Monday, December 18, 2017

Anti-Tank Weapon Turned In at Gun Buyback

More than 270 guns were turned in during a weapons buyback event in San Francisco Saturday. The buyback was held on Howard Street in the South of Market area, where police collected handguns, shotguns, high-powered rifles, and even an AT4 anti-tank weapon. Community leader Rudy Corpuz Jr., with United Playaz, said San Francisco took a big step toward being less violent. "We got a bazooka off the streets. We got a cannon ball off the streets. We got assault rifles. We got everything that you can name that could destroy a whole universe and we get rid of them within hours," he told ABC7 News. Buyback organizers added that the event succeeded because of its "no questions asked" policy for people who surrender guns.

More

Comments

How am I supposed to well-regulate my militia without a bazooka?

#1 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-12-17 11:42 PM

#1

Better question, wtf does a voluntary buy back have to do with infringing on the Second Amendment?

#2 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-18 12:00 AM

How am I supposed to well-regulate my militia without a bazooka?

Posted by TheTom at 2017-12-17 11:42 PM | Reply

Chew the gum. You're covered then.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-18 12:03 AM

Say what? They gave their guns to the police? Idiots! Don't they know the police will just use them to plant on some unarmed black man they just shot.

#4 | Posted by Daniel at 2017-12-18 12:03 AM

wtf does a voluntary buy back have to do with infringing on the Second Amendment?

#2 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Logical thinking? On the DR? Are you new here?

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-18 01:29 AM

Better question, wtf does a voluntary buy back have to do with infringing on the Second Amendment?

#2 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Logical thinking? On the DR? Are you new here?

#5 | POSTED BY JPW

A couple of people on the side that forced police to put the guns they purchase at these things back on the street figure there's nothing wrong with some dick smack showing up with an antitank weapon.

I'm surprised..

#6 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-18 04:12 AM

#2 | POSTED BY ET_AL
"Better question, wtf does a voluntary buy back have to do with infringing on the Second Amendment?"

True, that's a given.

#7 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-12-18 04:51 PM

#6

You still don't state wtf a voluntary gun buy back has to do with infringing on the Second Amendment.

The antitank weapon you're so enamored with, are you aware it's a fire one time and discard weapon? It's not re-loadable and likely just an expended tube. If not, then you can bet the farm that ATF and DOD would have plenty of questions regardless of the SFPD "no questions" policy.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-18 06:35 PM

some dick smack showing up with an antitank weapon.

I'm surprised..

#6 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood

Is that what they sold or are you trying to BS us again?

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-18 07:14 PM

You still don't state wtf a voluntary gun buy back has to do with infringing on the Second Amendment.

#8 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT

It's hilarious when you...... people for lack of a better word,,,, get all caught up in the title of a thread.

It's almost like you're deliberately trying really hard to get people to talk about ANYTHING except for the subject matter...

#10 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-18 07:56 PM

just an expended tube. If not, then you can...

#8 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT

Translation:

It's nothing, believe me.

Unless it is.

And if it is,,,, then something.... maybe.................

#11 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-18 08:03 PM

It's almost like you're deliberately trying really hard to get people ...

I'm not addressing "people," I'm addressing you and your known propensity to write headlines that are blatant lies.

... just an expended tube. If not, then you can...

Which goes with your propensity to selectively quote to promote your agenda. I said "likely just an expended tube" because three pages of google failed to turn up a report that it was loaded and the lack of reporting about interest in the weapon other than causal curiosity.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-18 09:13 PM

ET_AL

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Was going to comment on this earlier, but once people get their minds set on an agenda it doesn't matter what the facts are, especially on this site.

FTA: Det. Gus Villanueva said the launchers were "stripped-down shells" without the technical parts needed to discharge a projectile. "They don't have capability to discharge anything anymore," he said.

As you said, it's just a fiberglass tube that once shot cannot be reloaded (It's not made to be fired more than once and cannot be reloaded). Make a fair blunt instrument if you're hands are big enough to use it like a club.

You guy buy them for about 300-400 bucks.

#13 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-12-18 09:53 PM

"You guy" should be "you can"

#14 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-12-18 09:54 PM

What dumbass would pay $300-400 for something that useless?

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-18 09:58 PM

What dumbass would pay $300-400 for something that useless?

#15 | POSTED BY REDIAL

One who thinks it will let him feel like his ---- is bigger.

#16 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-12-18 10:41 PM

Dunno, not my cup of tea either.

World is full of strange things but it doesn't change the fact that it is just a fiberglass tube.

#17 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-12-18 10:59 PM

figure there's nothing wrong with some dick smack showing up with an antitank weapon.
I'm surprised..
#6 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

No, we're just not as hysterical as the --------- who's hyperventilating over a useless item the SFPD just paid a couple hundred bucks for.

For f---s sake just read the twitter thread and you'll see it explained quite clearly and, crucially for you, with pictures.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-19 02:11 AM

I'm not addressing "people," I'm addressing you and your known propensity to write headlines that are blatant lies.

#12 | POSTED BY ET_AL

I'm not sure which part of the original headline is a "blatant lie."

Sort of seems like you're lying..

#19 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-19 06:10 AM

a useless item

#18 | POSTED BY JPW AT

Yap.

It's a "useless item" that is capable of destroying a tank....

#20 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-19 06:13 AM

I'm not addressing "people," I'm addressing you and your known propensity to write headlines that are blatant lies.

#12 | POSTED BY ET_AL

I'm not sure which part of the original headline is a "blatant lie."

Sort of seems like you're lying..

#19 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD AT

As an attorney who thinks it's legal to fire a gun any time, any where you qualify as a,,,,,,,,,,,,,, "special" case, so I'll breakdown the title of the thread that seems to have scarred you and altered your very existence.

I quoted the 2nd amendment in it. I have to assume you don't think that's a lie, but I'll let you explain. If you do you should stop drooling all over your keys and type it out for us, waterhead.

I used it as a title because ole Johnny Bag-0-doughnuts turned in an antitank weapon at a gun buy back. The general public is now carrying around weapons of war.

And you're cool with it.

See? The title actually was relevant.

Hey, no problem. Anytime.

I enjoy working with the handicapped. It helps me appreciate the gifts in my life and to understand how truly blessed I am.

#21 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-19 06:26 AM

It's a "useless item" that is capable of destroying a tank....

#20 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

Eat ----, idiot. It's already been fired, hence it's not a weapon.

It's, as I said, a useless item.

Well, now an expensive useless item.

Because ---------- like you hyperventilate over everything you don't know.

---------.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-19 06:32 AM

so I'll breakdown the title of the thread that seems to have scarred you and altered your very existence.

Holy hell. I'm betting you're a nobody IRL. No one would pump up their impact on an anonymous internet blog user like this without being a nobody.

If you do you should stop drooling all over your keys and type it out for us, waterhead.

What a pretentious ----.

Eat a dick, moron.

I used it as a title because ole Johnny Bag-0-doughnuts turned in an antitank weapon at a gun buy back. The general public is now carrying around weapons of war.
And you're cool with it.

No, they're not you hyperventilated sand ---. It had already been fired, which means it's a paper weight turned investment courtesy of the SFPD.

I enjoy working with the handicapped. It helps me appreciate the gifts in my life and to understand how truly blessed I am.

#21 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

The whole point of Dunning-Kruger is that people don't realize they're Dunning-Krugering it.

Which you are.

Moron.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-19 06:38 AM

Wow! Kitty's got claws!

Someone sounds "hysterical"..........

Guess who is is, #23.

Hint:

It's not me.

#24 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-19 06:47 AM

"What dumbass would pay $300-400 for something that useless?"

It's California. I hear they've been known to make a movie or two out there.

There's also a reasonably large market for collectible weapons that are no longer in an operable configuration...old WWII machine guns and whatnot. I'm actually sort of surprised the person who dropped this thing off got anything for it.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-19 09:11 AM

'It's a "useless item" that is capable of destroying a tank...."

Only if you're strong enough to beat it to death...

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-19 09:13 AM

For someone with a nomme de guerre that involves both "silence" and "good"...one would expect you to know when it's OK to stop talking.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-19 09:16 AM

It's a "useless item" that is capable of destroying a tank....

#20 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

It's a "useless item" that USE TO BE capable of destroying a tank.....

FTFY

It's demilled so it currently is just a really good paper weight or decoration (wall hanger).

Demilled" = Demilitarized, the gun rendered incapable of being fired; usually by cutting up the receiver and throwing away important parts

Someone also turned in a canon ball, you worried about that one too? Because they didn't turn in the canon, so that's still out there.

#28 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-12-19 10:20 AM

"For someone with a nomme de guerre that involves both "silence" and "good"...one would expect you to know when it's OK to stop talking."

You need to think Autobiography of Ben Franklin when you read his posts. Then everything becomes obvious.

#29 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2017-12-19 10:26 AM

Hell, a spent AT4 tube? We used to run over them with a vehicle to keep Hadji from using them as launchers. We used AT4s to clear IEDs, they work well.

#30 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-19 10:30 AM

Much ado about nothing.

I don't see why it would even be a problem to own a fully functioning anti-tank weapon (assuming it was once) since you can already own a fully functional tank.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-19 10:37 AM

#31 | Posted by donnerboy Wrong! You can own the vehicle, but the machine guns and the main tank gun are not legal to own without a federal class III license. Most people do not desire the BGI* to have that privilege.(back ground investigation)

#32 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-19 10:44 AM

Re #32 according to the google:

Sep 15, 2015 · According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, yes, totally legal. And, technically. Right now, ArmsList will put you in touch with a dealer selling a "Fully Operational Main Battle Tank with 120mm Live Cannon." ... The main gun is registered as a Destructive Device with the ATF and comes with 10 projectiles.

so like I said, you can own a fully functional tank.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-19 10:58 AM

You can own anything you want if you have the money.

