Slashdot Mirror


Man Orders TV On Amazon, Gets Shipped Assault Rifle

First time accepted submitter InfernoApple writes "Seth Horvitz, a Northeast D.C. resident, thought he had ordered a new high-definition television a few days ago through Amazon.com from a third-party merchant. When the package arrived yesterday, however, Horvitz opened the oddly shaped box to find something completely different. Instead of the flat-panel TV he had bought to enjoy with his wife, who is pregnant, Horvitz opened the long packaging to discover a Sig Sauer SIG716, a high-caliber, semi-automatic assault rifle capable of mowing down, well, just about anything."

666 comments

  1. Sounds like win-win to me! by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 5, Funny

    He obviously was buying the TV so that he could hoist it a few stories above the ground and kill whatever poor sucker stood under it when it drops. Amazon just knew him so well from his previous purchases that he'd rather just have a rifle!

    1. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Wow...a Sig...likely as not, that will be worth more than the TV...keep it and order another tv!!

      If he didn't want the rifle, he could likely resell it and make a profit. Isn't there the old rule, if you receive something in the mail that you didn't order....you can keep it, etc?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I could be wrong, but I think it may be illegal for someone in D.C. to own such guns, so he likely didn't want to take that chance on making a bit o' cash.

    3. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes...and that's the point. It's really nothing special. Just a standard semi-automatic rifle (not much different than any other varmint rifle).

      But in DC it is illegal and near impossible to get one. And he did....
      (Could of just kept his mouth shut. And when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.)

    4. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by sigxcpu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Besides, if someone gives you a rifle and you can't get yourself a brand new TV on your own, maybe you don't deserve one.

      --
      As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
    5. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Mr.+Esterhouse · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm pretty sure you can own semi-autos in DC. People get this confused a lot. A semi automatic gun is not an assault rifle, no matter how it looks. An assault rifle is a gun that fires more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger, i.e, machine guns. There may be a mag limit in D.C which would make it illegal if it shipped with a 30 Rd magazine. However, if he kept the gun and they found out he would have problems because guns, shipped via mail, need to be shipped to a FFL licensed dealer.

    6. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      You would know if you were or not if you read the article.

    7. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Your laws are funny in the USA. Isn't that a simple mechanical modification to make ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    8. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unsolicited mail or items are considered a gift by the USPS but I think in this case, Amazon could show it was a mistake and that the man had ordered something from Amazon so, in a way, is was not an unsolicited gift.

    9. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assault rifles sold in the US must be semi-automatic not fully automatic. It is illegal for a private citizen to own a fully automatic weapon. (However, there may be exceptions for some collectors. I'm not sure about that.)

    10. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by bashibazouk · · Score: 4, Informative

      It used to be before assault weapon bans became popular. Now semi and fully automatic versions of the same base gun are different enough that it's now a difficult complex modification...

    11. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your laws are funny in the USA. Isn't that a simple mechanical modification to make ?

      Mechanical modification, yes.

      Simple? Far from it.

      Also, highly illegal.

      It would be far cheaper, easier, and safer to just install one of these.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Mr.+Esterhouse · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope, you can own fully automatic weapons if your state allows it. All fully automatic weapons purchased must be from 1986 or older. You have to fill out forms, then have multiple background checks, pay a tax stamp of $200 I believe. Wait six months and order your gun. Might I add that your are looking anywhere from $5000 to $50,000 for a full auto.

    13. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      >> so that he could hoist it a few stories above the ground and kill whatever poor sucker stood under it

      To be entirely fair, the TV is probably a lot heavier than the gun, but doesn't have that pointy metal end on it that might pierce the skull.

    14. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't the somewhat recent SCOTUS ruling for citizens to own guns in DC, kind of put this to rest as to gun ownership in the city?

      Hey, if the guy doesn't want it....PLEASE...have him send it to mE!!

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't read if there was ammo to go with the rifle. No ammo the rifle is not much better then a baseball bat or golf club. Both of which are legal to have in DC and make a better club then the rifle does.

      According to what I read UPS screwed up the labeling. UPS said that the label fell off his TV box. The TV label was but on the rifle box. Sounds really odd to me.

    16. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't understand; from the tone of your comment you would seem to claim to be knowledgeable about guns, from which I infer that you perhaps have an interest in guns and perhaps are "pro-gun", but your signature message seems to indicate that you disapprove of this particular manufacturer. Would you have preferred he got the TV instead ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
    17. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man Orders TV On Amazon, Gets Shipped Assault Rifle

      The same thing happened to me, but I ordered an Amazon on TV!

    18. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Creepy · · Score: 2

      There are several state exceptions, like Kansas, but in general, the only way for private citizens to buy automatic weapons is with a license to sell automatic weapons, which is supposedly difficult to get. That said, I know someone with several, but they were all inherited and very old like a Tommy Gun (no drum barrel though, just clips), so another way to own them would be to have a relative that bought them before laws made them illegal.

      Private security firms with ex-military (i.e. Blackwater) and Police, including private police forces can obtain them as well.

    19. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's just not true. The ruling that "anything easily convertable to a machine gun is a machine gun", and the subsequent modification of existing and new designs to make the conversions harder (and break compatibility with some military surplus parts) predates the assault weapons ban by a long while.

      While I'm not intimately familiar with the relevant laws and quasilegal rulings, I know ATF ruled all open-bolt designs illegalclear back in '82, based on the already existing "readily convertible" test. (Does "readily convertible come from NFA? or is it an ATF concoction? anyway it was around back then...)

    20. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      From before 1986? You can buy a gun today but the gun must be old? Or you had to have purchased the gun before 1986?

    21. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      He just accidently entered the secret code-word for a fast-and-furious purchase. He probably mentioned that he wanted to watch Obama in the buyer's notes section.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    22. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tell from the picture he's a wimpy, hipster douche-bag.

      If it were me, I would have kept the rifle and then considered calling in to complain about not getting my TV -- while not mentioning the other package.

    23. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by xerxesVII · · Score: 1

      Brilliantly executed, sir.

      --
      "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
    24. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      The gun has to be that old. This is because the law was passed in or around 1986 and cannot apply retroactively to weapons made before it was in existence. At least that's my understanding, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    25. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, it's not easy to buy an assault rifle mail order.

      He can be the boss of his neighborhood now.

    26. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the ATF come knocking...

      Oh, that's right. They don't knock.

      or correctly Bureau of Alcohol Tobbaco Firearms Explosives (BATFE) Criminal Execution Squad (CES) or the full acronym BATFECES.
      BATFAECES for those speaking the Queen's English?

      Possession of this would have put the man in federal prison for 20 years (crime in DC = federal prison). Federal firearm violations are no laughing matter. This guy did just about the only thing that would keep him out of jail when they came looking, and they would.

    27. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure what the DC one did, but the one in Chicago just got rid of the handgun ban. Chicago and Cook County still have very strict gun ban codes that make AR's illegal unless your local municipality has specifically preempted the county "Assault Weapon Ban". Other rifles are illegal too, and it doesn't have much to do with how they operate. Weird criteria like, "Hand guard that goes around the barrel" and "designed to look like a military rifle" get passed out on a sheet by FFL's when you buy a lower receiver in a nearby county, as a warning.

      The joke of all this is that nobody can tell you, universally, what an assault weapon is. It used to have a strict ATF definition, but now it's just a scary political phrase that changes to suit whatever legislation someone is trying to pass.

    28. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Mr.+Esterhouse · · Score: 1

      You are correct. However, as law states, the actual part of the gun that makes it fire is the lower receiver, which is the part that has the serial number. So all you would need to get is the lower receiver that was created on or before 1986. The reset of the gun can be brand new.

    29. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wrong. It may be a statute, but there is no obligation to obey an unconstitutional order or statute. The second ammendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and a restriction on Assault weapons is an infringment.

      It's not illegal to have one, It is the statute and any enforcement of it that is illegal.

    30. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Registered Drop-In Auto Sear (RDIAS). Google it.

      It's a small block of aluminum that fits into low-profile AR15 lower receivers and makes it a full auto (not even select fire, that's a weird cam design that you have to buy fully assembled).

      It costs about $50 to make and $15,000-$20,000 to register if your state even allows it.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    31. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Wouldn't the somewhat recent SCOTUS ruling for citizens to own guns in DC, kind of put this to rest as to gun ownership in the city?

      Not exactly. When the SCOTUS makes a ruling progressives like, especially if it legislates a whole new legal superstructure from the bench they could never dream of enacting through the legislative procress, then the SUPREME COURT has spoken. The ruling may as well be delivered on engraved stone tablets brought forth by Moses himself (ok, scratch the heeb.. don't like those anymore, brought forth by the Lightworker himself) and are unquestionable. To even ask questions is to bring your patriotism into question instead.

      On the other hand, when it is a ruling they don't like, not so much. DC has pretty much ignored the Heller decision. Last I heard there is still no licensed dealer in the city and it is still illegal to import one from elsewhere. So good luck exercising your newly reinstated 2nd Amendment RTKBA and it won't change until we get a different Senate and POTUS.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    32. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The definitions often change from one location to the next, but typically an Assault rifle is a rifle that fires heavier rounds capable of light armor piercing, such as 7.62 x 39 like what is fired from an SKS or AK47.

      Simi-automatic fires a single round with each action of the trigger, and Automatic fires multiple rounds with a single action of the trigger.

    33. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      You are way off.

      Pre-1986, fully-automatic weapons can be purchased WITHOUT the $200 Class III tax stamp and they are very expensive because of this.
      Post-1986, fully-automatic weapons requires a $200 Class III tax stamp before you can take possession.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#The_market_for_NFA_items

      Also, the definition of an "assault weapon" IS NOT the same as a "fully-automatic weapon".
      Many assault weapons are simply semi-automatic.
      And yes, a semi-automatic weapon CAN be an assault rifle.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

    34. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by sribe · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you can own semi-autos in DC. People get this confused a lot. A semi automatic gun is not an assault rifle, no matter how it looks.

      No, D.C. (along with many other cities) has broad bans on wide classes of semi-automatic rifles.

    35. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or simply get a federal dealer's permit and star wars is yours. The nonsense with assault rifles is just silly. Usually what the voters want are weapons that look nasty to be banned. Really our WW1 era single action Sharps rifles were true assault weapons.

    36. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually an assault rifle has very strict legal definitions

      Citation needed. "Assault rifle" is a term made up by politicians and adopted by the media because it sounds threatening.

      The expired Assault Weapons Ban may be what you are referring to as defining the term, but that also included arbitrary and cosmetic features as well. A bayonet lug could mean the difference between owning an "assault rifle" or just a rifle.

      Magazines are completely separate things. How is it that if I have 100 rounds ready to fire in 10 round magazines makes me the owner of a sporting rifle, but having 100 rounds ready to fire from 25 round magazines make me in possession of an "assault rifle" or having 100 rounds ready to fire from a drum makes me a terrorist?

      Which orifice did you pull 24" from? Maybe you mean 16" which is where a rifle becomes a NFA firearm?

      The OP was stating the definitions used in various bans or restrictions of "assault rifles" are absurd, and you proved his point. The only difference between an "assault rifle" or a rifle is the intent of the person holding it.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    37. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC's gun control laws were overturned on a 2nd amendment basis. At the moment, you can own anything in DC. The problem is, there's no licensed gun dealers.

    38. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your last link doesn't support your last point. Mainly because a semi-automatic weapon CANNOT be an assault rifle. By definition, an assault rifle is capable of automatic fire. The last wiki link is "assault weapon," which is a name that the gun-grabbers came up with to describe rifles they find scary-looking. It's a pure FUD construct, and you're helping perpetuate it.

    39. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by swb · · Score: 2

      I put a new trigger group in my S&W M&P15T and I had to fit the disconnector, which involved lightly milling it. According to the directions, there was a definite possibility of over-milling it which would turn it from semi-auto to full auto. They even had a discounted exchange program to get a new disconnector if you went too far, which was probably something they did to both be helpful AND to keep BATFE from concluding it was a machine gun kit.

      It's not the same as using a select-fire trigger group, but to the BATFE it would be just another illegal machine gun. IIRC, civilian ARs won't accept select fire trigger groups due to the "high shelf" on the inside of the lower. As you note, fixing this would be a non-trivial task for the typical person.

    40. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      After watching the video of how the Slidefire works I would have to imagine it will be made illegal or put under the same restrictions as any automatic weapon within a few years. It's really just another way to arrive at an automatic rifle and get around the ban on buying them.

    41. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Frederico+Camara · · Score: 5, Funny

      But in DC it is illegal and near impossible to get one. And he did....

      No sir, we don't have assault rifles here, try the TV Department.

    42. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      It's really nothing special. Just a standard semi-automatic rifle (not much different than any other varmint rifle).

      This particular one is in .308 - so not exactly varmint, unless your goal is to make them explode or something. ~

    43. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS on this whole story. Ohh a gun everyone one slash dot goes nuts since they love kissing big gov's ass and lost their man cards.

    44. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by deKernel · · Score: 1

      I believe technically you are correct. However, they have made it so difficult via the costs of the permits and classes you must obtain make it all but impossible for the average person.

    45. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially in D.C. There are tons of crack dealers and thugs within blocks of the capital building (for real) that would pay good money for that weapon.

    46. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      You don't need a class 3 license to buy a full-auto weapon. The weapon must be pre-ban (1986) and you have to pass any local laws about full-auto ownership and get a background check and tax stamp.Mr. Esterhouse above explains it very well.

    47. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately both you and GP are wrong on a number of points.

      First, "assault rifle" is a military term with a fairly widely accepted definition. Skipping a bunch of parts but the weapon should be select-fire with full-auto or burst modes and should be of intermediate caliber. (Intermediate caliber is again a fuzzy definition but it is more powerful than sidearm and less powerful than battle...)

      Second, the term the GP was looking for is "assault weapon" which is a legal term defined in assault weapons ban laws. The federal AWB law had a strict definition that requires the weapon to be semi-automatic in all cases (fully automatic weapons were already covered by the '34 and '86 laws) and is mostly defined by cosmetic features.

      Altogether, though, you both have demonstrated quite well one part of why AWB laws have been historically braindead -- they rely upon misinformation and misunderstanding of the situation to try to reach a political victory instead of a practical solution.

    48. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      I agree, the definition is absurd. My point that I didn't clearly make is that it doesn't matter what anyone claims on /. or on forums: the legal definition of what a state calls it is what matters. Just like laws call tomatoes a vegetable. Totally absurd, but you or I changing the definition to suit our argument is more absurd because we have no legal grounds supporting our claims.

      > Which orifice did you pull 24" from?

      My pyloric sphincter, to be exact.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    49. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      And you got assaulted by the shipped rifle...

    50. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Under the "full faith and credit" clause if a state like Kansas says full-automatics are legal, then don't ALL states have to recognize my Kansas license and allow me to carry said gun? (ponder)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    51. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A class 3 firearms license (allows you to own/shoot fully automatic weapons) is ~$3000.

    52. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by modecx · · Score: 1

      In DC it's illegal to own one, for sure. But near impossible? Hahahahaha. Phew. I literally lol'd when I read that.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    53. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, if he kept the gun and they found out he would have problems because guns, shipped via mail, need to be shipped to a FFL licensed dealer.

      Firearms must be shipped to an FFL anyway unless you are shipping it from and to yourself. (like on a hunting trip)

    54. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually an assault rifle has very strict legal definitions, and ARs and AKs, even semi-auto with no select-fire, are absolutely assault rifles.

      You're confusing "assault weapon" with "assault rifle". "Assault rifle" is a meaningful term historically used to describe fully automatic firearms firing an intermediate cartridge (i.e. stronger than pistol cartridges, but weaker than a full-sized rifle cartridge like .308).

      "Assault weapon" is a purely legal term that designates a random concoction of features that can be summed up more or less as "looks scary" (pistol grips, barrel shrouds etc) - about the only meaningful part there is the magazine size restriction. On federal level this no longer exists since AWB expired. Some states retain it, but their definitions vary.

      The primary distinctions are high capacity magazines and 24" barrels.

      24" barrel length? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. That's actually very long (WW2-era rifles were slightly shorter).

      The actual limit is 16" for barrel length - anything shorter makes it a "short-barreled rifle", which is more stringently regulated by ATF. It does not, however, make it an "assault weapon"

      Even weirder, I know that my AK needed no less than 9 American made parts to be considered a "US legal assault rifle" (the freaking furniture counts!).

      Again you've heard something but you didn't get it right. An AK, for starters, needs to be semi-auto to be legal for civilian ownership, unless it was imported into the country before 1986 (and if it were, you need to have a license to possess a full auto weapon, and pay a $200 fee to ATF every time it changes hands - and in that case the parts don't matter). The whole story about the part count enters into play when importing a foreign made weapon into US. Currently, US only permits weapons to be imported that are designed for "sporting purposes" - for example, hunting rifles. So e.g. an all-Russian Saiga, which is basically a semi-auto AK in "less scary" furniture (no pistol grip) and a 10rd mag, designed for hunters, is a "sporting rifle".

      On the other hand, a proper AK cannot be imported, even if it's converted to semi-auto. You could seemingly import a Saiga, and then convert it to an AK lookalike inside US, but the law treats it the same as violation of import restrictions. However, ATF considers any gun "American made" if it has 10 or less parts in it that are not made in USA - including, yes, things like some furniture, and parts of magazines. So people import Saigas, and make just enough details in US to convert them to AK to get down to that "10 foreign parts max" limit.

      It is also perfectly legal to just manufacture a (semi-auto) AK clone entirely in US and not bother with the parts. Some companies do just that. Problem is, a well-made American AK clone is expensive - compared to the much cheaper but still quality Russian Saigas - and cheaply made American AKs that can compete with imports on price are crap. So imports are more popular.

      Note also that all this applies to any imported weapon, not just AK. For example, the Czech Vz 58 is also imported in "sporter" configuration and then remade into the original shape with US-made parts. Other European companies just open manufacturing facilities in US, like SIG did (it is a Swiss company).

    55. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Paracelcus · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you can own semi-autos in DC. People get this confused a lot. A semi automatic gun is not an assault rifle, no matter how it looks. An assault rifle is a gun that fires more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger, i.e, machine guns. There may be a mag limit in D.C which would make it illegal if it shipped with a 30 Rd magazine. However, if he kept the gun and they found out he would have problems because guns, shipped via mail, need to be shipped to a FFL licensed dealer.

      In California an "assault rifle" is a rifle with any combination of a pistol grip, removable magazine, flash hider and folding/telescoping stock, basically anything that looks "military" or "tactical"! In the USofA you CANNOT own fully automatic firearms unless they were produced prior to 1899 OR you possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Each state is able to have different laws regarding firearms as long a they to NOT conflict with federal law!

      Everytime some whako goes nuts with firearms all the mealy mouthed whores start vying for TV time bleating about "gun control" one of these disingenuous shitpiles even went so far as to say on TV the "without a gun you can't kill people" which went unchallenged by the nodding, plastic heads in control of this broadcast. Of course I would have liked to ask about all the murdered federal employees in Oklahoma City (bomb) or the murdered commuters in Japan (poison gas) or London (backpacks) or Madrid (also backpack bombs) or the World Trade Center (Airliners)! These slimeballs know history as well as the rest of us! aside from a way to get free face time on TV and radio/print. It makes you wonder if there a greater more insidious end to the desire to disarm America, perhaps (along with) the NDAA and the patriot act it will make a disarmed American people easier to control? Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Pot didn't they ALL disarm their people?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    56. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by kryliss · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here is the Journalists' Guide to Assault Weapons... Pretty informative. (SFW)

      http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7gxz7lCn41qm1o5to1_500.jpg

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    57. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a bit off. A SEMI-automatic weapon is one that fires one bullet per trigger pull WITHOUT REQUIRING A MANUAL ACTION TO LOAD THE NEXT ROUND. An automatic weapon is one that fires rounds continuously while the trigger is held down (like your "machine gun" example). I believe most areas allow ownership of bolt-action or lever rifles, which require the operator to manually load each round.

    58. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by LurkingSince1999 · · Score: 0

      An assault rifle is a gun that fires more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger, i.e, machine guns.

      An "assault rifle" is a co-opted term of the anti-gun lobby used to describe scary looking semi-automatic rifles. My own personal definition of "assault rifle" is any rifle that a person uses to assault another person, whether it be a Barrett .50 Cal or a Red Rider BB gun.

      NB: Many people believe the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle, but is actually Armalite Rifle, a reference to the original manufacturer.

    59. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by jmerlin · · Score: 1

      One has to wonder if, given the difficulty to obtain guns in that area, if he's found himself on some kind of "potential domestic terrorists" list from all of our intelligence agencies, and is now wiretapped and being watched very closely. :)

    60. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Zippy_wonderslug · · Score: 1

      You have to live in a state that allows a class C weapon. This includes fully automatic firearms. If you live in such states, you can buy any fully automatic firearm from a licensed dealer regardless of the age of the firearm.

      If you buy a pre 1986 device you can purchase it in any state provided you pass the background checks and pay your money.

    61. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      You're technically wrong but you're technically right. The National Firearms Act machine gun registry was closed to new machine guns being added in 1986. If it isn't on the list already regardless of whether it's older than the closure of the registry, it isn't legal to own.

    62. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      You're... pretty much dead wrong in every way.

    63. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong; it allows you to conduct interstate trade of fully automatic weapons.

    64. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Kickasso · · Score: 1

      "Assault rifle" is a term made up by politicians

      Or rather by one particular politician, named Adolf Hitler.

    65. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, kudos to DC police for not playing slobbering idiot and throwing him into jail just for posessing it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    66. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah, the full faith and credit clause only counts when progressives want it to. Gay marriage in one state forcing the other forty nine? Sure. Drivers license? Why not. But a concealed carry permit? Oh no, each pair of states has to engage in a complicated reciprocal licensing deal. Medical, law or other professional licensing? What? Are you crazy? The license to sell pillows or mattresses and put the little 'do not remove under penalty of law' tags on? You must be nuts, gotta comply with that one in each of the thirteen states that have those laws. All of them as different as they can make them to better protect their local manufacturers... well these days importers.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    67. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by galaad2 · · Score: 0

      I didn't read if there was ammo to go with the rifle. No ammo the rifle is not much better then a baseball bat or golf club. Both of which are legal to have in DC and make a better club then the rifle does.

      Ammo is relatively easy to get, the rifle had no ammo in the box because the rifle uses standard 7.62 X 51 mm NATO rounds. You can load it with commercial .308 Winchester rounds if NATO-standard rounds are not available.
      http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sig716-patrol-rifle.aspx

      WARNING: NEVER USE THEM THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Never use NATO rounds in rifles made only for regular Winchester ammo. A 7.62 X 51 mm NATO round is slighlty thicker, packs more explosive powder than a .308 civilian round and might jam and shatter the chamber of a regular weapon, leading to serious injuries for the user.

      see: http://www.303british.com/id36.html
      (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester )

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    68. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by galaad2 · · Score: 1

      hmm.. it seems i got the equivalency wrong... it's the other way around:

      maximum pressure for the .308 Win cartridge is 62,000 psi, while the 7.62x51max is 50,000 psi.
        it is normally fine to shoot quality 7.62x51 NATO ammo in a gun chambered for the .308 Winchester
      You CAN encounter problems going the other way, however. A commercial .308 Win round can exceed the max rated pressure for the 7.62x51. So, you should avoid putting full-power .308 Win rounds into military surplus rifles that have been designed for 50,000 psi max.
      source:
      http://www.6mmbr.com/308win.html

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    69. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I would have been like....awww honey....you remembered! Awesome deal, but is this news? It would probably buy three TVs if one were to sell it. After pawing on that sweet piece of steel and composite it would be hard to give it up for a stinky plastic TV.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    70. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After watching the video of how the Slidefire works I would have to imagine it will be made illegal or put under the same restrictions as any automatic weapon within a few years. It's really just another way to arrive at an automatic rifle and get around the ban on buying them.

      The Slidefire and similar stocks have been around for a few years now, but I haven't found any evidence that their legality has been brought into question yet (won't stop the busy-bodies from trying, I know...).

      As for making it illegal, well... might as well criminalize physics.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    71. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by akboss · · Score: 2

      You are way off.

      Pre-1986, fully-automatic weapons can be purchased WITHOUT the $200 Class III tax stamp and they are very expensive because of this. Post-1986, fully-automatic weapons requires a $200 Class III tax stamp before you can take possession. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#The_market_for_NFA_items

      Also, the definition of an "assault weapon" IS NOT the same as a "fully-automatic weapon". Many assault weapons are simply semi-automatic. And yes, a semi-automatic weapon CAN be an assault rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

      You do not need a "class III" tax stamp as there is no such thing. There is a "Title II" tax stamp.

      An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms

      The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.

      All new fully automatic weapons after 1986 can only be transferred to the military or LEO.

      The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

      I got this from the same link you gave us. Completely different from what you spouted as the "truth"

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    72. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Well played sir. I award you one internet for your heroic effort.

    73. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Jawnn · · Score: 2
      Oh, man...

      ...And when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.)

      Yeah. Right. Got anything like, you know, credible information to support this notion, or just the typical foil-hat bloggers? Doesn't matter though, really. Even if your apocalyptic wet dream came true, existing organized gangs (think bikers) will kill the idiots who think a couple of assault rifles and a crate of ammo will protect their stockpiles of food and other hard-to-find stuff. Once that scenario has played out, the smarter marauders will have organized better, trained better, and armed better (not to mention bigger) and will kill the rest of the "survivalists" and take their food. At that point, it might look a lot like "The Postman", only Kevin won't get to fight the copier salesman in single combat, and the whole thing will be a lot darker.

    74. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by rot26 · · Score: 1

      You have that backwards. However in real life, it's not actually a problem.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    75. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      First, "assault rifle" is a military term with a fairly widely accepted definition.

      Please provide citations for "assault rifle" being defined by the military before 1994.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    76. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      > Which orifice did you pull 24" from?

      My pyloric sphincter, to be exact.

      That must have hurt.

      Glad to see someone maintaining a sense of humor around here.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    77. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      It's really nothing special. Just a standard semi-automatic rifle (not much different than any other varmint rifle).

      This particular one is in .308 - so not exactly varmint, unless your goal is to make them explode or something. ~

      Actually, exploding them, I mean real, nothin'-but-red-mist disintegration, requires fast, really fast, projectiles. Caliber doesn't matter nearly so much as velocity for that particular kind of spectacular "terminal performance".

    78. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Did he RTFM?

      Maybe it was something like

      1. Load rifle.
      2. Go to nearest Wal-Mart.
      3. Pick the TV of your choice.

      These articles always miss the details.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    79. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by modecx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, you've got it backwards. NATO ammo in a .308 chamber is fine, and .308 in a NATO chambered gun is usually OK too. The max pressure on .308 Win is slightly higher than 7.62x51, enough that some auto-loading NATO guns can be over-gassed and run too hard if shot with .308 Win. It's something like 58,000 PSI for NATO and 62,000 for commercial. Also, commercial ammo often uses slower burning powders designed to get higher velocity out of bolt action hunting rifles with longer barrels, further increasing the pressure at the barrel tap on the autoloader.

