Silencer pistol because it's quiet

Gun control sucks

Because they have protection.

Probably my CZ-750 . It is way more accurate than I am

screw gun control

ok

title

my favourite one would be all snipers, because of the fact that they are long range and stuff, also its my favourite gun type in fortnite (yes I play the game)

How have i never seen these? They are great!

I've been meaning to make a thread dedicated to dumb tweets for some time now. This one was so good that I had to start a thread for it. 1. You can already sue gun manufacturers for malfunctions resulting in injury or loss under normal circumstances in the same sense you can sue a car manufacturer for brakes failing. (Actually more than Any more would make the gun industry bankrupt. 2. Already banned, under Reagan of all presidents. 3. This has been tried in New York and Maryland. However, after over a decade and a half and millions of dollars, both were abandoned because they never helped solve any crimes, according to state police from both states. Plus, parts can wear down and change the casings' appearances over time, so a well-used gun's casings may appear different than the original casings. 4. According to the ATF, M855 has never been used in a crime. Good thing "hollow-nose bullets" don't exist, or I would probably have some. I do have hollow point ammo, though. Also, nice ratio on that tweet.

Full auto 30's Tommy Gun. Its one of the most classic and well known guns on the planet as well as being the best sub-machine gun of its time, and really i just like it. They cost more than a house, and you have to have an ffl dealer license to get it.

If you had all the money in the world and laws didn't matter, what gun would you want to buy and why? I would get a Gyrojet rifle. Instead of using gunpowder to propel a bullet, the propellant is in the projectile. It's effectively a rocket launcher. Very few exist. To my knowledge, the only Gyrojet rifles that do exist are all in museums. Ammo is also extremely rare, since it wasn't widely used and the company went bankrupt shortly after building some designs. It also looks like some kind of sci-fi gun, which is pretty cool.

Bump stocks are now illegal as of March 26. The not so popular range toy is being reclassified by the ATF and DOJ as a "machine gun," making all bump stocks illegal Class III items. Possessing one could result in up to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. While bump stocks aren't important and losing them wouldn't do much for the average gun owner, the bump stock case has a few reasons why all Americans should be concerned. As of now, the ATF and DOJ are regulating an item they have previously claimed they cannot regulate. When the bump stock issue was brought up under President Obama, the ATF noted that bump stocks do not contain any parts that make a firearm full auto and are unable to make a firearm full auto. Further, they are unable to fire themselves or be easily modified to fire when not attached to a firearm. Therefore, bump stocks cannot be regulated as a parts kit or firearm, much less a machine gun. The ATF is changing the longstanding understanding of the Hughes Amendment. The wording of the law prohibits firearms that fire "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." Bump stocks make it easier for a shooter to pull the trigger many times in rapid succession, but one shot is still fired per trigger pull. The new interpretation effectively interprets a "function" of a trigger to be a "conscious pull." While "function" is never defined, changing the current interpretation is a dangerous precedent. For example, an anti-gun administration could consider "one shot" to mean "one projectile," banning shotguns as they are designed to fire more than one projectile per function of the trigger. Because bump stocks are being banned by existing law, they will not be grandfathered in. This is very different from many previous bans. Clinton's assault weapon ban allowed guns to be grandfathered. California's magazine ban allowed magazines to be grandfathered until a ballot initiative banned existing magazines (which a judge recently ruled was unconstitutional; I'll probably create a post on that in the coming days). The Hughes Amendment back in 1986 allowed existing full auto firearms to be grandfathered. Hypothetically, someone who isn't following the news could be convicted of a felony and face ten years in prison because they weren't aware bump stocks are now illegal. In addition, current owners won't receive compensation for forfeiting a bump stock. Bump stocks are worthless range toys that shouldn't matter for gun rights. I shot one and don't see the point in it. I would personally never own one. Yet, the manner in which they are being banned sets a dangerous precedent. If it stands, any future anti-gun administration could bypass Congress and ban guns they don't particularly like. For that reason and that reason alone, the bump stock ban should be fought in the courts.

