TMF

He's right.  The concept of confiscation is logistically impossible.  There is so much difference between us and the Aussies, both in terms of our DNA as a country and the number of firearms in civilian hands.  Yeah, they could knock out the bulk of them with voluntary turn ins, but that in it of itself is such a logistical feat that they would have to focus all law enforcement efforts on it for quite a while.  Now getting into the millions of firearms that will never be turned over voluntarily and will be used against the gov by some of those who have been pushed over their "red line" with confiscation, the gov would have no choice but to take more drastic measures of enforcement, which, once again, they aren't logistically capable of doing.  Not in a hundred years.

  Wow.  Carry on, Sir.

  I'm interpreting this as Starbucks' way to communicate to so-called gun advocacy groups to please stop carrying rifles into their stores.  I'm sure they anticipated this going viral throughout the gun community and the Voldemorts would take note.   Let me make a prediction about this though.  I see this as in no way seeking to keep people from carrying.  As I see it, they are not looking to ban people from concealed carrying, or even open carrying.  I see this as them looking to curb activism going on in their stores.  Let's face it, the morons in Texas that are carrying rifles into the stores, or folks flooding Starbucks with 30+ OCers are activists making a political statement.  Starbucks just wants to make overpriced coffee, not be put in the center of a gun debate against their will.   So, my prediction is that, since this is not going to be enforced, we will have groups of OCers in Tennessee hit up Startbucks in protest by sitting in large groups all OCing in order to flaunt it in the face of management who have been instructed not to engage on the issue.  What will eventually happen is management will engage one of these groups at some point and ask them to leave.  Then some self-riteous moron looking for a fight will argue with the management and talk about how it's not legally posted, therefore not a violation of the law (completely disregarding the fact that a business has the right to tell you to leave, posting or not).  This will be followed by management contacting corporate and explaining that "gun advocates" are intentionally sabatoging business and quoting law, which will result in proper posting, thus making it a crime to carry into Starbucks.  I make this prediction based on this actually happening before; multiple times over by none other than Voldemort and his kind.  Yeah, those types are reaaaaal freedom fighters, advancing our cause.  Nothing advances a cause like being mature and saying "nanna nanna boo boo, you can't stop me (*sticks tongue out)."  The reality is, yes they can stop you.  They can stop you with a 35 cent sticker.    Why not just respect the fact that Starbucks doesn't want to be involved in the gun debate?  They are making that clear.  They don't want to support or attack the 2nd Amendment, which is fine because I don't believe it's in their corporate mission statement to do so.  I'm pretty sure their mission statement is to market coffee products at triple the reasonable cost by convincing hipsters and soccer moms that their blends are exotic and unique with fancy French or Italian names.  Seems to be a successful business model.  I don't see how using this "you're with us or against us" philosophy makes any sense.  They make coffee for crying out loud.  Stop expecting them to take a stand.

It's also legal to walk into a Starbucks with clothing with offensive language, but I bet you'd have no problem with them asking that person to cover it up or leave. Or maybe you're fine with someone having lewd images on their tshirts around your kids. I'm not. It's also legal for Starbucks to donate to gay marriage campaigns, which they've been doing for years. So, for some folks so strong in their convictions regarding the right to be an idiot and walk into Starbucks with an AK baffle me that they donate to a cause they are so morally against.

Doesn't sound like they're caving to anyone. Sounds to me like they're tired of being used as a pawn in the attention whore game of idiots strapping a long gun on and getting coffee. They aren't for or against, but the Kwik's of our crowd have pushed them over the edge where it is no longer about guns or gun rights. Sounds to me like they don't want to be pawns in the game.

Aww, c'mon. Don't lump Stripes in with the rest of those piles of crap; it was a fun movie.

That won't stop the liberals from using this as an excuse to ban them. They're busy banning high capacity mags up in New York yet the majority of gun deaths are from small caliber, low capacity crap pistols.

If I had to guess I'd say the majority are reservists or low density MOS augmentees from other units. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a very lost Army Captain who looked like he got mixed up on his way to Starbucks and ended up in Afghanistan. Had a 1st ID patch on and was dragging around an A2. I'd like to believe that he was never an active duty officer and they sent him over to keep the rocks from blowing away. Pretty much, the folks I see with the A2s tend to be POGs.... so much so that POGs would call these guys POGs. I'm seconds away from going on a rant about standards, so I'm just gonna stop there.

Negative. They're still widely used by the Army with thousands of them being carried in Afghanistan. I'm talking about straight up A2s; no fancy quad rail or flat top. Just the standard A2 they had when I first joined and M4s were stuff that only cool guys had.

