Ugly Unicorn OMG AR-15

OMG is right… this thing is hideous:

Looks like something a gay homeless guy would use to protect his shopping cart full of cans.

I dare someone to build a rifle this hideous and use it in a training class. Yea yea i’ve seen the pink ones and those stupid Hello Kitty ones, but they don’t make me gag like this one does.

Hat tip: Steve, Erin, Mark, Ryan, Blake

19 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

s30 February 10, 2012 at 02:14 am

That thing is gayer than Aids.

Reply

DC1-3 February 10, 2012 at 03:16 am

Fun fact: That range is in South San Francisco. Fitting.

Reply

Snowdog February 10, 2012 at 06:23 am

my wife wants me to build one just like that for our daughter if we ever have a girl.

Reply

Bear February 10, 2012 at 07:50 am

I can think of something way more flambouyant and way more infuriating —

A brady campaign themed AR-15. Or better yet, make it an AK.

And yes, the brady is lowercase intentionally. I won’t respect ’em with a capital letter.

Reply

Critter February 10, 2012 at 08:05 am

it needs something…i dunno..rinestones?

Reply

battlewagon February 10, 2012 at 11:35 am

It might be profitable to take a second and think about the things that have been said so far.

You realize that he didn’t modify it to fire marshmallows, correct? It doesn’t run on rainbows, in fact in terms of pure function it’s probably functionally similar to every other AR out there (although those dangly bits are likely to get in the way). It’s purely cosmetic, and although I’m certain the guy who modded it did so merely in the spirit of fun what should it matter how he makes it look? I personally think mall ninja’ed weapons aren’t that much more ridiculous. The brady bunch has spent years trying to ban this very firearm for purely cosmetic reasons. Hell, I fought some guys in Afghanistan who arguably did worse things to AK’s, gave them the whole jingle truck treatment, painted them cherry red and pasted pictures of belly dancers onto the stock, right next to the gold tassels. Those “gay” guns would kill you just as quick.

And calling it gay is stupid too. First, for as much time as we spend correctly maintaining in debates that guns are inanimate objects assigning them a gender preference is just as stupid as assigning them a malignant will of their own. On top of that it’s disrespectful to homosexuals, regardless of your feelings about the practice this is America, and gays have rights too. I wore a Pink Pistols pin on my body armor for my last deployment to Iraq because while I’m not gay myself I can think of no more purely American institution than a gay gun rights organization. If you don’t support gay rights you don’t really support rights, you just support the rights of people who you agree with and I think that’s a dangerous and startlingly unamerican point of view.

Saying things like “that’s gayer than aids” is unhelpful at best, there’s a nice couple down the street from me, Freddy and Mark. They work for a living, they pay taxes, they are raising 4 really great adopted kids, adopted kids whose straight parents discarded them. They also have no problem with seeing me loading up my car with scary black rifles in plain view of the street every week to go to the range, we’ve discussed it, they respect my rights and I respect theirs. The pink triangle used as a symbol for gays wasn’t invented by gays, it was what the Nazis had homosexuals wear instead of Star of Davids when they were sent to concentration camps. Many gays are just as aware of the necessity for a civilian check on governmental powers as any rabid second amendment supporter, so why do I constantly see incredibly bigotted things posted on gun blogs that can only serve to distance people who want to work towards the same freedoms we cherish? Face it, a hated minority has a lot more riding on the second amendments protections from governmental abuse than a christian white guy like I do. If everytime you saw a standard AR you said “that’s blacker than sickle cell anemia” would you expect reasonable people to approve?

That’s garbage, and you’re not helping kiddo.

Reply

ENDO-Mike February 10, 2012 at 11:40 am

I didn’t say the rifle was “gay”, I said:

Looks like something a gay homeless guy would use to protect his shopping cart full of cans.

From my limited contact with them, homosexual people are often flamboyant and enjoy flamboyant things. This rifle was flamboyant, but looked like garbage so I figured the statement I made in the post was fitting.

Reply

battlewagon February 10, 2012 at 12:09 pm

I was actually aiming this more at the first commenter but I’ll address it anyway. The ones you *knew* were gay you probably *knew* because they fit within your stereotype of “flamboyant queer”. Yes, queens exist. But I’ve known plenty of gays in and out of the military that you’d never know weren’t straight unless they bothered to tell you, and most of them wouldn’t bother. It’s a lot like gun owners, for every idiot redneck or loudmouth callofdutykid there are probably ten normal responsible gun owners who never really attract any attention. But who do you think are the most visible to the other side of the argument?

When you think of a Brady supporter do you think of an effeminate flamboyant scared gay guy? Because if you do then you should just be cognizant of the fact that that person is a cartoon that your mind has built up, just like the cartoon of a dim mouth breathing religious extremist that most Brady supporters have built up in their minds to describe us.

Acting even a little bit like a mouth breathing bigot on a gun blog plays right into that good old confirmation bias that human beings love so much. I don’t think the original post was mean spirited or anything and probably wouldn’t have batted an eye at it if I hadn’t seen it taken way too far in the comments. The first comment about “gayer than aids” though, that as well be written by a Brady cointelpro agent for all the good it does our side.

Seriously, if you are a gun owner and you feel like engaging in a public discourse I think you ought to give at least passing thought to how it makes all gun owners look. That’s all. It’s a fun post and it’s a silly assed thing to do to a firearm but whats the point in taking it into a hateful direction?

Reply

battlewagon February 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm

Plus to me it looks a lot more like something Tactical George Clinton and his Funkadelic Militia would carry…

Reply

ENDO-Mike February 10, 2012 at 12:13 pm

The ones you *knew* were gay you probably *knew* because they fit within your stereotype of “flamboyant queer”. Yes, queens exist. But I’ve known plenty of gays in and out of the military that you’d never know weren’t straight unless they bothered to tell you, and most of them wouldn’t bother.

That’s a real good point.

All excellent points in fact.

Reply

Bear February 10, 2012 at 01:34 pm

Back on topic: The guns is indeed hideous Mike. Thank you for burning our eyes with it.

BUT — the guy had a decent grouping, given the fact that those pony-tail streamers must tickle the face and neck like HELL once it recoils.

Reply

marque cornblatt February 10, 2012 at 06:32 pm

Battlewagon… You win.. Take a victory lap.

Reply

Phil February 10, 2012 at 01:04 pm

wheres the tactical treats?

Reply

Crunkleross February 10, 2012 at 02:34 pm

Pink Pistol group would approve. For a less than lethal option http://inventorspot.com/security_system

Reply

Church February 10, 2012 at 02:50 pm

What a D-bag.

Reply

Frank February 10, 2012 at 03:15 pm

Everything about the rifle is neat, except for the hair strands. It also needs a pink Surefire 60 round mag.

I’d buy one if it came in midnight purple and gold.

Reply

45er February 10, 2012 at 04:29 pm

The ribbons are total win.

Reply

Vhyrus February 10, 2012 at 10:21 pm

Oh my gawd its FAAAAAAAABBBBBUUULLLOOOOUUSSSS!!!!

…no homo……

Reply

Grayson February 17, 2012 at 04:39 am

This is not ‘tactical’.
In fact, this is about as ANTI-tactical as a firearm can possibly get.
However, if an instructor used it in a firearms training class, he could NOT fail to hold the students’ immediate and undivided attention.
There’s your arguement “in favor of.”

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: