If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Too many criminals are paying $500 to a lawyer to establish a trust, then spending $15k more to buy a machine gun, $1k more to buy a silencer, $400 more in tax stamps and waiting 8-10 months to go kill a bunch of people   (blog.princelaw.com) divider line 346
    More: Stupid, rulemaking process, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, law enforcement officer, NICS, FFL  
•       •       •

12698 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:05 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



346 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 12:03:55 PM

base935: As a law-abiding citizen, who has to wait 8 months for a Federal agency to sign my $200 tax stamp, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Obamalaws (tm) aren't intended to accomplish anything. They are simply attacks against the law-abiding's freedom.


And yet at the end of the process you'll still have your toy, so how is your freedom infringed on
 
2013-09-03 12:05:50 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: base935: As a law-abiding citizen, who has to wait 8 months for a Federal agency to sign my $200 tax stamp, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Obamalaws (tm) aren't intended to accomplish anything. They are simply attacks against the law-abiding's freedom.

And yet at the end of the process you'll still have your toy, so how is your freedom infringed on


notsureifserious
 
2013-09-03 12:08:39 PM
And yet they are all for drug testing all welfare recipients even when it rarely ever catches anyone using drugs.
 
2013-09-03 12:12:13 PM

Molavian: 2x SWR Spectre IIs
YHM Stainless Phantom 7.62
AAC Ti Rant .45
Surefire SOCOM556-RC
Surefire SOCOM762-RC

I do all my suppressor shopping at Silencer Shop.

Good deals, good selection, best customer service in the business.


I'm planning on getting the Ti Rant or the Osprey. Will probably begin the process in January, so there's still time to make up my mind.
 
2013-09-03 12:15:22 PM

AltheaToldMe: Da phark?


Its the new normal, now. Sigh .
 
2013-09-03 12:17:25 PM

Fubini: Remember: All hearing damage is permanent. It might not feel like a lot today or tomorrow, but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.


So, if I'm (not) hearing you correctly, if I don't use hearing protection in 30 years I won't need to? Sweet.
 
2013-09-03 12:20:21 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: base935: As a law-abiding citizen, who has to wait 8 months for a Federal agency to sign my $200 tax stamp, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Obamalaws (tm) aren't intended to accomplish anything. They are simply attacks against the law-abiding's freedom.

And yet at the end of the process you'll still have your toy, so how is your freedom infringed on


That's like saying that "free speech zones" aren't an inherent infringement on your free speech rights, even though you can say whatever you want in some abandoned parking lot where nobody will hear you.
 
2013-09-03 12:24:22 PM
Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?
 
2013-09-03 12:24:32 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It should be criminal to own a machine gun or a silencer anyway.


It should be illegal to own liquor anyways. alky walky.

It should also be illegal for anyone who has ever drank alcohol to drive a car.

Once you drink that shiat you're never the same It's demonic liquor.

/nobody needs booze or cars
//just go back to work in the shiatty coal mine in your town or some shiat.
 
2013-09-03 12:24:42 PM

dittybopper: redmid17: The difference between ditty and Bevets is that ditty is correct.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, that's not always entirely true.

Well that and Bevets possibly being some type of religious trolling bot or cyborg or something.

How do you know that I'm not some kind of extremely sophisticated bot?

Hell, how do *I* know that I'm not some kind of extremely sophisticated bot?  Wouldn't a sufficiently advanced one be capable of conversations like this?

While I am subby, and as much as I like the attention, I feel like this thread is becoming about me, not the NPR.  I also feel like dancing, wanna dance the night away....


Do dogs bark at you when you walk by?  You might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.
Do you have sudden urges to kill Sara Connor? You might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.
Do you only drink "Old Fortran" wood grain alcohol?  You might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.
 
2013-09-03 12:26:57 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: And yet at the end of the process you'll still have your toy, so how is your freedom infringed on


First they came for the Blacks, and I was not Black, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the Polish, and I was not Polish, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the Jews, and I was not Jewish, So I said nothing.

When they came for me. There was nobody left to speak.


/something something famous quote
 
2013-09-03 12:34:34 PM

Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?


Thank you for reinforcing that these retarded gun laws are all stepping stones.  THIS one won't really affect you so it's ok.  The next one won't really affect you either, so it will be OK too.  Right up to the point where they attempt their final agenda.

Ergo, I don't care if the proposed law wants to ban firearms for toddlers.  My answer is no.  This far and no farther.
 
2013-09-03 12:38:14 PM

MonoChango: dittybopper: redmid17: The difference between ditty and Bevets is that ditty is correct.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, that's not always entirely true.

Well that and Bevets possibly being some type of religious trolling bot or cyborg or something.

How do you know that I'm not some kind of extremely sophisticated bot?

Hell, how do *I* know that I'm not some kind of extremely sophisticated bot?  Wouldn't a sufficiently advanced one be capable of conversations like this?

While I am subby, and as much as I like the attention, I feel like this thread is becoming about me, not the NPR.  I also feel like dancing, wanna dance the night away....

Do dogs bark at you when you walk by?  You might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.
Do you have sudden urges to kill Sara Connor? You might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.
Do you only drink "Old Fortran" wood grain alcohol?  You might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.


If you go to the family reunion for spare parts, you might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.

If the skeletons in your closet are made of metal,  you might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.
 
2013-09-03 12:38:31 PM

Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?


Only time NFA items were used in crimes, the perpetrators were cops.
 
2013-09-03 12:41:23 PM

Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?


They work by making the guns themselves so freaking expensive that essentially only the 1% can afford them?

Is that what you want to go with?

Seems to me, that's an argument *AGAINST* more laws, not for them.
 
2013-09-03 12:42:23 PM

Giltric: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Only time NFA items were used in crimes, the perpetrators were cops.


Like I said, ungun the cops, then maybe, we can talk.
 
2013-09-03 12:43:38 PM

dittybopper: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?

They work by making the guns themselves so freaking expensive that essentially only the 1% can afford them?

Is that what you want to go with?

Seems to me, that's an argument *AGAINST* more laws, not for them.


That's been tried and it broke.
The tech is just too easy and cheap.
 
2013-09-03 12:44:05 PM

dr_blasto: Molavian: 2x SWR Spectre IIs
YHM Stainless Phantom 7.62
AAC Ti Rant .45
Surefire SOCOM556-RC
Surefire SOCOM762-RC

I do all my suppressor shopping at Silencer Shop.

Good deals, good selection, best customer service in the business.

I'm planning on getting the Ti Rant or the Osprey. Will probably begin the process in January, so there's still time to make up my mind.


The Osprey looks pretty cool, that's for sure.
 
2013-09-03 12:45:04 PM

snocone: Giltric: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Only time NFA items were used in crimes, the perpetrators were cops.

Like I said, ungun the cops, then maybe, we can talk.


I'm fine with that.

It's not like any courts have ruled that cops are responsible for the safety of the people......

They're just revenue agents.
 
2013-09-03 12:45:45 PM

snocone: Like I said, ungun the cops, then maybe, we can talk.


Yep.  Make them have to follow the exact same laws that non-LEO gun owners must face.  No machine guns allowed in your state?  Then cops can't have them.  No magazines over 10 rounds?  Then cops can't have them.  Wanna ban so-called 'assault weapons'?  Then cops can't have them.

After all, those are civilian police officers, why should they have access to weapons that only belong on the battlefield?
 
2013-09-03 12:46:10 PM
So, what is this extremely butthurt blog complaining about, that it is going to become harder to do an end-run around the law? I'm pretty big on protecting firearm liberty and rights, but the solution to a bad law is NOT to invent creative end-runs around them. The solution to bad firearm law is either court nullification or legislative repeal, and I prefer legislative repeal. Finding and exploiting loopholes in administrative regulations only wastes resources, since they can be closed by administrative fiat.
 
2013-09-03 12:48:11 PM

dittybopper: snocone: Like I said, ungun the cops, then maybe, we can talk.

Yep.  Make them have to follow the exact same laws that non-LEO gun owners must face.  No machine guns allowed in your state?  Then cops can't have them.  No magazines over 10 rounds?  Then cops can't have them.  Wanna ban so-called 'assault weapons'?  Then cops can't have them.

