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 03:28:45 PM
Suppressors are somewhat overrated for murder purposes. When the Mossad set up that deep-undercover hit squad after Munich, and sent them forth to assassinate Black September and innocent Norwegian waiters alike, they used Beretta Jetfire .22s with subsonic ammo. Makes about as much noise as clapping your hands hard. Two in the eye, drop the gun, and walk off.

According to Yuval Aviv, they carried them in Condition 3, and made racking the slide part of the draw. So if I ever bother to carry concealed, and I'm not carrying a revolver, that's my plan. I mean, if it's good enough for Mossad assassins...
 
2013-09-03 03:32:28 PM

Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Can you prove that the type of gun is an important factor in gun crime, then?


The facts as they are:

Non-NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934:   Eight Billion (roughly)
NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934:                                          2

The fact that you keep lumping NFA items in with every other gun available mean that either 1) You truly have no clue what you are on about -or- 2) are intentionally conflating the two items to create confusion about what the real scope of the issue.  The truth is that NFA firearms are simply not used to commit crimes on any appreciable scale.

Keep those Goal posts moving.


Well, you're counting only NFA-registered weapons/accessories. I'm sure there are any number of unsolved murders involving unregistered suppressors/short-barreled shotguns/machine pistols. I personally have heard a seven-round burst fired in Southwest Washington DC (I had just returned from Iraq, so I know it wasn't firecrackers). I doubt very much that weapon had a tax stamp.
 
2013-09-03 03:34:51 PM
The Constitution only applies to muskets because that is the only firearm technology that existed when the document was written.  It is just like we only have freedom of speech/press if it is printed on a gutenburg press and does not apply to the internet of cell phones.  For us liberals, this is all perfectly logical.
 
2013-09-03 03:35:29 PM

dittybopper: Noticeably F.A.T.: mbillips: Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins.

Just because you can't think of another reason (or refuse to acknowledge the other reasons given to you) doesn't mean they don't exist or are not valid. It just means you are unimaginative and/or ignorant.

It's even worse.  He actually acknowledges a good reason for owning them in the sentence immediately before:

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.

So it's actually three kinds of people:  Special Forces, assassins, and avid hunters.


Hunters can use ear protection. The awesome thing about the modern kind is that you can hear squirrels moving at MUCH longer distances, but the sound of the shot is blocked out by the active earplugs.
 
2013-09-03 03:36:40 PM

lordaction: The Constitution only applies to muskets because that is the only firearm technology that existed when the document was written.  It is just like we only have freedom of speech/press if it is printed on a gutenburg press and does not apply to the internet of cell phones.  For us liberals, this is all perfectly logical.


Down goes strawman! DOWN! GOES! STRAWMAN!
 
2013-09-03 03:38:24 PM

mbillips: Well, you're counting only NFA-registered weapons/accessories.



And the proposed rules are only in respect to NFA items, so that's really the only point of the discussion that matters.


mbillips: I'm sure there are any number of unsolved murders involving unregistered suppressors/short-barreled shotguns/machine pistols.


...Which will in no way be effected by the proposed changes to the NFA rules, being illegally owned and not NFA registered and all...

mbillips: I doubt very much that weapon had a tax stamp.


So, implementing the new rules wouldn't do anything to effect that firearm either then would it?
 
2013-09-03 03:39:57 PM

Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Can you prove that the type of gun is an important factor in gun crime, then?


The facts as they are:

Non-NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934:   Eight Billion (roughly)
NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934:                                          2

The fact that you keep lumping NFA items in with every other gun available mean that either 1) You truly have no clue what you are on about -or- 2) are intentionally conflating the two items to create confusion about what the real scope of the issue.  The truth is that NFA firearms are simply not used to commit crimes on any appreciable scale.

Keep those Goal posts moving.


NFA-registered? Yeah...that's moving the goalposts. After all, there's no way someone could buy a gun and not register it, no sirree bob...
 
2013-09-03 03:44:45 PM
Alright, I'm willing to compromise.  Repeal the Hughes Amendment and I'll register my machine guns.

Deal?
 
2013-09-03 03:44:58 PM

mbillips: I'm sure there are any number of unsolved murders involving unregistered suppressors/short-barreled shotguns/machine pistols.


