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

hide menu

xchewsifferx    

Rank #6386 on Comments
xchewsifferx Avatar Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Online
Send mail to xchewsifferx Block xchewsifferx Invite xchewsifferx to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:7/27/2011
Last Login:7/30/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#6386
Highest Comment Rank:#2476
Comment Thumbs: 1842 total,  2064 ,  222
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 22% (22/100)
Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:684
FJ Points:1897

latest user's comments

#273 - I do however see what you're saying. You cannot buy a fully au… 1 hour ago on Bullet-resistant Jeep 0
#271 - I never said you could buy a "newly manufactured gun"…  [+] (1 new reply) 2 hours ago on Bullet-resistant Jeep 0
User avatar #272 - lyiat (2 hours ago) [-]
Your opinion doesn't change the legality of the firearm or the court's view on the firearm. My statement is not incorrect.
#263 - yes but all that says is that their are limited parts. you cou…  [+] (4 new replies) 2 hours ago on Bullet-resistant Jeep 0
User avatar #268 - lyiat (2 hours ago) [-]
And how does ANY of this dispute the fact that "All fully automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are illegal". Because it doesn't. Buying old parts for a new gun doesn't make a 'newly manufactured gun', as in legal terminology, the gun's age is determined by it's oldest parts.
User avatar #273 - xchewsifferx (1 hour ago) [-]
I do however see what you're saying. You cannot buy a fully automatic rifle that was built in that configuration after 1986. But i don't think it's fair to say you can't have a Fully automatic rifle unless it was made before 86, because thats not true, only a few parts have to be pre 1986. You're saying now that the law states the oldest part determines the age of the gun... thats fine, but don't think that, because one part of an object is older that the rest of the object that the entire object will function as if it's that age.

Also that law just sounds strange to me. I'm not saying it's wrong, and i'm to lazy to look it up, but if i have a gun that was manufactured in 2010 and then i put a spring in it from 1980, now the gun is deemed 30 years old? That just seems like a poor way to judge somethings age.

As to your statement, I never said it was incorrect. I'm simply saying i wouldn't always base my judgement off of it when considering the functionality of a firearm.
User avatar #271 - xchewsifferx (2 hours ago) [-]
I never said you could buy a "newly manufactured gun" that was fully automatic. I said you could buy pre-ban parts, and put them in a new gun. Just because the parts are older does not mean they were used. They could have been sitting in someones closet the whole time. And regardless of age, look at the parts that need changing: trigger, disconnector, auto-sear and pin, hammer, selector and bolt carrier. The only thing in that list that really sees any abuse is the BC, so even if you did buy everything used the only thing you have to worry about breaking is the BC. heck on any AR style platform (or its variants) the only thing you ever see wear out is the barrel, the gas system, or the BCG.

Which brings us to this statement,

"the gun's age is determined by it's oldest parts".

Personally, I don't personally agree with that statement. if you had a brand new gun, and then put a ten year old trigger in it, That trigger is going to out live half of the other parts on the gun.

Thats like saying if a car, fresh off the assembly line had one bolt in it that was 30 years old, than that car is thirty years old. Because you can bet that you're going to replace the tires before you replace the bolt
User avatar #272 - lyiat (2 hours ago) [-]
Your opinion doesn't change the legality of the firearm or the court's view on the firearm. My statement is not incorrect.
#243 - The sheet they use in that video is 1/4 inch. Demolit… 3 hours ago on Bullet-resistant Jeep 0
#265 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 5 hours ago on It had to be done +5
User avatar #345 - pewdiepieisbestpie (3 hours ago) [-]
AH
AH
AH
AH

Staying erect, staying erect!
#172 - Picture  [+] (6 new replies) 6 hours ago on Bullet-resistant Jeep 0
User avatar #249 - lyiat (2 hours ago) [-]
Do you bother reading sources before posting them?