      However, the real significant difference between the two lies in the chamber, and more specifically the headspace. Dimensionally, the unfired cases are exactly the same on the outside. The .308 chamber is tighter, and like you noted, the brass is generally thinner. This is because with the tight chamber, the brass doesn't expand so much. The shoulder/neck on the NATO chamber is a bit different. The NATO no-go gauge is about 10-13 thou longer in the shoulder area. The reasons for this are to make more room for mud, blood and guts between the cartridge and the chamber, so to improve reliability. Consequently the brass is usually made from a thicker, but more annealed (softer) alloy which better expands to fill the gap (this is also why they keep the NATO ammo pressure slightly lower). As an aside, that feature leads to more erratic muzzle velocities, making guns with the .308 chamber more accurate, all other things being equal.

      So, if you're running a max pressure commercial cartridge in a NATO chambered gun, you can possibly end up with case-neck separations, stuck brass, damaged extractors, blown-up rifles, etc. But most ammo doesn't quite push the envelope that far, so it would be acceptable to do interchange the two in an emergency.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    80. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I believe technically you are correct. However, they have made it so difficult via the costs of the permits and classes you must obtain make it all but impossible for the average person.

      Hmmn...sure is nice to live where you don't have to have a permit, class, nor register any weapons you buy from a shop or a private individual on the street.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    81. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and dont forget that you are giving permission for the BATF to come into your house, any time they want, and demand to inspect your weapon. Clearly written right there in the print of that form.

    82. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      No, kidding. Unless he was buying a very nice TV, he would have been better off keeping the rifle.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    83. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Here you are. This is the assault rifle.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    84. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      You do know that almost every journalist now-a-days has to be a university graduate? [ducks]

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    85. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. It's a myth that you need a "class 3 license". Please stop repeating this myth.

      Private citizens living in states where full auto are not banned may purchase and own full auto weapons provided that they go through the red tape associated with a Form 4 NFA transfer and the weapon was made prior to may 1986. This red tape includes fingerprint cards (unless done as a trust or corporation), FBI background check, a long processing time (used to be 2-3 months, now 7-12 months), a $200 excise tax and other paperwork.

      I own multiple legal NFA items (Silencers, Short Barreled Rifles, etc) and it's the same process except that only full-auto has the pre-may'86 issue due to the Hughes amendment. Interestingly enough, the Hughes amendment didn't receive the required votes to pass, but Charley Rangle deemed it "passed" anyway. There's even a youtube video of it now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

    86. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.

      So a man and his assault rifle can take on the world, eh? Who would he keep himself and his neighbors safe from? Wouldn't his first priority to be to keep himself safe from his neighbors?

      And how come it's always in another decade or so, when things are going to hit the crapper and chaos will ensue? First, that's too far off to make a prediction one way or another. Second, if things are spiraling down the drain so quickly that such a prediction could be made, wouldn't it happen a lot faster than in ten years?

      The most important question, however, is how did this flamebait get modded as informative? Thanks for informing us that society is going to collapse in ten years and we all need guns to protect ourselves from some unknown antagonists. I have plenty of NRA buddies who have already informed me of this, but apparently some mod on /. had yet to get the memo.

      Also, who the fuck shoots varmint with semi-automatic rifles? Do you have seven foot raccoons on your property?

    87. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      However, if he kept the gun and they found out he would have problems because guns, shipped via mail, need to be shipped to a FFL licensed dealer.

      I can just imagine the look on the face of the dealer when HIS shipment arrived....

    88. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yeah, for that job you want .300 winmag. Get some nice and light barnes copper bullets so they are going nice and fast. Great groundhog or coyote medicine. Plus being lead free they are environmentally friendly!

    89. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      "Assault rifle" is no more made up than "sports car". It describes a generic design. Is it explicitly defined? No, but it works well enough. Now, laws are pedantic so codifying "assault rifle" likely would leave lots of fuzzy areas.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    90. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by dwlovell · · Score: 1

      I think the ethical rule is that you dont keep things that dont belong to you. Regardless of wether he is legally required to fix this with Amazon, it is his duty as a responsible adult to make it right. I dont get the attitude these days where some folks celebrate when others make a costly mistake in their favor.

    91. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about. I have a Bushmaster m4a3 carbine which has a 16" barrel. You would call it an assault rifle if you saw it, but your above definition states it isn't. Please stop spreading more ignorance. This topic already has a stunning abundance of it.

    92. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, who the fuck shoots varmint with semi-automatic rifles? Do you have seven foot raccoons on your property?

      My .22 LR is semi-automatic, holds 18 shots, and is a classic varmint rifle. Semi-automatic doesn't mean 'big scary assault rifle' by default.

    93. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes...and that's the point. It's really nothing special. Just a standard semi-automatic rifle (not much different than any other varmint rifle).

      Not quite. The 715 is chambered in 7.62 NATO, not the 5.56 NATO the normal AR rifle is chambered for.

      A short history lesson:

      The original AR-10 rifle was indeed 7.62. This is very similar and almost interchangeable with .308 Winchester. This isn't a plinking or varmint round. This is a blow-your-head-off-at-800-yards man killer. This is what the M14 chambered. This is what the M40 sniper rifle chambers.. and countless civilian rifles as well.

      Somewhere down the line, the round was dropped to 5.56mm. Some desk jockey thought it was better to carry many more lighter, smaller bullets that don't hit nearly as hard as a heavier, larger bullet.

      So no. This isn't your typical assault rifle. The 716 is more properly called a battle rifle. Like an M14 or FAL or M1 Garand, or a '03 Springfield, or a '98 Mauser.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    94. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      But in DC it is illegal and near impossible to get one. And he did.... (Could of just kept his mouth shut. And when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.)

      To a hypothetically well-armed slashdotter, any sufficiently serious disaster is indistinguishable from zombie apocalypse.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    95. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by timothy · · Score: 1

      From the Wikipedia page you cite: "Not to be confused with assault rifle,"

      The terms are not synonymous. "Assault rifle" (to those who know guns) has a specific meaning that includes select fire and some other features; "assault weapon" (as in Assault Weapons Ban) is much looser.

      So in that sense, you can believe (hey, it's your time) that a semi-automatic gun "is an assault weapon," but this does not make true that a semi-auto can be an assault *rifle.*

       

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    96. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by suutar · · Score: 1

      There is 1 licensed dealer. You order from elsewhere, have them ship to him, and then he files paperwork to transfer it to you. After you've taken your safety courses, which are not offered in the District. You have to go to another state.
      There's a blog series called "Emily gets her gun" detailing the quest of an 'Opinion' editor at the Washington Times to get a gun after Heller. It's a testament to bureaucracy.

    97. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I got a lot wrong in there. I'm not a gun nut, but I love my AR (BCM upper&lower) and AK74 (Saiga via Arsenal Inc.). (And an AR 14.5" barrel is still legal if the muzzle break is pinned and it extends to 16" from the breech.)

      But what I don't get is this sudden pedantry. I've never met someone who DIDN'T refer to their AK or AR as an "assault rifle." Of course, they will always follow with the caveat, "yeah, it's not technically an assault rifle, but I've got a CFH barrel, an M4 breech and bolt carrier with the excess not cutaway, and an H2 buffer, and I shoot M855 5.56 NATO, but I don't have an RDIAS." Seriously: I have yet to go to the range or on a shoot with someone who refers to them as anything other than an assault rifle (plus caveat). You know you say it (you = any generic AR owner).

      But apparently everyone on slashdot knows this distinction and always uses the proper terms, except me.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    98. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      Your laws are funny in the USA. Isn't that a simple mechanical modification to make ?

      Not necessarily all that simple, and definitely illegal without the appropriate licenses/permits.

      (Semi to full auto mods depend on the particulars of the mechanism and often require the precise machining of new parts. Also a good way to ruin a perfectly good gun if you do it or use it wrong.)

      --
      WALSTIB!
    99. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      ...when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.

      Or shoot the neighbors and take their food.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    100. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      When the SCOTUS makes a ruling progressives like, especially if it legislates a whole new legal superstructure from the bench they could never dream of enacting through the legislative procress, then the SUPREME COURT has spoken.

      blah blah

      On the other hand, when it is a ruling they don't like, not so much.

      Yeah, those damn activist judges. It's a good thing that conservatives (or however you want to self-identify) like yourself are there to be not-hypocritical examples for us all.

      You (as in the personal you, jmorris42) still don't have jack shit in the way of arguments. You rant and rave about progressives, but it comes off as a looney obsession devoid of facts.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    101. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      DC has pretty much ignored the Heller decision. Last I heard there is still no licensed dealer in the city and it is still illegal to import one from elsewhere. So good luck exercising your newly reinstated 2nd Amendment RTKBA and it won't change until we get a different Senate and POTUS.

      So Amazon is just proactively trying to correct the situation. Free rifle with every HDTV purchase for DC residents!

    102. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by ep32g79 · · Score: 1

      Registered Drop-In Auto Sear (RDIAS). Google it.

      It's a small block of aluminum that fits into low-profile AR15 lower receivers and makes it a full auto (not even select fire, that's a weird cam design that you have to buy fully assembled).

      It costs about $50 to make and $15,000-$20,000 to register if your state even allows it.

      A Drop-In Auto Sear is a $5 piece of aluminum that is illegal to possess unless it had been registered as a machine gun prior to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act being enacted due to the Hughes Amendment attached.
      The reason this little piece of metal is $15,000 is because no more little pieces of metal like it can be registered with the government to make it legal to posses.

    103. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Quite a bit of sensationalist bullshit in this one, particularly from the OP and the 'news' source he quoted.

      Let's start with: it's not an assault rifle. Let's follow up with incomplete information, and it being a problem at the shipping carrier - UPS, supposedly, put the label on the box after it 'fell off' another box (the TV)?

      Something's fishy about that, particularly since DC has some of the heaviest firearm restrictions in the country, partially due to the spate of suspicious mass killings in the last couple weeks, partially due to the sudden surge in partisan efforts to ban firearms (Woo from SF put a bill forth to ban all detachable magazines), and partially due to the extreme unlikelihood that a) a shipping label would 'come off' and someone at UPS would incorrectly attach it to a box which already has a shipping label.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    104. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But what I don't get is this sudden pedantry. I've never met someone who DIDN'T refer to their AK or AR as an "assault rifle." Of course, they will always follow with the caveat, "yeah, it's not technically an assault rifle, but I've got a CFH barrel, an M4 breech and bolt carrier with the excess not cutaway, and an H2 buffer, and I shoot M855 5.56 NATO, but I don't have an RDIAS." Seriously: I have yet to go to the range or on a shoot with someone who refers to them as anything other than an assault rifle (plus caveat). You know you say it (you = any generic AR owner).

      Realistically this category of guns is really an "assault rifle lookalike" targeting a specific audience - i.e. those of us who want it to look like the real thing, even if it ain't the real thing. So people will tend to refer to them that way. Heck, I have an HK 416 lookalike in .22LR - decidedly not an assault rifle in any real sense - but its realistic look is a big part of the package.

      The reason for the pedantry is that because the term is used in a blanket way "outside the club", so to speak, it creates different connotations there. You and I know that when we speak about a civilian-owned AK in US, it is a semi-auto weapon. On the other hand, a typical person who hasn't dealt with guns knows that an assault rifle is what they use in the military. They also know that in the military people hold the trigger and keep shooting till the mag runs out (see also: any Hollywood movie). From that they conclude that "assault rifle" = "capable of mowing down just about anything", as the summary has worded it. On that grounds, they proceed to campaign for the ban of such weapons. Needless to say, this makes people who own semi-auto lookalikes very testy when their toys are referred to as "assault rifles" in such context.

    105. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      They figured he was going to watch the new Batman, so he needs some protection.

      (too soon?)

    106. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by jmorris42 · · Score: 2

      > You (as in the personal you, jmorris42) still don't have jack shit in the way of arguments.

      Oh really. So riddle me this. Take Roe v Wade as data point 1. There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. How ever much we might like that idea, the only way for it to be there is to add an amendment because right now it just ain't there. And even if it were, stretching that notion to something all but unrelated is the very definition of judicial activism. Yet that decision is considered to be on the level of a religious sacrement to the left, no disent is to be permitted. You might say the science is settled on it.

      Now compare and contrast to Citizens United and Heller where the court did nothing more than say, "yup the 1st and 2nd Amendments still say exactly when they said and were understood to have meant when written.' And all right thinking progressives shat themselves and have been caterwalling ever since that the very foundations of the Republic have been destroyed and that they simply MUST overturn those horrible decisions.

      Explain.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    107. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      Actually an assault rifle has very strict legal definitions

      Citation needed. "Assault rifle" is a term made up by politicians and adopted by the media because it sounds threatening.

      Actually, "assault rifles" have a very cleanly defined technical definition, crafted by the Germans in WWII. This definition conflates with the so-called "legal" definition found in a handful of disenfranchised locations, like California, Chicago, IL, and New York.

      An 'assault rifle' is a shoulder-fired rifle, firing an intermediate round, use detachable magazines, and capable of select fire and have a 300 meter effective range.

      Currently, there are no assault rifles available for sale to any human individual (ie not a corporation) in the United States by the technical definition.

      Let's just rehash, shall we? An assault rifle must be capable of, at the very bare minimum, of both taking a detachable magazine and able to fire more than one bullet from its barrel with a single pull of the trigger. Cosmetic similarity alone does not make this qualification any more than putting a ricer sticker on the back window of your car makes it fast.

      Intermediate cartridges are generally accepted to be in the 6mm range, which excludes .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO, which - surprise - the SIG716 just happens to be.

      This is gross reactionary sensationalism from the same people who seem having no problem getting technical details on new surveillance, tax, and government intrusion laws right. It's hard to say it's anything but malice.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    108. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by ep32g79 · · Score: 1

      You have to live in a state that allows a class C weapon. This includes fully automatic firearms. If you live in such states, you can buy any fully automatic firearm from a licensed dealer regardless of the age of the firearm.

      If you buy a pre 1986 device you can purchase it in any state provided you pass the background checks and pay your money.

      No. No. No. and No.

      The only entity that is allowed to purchase a machine gun that was manufactured post 86 is a government entity. Period, no exceptions.

      A Type 1 Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer who maintains his FFL in good standing along with paying the accompanying Class 3 Special Occupational Tax may purchase a machine gun manufactured post 86 on behalf of a government entity if and only if the licensed firearms dealer first receives a letter, on official government letterhead, stating that the government entity is capable of purchasing and wishes for the dealer to procure the machine gun so they may sample. (this letter is colloquially known as a 'love letter from the Sheriff')

      If you are not a Type 1 FFL SOT 3 that is procuring machine guns for a gov't entity then you are relegated to the Type II Pre-86 NFA machine gun market. The gun the sheriff can get for $500 will run you $25,000 because of the requirement for it to have been registered pre-86.

      Further, if you live in a state that does not outlaw machine guns outright and you do find a pre-86 you wish to purchase, you better be in good standing with the sheriff or chief law enforcement officer of your area as he will have to sign off on paperwork before you even send it in to the BATFE. This is also entirely at the CLEO's digression. If he does not want to sign it, tough shit. If he will, great! Now it's time to get your mug shot taken, your prints digitally taken and a check for $200 to be made out to the BATFE and sent in. Then you wait for 6-12 months for the results of your background check and if you are squeaky clean they'll send you a tax stamp saying you are clear to posses your machine gun. Then you can finally take possession of it. Oh and did I mention, you need to plunk down the $15,000 for the weapon up front before you even send in your paperwork?

    109. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact you need a Federal Firearms license to be able to legally ship and receive weapons. I gurantee the ATF will trump over Postal Regs any time.

    110. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      The goal is to kill destructive varmints. If they happen to explode in a pink mist it means you most likely killed them and you have immediate visual evidence. .308 is fine for that if you pick the right loading. A light weigh hollow point bullet and loading suitable to the range and accuracy you require will work. It's not inappropriate but it is not the most effective. There are specialty rifles for long range varmint hunting in several calibers. A local gun store sells prairie dog rifles that are about 2" in diameter and 30" long, bolt action. I think it's .25-06 as they shoot at 600 yards. .308 will not perform as well at that range.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    111. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Holi · · Score: 1

      Nope and don't expect nationwide reciprocity any time soon.
      Granted the House passed H.R. 822, but it won't go anywhere in the Senate. Not to say it does kind of step all over states rights.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    112. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Excellent. Why just watch violence on TV when you can make your own?

    113. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Isn't there the old rule, if you receive something in the mail that you didn't order....you can keep it, etc?

      Sure, in six-year-old court, the applicable doctrine is "Finders Keepers". In grown-up court, however, sending an item through the post does not by itself confer ownership, and holding on to something the sender didn't mean to send you is illegal. Not sure whether this could lead merely to a court ordering you to return it or in fact theft charges.

      That's before you get into the part where it's a felony to possess, transport, sell, etc. etc. this kind of gun in D.C.

      In short, doing anything other than what he did, ie. call the police, could easily lead to jailtime.

    114. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by modecx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution

      Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to declare that:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      The way I see it, they decided it would be impractical, if not impossible to list every possible right that needed protection (and to what degree), but they wanted to guard freedom in a general sense, including the freedom of a person to be free from all substantial arbitrary impositions by the government.

      Just because the founders didn't choose to explicitly enumerate that right, that doesn't mean that they believed the government should be able to arbitrarily limit your choice of medical procedures, etc. Without a measure of privacy (which they sometimes took extraordinary measures to achieve), they would have never been able to mount a revolution, from that continuum, I'm pretty sure they would have been fond that ideal.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    115. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by k31bang · · Score: 1

      However, if he kept the gun and they found out he would have problems because guns, shipped via mail, need to be shipped to a FFL licensed dealer.

      Exception: C&R License. If a gun falls under the C&R classification, and a gun collector has a C&R license, then the gun can be shipped to the collector's house. And before you all go on about C&Rs being all bolt action and what not, please note that there a few semi auto hand guns that are C&R classfied including the CZ-82 Makarov.
         

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    116. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Life begins at conception" is a religious position, covered by the First Amendment.

      "Life does not begin at conception" is a religious position, covered by the First Amendment.

      Clearly, neither side can pass laws that the other position objects to.

      Roe v Wade should have stopped there.

    117. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a pistol grip and a removable clip means that even a pistol can be classified as an assault rifle in California?

    118. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      Actually it wasn't just desk jockeys. There was a lot of work done to produce a so called intermediate round. The advantage besides being able to carry more bullets with the same load are lower recoil which leads to the weapon being easier to control in auto fire. The first assault rifle, the Kurz developed during WWII, had an intermediate round. The British developed a .280 round to replace the old .303 but the US was opposed to using the round which led to the use of 7.62 NATO which turned out to be overpowered for most uses. To make matters worse the US later introduced 5.56 NATO which is even smaller than the .280 round which is a 7 mm round. Presently there are effort to develop new calibers in light of what happened in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan where the 5.56 NATO has proved to be inadequate and most of the proposed calibers are 6 mm or higher.

    119. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      And wouldn't that ALSO suggest that UPS was shipping a gun in the first place? Doesn't that need one HELL of a warning sticker of some kind...?

    120. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      This is UPS, not the Postal Service. So not sure if the gift thing would apply, special firearms-related issues aside.
      I read the gun was worth about $1600 and the TV about $300

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    121. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Your laws are funny in the USA. Isn't that a simple mechanical modification to make ?

      Mechanical modification, yes. Simple? Far from it. Also, highly illegal. It would be far cheaper, easier, and safer to just install one of these.

      I've used one, they work GREAT! They're also great at emptying your wallet, since a 30rd mag goes in about 5 seconds.

    122. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by humanrev · · Score: 1

      I'm Australian, which means that despite following guys like FPSRussia and playing my fair share of FPSes, there are still gaps in my knowledge when it comes to firearms.

      Which leads me to this question:

      They're also great at emptying your wallet, since a 30rd mag goes in about 5 seconds.

      How much does it cost to load up a 30 round magazine? Let's assume an AR-15, a variant or something in that category. Wouldn't your pervasive gun culture mean that ammo is reasonably cheap?

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    123. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? How is a semi-automatic an assault weapon?

      I guess America has insane gun laws, in New Zealand, the regulation simply limits the number of rounds in a magazine (7 or 6+6 IIRC), sets a minimum barrel length (to prevent concealment), and requires that the trigger must be released before another round can be fired (I've seen a handful of rifles where this is allegedly so, but when I tried them out they would frequently discharge several rounds, maybe I just have twitchy fingers).

      You know, functional regulations that actually have a purpose behind them.

      Gangs still frequently get busted with caches of assault rifles and automatic handguns, so the gun control isn't exactly working flawlessly here, and we're an isolated island in the Pacific. Still I think it discourages gun crime, as it significantly raises the profile of offending, so criminals for the most part avoid using them. Better to do a robbery with a bat and get 6 months than with a gun and get 10 years.

      I believe if the US adopted leniency for crimes commited without firearms it would reduce the homicide rate, and make that country a safer place. I also believe that will never happen, due to the perverse culture of that country.

    124. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by humanrev · · Score: 1

      Might I add that your are looking anywhere from $5000 to $50,000 for a full auto.

      What kind of civilian acquirable firearm costs 50 grand? Honest question.

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    125. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful
      In the first place, I acknowledge that you (jmorris42) using "Democrat delenda est" ("Democrat must be destroyed") as your sig self-identifies you as a reactionary who is as amenable to reason and rational discourse as a cornered wolverine, but hey, it's my breath to waste.

      I'm surprised. I would have thought you'd have led with Brown v. Board of Education as your poster child for "bad bad liberal bad socialist bad bad judicial activism - only bad bad liberals and bad bad socialists do it"; but then, I don't suppose you have that much intellectual honesty. So, as you suggest, we'll take Roe v. Wade as "Data Point 1". You say:

      There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. How ever much we might like that idea, the only way for it to be there is to add an amendment because right now it just ain't there.

      Actually, as the 9th Amendment states:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      In other words, It doesn't "have to be there" (enumerated) to exist. That would be YOU, being 100% completely wrong. Simply because "privacy" (whatever that might mean) is not explicitly stated as a (specific, named) Right under the Constitution, does not mean that it does not exist, nor should it be disparaged simply because it is not named by name. That's what the 9th Amendment says. Get it? Get it? It's the same kind of "just because we didn't mention it by name..." language as used in the 10th Amendment. I won't go into the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part of the argument because I know how much the "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." part enrages the "hold my breath until I turn blue" Congressional conservative crowd. Besides, that's Reconstruction, not actual Bill of Rights. Point is, you're wrong: it don't have to be stated, and it don't need an Amendment for "privacy" (non-interference by government in people's private lives) to exist and be enforceable.

      What really makes me laugh is how worked up conservatives get about Roe, especially when the (stated) gist of the Court's decision was "It's none of the Government's goddamn business, let the individual person decide". To me, it's the height of hypocrisy (and howlingly funny) how loudly conservatives want the Government to stay out of everybody's business, except when they want the Government to dictate things (usually legislated morality) they (the conservatives) want to shove down everybody's throat. It's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

      On to Citizen's United and Heller.

      In the first place, I'll let you have Heller, simply because I know (and acknowledge as being a Good Thing) that the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution) in general, pretty much explicitly state that the government of this country (which was founded on armed revolution) shall rule at the consent of an armed populace. Again, I think that's a Good Thing. I like to reserve that right on principle, besides, the way things are going, I might have to exercise it. Besides, just because YOU brought it up doesn't mean I have to champion it. If Heller makes you thump your chest in victory, you go right ahead.

      Citizen's United

      ...the court did nothing more than say, "yup the 1st and 2nd Amendments still say exactly when they said and were understood to have meant when written.'

      Um, no. It (Citizen's) goes a damn sight farther than that. In the first place, it declares that MONEY is SPEECH. Which it ain't. Obviously.

    126. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by muridae · · Score: 2

      Citizens United overturned a law stating the corporations only had the right to air 'political' tv bits when it was not X months before an election. The SCOTUS said that if Congress gives them the right to speech, then the 1st applies, and it can't be time limited to "this time of the year only". No magical appearing corporate right to free speech, unless you count acts of Congress many many years ago. But that wouldn't fit with your rant.

      Besides, three hand picked data points to make a statistical argument? This is /. so at least get enough data points for a reasonable p-value; otherwise you are just insulting the other readers.

    127. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by wordsnyc · · Score: 1

      1) Decade? Optimist.
      2) Awww. That was the NRA/Hallmark channel movie of the week, right?

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
    128. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > there was a definite possibility of over-milling it which would turn it from semi-auto to full auto

      Would that've been controlled full auto or a run-away?

    129. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. "Assault rifle" is a term made up by politicians and adopted by the media because it sounds threatening.

      The history of the term goes back to the German STG-44. The "STG" means "Sturmgewehr". "Sturm" is German for "assault" and "gewehr" is rifle. The Sturmgewehr 44 was the first battle rifle to combine an intermediate size cartridge, detachable clip, and fully automatic fire, and so later weapons with these features- like the AK-47 and M-16- became known as assault rifles.

      Here's the citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

    130. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      You'd think journalists having a degree means less misspellings and grammar errors.

    131. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Last I heard there is still no licensed dealer in the city and it is still illegal to import one from elsewhere."

      Has anyone (or any LLC, Inc., etc.) attempted to become dealer in Washington D.C. since then, and been denied by the city? That would be the relevant question. And even then details can make a difference.

    132. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can just walk into the local walmart and buy ammunition for this. It's specific features of the rifle which are banned.

    133. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In other words, It doesn't "have to be there" (enumerated) to exist.

      So which rights do we have? I mean, you're saying that they can just make up any old right and claim that we have it. Is it only legit because of Supreme Court fiat? Don't get me wrong, I like privacy, but inasmuch as we have that right, why can they data mine all of our communications, as the NSA appears to be doing?

      And what about the right to live? That one is explicitly mentioned, along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The only thing that has changed since then is our definition of "person." Though it used to be that some people were 3/5ths of a person (or less), so some of those changes were needed pretty badly.

    134. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      About 38 cents a round for 5.56 (including tax), so $11.40 a magazine. Ammo prices constantly go up, I think it's probably a scam. Retailers and manufacturers constantly blame the "left" for the increase in ammo prices (and shortages) but as of yet I haven't seen any laws or anything else that could realistically cause that. I think the only cause for prices to be where they are is greed. I'm fairly new to shooting, but my understanding from others is that just 10 years ago, ammo was less than half of this price.
      I watch fpsrussia, too. He must spend a ton of money making episodes.

    135. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      You make a valid point. However, it doesn't contradict the point I was making in response to the OP's claim of "very strict legal definitions". STG is more of a marketing name for a rifle rather than any sort of military definition. The name was chosen for reasons much like the reasons politicians and talking heads like to use "assault rifle" -- it sounds intimidating.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    136. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by modecx · · Score: 1

      remember, your guys are just as guilty of it as the other guys - except every time your guys do it, it STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN of bribery and corruption. At least my guys are ATTEMPTING to make a better world, instead of lining their (and their masters and their cronies) pockets.

      I don't know, it often stinks to high heaven of corruption, etc. in both directions. After all, how often are they trying to make a better world for you and me, and mine and yours, rather than their ruling class?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    137. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, it must be a new secret program for pacific people to be aware of SOMETHING.

    138. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that would turn it into a full auto gun.... Once. Squeeze the trigger and the gun would "chain-fire", and probably explode. Still a machine gun according to the ATF, but not really in practice.

      Also, for the record, most AR manufactures don't use the "high shelf". The missing component is the auto-sear, which is heavily controlled.

    139. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The expired Assault Weapons Ban may be what you are referring to as defining the term, but that also included arbitrary and cosmetic features as well. A bayonet lug could mean the difference between owning an "assault rifle" or just a rifle.

      And then there's the Mini-14.

      It's 5.56.

      Semiautomatics.

      Accepts ;large magazines.

      When the Assault Weapon Ban was passed, but before it went into effect, I bought a stock with a pistol grip for my Mini-14.

      AND a new front sight with flash suppressor.

      At that point, I had something that fit the legal definition of "assault weapon"...

      Or so I thought...

      When I mentioned same to my wife, she said something to the effect of "the mini-14 is in the appendix that exempts guns from being assault weapons even if they're modified to otherwise fit the definition".

      Then we looked over that appendix, and concluded, based on the guns listed therein, that the "assault weapons ban" was really the American Gun Manufacturers Protection Act, since pretty much every weapon on the exempt list was made in the USA, and pretty much every weapon NOT made in USA was on the list of "evil assault weapons"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    140. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Problem is that D.C. has been using a lot of administrative crap to delay things. (example, mandating the gun has to be purchased in D.C., but not allowing FFLs (licensed firearm dealers) to establish businesses in D.C.)

    141. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      There was nothing "activist" about DC vs Heller. In fact, it was one of the purest, most well founded Constitutional decisions made in decades. The only activism was that 4 justices regardless of the overwhelming amount of facts decided to vote based on their personal views on guns instead of on Constitutional fact.

      Sad....

      ---

      Jesus also told his disciples to buy Glocks (oops, I mean swords)

    142. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Ideals our nation was founded on.)

      Just saying, those ideals view the "right to life" as a fundamental right...just saying.

    143. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      It is for M1 Garands...

      But more modern rifles tend to be made for the pressures of both. There is a huge potential of pressure difference, I think like 12,000psi or such. Just heard someone mentioning how it was nearly the difference in a 41 Colt.

      M1 Garands are usually recommended NOT to shoot the non-military spec.

    144. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      True, noticed that afterwards...

      But most of the rifles which are usually referred to as assault weapons utilize .223, or 7.62x39. Which are much smaller than most hunting cartridges, especially the .223.

    145. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      No they wouldn't, they'd just go out of state and buy it. They don't care about laws.

    146. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not talking apocalyptic brigade here...

      I'm talking about a debt issue that could delay food stamps and other benefits. There was a recent computer glitch issue with food stamps and hundreds turned out in a very vocal mob.

      If you can't imagine what would happen if we had a delay, let's think how could this happen, oh...that's right. Budget debate fails to pass. No funding for such things. Yes, that almost happened last year. So let's just say it DOES happen.

      Yes, we'll see a spat of riots. Probably akin to Los Angelos in the 90's.

    147. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      a) You don't need to take on the world. You just need to make yourself a harder target so people move along to other easier softer targets (please review Korean on rooftop with rifle, who kept his business and family safe during Los Angelos riots).

      b) Prediction in 10 years. Well, gee, I could be a doomsayer, and say next year. But I've called a lot of predictions. dot com bust, (cashed out), housing bubble (sold and cashed out), 2008 stock market crash (cashed out), heck...even bought Netflix at $10-$15. So I do fairly well on predictions. (Oh by the way, I've been saying for 3 years now to get out of state and municipal bond markets.)

      Truthfully, I'd love to see us turn around and get on good footing again and not have to ever see such a prediction as riots in American streets as budget talks flounder, food stamps go unfunded, cities/states go bankrupt and with that the funding for social programs.

      c) Who shoots varmints with a semi-auto? Lots of people. Because varmints don't need to be killed in a sporting manner. So yes, you might take out 4 wood chucks in just a few minutes. Or more common, take out a whole pack of coyotes preying on your sheep.

    148. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this is DC...most neighbors don't have a sufficient amount of food to steal. Too many eat at McD's every day.

    149. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      hey, my wife has been on my case about being a pessimist, so I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and be more optimistic.

    150. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The idea which has even so far been held up by SCOTUS is that the right to privacy which isn't enumerated is valid, my understanding because it is implied by the idea that you can't have the enumerated rights without it. So it's sort of meta-enumerated. In practice anything not written in there at least between the lines, you're not going to get. That's why you can talk talk talk about natural rights all day, but the only ones that you can even begin to count on are the ones written down somewhere, either in the constitution or in a decision by the supremes, and preferably a fairly recent one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    151. Re:Sounds like win-win to me! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So no. This isn't your typical assault rifle. The 716 is more properly called a battle rifle. Like an M14 or FAL or M1 Garand, or a '03 Springfield, or a '98 Mauser.

      It's funny you should mention the M1 Garand, because the government sells surplus ones through the CMP to anyone whose state will let them have it, which is pretty much everywhere because it's long and it only takes an eight-round clip. The .30-06 is a pretty satisfying thing... and our government offers rifles, ammunition, and training materials at a very reasonable price. They have I believe finally stopped directly sponsoring the competitions, however.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Oblig. by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      I would, I mean seriously...fair chance the rifle was worth more...and in DC wow....

    2. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would not buy again.

      I would. With the rifle it should be easy to get yourself a bonus TV for free.

    4. Re:Oblig. by jandrese · · Score: 0

      It's not like it's exactly hard to get a gun into DC. Virginia is right across the bridge and has lax gun laws. Getting a gun into the city isn't some major accomplishment or anything.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can almost guarantee the gun is worth more than the tv that guy bought. Probably he would be worried about being prosecuted for keeping it though. I know I wish that thing was "accidentally" shipped to me, I would love one. Nice piece of weaponry.

    6. Re:Oblig. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      He missed his chance... the recipient should have been standing at his desk, or at least sitting on a pile of fur.

    7. Re:Oblig. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I'll bet Randall never expected THAT comic to become a obligatory xkcd reference!

  3. No Maam by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's just a misunderstanding, officer. I ordered an issue of Big'uns!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:No Maam by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      hehe that's a double 5 mod. Big'uns was Al Bundies favorite nudie mag and No MA'AM was his chick-free mens organization.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  4. So... by doubleplusungodly · · Score: 1

    How far is this man away from Congress?

    --
    ---
    1. Re:So... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Secret Service, I do not know the above poster. We just hang out here.

    2. Re:So... by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just one vote.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  5. Pregnant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is his wife's pregnancy relevant?

    1. Re:Pregnant? by loufoque · · Score: 5, Funny

      A pregnant woman is less likely to have fun with an assault rifle

    2. Re:Pregnant? by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 1

      Well, he's obviously under a lot of stress, so arming him or his pregnant wife is certainly more dangerous. Luckily it came with a complimentary jar of pickles and some freeze-dried chocolate ice cream, so the crisis was averted.

      --
      Wearing pants should always be optional.
    3. Re:Pregnant? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Funny

      The mere mention of violence is obviously a threat to the frail constitutions of women, much less those with child. Didn't you learn anything in finishing school? Why, I think I might faint just from reading the summary!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:Pregnant? by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      Google Oleg Volk Pregnant

      Lots of pregnant women have fun with guns!

    5. Re:Pregnant? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      A pregnant woman is less likely to have fun with an assault rifle

      And more likely to get down to serious business.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    6. Re:Pregnant? by Jahf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps she wanted to, I dunno, watch TV?

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    7. Re:Pregnant? by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

      Frail? Hell! I was scared shitless every time my pregnant wife picked up scissors. Anything sharper than a butter knife was an excuse to go to the store.

      An assault rifle in the house would have meant waking up to a loud bang in the middle of the night and bloody "can I sleep on your face" cat entrails blasted across the room. If I was lucky.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    8. Re:Pregnant? by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Funny

      A pregnant woman is less likely to have fun with an assault rifle

      Not necessarily true.

      A pregnant woman obviously likes to bang.

      Thanks, I'll be here all week.

      Please tip the burgers, and try the waitresses.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:Pregnant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see that photo? Totally not baby-proof. His home is more dangerous to his wife and child than that gun.

    10. Re:Pregnant? by v1 · · Score: 1

      How is his wife's pregnancy relevant?

      Considering the volatile nature of most pregnant women, in the final trimester in particular, which would you want your woman to have? A big TV, or an assault rifle?

      Anyone that's ever been a father-to-be can easily help you out with that one. (or at least any father that lived through it)

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    11. Re:Pregnant? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      If in New Zeeland, it means any police assault on the residence must involve at least 2 helicopters and 4 truck loads of special assault forces.

    12. Re:Pregnant? by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Considering the volatile nature of most pregnant women, in the final trimester in particular, which would you want your woman to have? A big TV, or an assault rifle?

      I'd have to choose the assault rifle....if you need to take that hormone spewing bitch coming at you with a knife, down, it would be much more effective than the TV.

      YOu gotta plan ahead for these things, you know?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Pregnant? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      It's one of those annoying media sensationalism gimmicks that is way overused.

    14. Re:Pregnant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kari Byron would totally disagree with that statement.

    15. Re:Pregnant? by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 3, Funny

      A pregnant woman is less likely to have fun with an assault rifle

      Depends on which way her mood swings.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    16. Re:Pregnant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSFW dude!

    17. Re:Pregnant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of couples are proud of their pregnancies. They love to mention it everywhere. It has nothing to do with guns or implied vulnerability or anything. Do a search for "pregnant woman swagger" and see what I mean.

      I can't blame them, really. If my wife were pregnant I'm sure she'd want everyone to know.

      In the linked article, the guy actually seems sort of reasonable about guns. I just got the sense that he got a fancy gun when he wasn't asking for it, and didn't want to get in trouble for having a gun -- especially one like that with recent events -- without a license.

      You can be familiar with guns and appreciate how he might want to be careful in his situation.

      I saw the pregnancy thing as irrelevant but not unusual in that regard because that's what pregnancy is like.

    18. Re:Pregnant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mythbusters episode on curving a bullet (busted btw): Kari had no problem swinging a sidearm around and firing it to try to curve a bullet, she looked ready to pop at any time.

    19. Re:Pregnant? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Severe irrationality is common, maybe.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    20. Re:Pregnant? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      Anything sharper than a butter knife was an excuse to go to the store.

      The gun store?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    21. Re:Pregnant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sensationalism.

    22. Re:Pregnant? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Depending on how the raging hormonal changes are affecting her, he may not want a weapon anywhere within 10 miles of her.

    23. Re:Pregnant? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Sorry.... ;-)

      Should have forewarned everyone. Oleg has some great photography.

  6. really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a "high-caliber" assault rifle? A big, scary "machine gun" that will kill people that look at it wrong...

    1. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's semi-automatic, therefore not a "machine gun".

    2. Re:really??? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      7.62 vs 5.56 probably. Not really "high-calibre."

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:really??? by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Informative

      In this case it is 7.62x51, roughly identical to the .308 Winchester.

      That is legal for deer hunting in all 50 states, unlike the weaksauce 5.56x45 used in actual assault rifles.

      So he didn't actually get an assault rifle, semi-auto hunting rifle that happened to be painted black, had an adjustable stock for comfort and rails for attaching a scope, bipod and other accessories.

    4. Re:really??? by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those unaware, an assault rifle is a firearm capable of firing in a fully automatic mode, as opposed to semi-automatic or single-action. Furthermore, the most common round used in assault rifles is a pittance, it is a .22 caliber bullet (granted with a lot more power and better aerodynamics than the .22 LR you shoot in Boy Scouts). But even with all that it is considered pitiful, not much more than a varmint round.

      Here in Pennsylvania it is illegal to hunt dear with a .223 caliber because it is not considered powerful enough to ensure a clean kill. In fact, those evil high caliber rounds are often half the size of a hunting cartridge.

      So where does the term "high power" stem from? Not the cartridge itself. But the capacity of the firearm. Essentially, you had a 45 caliber semi-automatic designed by the Revered John Moses Browning. This held about 8 rounds. They're big short fat stubby rounds. 8 rounds of firepower was two more than the average revolver. The Revered than creating the Browning Hi-Power using a much smaller 9mm round. The result was a capacity of 15-19 rounds. Hence hi-power simply mean greater capacity, often related to small, weaker, less powerful bullets.

      In fact, the current .223 round used in M16/M4/AR15 (semi-automatic version) is essentially considered the smallest, weakest, bare minimum rifle round that can ensure a reasonable expectation of success. Compared to what gramps used in WWII or worse, WWI, it's laughable - unless you're shot by one of course.

    5. Re:really??? by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Informative

      Came to post this. The article throws about "hi power", "mows down about anything", without ever specifying the caliber. 7.62x51 (not x56) is a standard NATO round, about 10% less powerful than a 30.06.

      And as someone above said, the gun is probably worth twice what the TV he ordered is.

    6. Re:really??? by RsG · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's a "high-caliber" assault rifle?

      A contradiction in terms.

      An assault rifle is A) fully automatic (with a fire selector that includes either full auto or burst) and B) fires an intermediate rifle cartridge, meaning not high calibre.

      If it's high calibre, but still a military rifle, it's a battle rifle. If it's intermediate calibre, but limited to semi-automatic fire, it's just a semi-auto rifle.

      You can't legally buy assault rifles, or select fire battle rifles for that matter, if you're a civilian living in a first world nation. Doesn't matter what you might see in the news that says otherwise, go try it at your local gun store and see how far you get. If it's got automatic fire capability, it's a military weapon belonging in the hands of soldiers, and cannot be owned by your local gun nut anymore than he can own a live grenade.

      Referring to anything that looks remotely dangerous as either an assault rifle or machine gun is a good indicator that the person doing the labelling knows fuck all about the subject at hand. "Assault style rifle", which is the weasel word term for weapons like the one in TFA, is about the same thing as a car that looks like a racecar, but drives like a sedan; legal, fancy looking, but boring under the hood.

      (Disclaimer: I am Canadian. The second amendment down south is none of my business either way. I own no guns. I am firmly in the "guns belong in the hands of professionals" category. Anyone busting out the "sure, that's what an NRA drone wants you to think" in response to my post presumably didn't read the post script.)

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    7. Re:really??? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Sweet....

      He should have kept his mouth shut, then when DC has riots in 10 years, he could have kept his family safe.

    8. Re:really??? by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

      different sizes of bullets can be used in different sized firearms.

      a smaller round could "bounce" if somebody is wearing a heavy jacket but something like a 7.62 X 51 mm NATO round might even get past some low end body armour.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    9. Re:really??? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      You know that and I know that but journalists don't seem to know that.

      The term semi-automatic is really quite misleading for most people. It sounds a lot more impressive than it really is. Of course any weapon that doesn't look rustic is going to come off as bad-scary.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:really??? by Rev+Saxon · · Score: 1

      Thats not entirely true... It is possible for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, however there are a limited number of them available (nothing produced after 1986, has to have been registered before then), the costs are usually astronomical (12-16k is average for a m-16 style weapon), only certain states allow it, and current wait times to get the paperwork processed is about 6 months. But it is possible... technically.

      --
      I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
    11. Re:really??? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      The automatic weapons prohibition is on a state by state basis. Florida for instance allows automatic weapons, though it takes a lot more time and money to buy one than it does for a semi-auto.

    12. Re:really??? by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Guns don't kill people - bullets kill people. Your high-tech state-of-the-art roomsweeper is just an unwieldy club without ammunition.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    13. Re:really??? by ageoffri · · Score: 0

      Last I heard the United States is a First World nation and thanks to foresight of our founding fathers we can own assault and select fire battle rifles. All it takes is living in a State like Colorado that hasn't butchered the 2nd Amendment and filing paperwork for a $200 tax stamp. If I had an extra 16k - 20k in my bank account I could start the purchase of a M16 today, depending on the BATF backlog it would be at least a couple of months before a FFL could hand the rifle over to me, but it can be legally done.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    14. Re:really??? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      In the USA depending on the gun store, the type of FFL they hold, and if you have gotten the tax stamp you can actually go and buy a fully auto or selective fire weapon. Granted these are retardedly expensive because of various bans on newer ones but ones made before 1986 (not entirely sure on the date and other details) you can buy. There is a gun shop about 2 miles from my work that can sell machine guns and has a few for sale right now.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    15. Re:really??? by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have this exactly opposite. Like all gun grabbers, your facts are based on hearsay and idiot web blogs. There is a dictionary definition of assault rifle, and it includes full auto or burst mode. Full auto guns come in a variety of types, full auto only box fed or belt fed is a machine gun. Semi-automatic box fed is not a machine gun, shoulder fired full auto is not a machine gun either. The defunct ban attempted to ban appearances only, pistol grip, box magazine, rails, collapsible stock, etc. and you have swallowed it all hook line and sinker.

    16. Re:really??? by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      You can't legally buy assault rifles, or select fire battle rifles for that matter, if you're a civilian living in a first world nation. Doesn't matter what you might see in the news that says otherwise, go try it at your local gun store and see how far you get.

      No, but you can go to a gun show and buy a kit that allows you to mod your gun to full auto. I have two uncles who are gun collectors, and this is no urban legend.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    17. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      wrong! the term Assault Rifle DOES mean fully-auto or 3shot burst.. its the stupid fucking media and morons that dont know better than think something that LOOKS like an AK47 is the same thing they see the gurilla fighters using on TV. Technically the media and morons in congress call them 'Assault Weapons'. Get your facts right. The Stermgewere was history's FIRST assualt rifle. It used a cut down version of a rifle cartrige instead of using pistol ammo such as was common for the sub-machine guns of the WWII era. The assault rifle round had much more penetrating power than the 45ACP and 9x19mm ammo of the subs but not as much power as the .30-06 rifle rounds, but could lay down a supression fire and was highly portable over a full sized machine gun turret.

    18. Re:really??? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      .223 / 5.56 (the common caliber for an AR-15) will go RIGHT THROUGH all but Level III plate armor.

      7.62 will as well, even better, it'll do that, then go through two more guys plus a cement wall behind them.

      Pistol caliber rounds (.32, .380, .38, .357, 9mm, 40mm, 10mm, and .45) and flack are what is stopped by normal soft armor (and to a certain extent, shotgun rounds depending on what type)

      FIFY

    19. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooosh

    20. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An assault rifle by definition must be able to fire in fully-automatic mode. An assault rifle is a selective-fire weapon. This means it can switch between fully-automatic and semi-automatic mode.

      Definition of assault rifle
      noun

              a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

      http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/assault%2Brifle?region=us&q=assault+rifle

    21. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The caliber is pretty much meaningless in terms of power.

      Consider the example of
      7.62
      7.62x25 for pistols, 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R for rifles.
      Quite a broad range of power tehre.

      As far as "the most common round used in assault rifles", I don't see 5.56 being more common than 7.62x39, which is incredibly popular due to widespread use of AKs.

    22. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't. Anything that does that would be highly illegal.

    23. Re:really??? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      DC isn't one of the 50 states.

    24. Re:really??? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You know that and I know that but journalists don't seem to know that.

      Using that term to refer to the booger-blasters who pump out poorly researched and written blog posts is giving them entirely too much credit, you know.

      Yes, I am aware the same complaint applies to many, many of the 'articles' posted on 'legitimate' network news sites - the complaint remains valid nonetheless.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:really??? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      exactly my point thus this is a high Caliber Rifle

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    26. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the other poster who is clearly a gun nut... I took the trouble to spend 5 seconds to see what wikipedia has to say about this... You are likely confusing the term Assault Rifle with Assault Weapon.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._.22Assault_weapons.22

    27. Re:really??? by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The media term is "assault weapon" and the reason they usually don't use "assault rifle" is because the former has no real definition, where as the latter is a specific designation type and MUST feature an automated mode of fire. And I believe it is also defined as an individual firearm (as opposed to a squad manned fully automatic rifle, oft referred to as a machine gun)

    28. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No sig is a good sig

      Isn't that what the "gun grabbers" say? :-)

    29. Re:really??? by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      Mind you that 1/2 the features that Jafiwam mentions above that were banned were in fact safety and ergonomic features:

      - barrel shroud, a safety device to prevent burns from hot barrels
      - adjustable stock, ergonomic feature developed to allow a 6'7" male soldier in the army and a 4'7" female soldier to utilize the same equipment.
      - rails, ergonomic advancement allowing for quick mounting of scopes, lights, via a universal system - think Universal Serial Bus (USB).

    30. Re:really??? by davydagger · · Score: 2

      depends on the gun.

      mil-spec AR-15s yes, AK47s yes, most guns that were designed to be fully auto, and have the space in the housing and trigger selector that accomidates the second automatic hammer assembly yes.

      every other semi automatic gun no.

      not every civilian AR-15 can be made fully automatic with a simple kit. You might need the entire milspec low reciever parts kit.

      its also a grey area, and not readily available everywhere.

    31. Re:really??? by Z34107 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You and a lot of posters are confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon", a term invented by the Brady Campaign to mean "scary-looking gun."

      An assault rifle is simply a fully automatic, low-caliber rifle. An assault weapon, on the other hand, was legally defined as a gun with too much black plastic (pistol grip, barrel shroud, folding stock, others.)

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    32. Re:really??? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      5.56 = most common western caliber
      7.62x39 = most common eastern caliber

      Both of which pale in comparison to most hunting rounds...

    33. Re:really??? by Vermonter · · Score: 0

      You can get a fully automatic .22 rifle. http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sig-Sauer-522-Rifle/21190631

    34. Re:really??? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      technically its a carbine not a battle rifle

      carbine == semi automatic assault rifle in today's terminology

      a battle rifle has a hard body, a bayonet mount, and a very sold butt stock that is good for swinging at an oponent in close combat along with bayonet. part of the features of a battle rifle is that it is supposed to be used as a staff/spear in close combat.

    35. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just NATO nonsense, based on the fact that they are lighter to carry, and enables you to spray and pray for hits... I like my fully automatic assault rifle .308.

      Yes, it's heavier. Yes, it's harder to handle. When it hits the impact is slightly different, more bludgeoning and less tidy hole, and tree leaves etc don't impact the bullet trajectory (.223s will spin easier out of control and miss your target) as much. Also, I can shoot at a light armored vehicled and actually make holes in them if I get a good angle.

    36. Re:really??? by msauve · · Score: 1

      No, the term "high power rifle" doesn't come from the name of a pistol. "High power rifle" is commonly associated the the NRA competition class of the same name, and the term is used to distinguish it from .22 rimfire ("smallbore") competition. One commonly used high power rifle, the M1 Garand, only holds 8 rounds. High power rifles generally need to be reasonably accurate to 600 yards, although there are long range courses of fire going out to 1000 yards. Try that with your 9mm.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    37. Re:really??? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      So wrong it's laughable. I've got some advice for you - don't get your information from US Congressmen. They very often do not know what they are talking about.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    38. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that the 22 pistol is harmless enough so that you would not mind being in a situation where someone was firing indiscriminately, because it really wouldn't do enough harm to matter. This is backed up by evidence because loughner only had a 9mm, which did very little damage. Of course most of us carry 45 semiautomatics everywhere we go so we can be in a position to defend ourselves with lethal force against anyone who is so silly as to only bring a 22.

    39. Re:really??? by durdur · · Score: 1

      .223 ammunition is significantly different from .22. It generates a lot higher pressures and has a larger, heavier bullet despite the small difference in caliber. I think "not much more than a varmint round" is inaccurate.

    40. Re:really??? by PostPhil · · Score: 1

      Here's some PDFs from the U.S. military on what constitutes an "assault rifle". http://gunfax.com/aw.htm To be an assault rifle, the firearm MUST support SELECTIVE FIRE. The Sig716 mentioned in the article does not have selective fire and is therefore NOT an assault rifle. Period. It is a semi-auto firearm styled ergonomically like an assault rifle, but it isn't one. Also, does anyone else find the article a little strange? Rifles and TVs aren't even close to the same size or shaped box. D.C. is probably the most anti-firefarm city in the U.S. concerning its policies, and obviously the most public and political, and yet someone got shipped an AR style firearm instead of a TV? It wasn't even just a bolt action hunting rifle, it just so happened to be AR styled? Immediately after being reported the Brady Campaign of course jumped on this. Shipping errors can happen of course, but doesn't the convenience of all this kind of smell like a publicity stunt?

    41. Re:really??? by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that the "bogey man" keeping liberals up at night was the image of a lonely guy obsessed with butch looking guns. The ban seems to me to have been more about demonizing a section of the public than about controlling weaponry, and to me that's just an unsavory as the right wing demonization of welfare recipients.

      I am pro gun control, but the old ban does not seem to me to have been the right way to go about it.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    42. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends on the firearm.

      Most modern day firearms do not have the space available within to just " drop in "
      a burst or full auto trigger. You would have to also go in and modify the trigger
      compartment of the lower receiver. Not easily done by even a hardcore gun owner.
      You need access to a machine shop.

      Unless, of course, you're talking about the Slide-Fire stock. Sort of a cheesy way
      to get full auto out of an AR-15 or AK-47 style weapon. While it does work ( and
      has full BATFE blessings behind it ) it's really a waste of ammo for the most part.
      Learn how to shoot and you only need one shot. :D ( Google it if you want to know
      about it )

      I've never understood the whole ban on scary looking guns thing. Pointless waste
      of time. An accurate hunting rifle painted pink with a Hello Kitty logo emblazoned
      on the side is still just as lethal as any black military looking rifle.

      AND FYI

      You can purchase full auto ( and other Class III devices ) as a civilian. You simply
      have to limit your weapon purchases to those devices that were manufactured prior
      to the ban. They are expensive, but I assure you, they are legal to purchase and own.
      Of course, it also depends on State Laws. Short barreled rifles, suppressors and
      even destructive devices ( such as grenade launchers ) are all quite legal to own.

      Do you need one ? Irrelevant. Do you need a Ferrari ? Of course not, but they
      are fun :D

      As long as your State Laws allow them, then Federal laws say you're good to go as
      long as they get some money from you.