So nice to see someone who actually criticizes both parties, I am so use to people supporting one and always defending the one the support no matter what. It is a shame the parties are going extreme, and our first President did warn us against creating political parties, and look where we are xd

I'll never consider myself a conservative. I dont believe in traditional values and etc. Dont get me wrong that does not mean I dont have morals, I do but I just find traditional values to be backwards But i do believe in gun rights

Stick around and you'll learn. We all begin somewhere. It's just as much a cultural battle as a political one. If nobody grows up shooting weapons, they're less likely to get into guns when they are old enough to buy one as they'll have other hobbies. It'll then be easier to pass gun laws and demonize the few remaining gun owners. Absolutely. It's a shame the parties and extremists on both sides seem more concerned with opposing the other. Anyway, glad to have you onboard!

The guns issue is what will most energize voters toward Republicans; Democrat party has went so anti-Gun there is a danger of them trying to weaponize the gov against gun owners. It’s people like this congressman the founders were worried about. I’m a Libertarian & don’t care for either major party. Although the democrats are bad enough on this issue I want them to lose more usually.

lAzY I'm gonna be honest, i dont know much about firearms because I'm a dirty liberal but I dont see why this would be restricted. Funny enough - eventhough far left politicans does target these bigger weapons, and try to paint them worse than handguns but I looked up a study one of them quoted from and found large data they didnt post which would of contradicted their position which showed handguns were far more used in assaults and robberies due to the ability to conceal them #TheFarLeftIsRuingingTheLiberalName I know it seems I'm supporting conservative points, but last I checked, liberalism is about personal freedoms and that's why I consider myself a liberal, personal freedoms should never be infringed, and guns go in line of personal freedoms.

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) introduced a bill last month which would make all semi-auto rifles and shotguns with detachable magazines items restricted by the National Firearms Act (NFA). For anyone not familiar with US gun laws, NFA items are heavily restricted. They include short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, suppressors, full auto firearms (further restricted by the Hughes Amendment) and a weird classification known as "any other weapon" (AOW). To obtain these firearms, you must Fill out a large amount of paperwork Send in fingerprints for a more in depth background check Pay a $200 tax stamp (only $5 for AOWs) Register it on a federal registry (Unless you break another law with the firearm, in which case you can't be tried for not registering it as that would be self incrimination.) Transfer it at a dealer with a Federal Firearms License Wait months for approval (usually between 6 and 12 months; I'm currently on 6) Must be placed into a trust to be reasonably transferred through a will There's a ton regarding the legality of the NFA. I may make a rant post about it some day. Anyway, HR 1263 is interesting for a few reasons. First, it uses a current law to further restrict purchasing a firearm as opposed to new laws. This seems easier to do and different from the usual assault weapon ban proposed every year. However, it's also much more restrictive. HR 1263 doesn't exempt .22s with detachable magazines, which are commonly used for summer camps and programs such as scouts. While tube fed .22s are exempt from the definition of "ammunition feeding device," only firearms with detachable "ammunition feeding devices" are being restricted. Tube fed guns don't have detachable magazines. Why would this be included? The only answer would be to make it easier to enact bans in the future, which may include guns with fixed magazines. In addition, definition of detachable magazine is similar to the one used in California that led to the creation of the bullet button. Effectively, people made the magazine release on their guns to act similar to a reset button on a calculator, using a bullet as a "tool" to release the magazine. Because a "tool" was used, they legally "disassembled" the firearm when they reloaded, making the magazines legally fixed magazines. It took the state years to actually ban bullet buttons. The fact that this bill doesn't learn from California shows that Ted Deutch hasn't researched the topic at all. Finally, the bill only targets rifles and shotguns, a common theme with gun laws. Had Deutch done his homework, he would know that the vast majority of homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles and shotguns. Homicides with rifles, shotguns, other firearms, and all unspecified firearms would still be less than half the number of homicides with handguns. This bill, like many others, completely ignores that handguns make up a disproportionately large part of homicides. Instead, it focuses on weapons commonly demonized by the media and politicians. Ted Deutch would've known this if he did his research. In reality, he doesn't care about firearm homicides. He doesn't care about your safety. He only cares about his politics, his donations, and his reelection.