I must reassess my position. If mbillips is "sure" that such crimes are occurring, then clearly such firearms and suppression devices are not sufficiently regulated.
 
2013-09-03 03:48:19 PM

PsiChick: NFA-registered? Yeah...that's moving the goalposts. After all, there's no way someone could buy a gun and not register it, no sirree bob...


The whole point of the thread, in case you missed it, is new rules regarding the requirements for NFA registration.  And yes, you have to have your tax stamp (proof of completion of NFA registration) before taking possession of an NFA item.  So no.  No one can legally own a NFA item without having the Tax Stamp.

As I've been saying, you have not the slightest clue what you are blathering about.
 
2013-09-03 03:49:37 PM

mbillips: lordaction: The Constitution only applies to muskets because that is the only firearm technology that existed when the document was written.  It is just like we only have freedom of speech/press if it is printed on a gutenburg press and does not apply to the internet of cell phones.  For us liberals, this is all perfectly logical.

Down goes strawman! DOWN! GOES! STRAWMAN!


No, no, no.  You are doing it wrong.  You need to label what I said "hate speech" and call me a racist.  It is the liberal way to silence opposition.
 
2013-09-03 03:50:44 PM

PsiChick: Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Can you prove that the type of gun is an important factor in gun crime, then?


The facts as they are:

Non-NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934:   Eight Billion (roughly)
NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934:                                          2

The fact that you keep lumping NFA items in with every other gun available mean that either 1) You truly have no clue what you are on about -or- 2) are intentionally conflating the two items to create confusion about what the real scope of the issue.  The truth is that NFA firearms are simply not used to commit crimes on any appreciable scale.

Keep those Goal posts moving.

NFA-registered? Yeah...that's moving the goalposts. After all, there's no way someone could buy a gun and not register it, no sirree bob...


If someone is using an NFA type weapon that wasn't registered, it means it was either stolen or smuggled in from outside the country. But yes you were moving the goalposts. I specifically called out NFA weapons. If they aren't registered as pre-86 weapons, then they cannot be NFA weapons.
 
2013-09-03 03:55:15 PM

mbillips: Beretta Jetfire .22s with subsonic ammo. Makes about as much noise as clapping your hands hard.


Umm, no.  I have to call bullshiat on that one, based on personal experience.

I've actually fired a Beretta Jetfire in .22 Short, which in that barrel length is *VERY* subsonic, and it's much, much louder than you can clap your hands.  It's actually quite loud, and you need to wear hearing protection.

Even firing a .22 CB cap in that gun (basically, a .22 Short with almost no powder in it) makes a loud noise, even though it won't cycle the action.

Now, firing a .22 CB cap in a *RIFLE* will be nearly silent:  I've fired them in my .22 and the loudest sound you hear is the striker falling.   I've also fired subsonic .22 LR in my rifle, and while there wasn't a sonic 'crack', it did sound like a gun.
 
2013-09-03 03:59:12 PM

PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.


Adam Lanza didn't use any NFA items.

Click Click D'oh: Do you mount your goalposts in a truck to keep them that mobile? The original question was in regards to how many times a family member has purchased an NFA item to provide to a family member to commit crime.


It's PsiChick. This and shouting 'Misogyny!' are the only two modes she has.

Click Click D'oh: As I've been saying, you have not the slightest clue what you are blathering about.


That never stops her from commenting.
 
2013-09-03 04:00:18 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Let's take that argument to free speech again, would it be completely ok for a sitting president to suppress all negative reports about him, as long as he allowed the reports to be published after his presidency? According to your logic, you still have the right of free speech.. it's just delayed. Are you actually defending that? Or do you see some rights as more breakable than others?


I don't disagree with you on principle, I'm just saying it's what we got and I don't see it going anywhere any time soon.
 
2013-09-03 04:07:48 PM

foxyshadis: zepher: I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

And yet the nation is awash in legally owned guns, and more are being made and bought every day. I think you overstate your case just a teeny tiny bit, melodrama doesn't really help.

/But as a gun-owner, there can be a ridiculous amount of regulation in areas that hardly make sense.
//California regs are even worse.
///Hasn't stopped me from having one.


What I posted is the absolute truth about how the anti-gun movement is taking away gun rights piece by piece.
Just because there are still guns that are legal to own doesn't mean that gun rights haven't been massively curtailed in the last 100 years.

Your same argument could easily be said about voter ID laws that many in the GOP are pushing.
Passing some sort of voter ID overall won't stop people from voting if they really want to.
 
2013-09-03 04:11:40 PM

Skyd1v: redmid17: PsiChick: redmid17: Care to wager how many times a family member has purchased an NFA weapon for a relative who used it in a crime?

Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

I don't normally bet with dead criminals. However if he did take that bet, I daresay he (and you) would be disappointed with the results.

Scroll up. I'm referring to the principle, not the weapon type--gun crime isn't really something that depends on the type of gun, the attacker will use what's available.

Your principle is also heavily flawed. Any execution of a crime or possession of an NFA weapon in use of a crime automatically tacks on a *long* time of mandatory prison (ie 30 years for use of a silencer in a crime). There is a very, very small advantage to using an NFA weapon, which has been seriously tracked throughout its life and a $200 kel-tec that has been passed around more than the village bicycle versus all the disadvantages. Criminals aren't always smart but availability is only part of what is going on. Criminals value portable and concealable weapons. That is why handguns are by far the most used weapon in crimes, especially murders. Rifles and shotguns are much easier to get than handguns in many places, especially in cities like NYC and Chicago, and there is no federal requirement for FFLs to register sales of multiple long guns in a short period of time by one person.

Actually, this depends on what state you are in.  For some reason I remember the field agent mentioning this during my interview.

"In August 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate similar reporting requirements on the multiple sales related to certain rifles for a period of three years. Multiple Sales For Certain Rifles requires all federal firearms licensees in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to submit reports of multiple sales or other dispositions to an unlicens ...


After I read that, it did seem to ring a bell. IIRC that was part of the push to track guns vis-a-vis the cartels and gunrunning in the southwest? Did that ever actually get enacted?
 
2013-09-03 04:13:41 PM

heili skrimsli: PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

Adam Lanza didn't use any NFA items.

Click Click D'oh: Do you mount your goalposts in a truck to keep them that mobile? The original question was in regards to how many times a family member has purchased an NFA item to provide to a family member to commit crime.

It's PsiChick. This and shouting 'Misogyny!' are the only two modes she has.

Click Click D'oh: As I've been saying, you have not the slightest clue what you are blathering about.

That never stops her from commenting.


Did I personally offend you at some point or something? I swear, I've seen almost exactly this comment in more than one thread...

/I just came off a cold, so you'll have to forgive me for not knowing. Sleep deprivation from lack of breathing doesn't help IQ points.
 
2013-09-03 04:16:26 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.


"Unwittingly"?
 
2013-09-03 04:17:05 PM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-09-03 04:17:35 PM

redmid17: Skyd1v: redmid17: PsiChick: redmid17: Care to wager how many times a family member has purchased an NFA weapon for a relative who used it in a crime?

Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

I don't normally bet with dead criminals. However if he did take that bet, I daresay he (and you) would be disappointed with the results.

Scroll up. I'm referring to the principle, not the weapon type--gun crime isn't really something that depends on the type of gun, the attacker will use what's available.

Your principle is also heavily flawed. Any execution of a crime or possession of an NFA weapon in use of a crime automatically tacks on a *long* time of mandatory prison (ie 30 years for use of a silencer in a crime). There is a very, very small advantage to using an NFA weapon, which has been seriously tracked throughout its life and a $200 kel-tec that has been passed around more than the village bicycle versus all the disadvantages. Criminals aren't always smart but availability is only part of what is going on. Criminals value portable and concealable weapons. That is why handguns are by far the most used weapon in crimes, especially murders. Rifles and shotguns are much easier to get than handguns in many places, especially in cities like NYC and Chicago, and there is no federal requirement for FFLs to register sales of multiple long guns in a short period of time by one person.

Actually, this depends on what state you are in.  For some reason I remember the field agent mentioning this during my interview.