      You simply need to drive down to the gun store, pick out your device of choice and
      fill out the paperwork ( known as a Form 4 ). ( You'll need a trust or CLEO sign off
      to do this ) The form 4 and your check to cover the tax stamp ( varies for different
      devices, but is $200 for suppressors, short barreled rifles, and full automatic / burst
      weapons ) are all mailed to the BATFE where they will look it over and either approve
      / disapprove it within 3-6 months.

      Once your form comes back, the gun store will call you and you simply go down and pick
      it up.

      Some additional rules come into play for these in that you have to keep a copy of the
      form 4 with the weapon or device. Other folks don't get to play with them without your
      direct supervision. Usually stay locked in a safe, etc.

      I personally own three of these devices, so I assure you, it can be done.

    43. Re:really??? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      That is legal for deer hunting in all 50 states...

      But not in Hanover County, Virginia. We must use shotguns (slugs ok) or muzzle-loaders. Strangely, Hanover is a mostly-rural county; surrounding heavily-populated counties like Henrico and the City of Richmond do not have similar restrictions. [I see that Chesterfield County has joined in on the rifle ban; too bad!]

      If you're profoundly bored, Virginia hunting rules can be found here and a synopsis of local regulations can be found here.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    44. Re:really??? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      "More impressive than it really is"? The rifle used in the Aurora shootings was semi-auto, and fired smaller bullets. I bet everybody who was there was sufficiently impressed.

    45. Re:really??? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      What, the rioting hordes can't buy guns? You NRA types with your Maginot fantasies kill me.

      Literally.

    46. Re:really??? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you have no no clue what you're talking about. First, get educated on the subject; read up on muzzle energy vs muzzle velocity. There are many sites about reloading that have that sort of data. Then go to a range and fire a few hundred rounds each in firearms chambered for many different rounds of varying calibers and muzzle energy, and get back to us that know what we're talking about from experience.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    47. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Body armor penetration has zilch to do with caliber. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

    48. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally speaking, it illegal to hunt dear, period. Consider marriage counseling instead, perhaps. Consult your state DNR for hunting deer and other game animals.

      sorry, just couldn't resist. That was almost a "She has the biggest parakeets in captivity" level blooper. Priceless. Congratulations. Couldn't have done better myself.

    49. Re:really??? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I imagine the amount of damage depends largely on where it hits, and thus upon the skill of the shooter. Even a 9mm is going to be quite effective in the hands of someone who has enough practice to hit a head-sized target.

    50. Re:really??? by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      You should be a bit more precise, because what you said is broadly true, but factually incorrect. I.e. your post was sloppy.

      Some 9mm rounds are designed to defeat armor, for example the 9x31 subsonic used in the Vintorez.

      Some 7.62 rounds will be easily stopped by level 1-2 armor, for example the 7.62x25 for the Tokarev.

      It's silly to talk about caliber, when what matters is the kind of weapon that's firing the round. Body armor is mostly effective against pistols. Few of them offer any significant protection against assault rifles, and nothing you can wear will help you much against battle rifles, most sniper rifles, or machine guns.

      Yes, gun enthusiasts can spend hours discussing the merits of a .45 handgun vs a 9mm one, but at the end of the day a pistol is a pistol, a rifle a rifle, and the significance of calibers is infinitesimal in comparison.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    51. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unlike the weaksauce 5.56x45 used in actual assault rifles

      You know that word you keep using, weaksauce... I do not think it memes what you think it memes.

      The 5.56x45 are high velocity. Anything high velocity is lethal to fleshy mammals. If i weren't a lazy AC i would cite examples of the combat lethality of high velocity rounds (in particular, how if you are hit by one anywhere in your body you pretty much die).

      Mythbusters actually had a great show on high velocity rounds which described the physics behind the lethality. Essentially high velocity rounds shatter when they hit flesh and send tiny razor sharp fragments in all directions. So if you even if you got hit by a 5.56 in your pinky toe, the statistics are high that a fragment of the bullet (about the size of a .22 (5.56 is roughly a .223)) will slice you open and do lethal damage.

      IIRC the higher the velocity the "shallower" the fragmentation occurs. Mythbusters was test firing into a diving pool. An interesting bit of trivia I picked up from that episode was that no round from any weapon they fired was capable of harming a person through 8' of water. The higher the velocity, the more likely the round was to shatter on impact and gently precipitate down to the bottom.

      A Civil War era mini-ball penetrated the full 8' but lost it's lethal kinetic energy.

    52. Re:really??? by zill · · Score: 1

      You can't legally buy assault rifles, or select fire battle rifles for that matter, if you're a civilian living in a first world nation. Doesn't matter what you might see in the news that says otherwise, go try it at your local gun store and see how far you get. If it's got automatic fire capability, it's a military weapon belonging in the hands of soldiers, and cannot be owned by your local gun nut anymore than he can own a live grenade.

      Civilians can legally purchase full-auto guns in the US, as long they live in one of the 39 states that allow full auto weapons and own the appropriate tax stamp.

      Canadians can legally purchase full-auto guns (just not from gun stores), as long as they have the 12.2 status on their PAL.

      I don't blame you for getting the facts wrong though. I'm guessing 50% of American gun owners don't know about the tax stamps and 90% of Canadian gun owners don't know about the 12.2 status.

    53. Re:really??? by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > I bet everybody who was there was sufficiently impressed.

      I dunno. That was almost a worst case scenario and it managed to score 13 and wound a lot more. If the idiot had used a more reliable weapon (ditch the hundred round drum) he could have got a few more. But remember he also built bombs which were supposed to create a distraction and only failed because of pure luck.

      Imagine instead if the guy had been a little more rational (just not rational enough to realize how stupid the whole going postal thing is) and realized the bombs were far more lethal than the gun. Now imagine him coming in through that emergency exit with a dozen bombs. Toss some incendaries and smoke into the exits to cause the exit stampede to bottle up then lob fragmentations into the dense crowd. Use a pair (with sensible clips to avoid jams) of pistols to nail anyone coming toward him (easy targets) while continuing to toss various nasty stuff. Lead pipe cinch he would have upped his score with that plan. And this guy had some education, remember that. A chemical attack would have been within his ability. WWI tech poision gas should not have posed a problem for someone with his knowledge.

      He went with the guns because he bought into the popular mythology.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    54. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all the "kits" I've seen are junk and you'd be foolish to buy one anyway. Secondly, I'm pretty sure if you're in posession of such a modified gun, you're in legal trouble. Like a lot of things gun related. Owning/selling a kit is fine. Using a kit to modify a gun isn't.

    55. Re:really??? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      You can't legally buy assault rifles, or select fire battle rifles for that matter, if you're a civilian living in a first world nation. Doesn't matter what you might see in the news that says otherwise, go try it at your local gun store and see how far you get.

      No, but you can go to a gun show and buy a kit that allows you to mod your gun to full auto. I have two uncles who are gun collectors, and this is no urban legend.

      While it was true back in the 70's that type of stuff went on, it isn't now. Gun shows now have sheriff's deputies, ATF, and FBI (both uniformed and plain clothed) wandering in looking for that stuff. It would be very very dumb to sell anything like that. Your uncles are waxing nostalgic about it at best, simply lying to you at worst.

      It would be far safer and easier to produce a blow back sub machine gun if one wanted full auto, for that design it's easier to make auto than semi. Modern "sporting" or EBR type rifles are designed to be difficult to convert to auto.

      It's also more trouble than it's worth, a semi is nearly as effective and produces a better disciplined set of fire

      Full auto is for the few that have cash to blow on lots of rounds that don't do anything but make a lot of noise

      Get out and see what is at a gun show. They still have stinky people selling right wing propaganda, but are missing a bunch of things that are now... urban legend.

    56. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - in Ohio, you can't hunt with any rifle or carbine. Period. It either has to be a handgun with minimum caliber of .44mag, or a shotgun with deer load.

    57. Re:really??? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      False. The Sig Sauer 522 is a semi. Just like the one from the article. (It gets good reviews BTW.)

    58. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know where you're getting your information...

      An Assault rifle is definitely a fully automatic weapon.
       

    59. Re:really??? by silvwolf · · Score: 1

      FWIW, .308 is not legal in Indiana. Maximum case length allowed is 1.8 inches and the .308 Winchester is 2.015.

      http://www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/deer-regulations/

    60. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. The ATF defines any conversion kit or firearm that can readily accept the same as a full auto firearm and subject to the strict regulations of the National Firearms Act of 1934. While it is perfectly legal to purchase parts for full autos for the purposes of repair (such as the bolt carrier for an M16), mere possession of such a part absent the tax stamp for a compatible full auto in your possession will land you a 10 year stint in Federal Prison.

      I have been to many, many gun shows around the country and I can tell you a) I've never seen anything you speak of because they don't exist b) They're, in fact, regulated full auto parts that requires the $200 tax stamp, Form 4 and background check to even purchase (such as a full auto sear) and c) Law enforcement and ATF presence at gun shows is quite high. Just because they aren't wearing uniforms doesn't mean they are there.

      The onus is on you, the firearm owner, to be cognizant of the laws that affect you. When you start messing in the territory of NFA'34 with a mixed collection of firearms, be very, very sure of what you are doing because it can land you in a lot of trouble. Constructive possession is a bitch and you'd be stunned at the things that can land you in prison.

      Your "conversion kit" is so much urban legend and oft repeated. They do not exist in common, unregulated circulation and I challenge anyone to produce an example. Furthermore, it is likewise impossible to "easily convert" a semi-auto to full auto and the mere attempt, regardless of success, will likewise land you in prison. Firearms like the AR-15 are specifically designed to make that impossible. ATF treats anything that might fire full auto as full auto. There is no grey area.

    61. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you mean "legal for deer hunting all the subset of the 50 states where hunting deer with a rifle is allowed." Illinois for example, is not one of these.

    62. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the last century, governments killed 100 MILLION of their own citizens.
      and you're saying the governments should be the ones who have all the big guns and the civilians left with plinkers?
      Those who do not learn from history... and so forth.

    63. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they do, they are going to jail. That isn't an urban legend either.

      ATF agents are all over the gun shows looking for things like that.

    64. Re:really??? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      unlike the weaksauce 5.56x45 used in actual assault rifles.

      There are assault rifles in 7.62x51. FN SCAR-H is one example.

    65. Re:really??? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In this particular case, the rifle is chambered in .308, not in .223. .308 is a fairly decent hunting cartridge, though definitely not on the "high powered" size of things.

    66. Re:really??? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "even a 9mm"? A 9mm is significantly more powerful than .22 LR. It most certainly doesn't require head shots to take a person down or kill them - in fact, it's just powerful enough that hydrostatic shock starts to manifest itself.

    67. Re:really??? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I also doubt they allow deer hunting at all in Hawaii.

    68. Re:really??? by djdbass · · Score: 1

      Indiana is not one of those 50 states, either.

    69. Re:really??? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Granted these are retardedly expensive because of various bans on newer ones but ones made before 1986 (not entirely sure on the date and other details) you can buy.

      No full auto firearm can be made or imported for civilian ownership in US after 1986 - the ban is pretty much a blanket one. So civilian full auto market is limited to those guns who were in the country before that date, hence the pricing.

    70. Re:really??? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      a battle rifle has a hard body, a bayonet mount, and a very sold butt stock that is good for swinging at an oponent in close combat along with bayonet. part of the features of a battle rifle is that it is supposed to be used as a staff/spear in close combat.

      There was never any clear definition of a "battle rifle". The term was only used after real assault rifles were introduced to describe M14, FAL, G3 and other similar guns, which looked a lot like assault rifles, except for firing a bigger, "full size" cartridge.

      To that extent, practically everything on your list doesn't belong. For example, G3 variants exist with collapsing stock, and FAL with folding stock. The body of a FAL is not notably harder than the body of an AK. Obviously, most assault rifles today have bayonet mounts.

      So the only practical difference is the caliber. Everything else is superficial. Most certainly "art of the features of a battle rifle is that it is supposed to be used as a staff/spear in close combat" is wrong - you'd be insane to use a semi-auto firearm with a large capacity magazine that way.

    71. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why the gun lobby really should start turning the Liberal stance/descriptor for rape* as their argument for "assault-style" rifles. If "she wanted it, look at how she is dressed" is not a valid defense in a rape accusation, then "it's an assault weapon, just look at it" shouldn't be a valid reason to ban either. if you must ban, do it on function rather than form.

      *Note: I in no way advocate rape or doubt the seriousness of the act, I'm just tired of hearing all of the ban-monkeys in the anti-gun lobby doing the "it looks dangerous" dance.

      **Additional note: I don't own any firearms... I just hate listening to people who know nothing at all about them go on a rant about semi-automatics without knowledge of how they work.

    72. Re:really??? by Colonel+Fahlt · · Score: 1

      .223 "is considered pitiful, not much more than a varmint round." No, not really. The wounding characteristics of small calibre high velocity ammunition when paired with a weapon that can generate sufficient velocity at the point of impact is hardly "pitiful". 5.56x45mm (or similar ammunition, like the Russian 5.45mm) is capable of creating more damaging wounds than larger rounds in some contexts. The US military (and others) did research on this, and found the traditional rifle rounds used by "gramps" would often pass through bodies cleanly, leaving a relatively small wound. 5.56x45mm was found to often become unstable when it penetrated the body, tumbling and fragmenting, causing wound effects greatly disproportionate to its size. (Have a look under "Performance" here: 5.56x45mm NATO article on Wikipedia .) Paired with the fact it was lighter, and produced much less recoil, you have a potentially more accurate weapon for which more ammunition can be carried, comparatively. (As for why it's not optimal for deer hunting, first of all, the size and physiology of the animal is different, and second, a hunter is supposed to go for a clean kill. A soldier is dealing with people firing back, and the goal is to drop them, not get the perfect shot, as nice is that would be. Use your imagination: in the context of a shooting rampage, which of those scenarios is a closer fit?)

      "Compared to what gramps used in WWII or worse, WWI, it's laughable..." First of all, what "gramps" used in WWI and WWII was equivalent, e.g. .30-'06 if US military, .303 Enfield if British/Commonwealth, 7.92mm Mauser if German, etc. Not sure where the "or worse" is coming from, that implies a difference. And as for "it's laugable", I've already addressed that above.

    73. Re:really??? by emho24 · · Score: 1

      My dad went through this process to get his Thompson, it's a hoot.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    74. Re:really??? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      What's a "high-caliber" assault rifle?

      I was wondering this myself, so here is the SIG Sauer page on the 716:

      Familiar Handling, Unfamiliar Power, SIG SAUER has taken the proven features of the SIG516 and applied them into a potent AR-based rifle chambered in 7.62 x 51mm. Utilizing the short stroke pushrod operating system, an M1913 Mil-Std rail, free-floating barrel, aluminum quad rail forend, telescoping stock, and Magpul PMAG, the SIG716 is the rifle of choice when you require the power of a larger caliber carbine.

      So apparently 7.62mm is "large caliber" according to SIG, but they say this is a "carbine" or "patrol rifle", but not an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" :)

    75. Re:really??? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I thought import ban went back further but was not sure. I knew about the date for the domestic ones and it works as a general valid rule of thumb.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    76. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? 7.62x51 NATO will go through any and all body armor ever designed or manufactured. .223 will too. In fact, any rifle round will. Body armor protects against shrapnel and pistol rounds. That's it.

    77. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By current federal law, anyone in the US with sufficient money can own as many full-auto rifles as they want, legally (with certain states excepted due to state-level laws, e.g. CA, NY, and many other blue states). The trick is they've never been outlawed at the federal level, only heavily regulated by a taxation system that was designed to try to effectively/mostly-outlaw them while not actually outlawing them (because that would raise a 2nd ammendment issue to the Supreme Court). The first step was the original National Firearms Act back in, what something like 1929, which basically just put the arcane tax regulations in place. The second step was an additional law in 1986 that effectively said, "No more new full-autos can be added to the National Firearms Act registry", which means only the guns registered before 1986 are now legal (but they can still be bought and sold between private parties with registry updates).

      Assuming you have the cash, the process goes like this:

      1) Live in a state that doesn't have state-level laws on full autos (there are many, pretty much pick a red state).
      2) Form a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) with just yourself as the owner.
      3) Find someone selling a legally registered (prior to 1986) full auto rifle. There are forums and ebay-like sites all over the net for this (perfectly legal) trading. There are hundreds of them up for sale at any given moment, if not more.
      4) Pay the feds $200 for the transfer fee to update the registry, and wait on some paperwork delays. Your LLC now owns the weapon (not you, but that's a very minor point in practice), and you need to have the paperwork showing your ownership of the LLC and the Tax Stamp for the serial numbered rifle in question any time you have the rifle to prove to the BATF that your full-auto is legal, and keep it in a real safe so that you can't be accused of giving unauthorized persons access.

      The trick is usually the cost in Step 3. Even a simple Colt M-16 (retail value should be around $1K) will run you $10-12K, and cheap crappy full autos like Uzis will go for $6K+. Big guns (like miniguns) are virtually priceless, they sell in the hundreds of thousands. The reason for the high pricess is supply and demand. The supply is now completely fixed (only the guns registered on the books before '86).

    78. Re:really??? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Just to add on to this, hunting deer with rifles isn't legal in my state, either. And, really, anyone who hunts deer with a rifle is a bitch hunter. I could sit on my roof with a rifle and take out dozens of deer. That's not sport.

      Real men use bows, shotguns are for kids who don't have the strength for a bow yet.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    79. Re:really??? by zigziggityzoo · · Score: 1

      In the context used by most people including the media, an Assault Rifle is semi-auto. An Assault Weapon is either a rifle or a handgun that meets certain scary cosmetic configurations.

      --
      Zing!
    80. Re:really??? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, it's unimpressive because any properly-trained firearms expert could have done better. I'm sure that will make all the families of the dead feel a whole lot better.

    81. Re:really??? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Mind you that 1/2 the features that Jafiwam mentions above that were banned were in fact safety and ergonomic features:

      - barrel shroud, a safety device to prevent burns from hot barrels
      - adjustable stock, ergonomic feature developed to allow a 6'7" male soldier in the army and a 4'7" female soldier to utilize the same equipment.
      - rails, ergonomic advancement allowing for quick mounting of scopes, lights, via a universal system - think Universal Serial Bus (USB).

      Yeah; many places have bans or strict controls on "silencers" and "suppressors" too -- likely from all the movies we've seen where the gun is truly either silenced or sounds more like someone unzipping a jacket. In reality, a silencer or suppressor only brings the volume down to what is safe for the unprotected ear when fired in the open... similar to a car muffler.

      Now it's possible to create a quieter chamber and muffling system in the bore, but that's not the fault of a silencer.

    82. Re:really??? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. What I am asserting is that because the popular culture makes guns seem far more deadly than they actually are it saved lives. If they guy had been a little smarter he could have killed half the people in the hall and injured almost everyone. And since it was a sold out premiere that number could have been truly horrible. Not that seventy casualties is something good, but that it could have been a lot worse.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    83. Re:really??? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Unless you are talking about relativistic speeds, a high velocity round say, a .50 caliber M2 round fired from a Serbu Single Shot will just tear straight through, might shatter and make a bigger hole on the exit. Hit in the finger or something, it'll just rip the finger off and continue more or less straight, and more or less intact (maybe tumbling). Center of mass shots do indeed make big holes. However, you are describing an explosive-tipped bullet for it to spread "razor sharp projectiles in all directions." You are just plain wrong. Mythbusters pool experiment did show something, specifically what bullets do when they hit water. Which is very different than what happens when they hit flesh. A better analog for flesh is ballistics gel.

    84. Re:really??? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      This was about your use of the word "unimpressive". If you don't find a dozen dead people "impressive" then there's really not point in trying to tell you anything.

    85. Re:really??? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I was refering to the previous commenter who dismissed the 9mm as ineffective: "This is backed up by evidence because loughner only had a 9mm, which did very little damage." I'm just arguing that at close range (where the bullet loses little energy to air resistance) the damage potential of small arms depends almost entirely on the shooter's ability to aim it. You can substitute the weapon of your choice: Anything with more kinetic energy than a BB gun is going to hurt if it hits you in the face.

    86. Re:really??? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      Not really. That packed theater was basically shooting fish in a barrel. Media reports say he got off about seventy rounds before the thing jammed and a few more with a pistol. Total casualties were seventy hits and only thirteen dead. As an example of the lethality of firearms it isn't 'impressive.' Not exactly good but it could have been a lot worse. Of course most weapons are patterned after military designs which aren't intended to kill so it isn't really suprising to anyone paying attention. Wounded drain much more of the opponent's resources in war.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    87. Re:really??? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Um, .308 Winchester is about 10% less hot than commercial .30-06, but .30-06 has a wide range of loadings and bullet weights. It's one of, if not the, most adaptable cartridge out there due to its 100+ year history (starting with black powder in 1901 Springfields, IIRC).

      7.62 NATO is quite a bit hotter than .308 Winchester, however.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    88. Re:really??? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Once the correction is made officially, the media will be sure to jump on it. It'll be a two-fer: they'll get to call it a spastic bullet hose and a baby killing sniper battle canon.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    89. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love pedantic word games.

    90. Re:really??? by RsG · · Score: 1

      When the dictionary says one thing and a journalist says another, the journalist is wrong. If a newspaper refers to an iPad as a laptop, or calls a head of lettuce a fruit, or calls Micheal Phelps a diver, the newspaper is wrong. Not wrong in the sense of "I don't agree with this", but wrong in the sense of "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means".

      An assault rifle is a select fire automatic weapon. Not semi auto. Unless, of course, you want to accuse the Oxford English Dictionary of being in the pocket of the NRA.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    91. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      different sizes of bullets can be used in different sized firearms.

      a smaller round could "bounce" if somebody is wearing a heavy jacket but something like a 7.62 X 51 mm NATO round might even get past some low end body armour.

      A 7.62x71 round would pass through all but the highest end body armor. The 'bullet proof' vests you see your local swat team use are not meant to stop a battle rifle, they are designed to resist hand gun fire.

    92. Re:really??? by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      In hunting you want a clean kill as you said, meaning a fast kill, which is "as humane as possible" since we usually (except for sadistic people) want to as best as possible avoid inflicting pain and suffering upon an animal (for that reason my personal animal suffering minimization strategy is not to shoot them in the first place). However, for military purposes, this is irrelevant. The 5.56x45mm is a very nasty thing to get hit with since it tends to fragment and cause awful internal injuries, and a slow death. It is actually advantageous to not inflict a quick kill, but rather to severely wound, the enemy in military combat, from what I understand (not an expert here). Read about the studies done in the Vietnam War era which is why they chose to switch from the 20 round .308 M1A to the 30 round 5.56 M16. The latter is considered to confer greater "firepower" and with less weight.

    93. Re:really??? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      He got off 70 rounds and you're unimpressed with his firepower? I give up.

    94. Re:really??? by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Why does it really matter whether you call it a "civil union" or "marriage"? ... oops, I meant "assault weapon" or "assault rifle". [I'm all for gun rights, but I couldn't pass that one up :-)]

    95. Re:really??? by codepunk · · Score: 1

      I can walk into any Radio Shack and buy the parts to turn a semiauto anything into a fully automatic, so what is your point? It is still illegal as all hell to do so.

      --


      Got Code?
    96. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battle rifle, assault rifle, military rifle... whatever. I call it an awesome rifle.

    97. Re:really??? by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think you're being cute? The "assault weapon" label was invented exactly so the ignorant would confuse it with "assault rifle." Lobbyists purposefully conflating the two got common, innocuous bits of plastic banned as dangerous military hardware.

      So, yes, it really matters. You should call out FUD when you see it, rather than remain complicit in the bullshit--especially when your representatives don't even know what they're banning or why.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    98. Re:really??? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      I find killing a dozen people with tools made by others not impressive. And stupid, antisocial and crazy to boot.
      If he had made the weapon himself or used his bare hands then I would have found it impressive, but still stupid, antisocial and crazy.
      What he did didn't really involve skill, just a lack of a skill (empathy). Therefore it doesn't qualify for impressive in my book.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    99. Re:really??? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The deer population explosion is so out of hand in Virginia they should issue machine guns for deer hunting.

      Take a look at the deer hunting bag limits in Virginia. When I was a kid, the big question was "will it be one buck or two for the [two week] season?" The idea of shooting a doe was out of the question. Now it's more like "how many antlerless deer MUST I shoot before I can shoot a buck?" From the URL:

      The bag limit for deer shall be two a day, six a license year. Of the six deer limit, no more than three may be antlered deer and at least three must be antlerless deer.

      The season in Hanover is 100% antlered or antlerless, November 17 through January 5. In some localities you can 'Earn A Buck' by whacking does. In addition, you can get crop damage and other sorts of Bonus Deer Permits that permit you to exceed the season bag limit.

      If my math is correct, there are 181 hunting days between all of the special seasons statewide. If I were infinitely wealthy and took advantage of every single day of legal hunting and bonus deer tags, I could take 2 deer a day for a total of 362 deer a season!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    100. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is highly illegal.

    101. Re:really??? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      For those unaware, an assault rifle is a firearm capable of firing in a fully automatic mode, as opposed to semi-automatic or single-action. Furthermore, the most common round used in assault rifles is a pittance, it is a .22 caliber bullet (granted with a lot more power and better aerodynamics than the .22 LR you shoot in Boy Scouts). But even with all that it is considered pitiful, not much more than a varmint round.

      Here in Pennsylvania it is illegal to hunt dear with a .223 caliber because it is not considered powerful enough to ensure a clean kill. In fact, those evil high caliber rounds are often half the size of a hunting cartridge.

      So where does the term "high power" stem from? Not the cartridge itself. But the capacity of the firearm. Essentially, you had a 45 caliber semi-automatic designed by the Revered John Moses Browning. This held about 8 rounds. They're big short fat stubby rounds. 8 rounds of firepower was two more than the average revolver. The Revered than creating the Browning Hi-Power using a much smaller 9mm round. The result was a capacity of 15-19 rounds. Hence hi-power simply mean greater capacity, often related to small, weaker, less powerful bullets.

      In fact, the current .223 round used in M16/M4/AR15 (semi-automatic version) is essentially considered the smallest, weakest, bare minimum rifle round that can ensure a reasonable expectation of success. Compared to what gramps used in WWII or worse, WWI, it's laughable - unless you're shot by one of course.

      I don't think you don't know what you are talking about. High power in the pistol that it seems clear you are talking about is the difference between the 45 caliber black power cartridge and the at the time new smokeless powder - which was considered high power. It was and is high power and is what makes a firearm a firearm today. I.e. I can still buy a black powder gun through the mail. You can't buy a firearm through the mail. Smokeless powerder used in the old black power guns can destroy them. I had an instructor that had one of those browning pistols, still in the box with the high power label on it. Should have bought it when I had the chance, about 30 years ago.

      High power in rifles is totally different. I shot high power rifle for years. A 223 isn't considered high power unless they've changed the rules. Never the less, the 223 isn't to be laughed at. It is a very effective load and does a good job for what it was designed for. In fact, I own a M1 Rifle and I'm thinking of getting rid of it. It just isn't practical side of the other rifles I own. My shoulder will like getting rid of it too.

    102. Re:really??? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      On the television series American Gun they demonstrated a spring loaded stock that allowed the rest of the AR-15 to recoil into the stock and away from your trigger finger, when the gun, and trigger, recoiled back against your finger the trigger was pulled and the rifle fired again. The rifle only fired once per trigger pull but springing action pulled it five times per second. That's about half of a full auto M16 but still it looks the same and as far as I know legal.

    103. Re:really??? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Why are you my freak?
      http://slashdot.org/~Z34107/foes

    104. Re:really??? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that many movies show silencers on revolvers. Regardless of the fact that silences do not work on revolvers excepting the Russian Nagant revolver with special rounds.

      Hollywood should not be one's education tool for policy.

    105. Re:really??? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Actually, in D.C., no they cannot....

      Oh, as for what good is an assault weapon? Ask the Korean shop keeper who kept his family and store safe during the Los Angelos riots.

    106. Re:really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6'7" male soldiers and 4'7" female soldiers? Un-fucking-likely. The minimum allowed height for females to enlist is 4'10", and the maximum allowed height for enlisting is 6'6".

      Take your bullshit hyperbole and get the fuck on down the road, dickhead.

  7. Amazon Link to TV / Assault Rifle Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a bargain.

  8. Well, at least he didn't get a bobcat.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obilgatory XKCD reference.

    http://xkcd.com/325/

    1. Re:Well, at least he didn't get a bobcat.... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I might buy again.

      Bobcats are bad ass.

    2. Re:Well, at least he didn't get a bobcat.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, of course, referencing http://xkcd.com/325/

  9. This is news Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fulfilment dept at 3rd party F's up. News on /. ???

    1. Re:This is news Why?? by alen · · Score: 0

      it was actually a UPS screw up but we need to burn someone at the stake either way

    2. Re:This is news Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more ready to believe a UPS screw-up than an Amazon one. In Canada, UPS is the worst of all. Deliveries at wrong houses, damaged packages, expensive brokerage fees, missed deliveries even when you're home, the list goes on and on.

       

  10. anti-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i defy anyone to "mow down" anything with a semiautomatic rifle. get a grip

    1. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by blueturffan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i defy anyone to "mow down" anything with a semiautomatic rifle. get a grip

      You misunderstood. According to the summary, the weapon is capable of mowing down pretty much anything all by itself. This is similar to news reporting of SUVs causing horrible accidents.

      Cars don't cause accidents. Guns don't kill people. IDEs don't write bugs.

    2. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Well. Beyond the whole tendency to jam thing, you should be able to squeeze off plenty of rounds with only a semi-automatic.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns don't kill people Doctors do, Statistically speaking. Everyday in the US, the number of people that die due to a mistake made by a Dr would fill a 747.

    4. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      Cars don't cause accidents. Guns don't kill people. IDEs don't write bugs.

      if only. Then we'd never have recalls on cars, never have to patch bugs in IDE's and never have never have guns that accidentally discharge.

      2012 jeep review in sweden the vehicle is consistently blowing tyres and nearly rolled over once. Most of the video is trying to figure out why it nearly rolled over once but not on subsequent attempts. But the tyres blowing at 70-80Km/h is uh... bad. Really really bad.

      Bugs fixed in Visual studio 2012 some of this stuff goes back years and has to be compared against the c++ STL precisely because the way it does work, and the way it should work are not the same.

      Don't get me started on years of various nVIDIA and AMD tools not playing nice with OpenGl or Directx.

      Wiki on accidental discharge lists two scenarios, where a weapon is dropped, or when a weapon overheats that it can accidentally fire if it was improperly designed (e.g. a poor choice of materials).

      So yes, cars themselves can cause accidents, guns do kill people, and IDE's can cause bugs in your code.

    5. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

    6. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Being a user of Microsoft Visual Studio I'd like to take issue with that last one...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    7. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I cannot speak on this particular model. However, the jamming bit seems to be more common with western battle/assault style guns. Plenty of sport rifles will happily plink away at cans all afternoon with nary a problem. If you really want to spray like a paintballer and have a jam free experience go with one of the semi-auto AK variants.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    8. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      2012 jeep review in sweden the vehicle is consistently blowing tyres and nearly rolled over once. Most of the video is trying to figure out why it nearly rolled over once but not on subsequent attempts. But the tyres blowing at 70-80Km/h is uh... bad. Really really bad.

      That's the designer/manufacturer/operator's fault. I.e. people.

      Bugs fixed in Visual studio 2012 some of this stuff goes back years and has to be compared against the c++ STL precisely because the way it does work, and the way it should work are not the same.

      That's the designer/manufacturer/operator's fault. I.e. people.

      Don't get me started on years of various nVIDIA and AMD tools not playing nice with OpenGl or Directx.

      That's the designer/manufacturer's fault. I.e. people.

      Wiki on accidental discharge lists two scenarios, where a weapon is dropped, or when a weapon overheats that it can accidentally fire if it was improperly designed (e.g. a poor choice of materials).

      That's the designer/manufacturer/operator's fault. I.e. people.

      So yes, cars themselves can cause accidents, guns do kill people, and IDE's can cause bugs in your code.

      Hyperbole troll is hyperbolic...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're quibbling over semantics. Nobody is screaming to outlaw or control firearms because of design flaws. The people that want to outlaw them have a problem with their mere existence.

    10. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by poity · · Score: 1

      Besides that, how is a SEMI-automatic going to mow people down? That's like saying scissors are dangerous, you can make people BALD! INSTANTLY!

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    11. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And deaths in road accidents come to a little under one 9/11 each month.

    12. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      If I had added the word "usually" would that have been sufficient? Yes, there are exceptions, but cars are not designed to cause accidents, guns are not designed to auto-discharge and IDEs are not designed to create bugs.

      I accept your points as valid. Nevertheless, I take exception to sensationalist reporting that blames the vehicle rather than the driver when the driver is clearly at fault.

    13. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1
      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    14. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I could do that:
      1. Place semiautomatic in the hands of a standing Barbie doll.
      2. Raise riding lawnmower blades as high as possible.
      3. Drive the lawnmower over the doll.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    15. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      A real infantry rifle is meant to be used more like a hunting rifle.

      It's not a machine gun and isn't supposed to be used like one. Even real machine guns aren't supposed to be kept on continuous fire indefinitely. Intensive use of a rifle will overheat the barrel. That's why real machine guns have removable barrels.

      Some people just choose to remain ignorant and spread misinformation. They see a weapon, think it looks scary, and then conflate it with something from a gangster movie.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    16. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly everything that has multiple bullets in storage is a semi-automatic... Including every pistol excluding single shot load. Even revolvers.

      Don't try and sensationalize.

    17. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, right? When I was 7 my dad took me shooting and I very quickly discovered that great-grandpas double barrel shotgun was much better for mowing down thistles in the pasture than the AR-15 - and much more effective for the cost of the ammunition for sure.

      Thus, anecdotal proof that "sport" firearms are better for "mowing" than "assault weapons." Now that I think about it, I should get a semi-auto shotgun for mowing the grass. As a fringe benefit it might also take care of the moles. And the best part, I don't need any of that dangerous black plastic on the gun, and I can shoot environmentally friendly steel pellets, though in some universe these are probably classified as "armor piercing" and are probably illegal.

    18. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      That's the designer/manufacturer/operator's fault. I.e. people.

      And? Once the device is built whatever caused the state it's in, if it fails in a way the end user in incapable of having prevented with archaic expertise it's the fault of the device, and the production chain that led to the device, or the business climate that let it get created (see support for IE6), which ceases being the fault of the individual user, and the fault of many people involved in the chain, from regulators, to physical assembly and distribution.

    19. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      I take exception to sensationalist reporting that blames the vehicle rather than the driver when the driver is clearly at fault

      I think part of the problem is that like any software that fails, sometimes it's hard to tell if it's the user doing something stupid, or a flawed design or implementation, and since the media enjoys fear mongering anything that suggests the car you are driving might be unsafe is far more interesting than a person accidentally hitting the accelerator.

      Then you get into broader cultural and societal issues. That we blinding accept speeding, or that the US accepts pervasive private gun ownership as a good idea all contribute to the statistical nature of problems. It's not so much that the car was designed to cause an accident, but someone made a deliberate choice that it only needed to pass whatever inspection regime, only needed to withstand whatever impact, that so many deaths due to accidental discharges, that so many deaths due to crazy people getting guns etc. etc. etc. are all acceptable. Societies as a whole (through governments) make deliberate choices that cars should only be sold if they meet particular criteria for example, there is, in that processes, the implicit acceptance that a certain number of people will die due to car failures that weren't the fault of the end user. Choosing that tolerance is an often buried part of governance.

      Oh and people like to sue in the US, so if you can blame the car company and get millions it's like winning the lottery without the gambling.

    20. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Is that a 747 filled in the traditional way? Dead bodies can be stacked far more densely than living humans are usually stacked. Does it include the cargo hold?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    21. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      That's the designer/manufacturer/operator's fault. I.e. people.

      And?.

      And, you can't sue an inanimate object, but you can sue the idiot that designed/made/used it improperly.

      Which is but one reason why blaming inanimate objects for the mistakes of those who design/create/use them is just blatant stupidity, no matter how you try and justify it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:anti-gun hyperbole by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      According to the summary, the weapon is capable of mowing down pretty much anything all by itself.

      That would explain the problem if he was trying to buy a lawn tractor and got a gun instead.

  11. His bumper sticker by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Yesterday, I got a gun for my wife." "Pretty good trade, don't you think?"

    1. Re:His bumper sticker by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I think you ripped the guy off.

    2. Re:His bumper sticker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like the gift of the magi. Now that the wife is gone, what good is the gun?

  12. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is this one of the exercises you're asked to do before Rush comes on?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  13. And he told somebody??? by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1

    I'll take that over a TV any day of the week. Especially living in DC...

    --
    Karma: Bad
  14. Too much violence on TV by SirBitBucket · · Score: 1

    Obviously...

  15. Interesting by TonyAldo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want to know what kind of retailer carries HDTVs and assault rifles? Maybe Best Buy should adopt this idea, TVs, guns and chicken!

    --
    tonyaldo.com
    1. Re:Interesting by The+Moof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I want to know what kind of retailer carries HDTVs and assault rifles?

      Wal-Mart.

    2. Re:Interesting by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Bubba's Gun Shop, Hair Care and Electronics Emporium.

      Coming soon to an Alabama city near you.

    3. Re:Interesting by biometrizilla · · Score: 2

      Not clear why Amazon is involved here. Quick Amazon search doesn't turn up said SIG716 and I don't believe you can purchase guns from Amazon on-line anyway. Sounds like guy places order on Amazon for TV, carrier delivers wrong package to his apartment, guy tags Amazon for screw-up.

    4. Re:Interesting by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      I have seen Bobs Gun Store, Bridal shop and Truck Repair. Though it was in Mississippi, not Alabama.

    5. Re:Interesting by rwise2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

      He should have read the fine print - "product may not appear exactly as shown"

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    6. Re:Interesting by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I want to know what kind of retailer carries HDTVs and assault rifles?

      Damn near every pawn shop in the nation.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Interesting by berashith · · Score: 3, Funny

      of course you couldnt find anything under SIG716. They have it hidden as a "TV" , but onl as a secret for those in the know. When you look into the specs for the tv, and it doesnt have HDMI and optical outs, but instead has specs like these, beware... it probably isnt a TV.
      Caliber 7.62 X 51 mm NATO
          Overall Length 37.4 in
          Trigger Type MIL-SPEC
          Trigger Weight 7.6 lbs
          Barrel Length 16.0 in
          Rifling 1 in 10"
          Number of grooves 6
          Weight w/out Mag 9.3 lbs
          Mag Capacity 20 Rounds
          Mag Type Magpul PMAG
          Accessory Rail Yes
          Features Short stroke pushrod operating system with 4 position gas valve

    8. Re:Interesting by PPH · · Score: 1

      This could be an error on the part of the shipper. FedEx/UPS/USPS might have mixed up his shipment (the TV) with one intended for a licensed firearms dealer.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never have seen anything but shit shotguns at Walmart

    10. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a liquor store down the road from one of our city parks. They expanded to include bait for the lake fishing, and eventually got an FFL to sell pistols, etc. Seeing a sign that said Belcher's Guns - Bait - Liquor was quite funny

    11. Re:Interesting by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sounds like guy places order on Amazon for TV, carrier delivers wrong package to his apartment, douchebag blogger tags Amazon for screw-up.

      FTFY

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Features Short stroke pushrod operating system with 4 position gas valve"

      but...does it run linux?

    13. Re:Interesting by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Amazon facilitated the transaction and may well have "fulfilled" it. Third-party sellers may choose to let Amazon warehouse and ship their goods for them. While they probably don't, I suppose it's conceivable that they could have a fulfillment warehouse located in a state where it's legal and a fulfillment policy that allows firearms. The article isn't really clear whether it was Amazon that slapped the wrong shipping label on the package or if UPS made the goof.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    14. Re:Interesting by nigelo · · Score: 1

      I'd like a Gun supply and Guitar store called 'Sounds and Rounds'

      Or, 'Grenades and Serenades', possibly, if selling sheet music.

      Gun store and Car dealership: 'Cars and BARs'?

      Guns and Flowers: 'Pistils and pistols'.

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    15. Re:Interesting by berashith · · Score: 1

      funny, the line above this in the spec sheet that I copied was "operating system". I didnt include this to avoid your EXACT joke, but I was lazy and didnt notice the last line...

    16. Re:Interesting by mynis01 · · Score: 1

      Most Wal-Marts I go into in NC have a single AR-15 on display and a several shotguns and rifles. None of these guns are ones that I would recommend buying. They also have shotgun shells just sitting out on shelves that people could pocket.

    17. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely due to the shipping error with mixed up labels and an employee who didnt care to read the package information when sticking it back on the box. I feel bad for the guy who ordered the Sig and got a TV instead.

      Also you have to ship a gun to a registered gun shop in the USA. it almost impossible to get a gun shipped directly to you without going through some sort of broker unless you are an authorized dealer yourself.

    18. Re:Interesting by tooyoung · · Score: 1

      I want to know what kind of retailer carries HDTVs and assault rifles? Maybe Best Buy should adopt this idea

      Great, then they would only sell gold plated assault rifles with attractive satin silk finish for maximum shooting distance with delicate low-level sound.

    19. Re:Interesting by khr · · Score: 1

      In Hillsboro, Oregon there is (or was when I was last there) a Fairly Honest Don's Machine Gun Parlor, that I think was a gun store...

    20. Re:Interesting by TonyAldo · · Score: 1

      Didn't know that me being from NYC, you can't even buy liquor and ciggs in the same place.

      --
      tonyaldo.com
    21. Re:Interesting by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      D'oh, beaten...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:Interesting by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      fleet farm

    23. Re:Interesting by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Damn, our local guns and guitar shop is just called "bizarre guitar." Your names are way better.

      But, would sounds and rounds have a TV commercial with a guy busting out a wicked guitar riff while two hot chicks pose behind him with assault rifles? I think NOT!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    24. Re:Interesting by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      And a few 22.

      But i suppose if you have been trained at birth to be afraid of firearms, even a 22 might make you pee your pants.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    25. Re:Interesting by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How about gun store and strip joint: 'guns and Guns'

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    26. Re:Interesting by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, they do not.

      There is nowhere within the US where you can legally purchase an assault rifle.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    27. Re:Interesting by Rockoon · · Score: 1
      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    28. Re:Interesting by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      but...does it run linux?

      no, GCC doesn't support the processor.

      but the Crysis experience is excellent - details cranked up to 11 and the immersion is _fantastic_

    29. Re:Interesting by TonyAldo · · Score: 1

      But can I listen to the HD sound using Beats audio?

      --
      tonyaldo.com
  16. Sweet! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somewhere, deep in the desert, a hidden meth lab got a nice new TV.

    1. Re:Sweet! by zippy40 · · Score: 1

      I got a big screen TV for my deer stand!!!

    2. Re:Sweet! by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...or, somewhere on the mean streets of Chicago, there's a hitman beating his target to death with a 60 inch flat screen.

    3. Re:Sweet! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      It was intended to reach a Pennsylvania gun shop, according to TFA. But they could use a TV too. By the way, since when is it legal to buy a gun on Amazon in the US? They can't see your ID or even prove the name on the account or the person who actually clicked the mouse, especially with their 1-click payment or whatever.

  17. I would use it... by wbr1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...to shoot all the execs and writers that produce the shit that would have displayed on his tv.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:I would use it... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Score: 3, Insightful

      God I love /.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    2. Re:I would use it... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      The comment was tongue in cheek BTW.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:I would use it... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I figured that bit out, still your powers of mod reception are astounding!

      --
      +1 Disagree
  18. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one outside the US cares one bit about this US political crud. Spam is several degrees more classy than this slop.

  19. What about the other guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orders an assault rifle, gets a TV, instead of going on a rampage watches desperate house wives...

  20. All i need to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is why he seems to have pots and pans in what looks like his living room? Very suspicious to me..

    1. Re:All i need to know... by crakbone · · Score: 2

      It's DC. The price of housing forces you to have a kitchen/livingroom/closet.

  21. ammo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless there was ammunition included, the assault rifle wasn't capable of "mowing down" anything, unless you swung it like a baseball bat. In that case, an assault TV would have been more effective.

  22. Lucky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't I get lucky like that???!?! :(

  23. His wife who is pregnant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does his wife being pregnant have to do with anything?

    1. Re:His wife who is pregnant by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      What does his wife being pregnant have to do with anything?

      Now we know he (or one of his friends) is virile.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  24. When did 7.62 become "high-caliber"? by Xeoz · · Score: 2

    I suppose it is fatter than a .223, but it ain't no .50cal.

    1. Re:When did 7.62 become "high-caliber"? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      When the media get a hold of something. After all, these are the same guys that think a long rifle is an 'assault weapon' up here in Canada.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  25. Not an assault rifle by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 4, Informative

    The SIG716 is not an "assault rifle" and you won't be "mowing" anything down with it. It is a conventional semi-automatic rifle that can be legally owned just about everywhere. Also, it is in a large caliber that makes it better suited for hunting than for rapid fire.

    If the guy had been shipped a functionally equivalent hunting rifle with a classic wood stock there would not be as many ninnies getting the vapors over it. Unless Amazon has never made a shipping error before, this is a non-story.

    1. Re:Not an assault rifle by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      SIG seems to market it as a "patrol rifle". I don't think they're positioning it as a hunting rifle, although I suppose you could hunt with it anyway.

    2. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon doesn't actually sell firearms, so odds are this was a delivery error rather than a shipping error.

    3. Re:Not an assault rifle by Nixoloco · · Score: 2

      The SIG716 is not an "assault rifle" and you won't be "mowing" anything down with it. It is a conventional semi-automatic rifle that can be legally owned just about everywhere. Also, it is in a large caliber that makes it better suited for hunting than for rapid fire.

      Everywhere perhaps, with exceptions including the District of Columbia, where the guy lives. He couldn't even transport it to a UPS store for return without committing a felony. That's why he called the police, who luckily for him, just took it into custody and didn't arrest him.

    4. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if he would have gotten a truly scary weapon like a R1 300 win mag semi auto hunting rifle. As you said there would have been no story since it is not colored black.

    5. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can be legally owned just about everywhere.

      Ha ha ha ha ha...

      Ummm... I think your USA may be showing...

      Love from the one country in the world where actually, large caliber, semi-automatic rifles are not actually legal.

    6. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, typically rifles of this kind are marketed in that way, especially by SIG, but they see more use in hog hunting and target shooting than by law enforcement.
      LEOs typically prefer 5.56 rifles for their "patrol rifles" due to the lower recoil and higher capacity magazines.
      Semi automatic 7.62 rifles in general are not a particularly large market as most hunters don't have a need for the semi automatic feature and most sport shooters prefer the lower recoil of the 5.56 or 6.8 for faster splits on their courses of fire, but there is always major power factor shooters that want the big guns and there are a few long range timed competitions.

    7. Re:Not an assault rifle by jpapon · · Score: 0
      People hunt with semi-automatic rifles? What's the matter, they don't know how to aim, or pull a bolt or lever action?

      Hunting with a semi-auto is so goddamn unsportsmanlike... What kind of asshole kills deer with an AR-15?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    8. Re:Not an assault rifle by davydagger · · Score: 1

      plenty. I'd even say most.

      the ruger 10-22 is a staple of rabbit and small game hunters.

    9. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of asshole kills deer with an AR-15?

      The kind who get their limit in one day.

      I know its hard to believe, but many people in America still put a lot of food on their table by hunting. Sportsmanship has nothing to do with feeding your family.

      I'm not advocating everyone start hunting with an AR-15, but saying no one should be hunting with semi-auto is just stupid.

    10. Re:Not an assault rifle by pigwiggle · · Score: 1

      No one is killing deer with an AR-15. Like the parent said, SIG716's calibre is more suited for deer. The AR-15 isn't, as it is much smaller and less powerful. You like Twain? No doubt you've heard this attributed to him "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". Good advice.

      --
      46 & 2
    11. Re:Not an assault rifle by jandrese · · Score: 0

      Judging from the noise I hear during hunting season, most of them. It was rare to hear a single crack of a rifle, generally it was a rapid succession of shots. As I understand it, the favored way of hunting was to stomp around the woods making a bunch of noise, and when a deer gets startled and bolts, that's when they pump it full of lead.

      This always sounded a bit unsportsmanlike and dangerous to me (It's hard to verify that the area behind the deer is clear when you're snapfiring at it), but you have to understand that most of the hunters in my area were rednecks. If you want to talk about hunters that you can respect, you had to wait for bowhunting season.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    12. Re:Not an assault rifle by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

      I just saw a stupid show on TV the other day "Rat Bastards" where guys were hunting large 30 lb swamp rats in the Bayou with AR15s haha.

    13. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully not too many as the .223 round of a standard ar-15 is considered inhumane to the deer as it doesn't guarantee a kill. Add to that in most places you are not allowed to hunt with high-capacity magazines, and a .223 AR-15 is not a good choice as a hunting rifle.

    14. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't even be that except Seth just had to call the cops. Should have just called the shipper and had them come pick it up. No way could he have got in trouble for that, and even if he had, well, that would be a tort, wouldn't it?

      Now, if he were dishonest, well, "No, I cannot recall this gun of which you speak", "Gun, what gun, and where's my TV set?", eh?

      Fat Tony

    15. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't.

      The semi-auto weapons are usually varmit style setups. Prarie dogs, coyotes, wild pigs, etc.

      Typical varmit caliber is a high-velocity, flat trajectory type round. ( Usually .223 or similar )

    16. Re:Not an assault rifle by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Most 30.06 rifles I have shot are semi automatic. Very few are bolt action anymore. Most hunters only shoot once.. (maybe a second time, if they wounded the first time) but for practice (target shooting) its nice to be able to stay in your stance, and not take your eyes off the target to shift around, re-load the chamber, etc.

      I do have some friends that hunt with muzzle loaders though.. those guys are crazy :)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    17. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough with the BS that AR stands for "Assault Rifle". AR in this context comes from the AR15 platform. AR is shorthand for ARmalite. An assault rifle is classified as a select fire (semi and full/burst auto) rifle with an intermediate sized round and a removable magazine. The SIG716 meets only one of those requirements.

    18. Re:Not an assault rifle by jpapon · · Score: 1

      I can respect that, but it still seems rather unnecessary.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    19. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No hunters I know use a semi-auto. Well, only one, and he admits, he needs the second magazine pretty regulary too. :(

      Our species is sad sometimes.

    20. Re:Not an assault rifle by poity · · Score: 2

      Yes, and iPods are magical, and coal is clean. Slashdotters laugh at those marketing claims, yet here we are taking this one seriously.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    21. Re:Not an assault rifle by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not arresting the guy is actually a quite remarkable exception. Normally he'd be busted and added to the knotches on the belt of the DA representing convictions of criminals (not to be confused with ordinary people just caught up in random events), plus, they'd shoot his dog.

    22. Re:Not an assault rifle by Thesis · · Score: 1

      Parent is correct, this is not an assault rifle, so mod him up please. An assault rifle is defined as a machine gun, just so that folks know. The media tends to call any rilfe an assault rifle, just to sensationalize the reporting. On a side note, in most states people can legally own a machine gun, as long as it was made prior to May of 1986, and that it is in the BATFE maintained NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) database as a registered transferable weapon. Machine guns made after May 19th 1986 may only be sold to dealers, law enforcement agencies, other government agencies, or the military, per federal law. Having a fixed supply and a high demand, transferable machine guns are quite expensive. They are certainly a better investment than shares in Facebook...

      Read more on the National Firearms Act of 1934 here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

      To get an idea of the cost of machine guns, look here:

      http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&website=&language=&session_key=

      http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi

    23. Re:Not an assault rifle by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If you only can afford one rifle a semi auto fills all roles not so well.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    24. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, art kits are just tackle boxes, but art kits cost 5-10 times as much.

    25. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People hunt with semi-automatic rifles? What's the matter, they don't know how to aim, or pull a bolt or lever action?

      Hunting with a semi-auto is so goddamn unsportsmanlike... What kind of asshole kills deer with an AR-15?

      There's plenty of things to hunt besides deer, a fact of which you are obviously unaware. For example, Coyote hunting. Semi-automatic rifles are extremely popular with Coyote hunters because, due to the nature of the Coyote and the fact that you're tricking him into thinking he's doing the hunting, not being hunted, is on the move quite a bit (and are quite skittish). This leads to a hunt that typically sees most shots made against moving targets. Semi-automatic rifles are great in this regard --they increase your likely-hood of connecting with the animal, and should your first shot not arrive quite where you want it (liver, hind legs, somewhere non-lethal) they provide for a very quick follow-up shot to minimize the animals suffering. As a hunter, I can tell you that wounding an animal is a sickening feeling. No one is perfect on every shot and so it happens --this also makes it your duty, as a hunter, to be able to finish what you've started as quickly as possible.

      It's not got anything to do with not knowing "how to aim", and very little to do with being able to work a bolt or lever. Hunting live game is basically nothing like putting holes in bits of paper at your local range or backyard.

      I hope I've enlightened you to some small degree.

    26. Re:Not an assault rifle by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      Where do you come from, and what do you hunt, that someone says "high caliber, better suited for hunting" and you think he's talking about a BB gun? Do you eat a lot of frog legs? Or are there miniature deer?

    27. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @jpapon, You are totally clueless.

      Has nothing to do with Deer hunting and the AR-15 is a tool. AR stands for Armalite and not "Assualt rifle" just to clear up misconceptions. Just like any other tool someone would purchase, we look for the most flexible tool to invest in. That is what an AR-15 offers. Flexibility and precision.