After all, those are civilian police officers, why should they have access to weapons that only belong on the battlefield?


Well because it is like Afghanistan out there.

Everyday 40 cops lose a limb to an IED.
 
2013-09-03 12:50:25 PM

Giltric: dittybopper: snocone: Like I said, ungun the cops, then maybe, we can talk.

Yep.  Make them have to follow the exact same laws that non-LEO gun owners must face.  No machine guns allowed in your state?  Then cops can't have them.  No magazines over 10 rounds?  Then cops can't have them.  Wanna ban so-called 'assault weapons'?  Then cops can't have them.

After all, those are civilian police officers, why should they have access to weapons that only belong on the battlefield?

Well because it is like Afghanistan out there.

Everyday 40 cops lose a limb to an IED.


Did you hear border raid into Michigan? Mounties unleashed 25 vats of maple syrup on a local precinct and killed 10 officers.
 
2013-09-03 12:54:16 PM

redmid17: Mounties unleashed 25 vats of maple syrup on a local precinct and killed 10 officers.


Hey, syrup floods are no joke.
 
2013-09-03 12:55:04 PM

redmid17: Giltric: dittybopper: snocone: Like I said, ungun the cops, then maybe, we can talk.

Yep.  Make them have to follow the exact same laws that non-LEO gun owners must face.  No machine guns allowed in your state?  Then cops can't have them.  No magazines over 10 rounds?  Then cops can't have them.  Wanna ban so-called 'assault weapons'?  Then cops can't have them.

After all, those are civilian police officers, why should they have access to weapons that only belong on the battlefield?

Well because it is like Afghanistan out there.

Everyday 40 cops lose a limb to an IED.

Did you hear border raid into Michigan? Mounties unleashed 25 vats of maple syrup on a local precinct and killed 10 officers.


Never snort maple syrup.
You are welcome.
 
2013-09-03 12:58:43 PM

MythDragon: Cats also work
[www.games10.de image 565x334]
[www.dealspwn.com image 540x250]


Cant believe that just happened

b.vimeocdn.com
 
2013-09-03 12:59:58 PM

This text is now purple: redmid17: Mounties unleashed 25 vats of maple syrup on a local precinct and killed 10 officers.

Hey, syrup floods are no joke.


Great now I have to tell my dad his old saying "slower than molasses in January" is full of shiat. I'd rather be in a beer flood
 
2013-09-03 01:01:12 PM
www.imfdb.org
 
2013-09-03 01:01:38 PM

snocone: That's been tried and it broke.
The tech is just too easy and cheap.


The tech itself is easy and cheap.  I'm talking about limiting the legal supply like they did with the Hughes Amendment, because once they can require you to register, they can simply close the registry to new guns like they did with machine guns.  It then becomes a "soft ban", one that takes decades to have a significant effect, but eventually those guns will wear out if they are shot, and spare parts will become all but unavailable.  In the mean time, because the supply is strictly limited, prices soar beyond the ability of mere mortals to afford them.

But even before all that, the $200 transfer tax was a significant burden on top of the price premium you'd pay over a semi-auto version of the same gun, never mind the regulatory hoops you have to jump through just to be able to own one in the first place.  When it was first enacted, that $200 transfer tax was the equivalent of nearly $3,500 today.  Back when you could purchase a Thompson submachine gun for $200, that doubled the already expensive price to the equivalent of nearly $7,000 today.

Today, a transferable Thompson will go for somewhere north of $20k, from what I hear, simply because of the limited supply.

Can you afford to spend that kind of cash on a gun?  Neither can I, and that's setting aside the fact that machine guns are illegal for individuals to own in my state.
 
2013-09-03 01:03:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: That's like saying that "free speech zones" aren't an inherent infringement on your free speech rights, even though you can say whatever you want in some abandoned parking lot where nobody will hear you.


If we want to take it literal, but fact remains the law as written has been interpreted that regulation does not violate your constitutional rights.
 
2013-09-03 01:05:50 PM

dittybopper: snocone: That's been tried and it broke.
The tech is just too easy and cheap.