"In August 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate similar reporting requirements on the multiple sales related to certain rifles for a period of three years. Multiple Sales For Certain Rifles requires all federal firearms licensees in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to submit reports of multiple sales or other dispositions to an ...


redmid17: Actually, this depends on what state you are in.  For some reason I remember the field agent mentioning this during my interview.

"In August 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate similar reporting requirements on the multiple sales related to certain rifles for a period of three years. Multiple Sales For Certain Rifles requires all federal firearms licensees in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to submit reports of multiple sales or other dispositions to an unlicens ...

After I read that, it did seem to ring a bell. IIRC that was part of the push to track guns vis-a-vis the cartels and gunrunning in the southwest? Did that ever actually get enacted?


Well, it is form 3310.12 in the big packet of forms the BATF sends to newly licensed FFL's, so I can only assume it's in effect.  I live about as far from those border states as you can get though, so it's nothing I have ever used.
 
2013-09-03 04:19:21 PM

PsiChick: Did I personally offend you at some point or something? I swear, I've seen almost exactly this comment in more than one thread...


Offend me? Only in so far as I find ignorant hubris distasteful.

I've seen you around in a lot of threads condescending over topics that you don't know anything about, and generally lecturing people on whatever you learned in your freshman women's studies class, and considering the responses you're getting from Click Click D'oh and others in this thread, I'm not the only person who doesn't hold your posts in high esteem.
 
2013-09-03 04:31:07 PM

heili skrimsli: PsiChick: Did I personally offend you at some point or something? I swear, I've seen almost exactly this comment in more than one thread...

Offend me? Only in so far as I find ignorant hubris distasteful.

I've seen you around in a lot of threads condescending over topics that you don't know anything about, and generally lecturing people on whatever you learned in your freshman women's studies class, and considering the responses you're getting from Click Click D'oh and others in this thread, I'm not the only person who doesn't hold your posts in high esteem.


...You're one of the MRAs I argue with a lot, aren't you.
 
2013-09-03 04:43:13 PM

mbillips: Hunters can use ear protection. The awesome thing about the modern kind is that you can hear squirrels moving at MUCH longer distances, but the sound of the shot is blocked out by the active earplugs.


They can also use suppressors. The availability of another option doesn't make the first option invalid. The fact that earplugs exist doesn't make your original assertion that "Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins." any less ridiculous.

You're also completely sidestepping the other benefits mentioned. Suppressors are often used in conjunction with other protection, not as a replacement (as has been mentioned more than once in the thread, they don't make a shot quite, just quieter). Also, earplugs only protect the shooter, suppressors protect everyone else. There are more than a few outdoor ranges in close proximity to other occupied places (the one in Cherry Creek State Park is one I'm personally familiar with). While the noise isn't at dangerous levels outside the range, I'm sure the other folks in the park would still enjoy a quieter range. Also, I know hunters using earplugs (even active earplugs) would still appreciate quieter guns in the woods, as far as I know deer don't follow OSHA regulations and have a habit of vacating the area when a shot is fired. Reducing that area is a good thing.

/Cars don't need mufflers, people can just drive with earmuffs on. The only people who need mufflers are getaway drivers.
 
2013-09-03 04:44:29 PM

Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

Adam Lanza didn't use an NFA firearm.


Shawn Nelson did.
 
2013-09-03 04:45:23 PM

PsiChick: ..You're one of the MRAs I argue with a lot, aren't you.


I suppose in your world not being an ill-educated social justice warrior would make me an MRA, but that's outside the topic of this thread.

Skyd1v: Well, it is form 3310.12 in the big packet of forms the BATF sends to newly licensed FFL's, so I can only assume it's in effect. I live about as far from those border states as you can get though, so it's nothing I have ever used.


You know the BATFE gets very upset when people use their entire initialism to remind them that they are not a three-letter-agency. ;)
 
2013-09-03 04:50:30 PM

redmid17: If someone is using an NFA type weapon that wasn't registered, it means it was either stolen or smuggled in from outside the country. But yes you were moving the goalposts. I specifically called out NFA weapons. If they aren't registered as pre-86 weapons, then they cannot be NFA weapons.


There are more NFA firearms than just machine guns.  Short barreled rifles & Shotguns are NFA items, as well as Supressors, all of which can be manufactured legally, provided you get the tax stamp, and wait the year for approval.  These are also never used in crime.

The Hughes Amendment outlawing newly registered machine guns should never have passed in the first place.  Charlie Rangel abused his power and claimed the amendment passed on a voice vote, when a recorded vote was demanded, it failed 297 to 124.  He later does the same thing, but  ignored demands for a recorded vote.   Look on youtube for "Hughes Amendment", the raw video of the session is available.
 
2013-09-03 04:55:35 PM

This text is now purple: Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

Adam Lanza didn't use an NFA firearm.

Shawn Nelson did.


I thought only the gun on the tank was a DD, not the tank itself.
 
2013-09-03 04:56:27 PM

blunttrauma: redmid17: If someone is using an NFA type weapon that wasn't registered, it means it was either stolen or smuggled in from outside the country. But yes you were moving the goalposts. I specifically called out NFA weapons. If they aren't registered as pre-86 weapons, then they cannot be NFA weapons.

There are more NFA firearms than just machine guns.  Short barreled rifles & Shotguns are NFA items, as well as Supressors, all of which can be manufactured legally, provided you get the tax stamp, and wait the year for approval.  These are also never used in crime.

The Hughes Amendment outlawing newly registered machine guns should never have passed in the first place.  Charlie Rangel abused his power and claimed the amendment passed on a voice vote, when a recorded vote was demanded, it failed 297 to 124.  He later does the same thing, but  ignored demands for a recorded vote.   Look on youtube for "Hughes Amendment", the raw video of the session is available.


Yeah I was just addressing automatic weapons, but you are totally correct.
 
2013-09-03 04:59:27 PM

redmid17: This text is now purple: Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

Adam Lanza didn't use an NFA firearm.

Shawn Nelson did.

I thought only the gun on the tank was a DD, not the tank itself.


It's equipped with an M85, which is .50 cal, thus considered a machine gun instead of a destructive device. The 105-mm cannon is a DD.
 
2013-09-03 04:59:50 PM

Magorn: mbillips: Fubini: Magorn: Pretty Boy Floyd's colt Automatic

This is not what we call a machinegun. In that usage, 'automatic' is a jargon term that means 'self-loading and extracting'... in other words, it's what we'd call a semi-automatic weapon today. At the time, it was used to distinguish that type of weapon from something like a revolver, bolt-action, or lever-action gun. (The revolver doesn't extract casings after use, the bolt action and the lever action both loads and extracts, but the action must be operated manually.)

Case in point: Colt didn't make any machineguns at that time, other than the M1895 machinegun, which is definitely *not* a crime gun. It's a tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine gun.

Pretty Boy Floyd's criminal career was in the early '30s. Colt manufactured the Maxim/Vickers and the Browning M1917 under license during WWI. They also manufactured 15,000 Thompson submachine guns.

But what he's referring to is the "baby machine gun," which a certain San Antonio gunsmith made from the Colt 1911 and supplied to gangsters and bank robbers, including Floyd.

Yeah, this puppy:
[www.thefirearmblog.com image 540x309]
Which, whatever else we may believe, I think we can all agree is a sin against God, nature, and John Moses Browning


Sin against God or ahead of his time?
Old and busted:
i1.ytimg.com
New hotness:
img25.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-03 05:00:11 PM

heili skrimsli: PsiChick: ..You're one of the MRAs I argue with a lot, aren't you.

I suppose in your world not being an ill-educated social justice warrior would make me an MRA, but that's outside the topic of this thread.


Uh-hunh. Let me guess: Feminism is the idea that women are inherently superior to men?

/And yeah, it's outside the topic of this thread--as was you coming in and playing the  ad hominem game.
 
2013-09-03 05:09:05 PM
n0nthing


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

So, how long have you worked for the batfe?

/// worst sting operation ever.
 
2013-09-03 05:12:13 PM

This text is now purple: redmid17: This text is now purple: Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

Adam Lanza didn't use an NFA firearm.

Shawn Nelson did.

I thought only the gun on the tank was a DD, not the tank itself.

It's equipped with an M85, which is .50 cal, thus considered a machine gun instead of a destructive device. The 105-mm cannon is a DD.


He didn't have ammo for either IIRC
 
2013-09-03 05:28:40 PM

A Friendly Color: Derp.It took me just under a year from the day I had enough money and knew what weapon I wanted. You literally have to get your local Chief of Police to sign a letter saying you're okay. If you live in a big town? Well...good luck.


The CLEO signoff requirement under the NFA is quite literally the last Federally-enforced Jim Crow law.

/not sarcasm.
 
2013-09-03 05:30:44 PM

c0penhaqen: When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.


Um, no.  Just no.  It's even a tax-free transfer.
 
2013-09-03 05:37:39 PM

redmid17: This text is now purple: redmid17: This text is now purple: Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

Adam Lanza didn't use an NFA firearm.

Shawn Nelson did.

I thought only the gun on the tank was a DD, not the tank itself.

It's equipped with an M85, which is .50 cal, thus considered a machine gun instead of a destructive device. The 105-mm cannon is a DD.

He didn't have ammo for either IIRC


Does that actually matter under the law?
 
2013-09-03 05:42:27 PM

dittybopper: Because it was violating the due process rights (never mind the Second Amendment rights) of the people they were prosecuting, so much so that Congress felt it had to step in and limit what the ATF was allowed to do.



Don't forget their institutionalized policy of perjuring themselves during criminal trials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv14RsepvHA

That's Tom Busey, former head of the NFA Branch of ATF, instructing agents to testify in court that the NFRTR was 100% accurate, when they KNEW that it wasn't.  IIRC, instead of being fired and charged criminally, he was given a "lateral transfer" within ATF.
 
2013-09-03 05:47:00 PM

PsiChick: Did I personally offend you at some point or something? I swear, I've seen almost exactly this comment in more than one thread...



I don't even visit Fark all that often, and even I know what to expect when I see your name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
 
2013-09-03 05:51:32 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Bumpfire, ftw.



I was fairly unimpressed the first time I saw a Slidefire stock for sale.  I figured it was like the rest of the things like that, dating back to the '80s.  The first time I used one?  Damned if it didn't work, right out of the box, first time, every time.  Sure, it teaches bad habits, but throwing an under $400 stock on a $500 rifle and it's damned near as good as a registered receiver gun that was going for $10K?  As a range toy: "Me Likey."
 
2013-09-03 06:01:28 PM

zepher: foxyshadis: zepher: I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

And yet the nation is awash in legally owned guns, and more are being made and bought every day. I think you overstate your case just a teeny tiny bit, melodrama doesn't really help.

/But as a gun-owner, there can be a ridiculous amount of regulation in areas that hardly make sense.
//California regs are even worse.
///Hasn't stopped me from having one.

What I posted is the absolute truth about how the anti-gun movement is taking away gun rights piece by piece.
Just because there are still guns that are legal to own doesn't mean that gun rights haven't been massively curtailed in the last 100 years.

Your same argument could easily be said about voter ID laws that many in the GOP are pushing.
Passing some sort of voter ID overall won't stop people from voting if they really want to.


You're the one who phrased it as "I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake" which I consider overly melodramatic - we have at least half the cake left. Yeah, that's not enough in my opinion either, but be honest, not hysterical, and you won't sound like the antipode of a hysterical gun grabber to other people.
 
2013-09-03 06:06:32 PM

This text is now purple: Shawn Nelson did.


As funny as that is, no he didn't.  The M60A3 tank, and associated weaponry on the tank, that he stole from the National Guard Armory was not a NFA registered item.

And you know full well that altering the rules for NFA registration would have zero effect on weapons gained by driving them off the National Guard Armory motor pool.

So... Keep on moving those goal posts.
 
2013-09-03 06:08:04 PM

PsiChick: /And yeah, it's outside the topic of this thread--as was you coming in and playing the ad hominem game.


My Boobies in this thread was 3 hours before you joined it with your utter lack of understanding of the topic at hand. I made three posts before you showed up to show us all how little you actually know by claiming that the CDC has been 'prevented' from actually studying the statistics and demographics homicides involving firearms.