      Any shooter would try to make a clean kill in one shot. But with Hogs and other predatory animals becoming so pervasive, having multiple targets, plus followup shots. The capacity and ease of use of an AR-15 beats almost anything else on the market. That is why millions of them are sold, and the platform is still what the US military uses for combat.

    28. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More and more people are using AR-type rifles (aka Modern Sporting Rifles) for hunting.

    29. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting with anything more powerful than a bow and arrow is unsportsmanlike.

      Captcha: Trauma

    30. Re:Not an assault rifle by sootman · · Score: 1

      > The SIG716 is not an "assault rifle" and you
      > won't be "mowing" anything down with it.

      Anti-gun writers all seem to secretly have huge hard-ons for guns, which is why every story they write sounds like they're trying to put together a script for a Michael Bay movie.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    31. Re:Not an assault rifle by icebrain · · Score: 4, Informative

      Who says anyone is "spraying and praying" all over? One shot is one shot, and neither the bullet nor the game animal cares what mechanism cycles the next round into the chamber. Lots of people (myself included) hunt with semiautos, not out of some crazy "must shoot everything in sight" urge, or a need to make up for poor shooting skills, but rather just because we already have one, it works fine, and there's no sense buying another rifle just to hunt.

      The AR-10/AR-15 family is actually quite well-suited to hunting use (provided appropriate ammunition is used for the desired game), if you put aside asinine drivel about "spraying lead everywhere". Here's why:

      Synthetic stocks are less susceptible to warping due to humidity and temperature changes.

      Adjustable stocks (as commonly found on these rifles) make them usable by a wide range of ages and body types. My 6'3" friend and his 5'1" wife can easily use the same rifle to hunt, despite the large disparity in size.

      The gas operation and large buffer tube reduce felt recoil, making it more comfortable for small or new shooters.

      The placement and operation of the safety mean that it can be operated easily while already sighted on a target, unlike many bolt-action rifles where the safety is high on the receiver, or even on the back of the bolt. The safety can also be left engaged while loading and unloading, helping reduce the chances of accidental firing.

      The detachable magazine makes loading and unloading much easier and reduces the chance of dropping cartridges while fumbling with the floorplate of a fixed magazine, or repeatedly cycling rounds through the action. Not only does this improve safety during these evolutions, but people are also more likely to follow safety rules like unloading when crossing ditches or fences, or climing into/out of tree stands.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    32. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delivery is the end part of shipping so in turn it was a shipping error.

    33. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semi-automatic hunting rifles have been around for 100+ years. It's not a bad idea to have one for hunting bears and other large game (put two shots in quickly). Also, people hunt feral hogs with AR-15s in order to try to get several of them (since they are an epidemic in a number of places). Besides, even with a semi-automatic hunting rifle, nothing says you have to pull the trigger more than once. Some people just like to know they can pull it again in rapid succession if they need/want to. There's nothing magic about an AR-15. The .223/5.56x45 is legal for deer in many states (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, for examples) where the deer are physically smaller (average less than 180lbs, for example). I personally like something a little bigger but many, many deer are killed with .223/5.56 every year. The deer don't know or care whether it was shot from a bolt or an AR-15. Plus, the cartridge is very low recoil so it's a good one for younger/smaller people to use (people starting hunting, kids, women, or just anyone who doesn't want to deal with recoil).

    34. Re:Not an assault rifle by jpapon · · Score: 1
      Fine, fine, you're right. I was just in a bad mood, and decided to provoke some /. wrath for the hell of it

      I just generally think using a semi-auto to hunt is unsportsmanlike. Where I live (Germany), you can hunt with a semi-auto, but you're limited to a two round magazine.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    35. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting with a semi-auto is so goddamn unsportsmanlike

      That's perhaps the most arbitrary line of distinction for 'sportsmanlike' hunting that I've ever heard.

    36. Re:Not an assault rifle by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Also, it is in a large caliber that makes it better suited for hunting than for rapid fire.

      My understanding is that the SIG 716 is 7.62x51mm which is used in plenty of fully-automatic rifles such as the M60 machine gun.

      The term "large caliber" never made much sense to me, as 7.62mm==.308" which is smaller than 9mm or .45" handgun rounds and clearly smaller than .50" rifle rounds.

      Yes, 7.62mm > 5.56mm (original M16 round, which is close in caliber to .22").

      But I give everyone a pass because I think even SIG calls the 716 a "high caliber carbine".

    37. Re:Not an assault rifle by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      I have found that functionality there isn't much difference between a hunting rifle and the evil scary looking assault weapon or sniper rifle. If it has reasonable accuracy for the distance you are hunting and shoots a properly sized and powerful round it will work. All of my firearms are military ones and they work well for hunting. My shotgun is a Mossberg 12 gauge (pump action same one used by the US military), my first hunting rifle is a Romanian SKS (still have it) and my preferred big game rifle is a decommissioned Russian M91/30 sniper rifle. The SKS with the 7.62x39 round will effectively take game up to a white tail deer while the M91/30 with the more powerful will effectively take all big game in North America. One of the guys who I hunt with uses an old Lee Enfield rifle from WWII and I hear that Mausers are still fairly popular to hunt with. Even the popular .30-06 round was a military round and is probably by far the most popular big game cartridge in the US.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    38. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the south US deer are small enough that a .223 is suitable. Prairie dogs and other varmints are ideal targets for an ar-15.

    39. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People hunt with semi-automatic rifles? What's the matter, they don't know how to aim, or pull a bolt or lever action?

      Hunting with a semi-auto is so goddamn unsportsmanlike... What kind of asshole kills deer with an AR-15?

      The kind of asshole that likes the ability to change calibers just by changing the upper receiver. In a couple of minutes, I can go from 9mm, to 223, to 6.8spc without having to buy 3 different guns.

      How fast does your can go? Chances are, much faster than you'd care to drive it. Definitely, it goes much faster than is safe to drive.

      By the way, I hunt with an AR-15, but it's pest control of feral hogs. When I deer hunt, I pull the trigger once. When I hog hunt, I pull the trigger once, then move to the next (then) running hog aim and pull the trigger again, lather, rinse, repeat. The local farmers appreciate what we do with our AR-15s against a non-native invasive species that likes to destroy the livelihood of farmers. Almost 200 hogs down since January.

    40. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's high caliber for a carbine, I guess, but I wouldn't call it a high caliber gun. Just relatively so compared to the standard AR15 on which it's based.

      A carbine is, by definition, a short-barrel rifle. A 7.62 NATO chambering on a carbine is going to kick a lot more than the more common 5.56 NATO chambering, so yes, for a carbine, it's somewhat high caliber.

      The real high caliber rifles - e.g. a .50 BMG - are usually found in long rifles that are much heavier with longer barrels for better accuracy over longer distances.

    41. Re:Not an assault rifle by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're like the anti-gay crowd and they're all closet gun nuts who will be caught firing an M61Awhatever SAW at a gun range with a big smile on their faces...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    42. Re:Not an assault rifle by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You can get an AR-15 platform rifle chambered in larger caliber... not to mention that 5.56mm/.223 can easily take down a good sized mule deer.

      I stand by the argument that hunting with a semi-auto is unsportsmanlike. Why not learn to shoot so you don't have to spray lead all over the forest?

      I'll take that challenge and raise you one: Why not learn to shoot a long bow (or at least a compound bow) and avoid spraying lead all over the forest?

      Or you could even go one step further and hunt with snares, your hands, and a skinning knife.

      Most people hunt with a supermarket, which is even more unsportsmanlike than a fully automatic weapon.

    43. Re:Not an assault rifle by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 1

      Hunting with a rifle in most states here, regardless of if the rifle is bolt action, lever action, or semi-auto, is limited to 5 rounds.

      --
      Orwell was an optimist.
    44. Re:Not an assault rifle by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      What?! You're giving up on an argument? On the internet!!!?!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    45. Re:Not an assault rifle by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Oh man, you haven't *lived* until you've done battle with a seran-wrapped pork loin!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    46. Re:Not an assault rifle by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      My 30.06 is semi auto. My .270 and 7mm Mag are both bolt action. I like the bolt action as they do shoot better and straighter most of the time. I never changed my hunting style while using either one though.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    47. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly how is this a hunting rifle? You'd have to be hunting wampas in order to need that much power. Christ. Some "hunters" are extremist.

    48. Re:Not an assault rifle by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I remember reading an old novel that included the bit of woodsman lore that "if you hear a single shot then the hunter got his quarry, two shots means it probably got away, three shots means it definitely did". In which case a muzzle loader would work almost as well as any other weapon, with the added benefits of making you look much more bad-ass and upping the drama of the experience (oh right, you're just hunting for the meat, of course...)

      Unless they're hunting polar bears, water buffalo, or 30lb saber-tooth swamp-rats, in which case yeah, they're crazy.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    49. Re:Not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIG seems to market it as a "patrol rifle". I don't think they're positioning it as a hunting rifle, although I suppose you could hunt with it anyway.

      Forest patrol ? Some one needs to keep those pesky bears from stealing lunch boxes and starting fires.

    50. Re:Not an assault rifle by Valcrus · · Score: 0

      You know I was thinking about that on my way home from work. I just got a Ruger 10/22 rifle w/ wood stock for plinking at the range, and was thinking "You know if I take this and put it next to the same type of gun just with the tactical rails/synthetic stock someone would say that the tactical looking one was more dangerous." Even though they are the same guns and would shoot the same .22 cal someone would complain that it was a horrible thing to sell/buy.

    51. Re:Not an assault rifle by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Fn sold model 98 Mausers to Peru who later rebarreled them to shoot US-surplus .30-06 and then they eventually wound up on the market, many of them came back to the US and got "sporterized" by putting a scope on them. Unless you spend the cost of your $200 rifle on your scope mount this means not being able to use the stripper clips for loading, so you have to just stuff rounds in. Battle rifle to hunting rifle involves removing the sights and mounting a scope. It would be nice to convert it to load from a detachable magazine, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Important details by Jenerick · · Score: 0

    His wife, who is pregnant, is definitely integral to the story

    1. Re:Important details by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Of course it is...

      The unborn child might have gotten ahold of the rifle and accidentally shot someone, or at least blown a big friggin' hole in the womb.

    2. Re:Important details by modecx · · Score: 1

      I wonder: is this unborn child assumed to have a football shaped head, an English accent, and a penchant for elocution?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  27. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please blather elsewhere.

  28. Something is not right here... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

    Amazon doesn't sell firearms, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty sure they don't. The article is non-commital about whether the package was actually FROM Amazon. So, I think what happened here is that this dude ordered a TV for his wife, and in a totally unrelated incident, received a mis-shipped rifle. Of course, that's not as cute a story, so trim out a few details, leave a few false impressions, and Bob's your uncle.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:Something is not right here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the Amazon angle seems completely superfluous.

    2. Re:Something is not right here... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      It does say he ordered the TV from a third-party merchant, via Amazon's marketplace. It's possible the third-party merchant sells both TVs and firearms, and mis-shipped his order.

    3. Re:Something is not right here... by MortimerV · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely that the Assault Rifle was mis-matched to the TV, either via a similar but mistyped product identifier causing Amazon to think they're the same (not likely, they have other measures in place to stop this), or due to the merchant making a mistake and saying "Yep, this product looks right" to get it live without doublechecking things.

      The rifle's description on Amazon would then be set to the TV's even though the products are completely different -- the merchant's description and pictures are ignored because they aren't the main seller of the product. A customer makes a purchase, the merchant sees the order and doesn't notice it's for a TV because they're rushing to ship all their orders (or maybe it doesn't even say on their end, but that seems unlikely), and the assault rifle goes out.

      Complete mismatches like that don't happen too often, percentage-wise, but with a combination of the right/wrong factors, human error comes into play and they can slip by.

    4. Re:Something is not right here... by jpapon · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can order firearms delivered to your home over the internet, even in 'merica. I think they must be shipped to a licensed dealer, from whom you can pick them up.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:Something is not right here... by MortimerV · · Score: 1

      Oh, nevermind. Another post here says that someone put this guy's shipping label over the original one on the package which had it destined for a gun shop, so the problem occurred after it left the merchant's hands.

      http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037651&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=40932463

    6. Re:Something is not right here... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Amazon sells third party gee gaws and dodads for firearms. (Slings, pouches, straps, sights, lights, mounds, cases, safes, cleaning kits, etc.) They do not sell OEM parts or magazines. So you can get a clip to put a small pistol on your belt that you add to the pistol, but you can't get the magazine or gun you would add it to, or any springs and such for internal parts of the gun.

    7. Re:Something is not right here... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Ah...that clears it up. Pity the reporter whose job it was to do that couldn't have made it more clear.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    8. Re:Something is not right here... by gasmasher · · Score: 1

      That depends on state law if intrastate. Federal law kicks in and prohibits interstate shipping.

    9. Re:Something is not right here... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I'm quite certain you can order such weapons, they might even be delivered, though you'd probably have to pay a "reputable" dealer in Bitcoin to have any chance of that. Or pay COD for 2am delivery by some hooded guy in a black SUV.

      Let's never forget that what's available and what's legally available are two unrelated concepts - of such confusion are all manner of counter-productive bans born.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  29. We should BAN ASSULT TV's by uslurper · · Score: 3, Funny

    ^^^

    --
    oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
    1. Re:We should BAN ASSULT TV's by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      BAN INSULT TV's

      I agree!!!!!

    2. Re:We should BAN ASSULT TV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bender should not be allowed on TV!

  30. Yet another reason... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    not to order assault rifles over the internet.

    1. Re:Yet another reason... by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you might get a TV.

  31. Meanwhile, in Texas... by macwhizkid · · Score: 3, Funny

    A border patrol vigilante is busy trying to figure out how to load a magazine clip into his assault rifle flatscreen.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, in Texas... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      A border patrol vigilante is busy trying to figure out how to load a magazine clip into his assault rifle flatscreen.

      There's an app for that.

    2. Re:Meanwhile, in Texas... by humanrev · · Score: 1

      Magazines and clips are completely different things. People tend to say clip when they should have said magazine, and now you're using both terms together!

      If I was a gun nut I would rip you a new one. But since I'm not i'll just let you off with a warning. :)

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
  32. Now I might buy something from Amazon.... by Raxxon · · Score: 2

    Can someone tell me which make/model of TV he ordered and if it was cheaper than that 716?

    I have a friend that owns the 516 (5.56 version of the gun instead of the 7.62) and it's a nice chunk of hardware...

  33. Innaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not an Assault Rifle. Normally the terms don't matter, but in the case of weapons, the laws are VERY different when you change just one word. The Sig 716 is an Assault Weapon, not and Assault Rifle.

    The term "assault weapon" is a United States legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following "Evil features":

            Folding or telescoping stock
            Primary pistol grip
            Forward grip
            Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
            Barrel shroud

    The National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 are the laws that affect Assault Rifles (all, I repeat ALL of which are select fire (burst) or fully automatic weapons)

    So, in summary, the terms assault rifle and assault weapon are NOT interchangeable from a legal standpoint.

    Secondly, that's a $2200 rifle, and the law is pretty specific about where you can deliver those things to (an FFL holder, and that's pretty much it). That's a pretty huge mistake to be made by UPS or whoever the shipping agent was

  34. Can I get the item number and for the TV...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to purchase one with a 30-rnd mag and a cleaning kit...

  35. I would have kept it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me see, hmmmm, TV or assault rifle worth about 10 times the tv. I would have kept it and shut my mouth and had a nice home defense weapon.

  36. Assault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assault is something you do with a rifle, not a description of a rifle. If it is used for home defense then it would be more accuratly described as a defense rifle. Since it has never been used, it is currently best described as a semi-automatic rifle.

  37. Sounds like the Kiva robots goofed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the customer who got the TV is another failed grad student/batman dressup guy, so this worked out well.

  38. Reality TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This brings the violence on TV to a whole new level!

  39. Wat by Snodgrass · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that article originally from the Onion?

    Geez, they're just lucky that they're still alive. That very big gun, capable of mowing down, well...just about anything, could have leapt out that box and killed her unborn child!

    I mean, unloaded guns, still in packaging, have killed untold numbers of unsuspecting hipsters.

    1. Re:Wat by captjc · · Score: 1

      He can't be a hipster, he was buying a TV. Hipsters would never reduce themselves to owning a TV.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    2. Re:Wat by Megane · · Score: 1

      ...and if they had an SUV, it would probably have been right behind the gun ready to run the whole family over!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Wat by Vesuvias · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure his hipster comment was a dig at the article submitter "InfernoApple" and their completely unnecessary and overly dramatic mowing comment. I mean sure, while my backyard grass is a little annoying using a semi-automatic rifle to cut it seems a bit excessively wasteful in bullets. Those kooky hipsters always using the wrong tool for the job. Unless of course you have a walled garden and an semi-auto rifle is all you have to "mow" with. Wait a minute I am now starting to understand InfernoApple's comment a little better now....

    4. Re:Wat by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I mean, unloaded guns, still in packaging, have killed untold numbers of unsuspecting hipsters.

      You severely underestimate the lethality of a heart attack on an unsuspecting hipster.

    5. Re:Wat by InfernoApple · · Score: 1

      The whole quote and the mowing comment is from the article itself, if you actually read it. I just submitted because I thought it was a pretty funny mixup. Nothing to do with hipsters or gun-rights either.

    6. Re:Wat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Hipsters own TVs just to say that they do not watch TV. Also how are they going to watch those obscure Art movies after they leave the art house theater?

    7. Re:Wat by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Is that article originally from the Onion?

      Geez, they're just lucky that they're still alive. That very big gun, capable of mowing down, well...just about anything, could have leapt out that box and killed her unborn child!

      I mean, unloaded guns, still in packaging, have killed untold numbers of unsuspecting hipsters.

      I can see you've never been around an expectant mom...
      The risk was to the HUSBAND, not the pregnant wife. I bet she could get that thing out and bludgeon him with it in pretty short order.

    8. Re:Wat by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no; you're not hipstering correctly. It's not a TV, it's a large monitor for watching the Colbert Report, while pretending there were special jokes you only get when you have your fingerstache up.

      For best results, you scratch the shit outta the case, load it up with stickers of dubious wit, remove the channel up and volume down buttons (replace with differently colored thumbtacks, if desired), and attach the base using duct tape and.... I dunno, maybe a rubber band or an old pizza box or a sock or some shit. Whatever is the most ironically pretentious non-pretentious solution to a problem you just made up.

      Also, and this is the most important part: you have to say it's made by Sansumg or Snoy or Pandasunset or Whaddafuckteevee, which is a manufacturer you have never heard of.

    9. Re:Wat by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      That very big gun, capable of mowing down, well...just about anything, ...

      Damn, I could use a gun like that for my lawn. Anyone know what kind of TV he ordered?

    10. Re:Wat by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    11. Re:Wat by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I mean, unloaded guns, still in packaging, have killed untold numbers of unsuspecting hipsters.

      Doesn't everyone make a habit of unboxing their new TVs in public, often in-front of a police station? Maybe it's just me and Ahnold?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  40. hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    semi-auto means that you squeeze the trigger and one -- ONE -- bullet comes out. Assult rifles are, by definition, fully automatic. This weapon is not full-auto, ergo it is not an assault rifle. "semi-automatic assault rifle" is a contradiction in terms.

    You're not going to "mow down" anything with that gun. Again, it's semi-auto.

    The rifle is chambered in 7.62 x 51 mm. That's, like, one of the most common rifle calibers in the world. There are hunting rifles that fire similar rounds, yes even the ones in the old cowboy movies.

    But, hey, there's no reason we can't call this semi-auto rifle in a common caliber an "assault rifle capable of mowing down, well, just about anything." Who cares if it makes you sound like you don't know what the hell you're talking about? It's a gun! And not just any gun: it's black and has no wood on it! SCARY!

  41. How dangerous, really? by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 5, Informative

    This story was on the local Washington DC NPR affiliate yesterday, and they did a much better job describing the problem -- it was quite obviously a UPS bungle, underneath the address sticker on the package, there was *another* address sticker, with the address of a gun shop in Maryland, which confirmed that they had indeed ordered this thing, and were waiting for it. Amazon doesn't appear to have done anything wrong in this case.

    The part that I thought NPR did poorly was, both they and the guy who was the subject of the story kept going on about how dangerous the situation was, and I thought that was kind of over-blown. It was left on his porch for a while, which put it at risk for theft, but the gun was, as far as I can tell, not loaded, and there was no suitable ammunition anywhere around. So, it seems to me that, practically speaking, it was no more or less dangerous than a similarly-sized shovel or crowbar, independently of the presence of pregnant women and other vulnerable people.

    When someone shows up with the right ammo, *then* it's dangerous. But not before.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    1. Re:How dangerous, really? by krotkruton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As soon as I saw "pregnant" wife, my sensationalism alarms went off. I get that they don't have a gun safe, but I'm pretty sure the fetus won't be able to do much. Then I see all the stuff about Amazon and how he ordered a TV, and I'm wondering what Amazon has to do with it. Since when did Amazon start selling assault rifles and shipping them through the mail? Oh wait, they don't. Amazon has nothing to do with the story, but it sure sounds a lot better when you can imagine ordering a new toy for your kids only to have them open up a "Bag O' Glass" because Amazon messed up the order.

    2. Re:How dangerous, really? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      So, it seems to me that, practically speaking, it was no more or less dangerous than a similarly-sized shovel or crowbar, independently of the presence of pregnant women and other vulnerable people.

      I understand your argument that a gun without ammo is not particularly dangerous. However, you can't go to WalMart and buy anything for a shovel or crowbar that would make it capable of killing a crowd of people in short order. Even if you went carmageddon with a shovel and strapped it to the roof of a car you wouldn't be able to kill as many people with it as you could with a box of ammo for this gun.

      Beyond that, shovels and crowbars have utilitarian purposes beyond killing people. This gun has no other purpose, it is made for killing people. Even if you were to purchase it for self-defense you would still be using it to kill people.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:How dangerous, really? by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Treating a gun as if it weren't loaded is a good way to get people accidentally shot. Or did you fail basic hunter safety like Cheney did?

    4. Re:How dangerous, really? by poity · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing operational safety with something else entirely. You should never stand behind a vehicle when the engine is on, but that doesn't mean every person who loads groceries into the back of a parked car is risking his/her life.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    5. Re:How dangerous, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, you can't go to WalMart and buy anything for a shovel or crowbar that would make it capable of killing a crowd of people in short order. Even if you went carmageddon with a shovel and strapped it to the roof of a car you wouldn't be able to kill as many people with it as you could with a box of ammo for this gun.

      Wal-Mart, like any department store, sells chemicals and containers which can readily be combined into lethal weapons suitable for mass killing. Guns are just relatively easier to use, and nutjobs overwhelmingly tend to take the easy route. How many theater goers would have been killed if Holmes had decided to pull a Tim McVeigh instead? The contents of his apartment prove he had the capability to utilize improvised explosives and a timer.

      This gun has no other purpose, it is made for killing people.

      You are drunk on fear.

      Even if you were to purchase it for self-defense you would still be using it to kill people.

      The fundamental right to self defense, including resorting to lethal self defense when necessary, is widely recognized. If you're a pacifist, I can respect that, but you don't get to tell other people they must be prey. Now, whether this particular firearm is suitable for most self defense scenarios is a different matter...

      - T

    6. Re:How dangerous, really? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

      If you're a pacifist, I can respect that, but you don't get to tell other people they must be prey

      I made no such statement. I did not say that people cannot own this gun, I said only that this gun is made for killing people. I happen to be a gun owner myself, I just don't own guns that are made for killing people - I own guns that are made for sport (trap, in particular) shooting.

      Now, whether this particular firearm is suitable for most self defense scenarios is a different matter...

      This gun is made for killing people, I would hope we could agree on that. Really a gun of this type is a rather lousy hunting rifle - at least, if you want to be sporting and you want to be able to eat your kill. If we can agree that it is designed to kill people, then what is left is the scenario. I prefer to expect that manufacturers do not make guns with the intent of aiding people in killing others just for the heck of it, so I would like to see this as a "self-defense" weapon. That said I have little doubt there are better weapons available for that purpose...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:How dangerous, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone shows up with the right ammo,
      loads the ammo into the magazine,
      inserts the magazine into rifle,
      cycles the bolts,
      turns off the safety,
      points it at somebody,
      puts their finger on the trigger,

      *then* it's dangerous.

      It is not dangerous unless all of those things are done.

      Too many people have swallowed the propaganda that a gun is like a hungry lion ready to eat women and children without anybody doing anything.

    8. Re:How dangerous, really? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart, like any department store, sells chemicals and containers which can readily be combined into lethal weapons suitable for mass killing.

      That's a pretty bad comparison. Just like a VCR has substantial non-infringing uses, those chemicals and containers have substantial non-lethal uses. What substantial non-lethal uses do bullets have?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    9. Re:How dangerous, really? by modecx · · Score: 1

      When asked to draw a line to distinguish between a gun designed to kill and one that's not, some people will argue that your trap gun, or any gun is designed to kill, whether or not you use it for that purpose. In fact, shotguns are known to work very well to that end, whether the quarry be little birds or people. An argument could be made that a gun designed for trap would excel at killing people, being designed to produce tighter groups of shot at longer distances, and being light enough to easily follow your target, you know, whatever that may be.

      The fact remains: The vast, massively overwhelming majority of people who will ever own the gun represented in this article (or one similar to it) will use it no differently than you use your trap gun... After all, there are entire divisions of organized sport where rifles like this are routine, required equipment. Most people will just shoot pop cans and steel/paper targets with it.

      As for your assertion that a semi-automatic .308 is a lousy hunting rifle: it's manufactured to accurately use a cartridge which is widely recognized as neither insufficient nor overpowered for hunting most large game in this country, from varmints on up, millions of people use this cartridge expressly for hunting. There is no discernible operating difference between this rifle and many others which are specifically marketed as hunting arms.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    10. Re:How dangerous, really? by modecx · · Score: 1

      I've shot hundreds of thousands of rounds over the years, none of which have disturbed or injured another living being, unless you count the bacteria and yeast cells living in the backstop, and perhaps a few blades of grass and weeds. Well, maybe an unfortunate gnat or two got in the way somewhere down the road, but that's just between you and me.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    11. Re:How dangerous, really? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      The use that the vast majority of bullets end up going to: targets at a range.

      Just because it's not fun for you (or even me) doesn't mean it's not fun for other people.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    12. Re:How dangerous, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part that I thought NPR did poorly was, both they and the guy who was the subject of the story kept going on about how dangerous the situation was, and I thought that was kind of over-blown. It was left on his porch for a while, which put it at risk for theft, but the gun was, as far as I can tell, not loaded, and there was no suitable ammunition anywhere around. So, it seems to me that, practically speaking, it was no more or less dangerous than a similarly-sized shovel or crowbar, independently of the presence of pregnant women and other vulnerable people.

      This took place in Washington DC. He was at high risk of being arrested or shot for possession of an illegal gun.

    13. Re:How dangerous, really? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Right, it's acceptable for rationalizing piracy, with the unjustic of a pregnant woman having to see a helicopter, but not for gun control.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    14. Re:How dangerous, really? by PattyMc · · Score: 1

      You are right, this has nothing to do with Amazon per se. It was a third party seller and there are many further non-Amazon related details people here have added which is why I always read the comments.. We bemoan the hyperbole of Fox News and the media in general and yet this post demonstrates how easy it is to fall into that trap in an effort to get noticed.

    15. Re:How dangerous, really? by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Obviously, nobody could possibly want one for the purposes of demonstrating their skills at poking holes in sheets of paper from a distance.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    16. Re:How dangerous, really? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Obviously, nobody could possibly want one for the purposes of demonstrating their skills at poking holes in sheets of paper from a distance.

      Selecting this weapon for shooting at paper targets is like buying a Ferrari for your commute to work. Sure, it will work, and you might have more fun than the guy next to you, but there are less expensive (and arguably better suited) options available for that purpose.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    17. Re:How dangerous, really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      at least, if you want to be sporting and you want to be able to eat your kill

      Wait, first you said hunting, now you say sporting, which is it? Some people shoot to eat. In California you can still hunt pigs on that basis (economically) if you can find someplace to hunt. Most of the other tags are pretty spendy now. That's OK, because pigs are delicious. And if a weapon was designed for killing people then it's just dandy for killing pigs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  42. Not an assault rifle by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

    "Assault Rifle" is a military term for a rifle that can be fired as semi-automatic or fully-automatic. The SIG 716 isn't an assault rifle and a Corvette ZR1 isn't tractor trailer.

    The author probably meant "assault weapon" but that's a meaningless word for "scary looking gun" The now-expired Assault Weapons Ban defined certain guns by model and feature but mostly it was about looking scary. The gun in question was released this year so it couldn't have qualified based on the model and I don't care enough to check if it would qualify based on cosmetic features.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  43. Re:Meanwhile, in Switzerland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    every single military-age man has a fully-automatic variant of this rifle that was given to him by the government

  44. Common Mistake... by jkiller · · Score: 0

    "Oh... I'm sorry... I thought you said 'high caliber' not 'high definition.'"

  45. Give a man a fish... by AioKits · · Score: 1

    You feed him for a day. Give a man an assault rifle, and you'll feed him for as long as he has ammo!

    --
    "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    1. Re:Give a man a fish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

    2. Re:Give a man a fish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crunch, crunch. Mmmm, fish with crunchy bullets inside. Flavored with powdery residue. Yumm!

    3. Re:Give a man a fish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You feed him for a day.
      Give a man an assault rifle, and you'll feed him for as long as he has ammo!

      You keep feeding him ammo; he'll keep feeding you food.

      You DO like long pork, right?

  46. Rule of Proportion by mridoni · · Score: 1

    I just ordered (seriously) a vacuum cleaner. Please stay tuned for the test of the thermonuclear device I'm going to get.

  47. Nothing exciting here by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    The gun is chambered for a 7.62 NATO round. That's like a .30 caliber bullet. A pretty common caliber for anyone who hunts medium sized game. It's a semi-auto rifle as well, so nothing incredible about that. If you ignore the 20 roiund clip, this rifle doesn't do anything out of the ordinary except look "scary".

    A Barret .50 would have been much more exciting to receive.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  48. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Funny

    What does a Canadian band have to do with Obama and Romney?

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  49. Pro-gun hyperbole by davidannis · · Score: 2

    No weapon kills people, people do. That's why no one should deny me my constitutional right to buy a tank and build a nuke.

    1. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by captjc · · Score: 2

      No weapon kills people, people do. That's why no one should deny me my constitutional right to buy a tank and build a nuke.

      Yes, Why can't someone protect my right to bear doomsday weapons! It is getting so hard for us mad scientists to get our hands on Doomsday weapons, much less the mad grad students. That is why I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax, for "duck hunting."

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    2. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because guns are an order of magnitude different than tanks or nukes. The amount of casualties caused by people who are crazy enough to shoot other people is negligible and acceptable in the name of freedom. With nukes (and probably tanks), that's not the case. That would be absolutely catastrophic.

      Don't punish everyone because a few people abuse their guns. Society won't fall apart from the occasional shooting (which would happen even with gun laws).

    3. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chemistry books contain secret recipes for weapons of mass destruction. Quick, burn the library! I wish someone would protect my constitutional rights to read books at the library!

    4. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by Fned · · Score: 1

      Well, the tank, yes.

      Oh, you didn't know that there are privately-owned tanks in this country?

    5. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Uhm, you can buy a tank. Its turret gun has to be disabled, but it's still a tank. A nuclear weapon is more problematic as it is a weapon of mass destruction and practically impossible to use except to wipe out a large area. Individual weapons, however, are quite capable of being used in a reasonable manner that does not result in collateral damage.

    6. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the strawman, but i think you SHOULD be allowed to buy a tank anyway.

      the NUKE argument is a load of crap, because having a nuclear bomb in your house is a danger to everyone around you SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF ITS BEING THERE.

      no gun, and no tank, is going to explode and obliterate an entire city just because you didn't store it properly.

    7. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > That's why no one should deny me my constitutional right to buy a tank and build a nuke.

      Private militia companies did field cannon during the time period when the 2nd Amendment was written so yes, you should be able to own a tank. But you see, I'm willing to compromise a little. I'd be willing to accept some 'reasonable common sense restrictions' on the 2nd Amendment. So how about no limits on personal arms other than no violent felons or people with limits due to mental defect, but we require crew served weapons to be held by a militia company with strong safeguards to control their access to people who have the training to safely operate them and can pass a background check.

      As for the nuke, we have signed and ratified treaties controlling them so that is a red herring.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    8. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things that kill everyone in the vicinity, including the person using the weapon, isn't quite useful for protection. Nice try, though.

    9. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      It's trivial to get your hands on doomsday weapons... just difficult to get your hands on *popular* doomsday weapons. Have a little originality and you'll be fine, Mr. Mad Scientist.

    10. Re:Pro-gun hyperbole by retchdog · · Score: 1

      as long as there is real liability on the militia, and no bullshit corporate veil, this isn't entirely unreasonable.

      as for the treaties, some folks would disagree about their relevance: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/swann1.1.1.html

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  50. Questions remaining by Tolvor · · Score: 0

    1. I haven't ordered guns through the postal system but shouldn't there be a system where the postal system knows what is being shipped? It would have been helpful if a postal worker had noticed that a dangerous semi-automatic rifle was being shipped to a D.C. address and notified police. As an example this guy (http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/con-way-freight-helps-capture-alleged-terrorist) was caught because the shipping company became suspicious and notified the FBI. Why was this gun not detected and intercepted?

    2. Where are the quality controls on this? There should be a big difference in the shipping weight and dimensions of a flat-screen TV and a rifle. Amazon must have poor QA/QC if they cannot automatically detect a shipping discrepancy and hold the shipment to be checked. This is not that complicated - stores now have self-checkout lines that check the scanned UPC code against the weight added to the bag. Quite simple, except for Amazon.

    3. What did the gun store (that was supposed to get that rifle) get? Presumably it was a flat-screen TV, but it considering the poor tracking on this issue by Amazon there could be a whole series of incorrectly shipped items.

    4. I didn't know Amazon was in the gun-selling business. However I can't find any high-powered guns on their website (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Sig+Sauer+SIG716). How did this get ordered from Amazon in the first place?

    1. Re:Questions remaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Because the risk of labeling your package is equivalent to writing, "Hey, there's a gun in this box! STEAL ME!" UPS: "The labeling and outer box markings on all firearms shipments should not identify the contents as containing a firearm. Labeling, including the shipper's and consignee's abbreviated names on the shipping label or air shipping document, must be non-descriptive." There are federal regulations that any interstate shipments must be to a licensee (and usually both parties,) but as with most regulation, it depends on voluntary compliance and penalties more than enforcement.

      2. See above posts. Amazon did not ship it.

      3. See #2. Amazon did not ship it. My guess is that the label for the flat-screen fell off and was applied to this box instead by mistake. It wouldn't surprise me if the TV was sent back to the distributor or retailer (if it had a label on it for such.)

      4. See #2.

    2. Re:Questions remaining by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      1. I haven't ordered guns through the postal system but shouldn't there be a system where the postal system knows what is being shipped? It would have been helpful if a postal worker had noticed that a dangerous semi-automatic rifle was being shipped to a D.C. address and notified police. As an example this guy (http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/con-way-freight-helps-capture-alleged-terrorist) was caught because the shipping company became suspicious and notified the FBI. Why was this gun not detected and intercepted?

      2. Where are the quality controls on this? There should be a big difference in the shipping weight and dimensions of a flat-screen TV and a rifle. Amazon must have poor QA/QC if they cannot automatically detect a shipping discrepancy and hold the shipment to be checked. This is not that complicated - stores now have self-checkout lines that check the scanned UPC code against the weight added to the bag. Quite simple, except for Amazon.

      3. What did the gun store (that was supposed to get that rifle) get? Presumably it was a flat-screen TV, but it considering the poor tracking on this issue by Amazon there could be a whole series of incorrectly shipped items.

      4. I didn't know Amazon was in the gun-selling business. However I can't find any high-powered guns on their website (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Sig+Sauer+SIG716). How did this get ordered from Amazon in the first place?

      1. It's not an issue about what the postal system knows. Shippers of guns have to get an "FFL info" sheet from the recipient. An FFL is a specially licensed dealer allowed to transfer ownership of guns (across state lines, and in some states between people within the same state, and from businesses that sell guns). Rifles are not any more dangerous than any other hunk of solid matter until someone picks it up and puts ammo in it and tries to use it. It's not a bomb for fucks sake.

      2. I am going to guess, the quality control was some shipping dock somewhere where some tard that missed his smoke break slapped a label on the wrong object and it didn't get caught. Someone probably stole the TV, so the "next label" on the printed sheet got stuck on the wrong box. The shipping company probably didn't mess it up, whomever put the label on it did. Nobody wants to ship expensive stuff to the wrong place, but mess ups are inevitable. Especially if someone is trying to cover theft. You should be much more concerned that drugs get to the proper place. Those are more likely to be used inappropriately or taken by children.

      3. The original label was under the TV label. The TV was probably stolen. This is not a one for one swap. The gun store got nothing because their label was under the label that sent the rifle to the wrong place.

      4. They aren't. They do however sell for various third parties, one of whom apparently shares a shipping hub with another shipper that ships guns. They don't even have to both be selling on Amazon. See #2 above. It didn't get ordered from amazon. The TV did.

    3. Re:Questions remaining by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      1. I haven't ordered guns through the postal system but shouldn't there be a system where the postal system knows what is being shipped? It would have been helpful if a postal worker had noticed that a dangerous semi-automatic rifle was being shipped to a D.C. address and notified police. As an example this guy (http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/con-way-freight-helps-capture-alleged-terrorist) was caught because the shipping company became suspicious and notified the FBI. Why was this gun not detected and intercepted?

      Indeed -- to me, THIS is the story here. The government enacted some laws, and then failed to provide any infrastructure to enforce said laws in a sane manner.

      2. Where are the quality controls on this? There should be a big difference in the shipping weight and dimensions of a flat-screen TV and a rifle. Amazon must have poor QA/QC if they cannot automatically detect a shipping discrepancy and hold the shipment to be checked. This is not that complicated - stores now have self-checkout lines that check the scanned UPC code against the weight added to the bag. Quite simple, except for Amazon.

      The other articles answer this one... Amazon isn't at fault here -- their shipper is. The gun wasn't from Amazon, it just came through the same shipper, who took a lablel destined for/which had been on (articles don't really say which) the TV and slapped it on the gun box, which already had a label. Any reasonable shipper should have flagged this IMMEDIATELY, as the code usually has the dimensions and weight encoded, and these would not match the current package. Since the gun should never have made it to DC, and was destined for PA, that means that the labels weren't switched at the last moment, but had to travel through a processing station in the mislabeled state. That the switch wasn't detected there reflects poor quality control at that processing station.

      3. What did the gun store (that was supposed to get that rifle) get? Presumably it was a flat-screen TV, but it considering the poor tracking on this issue by Amazon there could be a whole series of incorrectly shipped items.

      More likely, they didn't get anything, but saw their shipment "vanish" in a processing hub. The TV likely ended up with NO shipping label.

      4. I didn't know Amazon was in the gun-selling business. However I can't find any high-powered guns on their website (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Sig+Sauer+SIG716). How did this get ordered from Amazon in the first place?

      Already answered this one above; the reporting was slipshod. The shipper isn't the only one with a lack of quality control here....

  51. Shipping error by ProfBooty · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was, NPR reported that his address label was stuck on top of one for the gun shop it was intended to go to. Pretty much every one of the articles on this story also neglects to state that you can't have firearms shipped to your house unless you have an FFL.. You have to go pick it up at a gun store and go through a background check.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:Shipping error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing with the Dark Knight theater shooter stories. "Mail Order Arsenal !!!1". Those guns were obtained in Federally licensed retail outlets. Which, as the parent states, is the only legal way to obtain these firearms unless you have an FFL yourself.

      Anyhow, someone is getting their ATF anal examine right now. Even if it was a legitimate mistake the ATF will look at these people to see just how reckless you have to be to miss-ship a .308 battle rifle. They don't hesitate to pull licenses when they discover bozos.

    2. Re:Shipping error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this guy up. He gets it!

    3. Re:Shipping error by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Not 100% true. As an example, a private citizen can sell and ship another private citizen a rifle/shotgun here in PA without an FFL involved.

    4. Re:Shipping error by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that someone along the shipping route wanted a TV, took the label off this guys TV box and stuck it on the next available box- which happened to have this terrible WMD in it. They should be able to find the last location where the rifle box was scanned, and it won't be too many hops before they fund the culprit.

  52. the gun was supposed to be shipped to a gun shop by ProfBooty · · Score: 5, Informative

    NPR reported that the label under this guys address is for a gun store in PA. This is really poor reporting. The washington post version lacks this detail as well, as well as any reporting that you can't ship firearms to a persons home unless they have a FFL.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  53. WTB Better Summary by dywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Preferably one written by someone at least knowledgeable about guns. It's neither high caliber, nor capable of "mowing down just about anything".

    It's gas-powered semi-automatic: One trigger pull, one round.

    It's 7.62x51mm NATO, which is nearly (but not exactly) identical the .308 Winchester it's based on. It could be potentially classed as high-power (the .308 being a hunting round), but it is not high caliber.

    It features the so-called "scary assault rifle look", particularly since it uses the popular modular rail mounting for components and accessories using with a common attachment design. But then there is no law that all rifles must look like grandpappy's squirrel gun, or be "not scary looking".

    As for "mowing down", that's hyperbole. Any weapon is capable of such a thing if misused, be it a knife, gun, car, or simple bottle of Chlorine gas from your local pool.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:WTB Better Summary by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      It's neither high caliber, nor capable of "mowing down just about anything".

      Correct me if I am wrong but isn't 7.62 NATO a higher calibre than the 5.56 that is millitary standard issue and the 7.62 round that goes in an AK? Obviously the word high is relative but I think most people would consider that this counts. Sig describe it as "a large calibre carbine" on their website too but what do they know. This is the same stuff that feeds an M60.

      In terms of mowing down anything you may be right, your averge Rhino or elephant would take at least 4 or 5 rounds to drop with this if you were a crap shot, and with that hair trigger that would take a whole 8 to 10 seconds to get off.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    2. Re:WTB Better Summary by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the article linked to was full of just as much pantywaste hyperbole as the article summary on slashdot.

  54. Glad to see FUD about "assault rifles" is alive by davydagger · · Score: 1

    "SIG716, a high-caliber, semi-automatic assault rifle capable of mowing down, well, just about anything"

    what makes a semi-automatic assault rifle diffrent from any other rifle of same barrell length and caliber?

    oh, it looks scarier.

  55. Finishing school by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2

    I am reliably informed that at proper finishing schools you learn how to pluck and gut game birds, if not actually how to shoot them. So I think you may be misunderestimating what happens there.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Finishing school by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      ...which country, social stratum, and decade is this?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  56. sensationalism? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    Yep, the Washington Post's version lacked the details you mentioned and any discussion that you have to ship firearms to a gun store or FFL holder. To be fair, WAMU failed to mention the FFL part as well. I think it speaks volumes to the amount of detail left out in stories either due to shrinking newsrooms, or rush to report rather than trying to sell a story by omission. Its a simple case why people should get their news from multiple sources.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:sensationalism? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I think it speaks volumes to the amount of detail left out in stories either due to shrinking newsrooms, or rush to report rather than trying to sell a story by omission. Its a simple case why people should get their news from multiple sources.

      That's a pretty generous interpretation. Add along the question as to why a mis-delivered product amounts to a "news story" at all, and it's difficult to conclude anything other than a set of purposeful decisions by reporters and editors to further an agenda. "The US has too many dangerous weapons that are too easy to get" is the narrative that fits, here. Omitting facts to improve the impact of the narrative is part of the game plan.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  57. Amazon Review: Some Big Screen HDTV by akerasi · · Score: 3, Funny
    Well, I bought one of these, and let's just say I was... surprised at what I received. It didn't have Netflix on it, nor did it connect to my cable line or my Roku box. When I called the support number, they told me to make it work, I needed to load it with ammunition and depress the button, which they referred to as a "trigger".

    The bass was really loud; I thought I blew the speakers, but when I tried again, it was still as loud. It was at that point that I noticed the large, gaping holes in my wall. Within a few minutes, police had arrived at my house, to ask if anything was wrong. I informed them that my television was malfunctioning, and they seemed to decide I was a lunatic and drove away. When I tried to RMA it, the man on the other end of the support line laughed at me and hung up.

    Would not buy again.

    1. Re:Amazon Review: Some Big Screen HDTV by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      version 2:

      "Looking right at the screen now, it's very odd; very long with a tiny, round viewing area.. in fact it's tiny, like a really tiny deep CRT.. and what a funny place for the power butto

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  58. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by metrix007 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Slashdot is not a US centric site. They keep saying that because they want it to be true, but it isn't.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  59. guess his complaint will get attention, then by swschrad · · Score: 1

    ;)

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  60. Where is the Slashdot poster by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Who told me that there was no problem with armed citizens because criminals were denied access to guns (he isn't something I made up: I got that response recently)?

    I guess it's like the old porn shop gag, ex Monty Python I think:

    "I want to buy an...iPhone"
    "Sorry, Sir, wrong euphemism."
    "A microwave oven?"
    "Try again..."
    "A high-definition TV?"
    "Ah, now Sir is talking. If you come in back you can peruse our...interesting equipment."

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  61. Re:it is not a hunting weapon from SIgsauer themse by davydagger · · Score: 1

    why not?

    why can't you hunt with one?

    what makes this a bad weapon to hunt with?

  62. Is this news? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Man orders something. Supplier gets order wrong.

    The fact that they really should be more careful with something fairly tightly regulated adds a little I guess but it's not that serious.

    1. Re:Is this news? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Having something that is a felony to possess delivered to your house is a little bit more newsworthy than the usual shipping error, especially for local news. For slashdot it's just a funny mixup story rather than news.

  63. Factually wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well you're wrong.

    Certain Canadian Citizens have prohibited class licenses permitting them, as individuals, to own and possess fully automatic rifles and machineguns.
    Unfortunately AFAIK there is no civilian range approved for fully automatic use, so they're basically legally problematic paperweights.

    As far as guns belong in the hands of professionals, as a Canadian I don't agree.

    I think guns belong in the hands of responsible good guys, this may or may not include professionals.
    The RCMP officer who got mad and fired her service pistol at her hubby in a domestic dispute has no business with a gun.
    I see no issues with a border guard coming off shift carrying their own personal or duty pistol.

    Min wage armoured car drivers, with limited training, can carry guns around town, why can't I, as a former military, responsible law abiding professional?

  64. Dude.. I would have just kept my mouth shut by cod3r_ · · Score: 0

    That's a badass gun. Why can't they ever fuck my order up like that...

    1. Re:Dude.. I would have just kept my mouth shut by cod3r_ · · Score: 0

      shit also it's a $1800 gun based on gunbroker prices..

  65. Not a problem by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 2

    With an assault rifle, he can get all the hi-def TVs he wants.

    --
    Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
  66. Important line in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes a difference that the woman is pregnant

    " Instead of the flat-panel TV he had bought to enjoy with his wife, who is pregnant, Horvitz opened the long packaging to discover..."

  67. Now I'm disappointed-Gummi fish arrived today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I'm disappointed, my Gummi Fish order arrived today, but not my semi-automatic UPS. Shipping has been delayed for some reason.

  68. Re:it is not a hunting weapon from SIgsauer themse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sig716-patrol-rifle.aspx "Familiar Handling, Unfamiliar Power, SIG SAUER® has taken the proven features of the SIG516â and applied them into a potent AR-based rifle chambered in 7.62 x 51mm. " Who in the heck see this as a hunting rifle ? American apparentely. This might not be an assault rifle (even if AR chambered can be misleading) but this is not a "hunting" weapon by all mean.

    Wow, that is an amazingly ignorant claim. Anyone who looks beyond the cosmetics of the silhouette and black plastic would think otherwise.
    .308 Winchester ammunition, a popular hunting calibre.
    Accurate, yes,
    Mounts a scope, yes.
    5-round magazine, as per hunting regulations.
    Semi-automatic, like many another hunting rifles.

    So how is it different from common hunting rifles in non-cosmetic terms?

  69. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Funny

    MyCleanPC.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  70. Subscribe and Save! by snsh · · Score: 1

    Perhaps he'll get another unit in 6 months, and save 15% with free 2-day shipping through Amazon Primed.

  71. Amazon must not have sent it via "Laser Ship"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... otherwise no one would have received anything.

  72. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 0
    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  73. He didn't pass the background check by cvtan · · Score: 4, Funny

    for a TV, so they sent him a rifle.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  74. Re:Meanwhile, in Switzerland... by jpapon · · Score: 1, Informative

    ... but can't buy or own ammo for their rifle unless they're at the range, and they have to use it there. They also can't carry the rifle around unless they're on the way to the range or some militia training exercise.

    --
    -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
  75. Re:it is not a hunting weapon from SIgsauer themse by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Actually it is a fine hunting weapon, I have AR-10 same cartridge that I use for large game hunting. I know it is black so nobody would hunt with that, right?

    --


    Got Code?
  76. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then step on over to one of the other /. sites like slashdot.jp or slashdot.co.uk if you want a non-US centric /. site.

  77. unless it can go full auto... by night_flyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... it ain't an ASSAULT RIFLE!

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:unless it can go full auto... by BluPhenix316 · · Score: 1

      There isn't entirely accurate. In the Army I had used several assault rifles that weren't full auto. Infact I haven't seen a full auto M16 in a long time.

  78. Dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did this dumbass call 911? Why did he tell anyone, I bet that gun was at least two times the cost of his TV, plus you don't need a permit to own a rifle. This article is so slanted against guns it screams gun hater. Example "enjoy with his wife, who is pregnant" this has nothing to do with the mistake. Example 2: "a high-caliber, semi-automatic assault weapon capable of mowing down, well, just about anything" this is an obvious overstatement. Errors happen and if the person who received the package would have just called Amazon instead of 911 it wouldn't be an issue. Instead of being an over reacting gun hater he should have been a responsible adult and just taken care of the problem. Thank you liberal news media for taking time to once again try to make something out of nothing.

  79. Re:it is not a hunting weapon from SIgsauer themse by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

    This rifle is but one example of the hundreds that have been manufactured in .308 Winchester for 60 years now. If you read the article, you'll see that the .308 cartridge was designed in 1952 AND IS THE BASIS FOR THE MILITARY CARTRIDGE. It is wildly popular in short-action rifles for hunting large game. It is typically loaded to slightly lower muzzle energies than the longer .30-06, but is usually cheaper, and as 'short' cartridge it allows for faster follow-up shots if needed. (It also is supposedly slightly more accurate because of its length).

    Don't spout rhetoric; learn the facts.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  80. Wrong NSN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He just used the wrong NSN (National Stock Number) when ordering the television. Simple mistake. Happens all the time. Like when you order replacement O-rings and they deliver a long-palleted Honda Gold-Wing.

  81. Why mention Amazon? by sgunhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you read TFA, it looks like it was a mistake by UPS, so why even mention Amazon? (And Amazon doesn't allow listing of guns anyway.) The article says the box was addressed to a gun dealer in PA ... not an error by Amazon or the vendor, but by the shipper.

    Though I do wonder what was in the other box. The photo shows a big shipping box with the rifle box on top of it, there's still another box in the shipping box ...

    1. Re:Why mention Amazon? by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      The other box was empty ***wink*** ***wink*** ***nudge*** ***nudge***

    2. Re:Why mention Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gun store in PA probably only ordered 1 rifle, and that was in the box you see opened. The other, unopened box is probably empty. If the PA gun store had ordered 2 rifles there would be a rifle in the other box as well. Think of that other box as the dead airspace in a bag of potato chips. This is quite a common way to pack and ship rifles - with lots of cardboard and stiff crumple zones to prevent damage to the contents when it falls off a conveyor belt and gets run over by a forklift.

  82. Assault indeed by wukka · · Score: 1

    Agenda is cranked way the hell up jeeez! Slight breech of etiquette, with the *triple dog dare* propaganda coming out of the rats' nest of DC.

  83. A functional choice by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    With an assault rifle you can go out and get any TV you want. And keep it too. Even in Wash DC.

    The reverse, not so much.

  84. Why did this make the cut? by arpad1 · · Score: 0

    Other then the fact that the guy ordered the TV from Amazon, what's the connection to computers, software, the Internet and all the rest of the technologicawocal world that Slashdot's supposed to have made it its goal to cover?

    Is the news that UPS screwed up?

    --
    Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    1. Re:Why did this make the cut? by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      I modded you as offtopic, but only for the irony.

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
  85. Story is about a shipping error of legal items. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really wish people that have no clue about guns and gun laws would stop posting their ridiculous (and false) comments . Especially non-U.S citizens. You're just jealous of our constitution.

  86. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't realize there were citizens as ignorant as you. At least the romney badger will get one vote, I suppose.

  87. WAIT! by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

    Where can I order this TV!!!!!!???!?!??!!!

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    1. Re:WAIT! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In a dozen different places online.

      You'll need to find a local FFL holder to ship it to, though. Usually it's that place around town where you see cars parked with NRA stickers.

  88. Jim's Beer and Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw that in Arizona. Talk about one-stop shopping!

  89. I do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I use a rifle that is functionally identical to an AR-15. It's a gas-operated, semi-automatic rifle. The biggest difference is that my rifle has a wood stock and it's chambered in .30-06.