The tech itself is easy and cheap.  I'm talking about limiting the legal supply like they did with the Hughes Amendment, because once they can require you to register, they can simply close the registry to new guns like they did with machine guns.  It then becomes a "soft ban", one that takes decades to have a significant effect, but eventually those guns will wear out if they are shot, and spare parts will become all but unavailable.  In the mean time, because the supply is strictly limited, prices soar beyond the ability of mere mortals to afford them.

But even before all that, the $200 transfer tax was a significant burden on top of the price premium you'd pay over a semi-auto version of the same gun, never mind the regulatory hoops you have to jump through just to be able to own one in the first place.  When it was first enacted, that $200 transfer tax was the equivalent of nearly $3,500 today.  Back when you could purchase a Thompson submachine gun for $200, that doubled the already expensive price to the equivalent of nearly $7,000 today.

Today, a transferable Thompson will go for somewhere north of $20k, from what I hear, simply because of the limited supply.

Can you afford to spend that kind of cash on a gun?  Neither can I, and that's setting aside the fact that machine guns are illegal for individuals to own in my state.


Sounds like a first world problem for law abiders only.
 
2013-09-03 01:08:01 PM
Here's a weird idea: buy NFA items under your own name, instead of establishing a trust. Problem solved.
 
2013-09-03 01:11:35 PM

mbillips: Here's a weird idea: buy NFA items under your own name, instead of establishing a trust. Problem solved.


Go look up why NFA trusts exist and then come back to the adult conversation.
 
2013-09-03 01:14:14 PM

mbillips: Here's a weird idea: buy NFA items under your own name, instead of establishing a trust. Problem solved.


Well people do buy NFA items under their own name.

Dontleti Trust doesn't go on the 4473......your name does.
 
2013-09-03 01:14:19 PM

Silly_Sot: So, what is this extremely butthurt blog complaining about, that it is going to become harder to do an end-run around the law?


Again I find myself explaining things to people that apparently don't give a crap about learning what's actually going on and are spoon fed their information by liars (typical Obama supporter).  This does not address an "end-run around the law".  Even if a NFA application is made under a trust of corporation, the person taking possession of the NFA item still has to pass a background check and fill out the Form 4473.  It is still 100% illegal for a felon to posses a firearm even if it is obtained through an NFA trust or corporation.  Even the ATF admits that a felon has never gotten a gun through the NFA process and the only time it was attempted the ATF caught them.  (because they still need to fill out the form 4473 and get the background check).

This new rule does absolutely zero to close any "loopholes" that have been allowing prohibited person from getting guns because there is no such thing.  Federal law is quite clear that Felons are prohibited from possessing a firearm.  All the NFA stamp does is allow a legally owned firearm to have certain features such as a short barrel or the ability to operate in automatic fire mode.  The NFA stamp absolutely does not grant the ability to own a firearm to a prohibited person.  All the new rules will do is make it more difficult, or impossible for law abiding citizens following the legal application process to get NFA items.
 
2013-09-03 01:19:05 PM

mbillips: Here's a weird idea: buy NFA items under your own name, instead of establishing a trust. Problem solved.


Apparently you missed the posts above explaining how if you go the single owner route instead of the Trust or Corporation route, you unwittingly make your wife a felon for living in the same house that you do.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:10 PM

dittybopper: snocone: That's been tried and it broke.
The tech is just too easy and cheap.

The tech itself is easy and cheap.  I'm talking about limiting the legal supply like they did with the Hughes Amendment, because once they can require you to register, they can simply close the registry to new guns like they did with machine guns.  It then becomes a "soft ban", one that takes decades to have a significant effect, but eventually those guns will wear out if they are shot, and spare parts will become all but unavailable.  In the mean time, because the supply is strictly limited, prices soar beyond the ability of mere mortals to afford them.

But even before all that, the $200 transfer tax was a significant burden on top of the price premium you'd pay over a semi-auto version of the same gun, never mind the regulatory hoops you have to jump through just to be able to own one in the first place.  When it was first enacted, that $200 transfer tax was the equivalent of nearly $3,500 today.  Back when you could purchase a Thompson submachine gun for $200, that doubled the already expensive price to the equivalent of nearly $7,000 today.

Today, a transferable Thompson will go for somewhere north of $20k, from what I hear, simply because of the limited supply.