Sounds about right. Luckily I only have one AR lower that came from the factory in its configuration. The other 6, going on 7, lowers all came stripped. Funny thing about barrel length too. I tend to disregard stupid laws unless they carry a hefty penalty with proof. I ran the same stoplight nearly every day for several years merely out of principle.

My wife is actually excited about this coming out. This, in turn, excited me more.

The reason I have one is mainly for camping/hiking. If I carry an SBR with ammo (loaded or on my person) I'm committing a crime. If I keep it a pistol I can carry it in my bag locked and loaded and it is legal.

  Yeah, whenever I'm building a new AR I put a pistol barrel on it and a buffer tube with no stock.  Then I go drink a beer, return to my build, remove the barrel, put on a full length and attach a stock.  Yup, each time....   Stupid rules are meant to be ignored.  The ATF can suck it on that one.

Well, I'm assuming its leaked or just speculation, but cops can figure out that information in minutes. They have the weapon and serial number. All they had to do was call the manufacturer, tell them the serial number and the manufacturer can tell them where it was first shipped. If he was the original buyer then they know.

  Who do you know that slowly boils a frog to death?  Pretty twisted pasttime right there.   It's funny, the last time I heard this argument was from a private from 1st ID explaining it in a much, much different context.

I will never understand why when something like this happens people always look to blame someone else.  It's like some kinda instinctive response.  Either it's the gun, video games, poor mental health care, a vast consipiracy by liberals/tea party/NWO/FEMA/godlessness/mil ind comlex/blah m'fing blah.   You know, one thing I've noticed about all that is the folks who always seek to blame someone else have an agenda regarding whatever they are saying caused the incident in the first place.  How effing selfish is that to make whatever tragedy that comes up all about yourself or your agenda?  Standing on the graves of the fallen to prove your weak a$$ agenda.  Shameful.  Maybe, just maybe, we can just admit that evil people exist and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it until that evil identifies itself with violent action.  That is how it is, how it has always been and how it always will be.

  It's like the Westminster dog show with boobs, and the unbelievably strenuous eye exercise of trying to detect the imprint of vaginal lips through a bikini bottom.  Other than that, I'm not quite sure what people get out of it.  At least Robin Meade went on to become an anchor whereas the majority of these things are simply advertising themselves to get married to a rich businessman or politician they wait around all day to come home and service like drinky girl in a S. Korean bar.   My daughter is being raised to look down upon these things as opposed to place these objects on a pedestal.

Seems like there's a bunch of controversy over supposed controversy. I hate when the media does this. They're trying to convince people that folks are outraged over someone of Indian descent winning. All I see are stories about how intolerant people are for being outraged. Haven't seen the actual outrage though. If it were true who would care anyway? It's like they constantly want some barrier to break and don't realize no actual barrier exists. Get the hell over it libs.

Mine will eventually be a 300 BLK once I get the components to reload for it. For now it will be a magpulled out 5.56 with a 12 inch free float and HK style sights. The rifle already exists, so I'm just switching out the lower and upper. The forged lower and upper that gets decommissioned will be recommissioned as an AR pistol.

Very odd it being black assailants. There's a reason why certain profiles exist and why spoiled, picked on white boys tend to do this. Plus there being multiple shooters. Not often do you find multiple people to go do a suicide mission just because they're pissed at the world. This requires indoctrination, training, funding and sophistication considering the target. Or it's just work place violence again.

No doubt it's tragic.  Obviously the deceased wasn't a perpetrator of a crime, though we won't know until the testimony of the other officers during the trial how exactly the man was acting at the time of the shooting.  One thing is for certain, the officer who was charged is likely very, very regretful.  This case reminds me of the officer who shot the man in the subway station thinking it was his taser but instead shot him with his pistol.  A tragic mistake due to negligence.  Hopefully this is one of those cautionary tales that departments use when training new guys.

I'm still amazed this is a thing in our society that we consider an accomplishment. It's akin to a dog show. Not that I have any issues with commodities that willfully objectify themselves, I'm just confused why we crown it, parade it around and let it speak at events as if it is people.

I don't know since I wasn't there, but I'm not going to default to them doing something wrong simply because this guy is elderly and the age makes it sensational. Instead I'm going to default to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops because they were being shot at. Being shot at sucks. I'll not judge someone's actions when they're under fire unless it's a matter of cowardice.

And someone could post a video of an officer pulling a baby from a burning building and someone would come along and say he had no right to enter the building without a warrant.

I've stopped using mine since I picked up one of them neato strap wrenches. It's the bees knees.