  90. Unlikely to be accurate by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

    Amazon doesn't sell guns unfortunately. Not real ones, anyway. I bought an AR15 a few weeks ago and would have liked to have bought from amazon so I could take advantage of my free shipping/prime account. I just rechecked, still no guns. I think it's more likely that the shipping company screwed up.

  91. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does a Canadian band have to do with Obama and Romney?

    Yeah, everyone knows they voted for Nader.

  92. This story seems to be BS! by Paracelcus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Amazon DOES NOT SELL FIREARMS!
    YOU CANNOT BUY FIREARMS THROUGH THE MAIL!

    IF THIS BULLSHIT IS TRUE MANY FEDERAL LAWS WERE BROKEN!

    This is a classic political BS story that would never have appeared if it was not in the wake of mass murders involving firearms!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:This story seems to be BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its intended destination was a licensed gun shop, which are completely legal to send firearms to and happens all the time without incident. It was most likely a shipping error, take off your tin foil hat.

    2. Re:This story seems to be BS! by wonderboss · · Score: 1

      Yes it is BS. UPS screwed up the shipment. Was addressed to a FFL gun dealer.
      UPS delivered it to the wrong address. Mentioning Amazon is nonsense.

      --
      more cowbell
    3. Re:This story seems to be BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow down there, Bubba. Finger off the trigger. Let's talk this out before anyone gets hurt. Nobody here wants to take your guns away, okay...?

      OK GET HIM!

      YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU....

    4. Re:This story seems to be BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can if you have bitcoins on the SilkRoad Armoury

    5. Re:This story seems to be BS! by retchdog · · Score: 1

      oh, you're so wrong.

      about the latter part, i mean: it definitely could have appeared anyway.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    6. Re:This story seems to be BS! by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      And if there had recently been a mass murder involving TVs you can bet we'd have the headline "man orders run-of-the-mill gun, gets shipped deadly flat panel (pregnant wife divorces after losing unborn child)"

  93. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, no, wait, mods! This is clearly on-topic! Just look:

    1. This person wanted to buy a TV for his wife, but instead got a high-powered semi-automatic rifle. See where I'm going with this? He'll kill his wife with the gun by accident!

    2. This sort of shipping mishap must have been done by someone so inexperienced with the English language to mess up an order that badly. It can be assumed, therefore, that this job was outsourced from whatever third-party reseller being used in this case. The chief of said company must have made that decision.

    3. This is a very embarrassing gaffe, overseas or not.

    4. Amazon's been under attack recently by states demanding they collect sales taxes. And the TV that was supposed to be delivered would've been quite heavy. Combine those together, and the middle class will be crushed, and there's taxes!

    5. Whoever did this will need to be hunted down and fired. Unfortunately, this will result in a McCarthy-esque witch hunt in the company until everyone responsible has been found.

    6. Ownership of such a gun may not be a crime in DC, but we still need to figure out where it came from; it may be a felony in whatever country this was shipped from.

    7. The customer couldn't abort the shipment before it got to him. Or rather, he had no reason it would need to be. But, he certainly wouldn't abort the order if he could use the gun to defend someone being raped.

    8. Most likely, this entire affair was due to some penny-pinching MBA, most likely one from a prep school where they have no real concept of how the real world works. As a result, the outsourcing issue mentioned above, ultimately leading to this erroneous shipment.

    9. The company probably wants to keep this a secret. See the part about it being a major gaffe.

    10. This is obviously racist, too. I mean, would they accidentally ship semi-automatic rifles to BLACK PEOPLE?!? No. This was shipped to a white guy due to racial fears.

    See? It all ties in to the article at hand. This certainly wasn't some political nutjob vomiting up a copy-and-paste checklist in the desperate, DESPERATE hope that someone, ANYONE will care about what he's saying.

  94. Not even Amazon by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Its was a 3rd party.

    So some company, that uses Amazon, sent the wrong package. Amazon had nothing to do with it but host the 3rd party's products.

  95. A larger question here is,,,,,, by Slugster · · Score: 1

    While the hordes argue over what the term "assault weapons" means or doesn't mean, there is a much more significant question: how did a firearm get sent to a private individual's house in the US, who is not a licensed firearms dealer? This is the error that (I suspect) is going to get someone (who shipped that package) into trouble....

    I had thought that doing so was illegal in all 50 states. Is it so?
    You can mail a gun TO a dealer or a repair center, but they can only return it to a FFL/firearms dealer. They cannot legally send it directly to your home address.
    Most companies are very skittish on following this law; I've sent in air rifles for repair and they wouldn't mail them back to my house....

  96. Can it mow down my grass? by oscarwumpus · · Score: 1

    Because that would be nice.

  97. Nerds and Firearms by Lashat · · Score: 1

    It pleases me to see so many Nerds also interested in Firearms.

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  98. Thats not actually a firearm; its an airsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sig doesn't ship their rifles in cardboard boxes. It would have come in a blue hard sided case. That is an airsoft. It shoots nice 6mm plastic pellets, and likely neither he nor the Police have handled either an airsoft sig nor a real one to know the difference. Now if it really is a firearm then the company that sent it to him violated the 1968 Gun Contral Act and is going to lose their licenses. That is if it wasn't from Eric Holder's Fast and Furious Program

  99. Meanwhile at another location... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the (sarcasticly called) "RIAA/MPAA Fan Club" is now looking at a big box with a TV in it.

  100. Amazon? by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTA:

    UPDATE, 10:45 a.m.: Ty Rogers, an Amazon spokesman, declined to say what the company is doing to remedy the situation.

    Why should Amazon have to do anything in the first place? This was a shipping error by UPS and has nothing to do with Amazon. Amazon wasn't even the one directly selling the TV, they just listed the page for one of their third party sellers. UPS should be the company to remedy the issue by getting the man his TV. I suspect the person the gun was intended for is eager to get his $2500 gun opposed to the $400 TV he likely got anyway.

  101. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story should read...

    Man gets additional package delivered in addition to his TV. After viewing the shipping sender and intended recipient, he determined the package was not for him. He proceeded to open the package anyway, rather than contact the shipper about the error. After noticing it was a gun, his liberal ideas that "guns kill people" took hold and made him extremely scared that the gun would jump out of the box and chase down in his own home. Scared for his life and fearing the tape holding the gun in place would break any second, he called 911.

    Ok the last part was a little over the top, but he's still an idiot. Amazon doesn't sell guns(except airsoft). He knew by the addressee, sender, and box size that he wasn't the intended recipient. Basically he's guilty of multiple state and federal laws by opening that package that was not intended for him.

  102. TFS: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Horvitz opened the long packaging to discover a Sig Sauer SIG716, a high-caliber, semi-automatic assault rifle capable of mowing down, well, just about anything."

    Semi-automatic rifles don't "mow." They shoot one bullet at a time, one per manual pull and release of the trigger. But hey. Nice try with the hysterical pitch. omg "assault" rifle!!!! Idiot.

    You want "mowing", you need a fully automatic weapon.

  103. There was a very real risk by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    The gun is illegal to have in DC. He could have been arrested just for having it on his porch. Worse, if the police had found out about it before he called them, they could have come in with weapons drawn.

    Or, worse yet, since it was left unattended, it could have been stolen, used in a crime, and then the gentleman may have been liable even though he did not order the gun or even know that it was there.

    Those things aside, however, I do agree that an unloaded rifle in a box isn't very dangerous all on its own.

  104. What an idiot!!! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    I would have STFU, and just complained about the non-arriving TV order.

  105. Re:Meanwhile, in Switzerland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried a gun shop?
    At least in Arizona and Nevada.... Glad I don't live near you, after you say that.

  106. Give a man a TV... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give a man a TV, he watches TV until the TV breaks.

    Give a man an assault rifle, and he can get a new TV anytime he wants.

  107. When a rifle is actually an assault rifle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to seem like a dick, but, I feel the need to point out the Sig Sauer SIG716 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle meaning that a round is fired every time one pulls the trigger. An Assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of firing fully automatic or a single round at a time when one pulls the trigger. An assault rifle is a completely different weapon from a semi-automatic. I know it sounds cool to say the weapon is an assault rifle, but it is just not accurate. It makes it hard to take Slashdot seriously when you mess-up the facts.

    People tend to look at AR/M-15/16 type rifles as being very scary. When the nutter in Colorado went on his shooting spree, the AR-15 (scary looking black rifle) actually jammed. The shooter continued using a shotgun. So much for an "Assault weapons ban" making a difference.

    This rifle chambers a round that is roughly a 30.06. This is a pretty big round and would make fully automatic operation pretty much impossible. It is so big, it even makes rapid fire semi-automatic shooting with any real accuracy unlikely.

  108. What a perfect study case... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    What a perfect case study... Finally we have a controlled situation where we can answer that age old NRA vs Liberal question...

    Did he turn into a raving lunatic and gun down people?

  109. WTF!? by ThePeices · · Score: 1

    Are you really telling me that in the US, you can just go and buy a real assault rifle online and it will just get shipped to your door?

    WTF is *wrong* with you people!?

    1. Re:WTF!? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Are you really telling me Eurotrash can't read well enough to pick up basic facts?

      WTF is wrong with you people? (Besides getting the crap kicked out of you by the krauts a few too many times.)

  110. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    start your own website if you don't like that Americans own and operate this one.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  111. No bias here. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    assault rifle capable of mowing down, well, just about anything

    Nope no bias there.

    And, just for the record its a *semi* automatic, so its not an 'assault' rifle. Phhft

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  112. ignorance is bliss by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    No. that is why this is news worthy.

    In the US you may order and pay for a gun. But it will get to a licensed dealer. Then held for a waiting period while background checks are done. And then must be released to you, in person. Some states have additional regulation, like California requires handguns to have a special state certification, that the buyer provides a thumb print for the firearms transfer (the FFL "owns" the firearm until it is released to the buyer), that ammo capacity and assault rifle restrictions are met, that the gun is not on a federal or state banned list (50BMG is banned in California, even though it is primarily used for target shooting competition) and finally that the buyer has not purchased more than the maximum number of handguns in a given period (you can't buy and receive a matched pair of custom handguns in California. you have to have someone hold part of the set for a month).

    assault rifle is a poorly defined term. different jurisdictions have different definitions. And popular consensus usually differs from the various legal definitions. To be honest I think California's 10 round capacity limit is the most effective way to deal with assault rifles in the US to date. For hunting and for most types of competition, more than 10 rounds is unnecessary. For fun/entertainment, I'm sure high-capacity 100 round drum is great fun, but is it absolutely necessary? As a society we do have to balance between safety and fun. For gun I guess people will just have to shoot 10 cans, then reload. As for self-defense, I'm not in a position to judge what is appropriate for self defense, as I don't personally use firearms for self defense.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  113. Tried to find something else out by pkinetics · · Score: 1

    Out of all places, found out more details, heavens to Betsy, from all places FoxNews.

    How did it end up in Washington, D.C.? According to The Florida Gun Exchange, the rifle was shipped properly, according to law with the correct address on the box. But in transit, the label with Horvitz's address somehow came off the box with the television and was attached to the box with the gun. "Whoever made the mistake, it's pretty serious. I think it should be followed up," said Horvitz. The Florida Gun Exchange says it's looking to UPS for answers.

  114. XKCD by WoodburyMan · · Score: 1

    Immediately thought of this as soon as I read it. http://xkcd.com/325/

  115. A semi-auto cannot be an assault weapon. by YourMom'sLover · · Score: 1

    Semi-automatic is a single round per trigger pull. These will not mow anything down. Unless you still have acid in your spinal column, are currently are high, or cry for the trees, "assault weapon" is not about features (looks) but function. Ignorant people (usually that live in big cities) should not use the term "assault weapon", or "automatic" if they do not know what that means. A true "assault weapon" is only available in the military, or requires a special firearm license to even get issued by the government. If it fires one round per trigger pull, it is just a rifle... Please don't use ignorant terms like the media (mentioned above), and politicians, because you will look stupid AND ignorant. If it is black, don't be a racist and call it an "assault weapon", or "automatic" because it is black, educate yourself but not in a liberal college regurgitating terms of ignorance...

  116. A little list: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, to be an Assault Rifle, it needs an automatic fire mode, or at the very least a burst fire one, (I don't see any value in burst-fire weapons, but as long as the yanks don't properly train their soldiers, it's better then the alternative).

    Second, there are three legal distinctions, fire mode, length, and magazine size, which affect whether a firearm is legal or not. A lot of Assault Rifles have Semi-Automatic derivatives, so they can be purchased by civilians, which, with the right permits, are completely legal in most jurisdictions, (though, maybe with a smaller magazine).

    Third, a Carbine just means it has a shorter barrel then would be normal for it's caliber.

    Fourth, not really high caliber. 7.62mm NATO is a pretty mild caliber for civilian rifles. There are a lot of rifles that are significantly more powerful. It should be noted that the smaller 5.56mm NATO isn't really good for hunting anything else but humans, (and target practice), so 7.62mm NATO is far less creepy.

    Fifth, while this is a big mess up, it shouldn't be that strange. I'm sure Wal*Mart has sent a few rifles to the wrong stores instead of the potato chips they were expecting.

    Sixth, he did the the exact right thing, legally, (aside from panick like a little girl, but legally, that's neither here nor there). If ever you get a weapon you legally can't own, or aren't sure if you can legally own, call the police to come and collect it. Try not to panick, as that will just make them worried, and more likely to do something stupid.

    Seventh, "declined to say what the company is doing to remedy the situation."
    I'm guessing, try to track down the TV, try to recover the rifle, and then send them to the correct owners. If the guy who got the TV by mistake doesn't return it, it will be charged seperately to his credit card. They will probably just have to pay a fine for the rifle, (just might not be indicative of how expensive the fine is...), and then make sure each person gets what he ordered intentionally. They treat this like it's rocket science, or something, when it's far less complicated then when an airline loses your luggage.

    Eight, what is far more interesting is what the Police / Prosecutors are going to do to remedy the situation.

  117. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Chill. Never did I say that I have any problem with Americans running the site.

    I am simply saying it is not US Centric, and it isn't. A substantial number of users are not American and a number of stories are not US Centric. Just because it is operated by Americans does not make it US Centric.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  118. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    US Centric as a term has nothing to do with where a domain was registered. Amazing, huh?

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  119. Particularly for AR type guns by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Despite the caliber, this gun is based on the same design as an AR-15 (the SIG516 is the 5.56mm version). It would need a different trigger group, fire selector, bolt, lower, and probably a few other things.

    Could someone modify it? Sure, in theory. I mean anything that one person can make another can remake. However it would be serious work, and require knowing what the heel you were doing and it isn't like such information is something a legit gunsmith will give you.

    Semi-auto ARs are quite popular, and quite legal (even in more restrictive countries, in Canada they are restricted but not prohibited). They are not things where you just remove a pin and they go full auto or something.

  120. Oh, this is why zombies keeping get shipped to me by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    I found it odd that every time I ordered a horror DVD from Amazon, a zombie in a box showed up. At least it wasn't a zombie with a gun!

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  121. Roving Wal-marts are a real problem by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I mean it is quite likely that a roving Wal-Mart snuck in to his house and loaded the gun when he wasn't looking. They are extremely stealthy like that.

    Look man the GP's point was the weapon doesn't ship loaded and nobody had gone and loaded it. Nothing was going to happen.

    Also, perhaps this is an argument for not being so scare of guns that you never learn about them. ARs are extremely easy to clear: Set the selector to safe, press the magazine release and remove the detachable magazine, pull the charging handle all the way back and while holding it back, press the slide lock. Then look in the chamber and make sure it is clear. If it is, release the slide lock, the bolt will go forward. The weapon is now clear. If you are still concerned, push out the two takedown pins, and the rifle will come apart in to two pieces. This is not some arcane knowledge that requires years of training, it is designed to be simple.

    Finally, you can find all this out be RTFM. Guns come with manuals. They tell you how they work, how to safe them, how to clear them, how to take them apart to clean them, and so on. Even if you don't know how to use a particular gun, if you get one brand new, as this one was, it comes with a manual. The manuals for Sigs are very comprehensive. Oh, and should you wish to secure it, they come with a gun lock, again which the manual explains how to use. You lock it through the magazine and ejector port so the bolt can't close (and a magazine can't be inserted).

    The GP's point was just that a gun shipped new in box is not something dangerous. It takes ammo (loaded in to it) to make it dangerous and that doesn't come with it. It turns out gun manufacturers aren't interested in their products going off accidentally, they are designed to be quite safe.

    1. Re:Roving Wal-marts are a real problem by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Perhaps my point was obtuse?

      I agreed with the parent that a gun with no ammo is not particularly dangerous. My point after that though is that a gun of this type is made only for killing people. Comparing it to a shovel or a crowbar is not particularly reasonable as those tools are made for uses other than killing people, while this gun has no other intended purpose.

      No matter how many safety mechanisms are built into this weapon, its purpose for existence is to kill people. I have taken gun safety, I own shotguns myself and shoot recreationally. I accept that the guns I use can kill people, though they were not designed for that specific purpose. This gun, however, was designed specifically to kill people.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Roving Wal-marts are a real problem by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Yours is one of the funniest sorts of twisted logic I encounter: one of "The guns I own aren't evil but this gun is evil!"

      No it really isn't. Its purpose isn't to kill people. It's purpose, like your guns, is to propel a projectile at a high velocity. That can be used to kill people, or animals, or poke holes in paper, or it can just sit in a safe and do nothing. All of that is true for your guns as well.

      Please stop with the silliness. I can understand people who like guns, I can understand people who dislike them. I can understand wanting restrictions on them based on actual function. I cannot understand people who decide that certain guns are "bad" based on nothing, while saying their own are fine.

    3. Re:Roving Wal-marts are a real problem by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I recognize your handle here; I think there was a time when you and I had a meaningful conversation some time in the past and you even understood what I said.

      This clearly is not a case of that happening again, though. Are you just looking to pick a fight with someone? I'm not interested and I'm not inclined to repeat myself yet again just because you can't be bothered to actually read and comprehend what I write.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  122. Remote control by LukeWebber · · Score: 1

    Sounds like they shipped the remote ahead of the TV. It's especially useful if you watch Fox.

  123. There is one exception by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    You can have a firearm shipped to you provided:

    1) You already legally owned the gun.
    2) You sent it to a federally licensed gunsmith for work.
    3) They sent it directly back to you.
    4) You let the carrier know at the time of shipment that the package contains a firearm.
    5) Nowhere on the package is there any marking that indicates it is a firearm.
    6) You don't use the post office to do it.

    If all those are true, it is legal to directly ship and receive a gun. However one of the parties has to be an FFL, just not both, and as I said it is only in the case that the non-FFL already owns the gun and is the initiator.

    In that case FedEx or UPS will ship the gun for you. However they put the additional stipulation that you have to ship it priority overnight, no ground shipping.

    I've done that with a pistol I have. I wanted a new trigger and sights installed, and the gunsmith I wished to use was not local. So I took it to FedEx (has to be a real FedEx location, not a Kinkos) told them it was a gun, paid my money, and off it went. Some time later, the gunsmith called to tell me it would be coming back and to schedule with me when I'd be there to receive the shipment. You need to make sure to verify it is a real FFL you are shipping to (the ATF has a site to do that).

    For new weapons though, yes they have to go to an FFL in your state. I've done that too. Bought a SIG516 (the 5.56 version of this gun) and nobody around here had one (they are pretty popular). So I paid an out of state gun store for it, who shipped it to a local gun shop, which I then went to for the background check and pick up.

  124. Not like, it is by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    A .308 Winchester to be specific. That is the parent case. A 7.62 gun fires .308 ammo just fine. There are some minor specification differences, but they are the same round for most purposes.

  125. informative really? by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

    Yes...and that's the point. It's really nothing special. Just a standard semi-automatic rifle (not much different than any other varmint rifle).

    But in DC it is illegal and near impossible to get one. And he did.... (Could of just kept his mouth shut. And when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.)

    Could the moderators tell me exactly what part of this they found informative? The only piece of information in this that is even accurate is the bit about such guns being illegal in DC and that was from the post he was replying to. Yeah guns keep you safe, keep telling yourself that. Also fried chicken keeps you thin and computer games keep you tanned.

  126. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

    you must not understand americans then. we don't do shit for anyone else but ourselves. the editors don't spell words like colour, humour, recognise or theatre. there's no non-english language version of the site. there's no spain.slashdot.org or espana.slashdot.org. an overwhelming majority of news topics submitted take place or are centered around events in america or corporations based in america. when any amount of money is specified in a headline or summary it is almost always in american dollars. there are far more stories referring to politics in america than politics in any other country.

    as of this writing, all of the stories on the slashdot homepage (before getting 'Many More') are about american people/companies/organizations/websites except for one regarding the indian government giving away cell phones to the poor. the fact that slashdot is registered and administered in america indicates a high probability that the site is us-centric. america is very ethno-centric, we teach it from kindergarten on up.

    if this site is comprised of user-submitted news stories, and the majority of those users are american, then it's easy to see that the site is us-centric. there's a difference between saying the site is not us-centric and saying that non-american users are equally valid. the latter is probably what you meant. amazing, huh?

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  127. Pretty sure its an airsoft gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As they would ship a real SIG716 in a box quite a bit sturdier than something that looks like "made in China".

  128. LOL....I wonder by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    what would of happened, if he HAD ordered a weapon like that? Would a tank show up on his front door?

  129. ex post facto by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Yes, the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws (laws that punish actions committed before the law was passed), and this isn't the only law to have an exception for that reason.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  130. not an assault rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was semiautomatic, it wasn't an assault rifle.

  131. I can't believe I don't see a comment about this y by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

    The most mistaken part of this story is the implication that you can just buy this gun on the internet *anywhere* and have it shipped to you. All firearms purchases across state lines must be done through a license firearms dealer, who will complete a federal background check. So yes, you can buy guns on the internet - but they get shipped to your local gun store, who charges you a fee to do the background check. NOT to your front door, unless you, too, happen to be a license firearms dealer.

  132. But honey I didn't order that. by codepunk · · Score: 1

    He ordered the rifle but the wife showed when the package did and he got caught. Oh honey I ordered a TV really, they must have sent this by mistake.

    --


    Got Code?
  133. The real question is by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    What sort of person notifies a news organization when something like this happens?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  134. Pregnant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... am I the only one who disregards this type of sensationalist journalism as complete-waste-of-time garbage when they come across lines like that pregnancy mention?

    Sometimes I feel real hatred for Slashdot editors.

  135. Solved by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    He could use the gun to get a TV at a bricks and mortar show. When I showed my gun to the bricks and mortar shop here (I am very proud of it) they were so awed they gave me a 100" plasma for free!

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  136. There were two UPS labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Amazon probably put the UPS labels on the package and there were two of them?

  137. Re:it is not a hunting weapon from SIgsauer themse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er, it's a 7.62mm NATO chambering, not .308. I know many people think these are the same, but they are not. You can generally get away with firing one in the other, but specifically, the 7.62mm NATO chambering should not be used to fire a .308 round, especially if you're reloading. You can go the other way (a 7.62mm NATO round in a .308 chambered rifle). But the fact that this particular gun is chambered for 7.62mm NATO makes it a bit less useful for hunting than otherwise.

  138. Europe (not a country though) by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Finishing schools = upper middle/lower upper class. (Really upper class didn't need the training). Most of them don't exist any more, but as your post appeared to be channelling the pre-War era (WW2, not Iraq) I thought the period was irrelevant.

    My informant was the mother of a friend who went to one before WW2. She was posted to Egypt for much of the War and the skills she learned ensured an interesting social life.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Europe (not a country though) by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert on this particular area, but I strongly doubt that preparing game would have been the sort of thing taught at all establishments in the nineteenth century. The households of the better-off patrons would doubtlessly have had servants take care of such matters.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  139. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Except most of the stories are not US Centric, they are international. With international stories and userbase, how is /. us centric? It isn't. It's just administered in the US.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  140. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

    you want so much to believe that you're right that you will completely ignore reason. i just listed several compelling reasons why /. is us-centric. you are completely wrong, most of the stories are not international. some stories are. and some of those are still us-centric. when a story is about us hackers attacking iran nuclear facilities with a virus, the story is not about iran. when a story is about a kiwi filesharing website owner being harassed by the fbi and facing charges in the us, the story is not about new zealand. you fail.

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  141. What happens to Amazon?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not surprised. They've gone down hill - I ordered a Sam Sung HD TV about a year ago through them. Guess what? Somehow it had a crack on the screen in less than a year (I swear I didn't touch the damn thing one bit). I called both Sam Sung and Amazon and none of them wanted to take care of it. I am thinking of going back to eBay. Or where else I should go? Any suggestions?

  142. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you must not understand americans then. we don't do shit for anyone else but ourselves. the editors don't spell words like colour, humour, recognise or theatre. there's no non-english language version of the site. there's no spain.slashdot.org or espana.slashdot.org. an overwhelming majority of news topics submitted take place or are centered around events in america or corporations based in america. when any amount of money is specified in a headline or summary it is almost always in american dollars. there are far more stories referring to politics in america than politics in any other country.

    There's a Japanese Slashdot:

    http://slashdot.jp/

  143. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it is. You just keep saying it isn't because you want it to be true.

    I can play that game too, fuckwit.

  144. Unexpected Sig? by HArchH · · Score: 1

    Some people have all the luck.

    I opened an unexpected package via UPS once and it was a very nice set of Adams Tightlies. I have to admit I was very tempted to move them into my sports equipment locker. :) But I called UPS and reported it. When they picked it up they didn't even say "thank you".

  145. that's not a ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHY is it that every time I hear some [expletive deleted] use the term "assult rifle" I have a vision from the hollyweird productions of some guy with a WW2 vintage 50 cal blazing a trail through parasite zombies?

    I must keep reminding myself that what the prestitutes blather is NOT reality - just some strange dillusional form of sheeple dreaming.

  146. Who ever sent it committed a federal crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firearms may not be legally shipped to individuals through the mail. From Amazon it would have had to legally go to a Federally licensed dealer (FFL) that fills out the paperwork and check with the FBI to make sure the purchaser can legally purchase said firearm. Most FFLs will charge around $25 to do this.

    It seems the main stream media likes to omit these little details on which the entire transaction hinges. It appears likely that they USPS is the one that screwed up, or the wrong address was accidentally given.

    They've changed the definition of Assault Rifle to the Politically correct term to fit anything that might look like one. Until it was redefined "assault rifle" was capable of fully automatic fire with a selector switch to choose full or semi-automatic fire. Civilian versions are semi-automatic as are a good portion of hunting rifles. BTW the larger the caliber the more difficult they are to control. They kick harder too! A lot harder:-))

  147. Re:Top ten Obama lies about Romney by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    I'm not ignoring reason, it's just that your "compelling reasons" are wrong. Keep thinking what you like, while a casual glance at the front page shows the international scope of the site.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.