Can you afford to spend that kind of cash on a gun?  Neither can I, and that's setting aside the fact that machine guns are illegal for individuals to own in my state.


Machine guns are perfectly fine up here provided you jump through all the NFA hoops.  There's even a couple of clubs that meet several times each year and tear the hell out of some old junkers.  Winter shoots (when it's really dark out) look awesome when you have a couple dozen automatics firing tracer rounds downrange.

I have thought about starting the process to get one, but like you said it's pretty much priced out of my range.  Yeah, you can pick up a automatic for $5K plus assorted fees if you look hard enough, but the only thing out there I would want badly enough to go through the process would be a M2, and you can buy a house for what those things cost.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:49 PM

duenor: n0nthing: redmid17: n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Make sure you take some video of that when you're finished with your project. I always enjoyed a nice laugh.

fair enough, the crazies who bang out that stuff with a dremel and a hammer etc. are always worth a chuckle.

I've built my own AK. Mine looked like crap because I was a newbie and dead tired at the time, but it worked. Never fired it again after the first test, and it's just a souvenier today. and yes, it was done legally - cost about $20 for the form if i recall. some of my friends' aks look and work really good.

modifying a gun and making your own silencer isn't easy, and requires craftsman skill and some good tools. you need

1. a long barrel, or extra long barrel for semi autos
2. a threading tool and metal lathe
3. a tapping tool
4. the actual can (oil filter? haven't seen but sounds legit)
5. some way of replacing the front sight if you had to remove it
6. good old lock tite

this is just a guess here as ive never done it or would I. but the point is that it isn't as easy as sticking an oil filter onto the end of your pistol.

and i will probably try to get a suppressor through nfa process. I'd hate to lose hearing because I had to fire my gun inside my own home in self defense.


Oh, good grief. If there's anything more useless than a suppressor, I don't know what it is.

1. It often decreases accuracy. Most suppressors make it impossible to see the front sight, and quick-detach models in particular can change your zero. This is just another silly thing the gun/accessory industry wants to sell to you, and the NRA is about nothing but industry marketing these days, so of course they're promoting it.

2. The amount of shooting anyone is ever likely to do outside a range is so insignificant as to not be worth thinking about. Your ears can handle a few unprotected gunshot sounds in a lifetime. My dad lost a lot of hearing late in life, but he hunted with a 12-gauge and no ear protection for decades.

Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins.
 
2013-09-03 01:24:13 PM

mbillips: duenor: n0nthing: redmid17: n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Make sure you take some video of that when you're finished with your project. I always enjoyed a nice laugh.

fair enough, the crazies who bang out that stuff with a dremel and a hammer etc. are always worth a chuckle.

I've built my own AK. Mine looked like crap because I was a newbie and dead tired at the time, but it worked. Never fired it again after the first test, and it's just a souvenier today. and yes, it was done legally - cost about $20 for the form if i recall. some of my friends' aks look and work really good.

modifying a gun and making your own silencer isn't easy, and requires craftsman skill and some good tools. you need

1. a long barrel, or extra long barrel for semi autos
2. a threading tool and metal lathe
3. a tapping tool
4. the actual can (oil filter? haven't seen but sounds legit)
5. some way of replacing the front sight if you had to remove it
6. good old lock tite

this is just a guess here as ive never done it or would I. but the point is that it isn't as easy as sticking an oil filter onto the end of your pistol.

and i will probably try to get a suppressor through nfa process. I'd hate to lose hearing because I had to fire my gun inside my own home in self defense.

Oh, good grief. If there's anything more useless than a suppressor, I don't know what it is.

1. It often decreases accuracy. Most suppressors make it impossible to see the front sight, and quick-detach models in particular can change your zero. This is just another silly thing the gun/accessory industry wants to sell to you, and the NRA is about nothing but industry marketing these days, so of course they're promoting it.

2. The amount of shooting anyone is ever likely to do outside a range is so insignificant as to not be worth thinking about. Your ears can handle a few unprotected gunshot sounds in a lifetime. My dad ...


Glad you're an expert on suppressors, hearing, ear physiology, workplace safety, and firearms law, and suppressor usage and tactics. We'd be lost here without you.
 