Any? Kinda high. I understand having a minimum for handguns but hunting rifles should of stayed at 18 Do not see how this is constitutional in any form. Who's ensuring the Sheirff isnt being biased and abusing this power. As a liberal I am against this as it does infringe on a legal abiding citizens to obtain a gun, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I get this, and tbh I agree with the requirement of a safety course to be taken. Everyone who plans to own a gun needs to know how to handle it safely. Lol this is a stupid term and I'm sure a federal judge will strike this one down as well. I understand the reason behind this but yes, in a dire situation, this makes it difficult and imo it's the responsibility of the owner, not the government, on how secure your weapons are in your own property. Ridiculous term - if a person is a legal abiding citizen who passes every check, they shouldn't he denied. Abuse of power Good thing I dont live in Oregon A bit on inconvienence, and considering Americans are the least patient people in the world, I dont see how this will work out. 3,500$ isnt a reasonable amount so not sure how they can charge that. It would only ensure the poor cannot obtain a gun for hunting or self defense purposes so Overall, I agree with your assessment. For once a liberal like me agrees with a conservative. This is unconstitutional and I hope Oregon makes the right choice and vote no on this bill

Oregon is trying to catch up to California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, and Illinois in their race to the worst state for the Second Amendment. SB501, introduced back in January, would introduce the nation's strictest gun laws. If it passes, it would Raise the minimum age to 21 to buy a gun. Require people to obtain a permit from a sheriff to buy a gun. Other permits, particularly carry permits, have a history of becoming unobtainable. Recent abuse can be seen in the case of George Young Jr. v. State of Hawaii, where it was revealed Hawaii only gave four concealed carry permits in the past eighteen years. Complete a safety course to obtain a permit. Limit magazine capacity, fixed or detachable, to 5 rounds. (Tube fed .22lrs and lever action rifles are exempt.) This effectively bans most revolvers. In addition, this would be the smallest limit, smaller than New York's 7 round limit, which was struck down by a federal judge in 2014. Require all guns to be locked at all times, making them difficult to obtain in a self defense situation. Require background checks and an ammo purchase database. Limit the amount of ammo a person can buy to 20 rounds per month, except ammo bought and shot at shooting ranges. Still allow sheriffs to deny permits even if the person passed every check and met every requirement. Penalize firearm owners who don't report stolen firearms within 24 hours with no provision exempting people out of town. Go on vacation and your house gets robbed? Now you're the criminal. Establish a 14 day waiting period. Charge a "reasonable fee" to obtain the permit with no stated amount. The National Firearms Act of 1934 established a "reasonable fee" of $200, or over $3,500 adjusted for inflation in 2019. I should note that no gun or magazine banned by this law would be grandfathered in, unlike many other gun laws. Even California grandfathered in "large" capacity magazines when they were banned, granted they banned the grandfathered magazines a few years ago. Oregon currently has a Democrat super-majority in the legislature. Plus, their Democratic governor received $250,000 from Michael Bloomberg, founder of Everytown for Gun Safety. This is Governor Brown's largest political donation ever received. Even though it's still in committee, Oregon Democrats could push this through almost overnight. Oh, and the bill was created by students from the organization Students for Change. State Senator Rob Wagner, who introduced the bill, states he did not check the constitutionality of the bill prior to introducing it. This unconstitutional law, created by kids, could easily make a state become the worst state for gun owners overnight if the Oregon legislature decided to go through with it.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/ This is an interesting one. SCOTUS actually agreed to hear a case regarding the Second Amendment. They haven't heard a Second Amendment case since Heller (11 years ago). New York City only lets people take their guns to and from the city's seven ranges, unless you have a carry license. Even with a carry license, you still can't take your firearm outside of New York City. Carry licenses are extremely restricted and even news anchors have had difficulties obtaining a license despite having dozens of death threats. The lower courts claimed the ban is constitutional as Heller only discussed guns inside the home. Their ruling could possibly bring nationwide reciprocity or make shall issue the standard. They'll probably decide on it early next year, but this is still something to watch.

Maxim was my second favorite. Didn't care for The Wizard Staff lol

Every year, SilencerCo comes out with a new April Fools video. My question to PaW: which one do you like best? Vote now!