"Sales to private citizens were limited to previously "registered" and "transferable" units. These are machine guns manufactured and registered prior to May 19, 1986. This immediately increased the value of a registered, transferable AR-15 machinegun, for instance, as only a limited amount of transferable AR-15s were in existence prior to May 19, 1986."
User avatar #263 - xchewsifferx (2 hours ago) [-]
yes but all that says is that their are limited parts. you could still acquire the proper paper work and then buy the weapon made prior to the ban.

Or you can do what most people do and just buy the required pre ban parts to make a modern rifle fully automatic. A pre-ban trigger, disconnector, auto-sear and pin (absent in the AR15), hammer, selector and bolt carrier are about all you need to convert a modern AR15 into a fully automatic configuration.

You just need the permit saying you're authorized to own the parts, and the money to buy the parts. Then you can convert nearly any modern rifle into a fully automatic platform

User avatar #268 - lyiat (2 hours ago) [-]
And how does ANY of this dispute the fact that "All fully automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are illegal". Because it doesn't. Buying old parts for a new gun doesn't make a 'newly manufactured gun', as in legal terminology, the gun's age is determined by it's oldest parts.
User avatar #273 - xchewsifferx (1 hour ago) [-]
I do however see what you're saying. You cannot buy a fully automatic rifle that was built in that configuration after 1986. But i don't think it's fair to say you can't have a Fully automatic rifle unless it was made before 86, because thats not true, only a few parts have to be pre 1986. You're saying now that the law states the oldest part determines the age of the gun... thats fine, but don't think that, because one part of an object is older that the rest of the object that the entire object will function as if it's that age.

Also that law just sounds strange to me. I'm not saying it's wrong, and i'm to lazy to look it up, but if i have a gun that was manufactured in 2010 and then i put a spring in it from 1980, now the gun is deemed 30 years old? That just seems like a poor way to judge somethings age.

As to your statement, I never said it was incorrect. I'm simply saying i wouldn't always base my judgement off of it when considering the functionality of a firearm.
User avatar #271 - xchewsifferx (2 hours ago) [-]
I never said you could buy a "newly manufactured gun" that was fully automatic. I said you could buy pre-ban parts, and put them in a new gun. Just because the parts are older does not mean they were used. They could have been sitting in someones closet the whole time. And regardless of age, look at the parts that need changing: trigger, disconnector, auto-sear and pin, hammer, selector and bolt carrier. The only thing in that list that really sees any abuse is the BC, so even if you did buy everything used the only thing you have to worry about breaking is the BC. heck on any AR style platform (or its variants) the only thing you ever see wear out is the barrel, the gas system, or the BCG.

Which brings us to this statement,

"the gun's age is determined by it's oldest parts".

Personally, I don't personally agree with that statement. if you had a brand new gun, and then put a ten year old trigger in it, That trigger is going to out live half of the other parts on the gun.

Thats like saying if a car, fresh off the assembly line had one bolt in it that was 30 years old, than that car is thirty years old. Because you can bet that you're going to replace the tires before you replace the bolt
User avatar #272 - lyiat (2 hours ago) [-]
Your opinion doesn't change the legality of the firearm or the court's view on the firearm. My statement is not incorrect.
#171 - Picture 6 hours ago on Bullet-resistant Jeep 0
#170 - Modern armor has come a long way. A half inch of ar500 steel c…  [+] (2 new replies) 6 hours ago on Bullet-resistant Jeep 0
User avatar #206 - jacksipian (4 hours ago) [-]
Will a .50BMG Pierce the AR500 Armor Plate?

Nope, that's a myth.
User avatar #243 - xchewsifferx (3 hours ago) [-]
The sheet they use in that video is 1/4 inch.

Demolition Ranch has a video where he stacks 4, 1/4 inch plates together and it only punches through one.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMeQDtfZDEI

skip to 8:00 if you just want to see the armor piercing round
#7102 - .300 win mag. with no muzzle break guaranteed to put … 21 hours ago on /guns/ board 0
#142 - Question: If you could air bend would you have the ability to … 07/29/2014 on 4chinchong 0

user's friends

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 900

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #1 - alexfost (08/15/2013) [-]
Hello
 Friends (0)