2013-09-03 01:25:41 PM

mbillips: 2. The amount of shooting anyone is ever likely to do outside a range is so insignificant as to not be worth thinking about. Your ears can handle a few unprotected gunshot sounds in a lifetime. My dad lost a lot of hearing late in life, but he hunted with a 12-gauge and no ear protection for decades.

Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins.


And people like your dad, who hunt a lot.
 
2013-09-03 01:26:07 PM

Giltric: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Only time NFA items were used in crimes, the perpetrators were cops.


Clyde Barrow's BAR
Pretty Boy Floyd's colt Automatic
And John Dillinger's tommy gun would disagree with you
 
2013-09-03 01:26:42 PM

Click Click D'oh: mbillips: Here's a weird idea: buy NFA items under your own name, instead of establishing a trust. Problem solved.

Apparently you missed the posts above explaining how if you go the single owner route instead of the Trust or Corporation route, you unwittingly make your wife a felon for living in the same house that you do.


She should have known what she was getting into.
 
2013-09-03 01:28:38 PM

dittybopper: mbillips: 2. The amount of shooting anyone is ever likely to do outside a range is so insignificant as to not be worth thinking about. Your ears can handle a few unprotected gunshot sounds in a lifetime. My dad lost a lot of hearing late in life, but he hunted with a 12-gauge and no ear protection for decades.

Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins.

And people like your dad, who hunt a lot.


That's what those ear plugs that allow you to hear, but cut off noise above a certain decibel range are for. I wore those in a show I was in, where I had to simulate shooting myself with a blank gun 50 times a night, and they work fine.
 
2013-09-03 01:29:27 PM

Magorn: Giltric: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Only time NFA items were used in crimes, the perpetrators were cops.

Clyde Barrow's BAR
Pretty Boy Floyd's colt Automatic
And John Dillinger's tommy gun would disagree with you


Difficulty factor: Kind of hard to qualify as NFA weapons when the owners died before the NFA came into affect and was actually enforced
 
2013-09-03 01:31:09 PM

mbillips: duenor: n0nthing: redmid17: n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Make sure you take some video of that when you're finished with your project. I always enjoyed a nice laugh.

fair enough, the crazies who bang out that stuff with a dremel and a hammer etc. are always worth a chuckle.

I've built my own AK. Mine looked like crap because I was a newbie and dead tired at the time, but it worked. Never fired it again after the first test, and it's just a souvenier today. and yes, it was done legally - cost about $20 for the form if i recall. some of my friends' aks look and work really good.

modifying a gun and making your own silencer isn't easy, and requires craftsman skill and some good tools. you need

1. a long barrel, or extra long barrel for semi autos
2. a threading tool and metal lathe
3. a tapping tool
4. the actual can (oil filter? haven't seen but sounds legit)
5. some way of replacing the front sight if you had to remove it
6. good old lock tite

this is just a guess here as ive never done it or would I. but the point is that it isn't as easy as sticking an oil filter onto the end of your pistol.

and i will probably try to get a suppressor through nfa process. I'd hate to lose hearing because I had to fire my gun inside my own home in self defense.

Oh, good grief. If there's anything more useless than a suppressor, I don't know what it is.

1. It often decreases accuracy. Most suppressors make it impossible to see the front sight, and quick-detach models in particular can change your zero. This is just another silly thing the gun/accessory industry wants to sell to you, and the NRA is about nothing but industry marketing these days, so of course they're promoting it.

2. The amount of shooting anyone is ever likely to do outside a range is so insignificant as to not be worth thinking about. Your ears can handle a few unprotected gunshot sounds in a lifetime. My dad ...


The only reason I was applying for a can is because I shoot on my property. My neighbors are a mile away but are NY transplants (the locals once dumped 150 brooms on their lawn after a township meeting basically telling them to fly back to NY) Whenever I shoot they hysterically call the cops and the cops by law have to respond to reports of shots fired even though they know it's just me and some family and friends throwing some lead at paper.

Also I'd rather be using a can on my AR if I have to respond in my own house, because I don't keep ear pro on the nightstand.
 
