aren't looking for such an in depth analysis of it. I just don't like to consider AR-15s in the civilian sense to be Title II weapons because of the fact they're rare and expensive.
#117 - captainstinkypinky (06/12/2014) [-]
mah nigga. Finally someone who knows the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle
User avatar #119 - thatoneiranianguy (06/12/2014) [-]
You're welcome.

And to be clear, it is possible to find full auto AR-15s. But it's not only rare, but extremely expensive. And most of the time they're modified with a full auto sear or lightning link for example.

Typically now a days Full Auto "AR-15's" are designated as military M4's and M16's. But that's not always the case. I own a Colt M4 LE6920 but doesnt shoot select fire still.

But to call the rifle in this video, M4, M16, AR-15, whatever it is an assault rifle is asinine.
#108 - WillJi (06/12/2014) [-]
#58 - Upside down. I don't believe there's any gas that's heavier th…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/30/2014 on Air transportation is hard +1
#67 - ainise (03/30/2014) [-]
Here's an interesting read on that. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70176/can-water-pressure-ever-be-high-enough-to-trap-gas-bubbles-or-keep-them-from-sur

In short, it is possible for a gas to be more dense than water if given enough pressure.
User avatar #61 - agrofenlas (03/30/2014) [-]
Explain to me why they aren't sinking?
User avatar #63 - rubanio (03/30/2014) [-]
They can adjust their buoyancy with belts they wear, so they get upside down then make themselves more buoyant and they float up to the ice
[ 65 Total ]

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)