You can actually purchase older FSU-type fighter jets for relatively little money. The maintenance costs will kill you though.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-19 11:45 AM

"What dumbass would pay $300-400 for something that useless?"

That's my sentiment regarding my state subsidizing Mississippi.

#35 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-19 12:45 PM

What dumbass would pay $300-400 for something that useless?

#15 | Posted by REDIAL

A lib if he thought it was getting a gun off the street.

#36 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-19 01:10 PM

It's a "useless item" that is capable of destroying a tank....

#20 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood

Then it isn't useless. If it has been fired it is a useless item.

#37 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-19 01:11 PM

Saab AT-4

For some of you older vets, it replaced the M72 LAW.

#38 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-12-19 03:38 PM

#33 | Posted by donnerboy IF you obtain a Class III license first. You might want to see what a Class III license requires. I know people who have one, most said it wasn't worth it.

#39 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-19 04:03 PM

#27 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT

Right.

What kind of **** stick makes threads and then comments on them on a public message board????

#40 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-19 05:10 PM

You might want to see what a Class III license requires. I know people who have one, most said it wasn't worth it.

#39 | Posted by docnjo

I am sure I would qualify. And I am sure it is a pain in the butt to get one. But, I am not interested.

Regardless, the fact remains you CAN buy a fully functional battle tank in America if you really want one.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-19 05:15 PM

donnerboy, Worst part- you loose your 4th amendment protection. You can be searched at any time, you have to produce the items upon demand, if you loose your Class three license for any reason,(and there are several) you have to surrender your property to the Feds. Hollywood usually uses de-milled facsimiles that run on compressed gas so they don't have to go through the mess of a Class III. Most of the big guns and machine guns in movies are such.

#42 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-19 05:32 PM

What kind of **** stick makes threads and then comments on them on a public message board????

#40 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

The kind who love the sound of their own voice despite being ignorant as hell?

---------.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-20 02:30 AM

The kind who love the sound of their own voice

#43 | POSTED BY JPW AT

Another emotional outburst from the resident drama queen.

This one is a little different though. She seems to think she can hear the words I type...

#44 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 03:54 AM

Then it isn't useless. If it has been fired it is a useless item.

#37 | POSTED BY SNIPER A

It has been posted here 8 or 10 times that it had been fired.

Does anyone have a shred of evidence that says it was?

I can't find one.

Known liars, like yourself, posting it certainly doesn't make jet so.

#45 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 07:31 AM

Does anyone have a shred of evidence that says it was?

How about this:

Unfortunately for the police, however, the bazooka has been identified as an AT-4, a single-use rocket launcher that cannot be reloaded again after firing. Many have mocked the police on social media for celebrating a buyback of the non-reusable weapon.

www.foxnews.com

#46 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-20 08:20 AM

It doesn't say a word about this one being fired.

#47 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 08:25 AM

It's cool though.

Someone on Twitter saw a pic of it and said so.

... So...

#48 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 08:27 AM

It doesn't say a word about this one being fired.

Did you look at the ends of thing in the video? Do you think they come from the factory covered in soot like that?

#49 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-20 09:19 AM

#47 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

Reread post #13

#50 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-12-20 12:26 PM

Reread post #13

#50 | POSTED BY LOHOCLA

An article that was published 5 years ago..??

...Ok...

#51 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 12:40 PM

I s'pose an article that was written in 2012 and printed in the newspaper from another city is almost as credible as "someone on Twitter said so...."

#52 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 12:44 PM

#51 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

Haha well poop on me. Didn't notice the date.

www.koaa.com

Correct one above.

FTA
Among 180 rifles, shotguns, and pistols police also received an AT4, which fires a single, unguided rocket meant to take out tanks and other vehicles. The weapon is only good for a one-time use. This one had already been fired or perhaps was a training model.

Read the last line which addresses #47. Either way, it isn't functional.

#53 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-12-20 01:00 PM

#53 Lohocla: Either way, it isn't functional.

Well, it functions just fine to get some anti-gun folks in an uproar. Though that's not very hard to do...

#54 | Posted by AKat at 2017-12-20 04:51 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Shutdown (151 comments)

Trump Tweet Blows Up GOP Strategy to Avoid Shutdown (61 comments)

Feds Plot Massive NoCal Immigration Sweep (39 comments)

World's Belief in U.S. Leadership Hits New Low (37 comments)

Bannon Thinks He Can Defy Congress (37 comments)

There Are 3.6 Million Dreamers (30 comments)

Obama Returning to Politics in 2018 (24 comments)

Senate Advances Judicial Pick Hostile to Black Voting Rights (22 comments)