2013-09-03 01:33:36 PM

mbillips: Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins.


I really rather like what has happened around our lease now that it's legal to hunt with suppressors in Texas.  Rifle shots are still quite distinctive, but deer season no longer sounds like Mogadishu.

Magorn: Clyde Barrow's BAR
Pretty Boy Floyd's colt Automatic
And John Dillinger's tommy gun would disagree with you


None of which were NFA registered.
 
2013-09-03 01:33:48 PM

Magorn: Giltric: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Only time NFA items were used in crimes, the perpetrators were cops.

Clyde Barrow's BAR
Pretty Boy Floyd's colt Automatic
And John Dillinger's tommy gun would disagree with you


My personal favorite, a "baby machine gun" like the one Babyface Nelson used to kill an FBI agent at Little Bohemia. To be completely accurate, most of the villainy involving commercially available machine guns occurred BEFORE the NFA passed, but that's a technicality that ignores the fact that making full-auto weapons unregulated and easily available ensures that baddies will use them.

i400.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-03 01:33:49 PM

Magorn: Giltric: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Only time NFA items were used in crimes, the perpetrators were cops.

Clyde Barrow's BAR
Pretty Boy Floyd's colt Automatic
And John Dillinger's tommy gun would disagree with you


Predates NFA.

There is maybe a month overlap between the NFA and Dillingers death.

He pulled a revolver when they tried taking him outside the theatre.
 
2013-09-03 01:37:25 PM

Zane256: Of course the Obama administration ignores that whomever is picking up the NFA item still fills out a 4473 and has to under go a NICS check.

Sure, they could still hand them to a felon, but then so could someone who fills out the Form 4 as an individual. The felon still can't possess the item. This just makes it more difficult for all members of a family to legally possess the NFA item.


That might be the point...

/We need real statistics on who commits gun killings and why before we try to address the problem.
//And thank you so much, gun lobbyists, for stopping the CDC from  getting us those statistics.
 
2013-09-03 01:39:59 PM

Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts.  See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states.  Is that really the argument that you want to make?


It proves nothing of the sort, but provides a very interesting view into incentivizing human behavior. In short, the reason fully automatic guns aren't used in crime is because there's no real advantage for a criminal to use a fully automatic weapon. They don't tend to be significantly more lethal than a semi-automatic weapon, and have a number of drawbacks.

In short, automatic weapons are wonderful for blanketing an area with gunfire. When you have 10 infantrymen with automatic weapons they're able to turn a nearby threat into swiss cheese in pretty short order. From a military perspective, this prevents the opponent from moving out of cover, and allows for tactics to be employed or for heavier weapons to be brought to bear. This works for the infantryman because the military system is designed to make it work.

A criminal derives a marginal benefit from fully automatic weapons as a tool for instilling fear, but has to pay for all that ammunition out of their own pocket, has to figure out how to conceal the bulk of an automatic weapon (plus extra ammunition), and has to figure out how to make it work for him. For reference, the M16 and AKM rifles both have a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute, so they will expend a standard 30 round magazine in exactly 3 seconds.

Looking historically, automatic weapons were somewhat common in crime prior to the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act. This instituted a steep tax on automatic weapons, and while it didn't decrease gun crime, it did prevent the use of automatic weapons in crime. Since the 1934 NFA there have only been two crimes committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon.

The reason that the 1934 NFA was effective is not, as you suggest, because it's a federally administered law. Instead, the reason it was effective (and still is effective) is because for criminals there was an equally worthwhile and unregulated alternative available: semi-automatic firearms. The marginal utility from fully-automatic fire just doesn't justify the exorbitant risk and expense of acquiring them.

I would postulate the following: if we were to enact NFA-style restrictions on all firearms, not just semi-automatic weapons, then you would see an *increase* in automatic weapons being used. In other words, if semi-automatic weapons were just as risky and expensive for a criminal to acquire as were fully automatic weapons, there would be no reason for them not to pursue automatic weapons instead- the only difference would be personal preference. The drawbacks I gave above would ensure that automatic weapons weren't used as frequently as semi-automatic weapons, but I would bet money that they'd be used more frequently than they are now.
 
Displayed 50 of 346 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report