Several people called you out on that, and pointed you to the actual study, so you decided to name-drop Adam Lanza as if his criminal actions had anything whatever to do with NFA items (they didn't), and you were again called out by several people. In response to that, you moved the goal posts and tried to claim that him murdering his mother to steal her firearms is 'the same idea' as felons getting relatives to create NFA trusts and buy machine guns for them.

And again, more than one person called you out on it, but you decided that I came into this thread solely to persecute you. On the contrary, I recognized your username and the type of posts I've seen  you make before, and pointed out that this is your usual style so that people could potentially avoid wasting their time trying to actually educate you on the facts.

You can call that an 'ad hominem' game all you want, but you have a reputation around here for either not knowing the facts or intentionally distorting them in order to promote your own poorly informed opinion - much like you're doing right now by claiming that I 'came into' this thread to call you names.
 
2013-09-03 06:10:49 PM

redmid17: Care to wager how many times a family member has purchased an NFA weapon for a relative who used it in a crime?


Never, in the 80 year history of the NFA.

And even if it had happened, it wouldn't matter. Penalizing all Americans for the acts of a few is neither just nor warranted.

The NFA shouldn't even exist.
 
2013-09-03 06:12:49 PM
Back when I was a cop some uneducated fool bought a house as-is at an estate sale. He finds this sweet McMillan TAC-50, which he thought was an "anti aircraft gun", lol, and a bunch of flashbangs and antique WWI grenades that had been drilled out. On top of that, the previous owner had a primo reloading bench with a progressive press and ultrasonic case cleaner - the schmuck thought he was illegally manufacturing ammo, like it was moonshine or something. So he calls 911 in a panic like he just found an anthrax lab. It was hard for me and Mikey to keep straight faces as we carted away all that sweet, sweet loot in our squad car. Usually we have to confiscate this stuff, it makes your day when someone just gives it to you free. We were drinking the good beer that summer... plus I finally got the boat paid off...
 
2013-09-03 06:14:11 PM
IdBeCrazyIf
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

So lets have all women who want an abortion file for a 200 dollar tax stamp, go through months of background checks, harassment by lying thugs, then require sign off by their CLEO and in 12-13 months if they still can afford their abortion, they get permission.
 
2013-09-03 06:20:46 PM

PsiChick: Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.


And he'd lose. If he weren't dead, that is.

You don't know anything about federal or state firearms laws. So stop imposing your fundamentally evil morality on everyone else.

We all know you'd gladly kill everyone around you if ever given the opportunity to hold a loaded rifle. That's why you want to ban everyone else from having them; because you know that you can't be trusted with power. You can't stand that other responsible and exceptional citizens wield this power: you project your own evil desires to kill and maim on these upstanding citizens.

You should see someone about your problem, before it grows out of control.
 
2013-09-03 06:21:19 PM

ZeroPly: So he calls 911 in a panic like he just found an anthrax lab. It was hard for me and Mikey to keep straight faces as we carted away all that sweet, sweet loot in our squad car.


I would keep my mouth shut in a 'to the grave' kind of way about something like that.
 
2013-09-03 06:28:55 PM

ZeroPly: Back when I was a cop some uneducated fool bought a house as-is at an estate sale.


You could have educated him.

You know, to help our cause of preserving the rights of American citizens. Perhaps even offered to take him to the range. These hysterical, sheltered, rich liberals are smarter than we give them credit for - that's not to say they're smart. And they blindly look up to authority figures with guns, with the eyes of an awestruck child who's never seen a hard day.

It would have been an easy chance.
 
2013-09-03 06:32:11 PM

heili skrimsli: You can call that an 'ad hominem' game all you want, but you have a reputation around here for either not knowing the facts or intentionally distorting them in order to promote your own poorly informed opinion - much like you're doing right now by claiming that I 'came into' this thread to call you names.


She bases her arguments more on emotion instead of facts:  Kids are dead, and so is the person to blame, but God-dammit, we have to punish *SOMEONE* for such a heinous act.

She doesn't put it that baldly, of course, and she may not even actually consciously realize that is what is going on in her head, but if she had a moment of honest reflection, she'd see that is where much of her motivation lies.
 
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