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  
•       •       •

12705 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



346 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-03 08:23:42 AM  
The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!
 
2013-09-03 08:36:15 AM  

dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!


"MACHINE GUNS!  SILENCERS!  FELONS!"

That's all anyone is going to hear, and that's the extent to which the lemmings are going to delve into this.
 
2013-09-03 08:47:24 AM  
Obama actually thinks this happens.
 
2013-09-03 08:56:45 AM  

dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!


Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.


I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist.  That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.
 
2013-09-03 09:01:29 AM  

EvilEgg: I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist. That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.


At least the GOP does it the hard way and goes through the legislature.  Obama is doing this with a stroke of his pen.  And you can actually count instances of voter-fraud (not that that justifies voter disenfranchisement).  Felons obtaining NFA weapons and using them in crimes via the NFA registry, OTOH.....
 
2013-09-03 09:08:01 AM  
cdn3.whatculture.com
 
2013-09-03 09:10:02 AM  
It should be criminal to own a machine gun or a silencer anyway.
 
2013-09-03 09:10:39 AM  

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


Here comes the derp.
 
2013-09-03 09:10:57 AM  
I feel safer already.
 
2013-09-03 09:11:12 AM  

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


When the Zombies come you will change your mind
 
2013-09-03 09:11:36 AM  
Hey it's ok if these loopholes exist because only well off people can use them and those people should not have to follow the same laws as poor people and those in the middle class. That's the merkin way.
 
2013-09-03 09:11:52 AM  
thought it was called a suppressor?
 
2013-09-03 09:12:48 AM  
4/10, subby. You'll get some bites
 
2013-09-03 09:13:07 AM  
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.
 
2013-09-03 09:13:23 AM  
I came in to say, 'queue dittybopper', but I see I'm late...:)
 
2013-09-03 09:13:49 AM  

Headso: Hey it's ok if these loopholes exist because only well off people can use them and those people should not have to follow the same laws as poor people and those in the middle class. That's the merkin way.


I say eliminate the loophole and make it available to everyone.  If you are going to err on the side of caution always go with more personal freedom not less.

Who am I kidding, it's For The Children!TM
 
2013-09-03 09:13:59 AM  

gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?


"Help, we're being suppressed!"
 
2013-09-03 09:14:40 AM  

EvilEgg: dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist.  That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.


Ah, I see my work is done here. I'm going to take an early lunch. Thanks.
 
2013-09-03 09:17:17 AM  

gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?


Yes, and you can actually make one really easily out of an oil filter, so even attempting any regulation of them is pretty stupid
 
2013-09-03 09:18:05 AM  

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


I used to respect you. Moron.
 
2013-09-03 09:18:46 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?

Yes, and you can actually make one really easily out of an oil filter, so even attempting any regulation of them is pretty stupid


And for $50 plus the tax stamp, you can buy an adapter that uses oil filters instead of a dedicated can.
 
2013-09-03 09:21:34 AM  

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

I used to respect you. Moron.


That post was meant to be a joke, but I completely farked it up and now it just looks like straight trolling. I think it's because I'm in a staff meeting and I barely made it out of bed this morning.

I'd go ahead and disregard anything I post today...
 
2013-09-03 09:26:24 AM  

Kit Fister: IdBeCrazyIf: gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?

Yes, and you can actually make one really easily out of an oil filter, so even attempting any regulation of them is pretty stupid

And for $50 plus the tax stamp, you can buy an adapter that uses oil filters instead of a dedicated can.




For about 9 bucks you can piece together an adapter from the spare parts bins at your local hardware store.

/not that I would ever do that
 
2013-09-03 09:26:27 AM  

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


I can see why an ignorant person might be concerned about person that passes a background check even more intensive than the usual one for buying a regular rifle legally transferring and owning a $15,000 machine gun, but why exactly should owning a silencer be illegal?

In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway,  where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common.  Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right:  a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders.  That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.

Only Hollywood silencers make guns go FFFT, FFFT, FFFT!  Ban Hollywood silencers, by all means.  They're only used by scumbags.

Incidentally, you probably already own one.  They're mandatory to stick on the back of your car.  The device that Hiram Maxim invented he called a 'silencer', but you also frequently call them 'muffler'.
 
2013-09-03 09:27:35 AM  
Making it harder got get guns?
I'm ok with this.
 
2013-09-03 09:27:56 AM  

Kit Fister: IdBeCrazyIf: gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?

Yes, and you can actually make one really easily out of an oil filter, so even attempting any regulation of them is pretty stupid

And for $50 plus the tax stamp, you can buy an adapter that uses oil filters instead of a dedicated can.


However based on ATF rulings, you, as an individual, cannot legally replace the oil filter. It must be done by an 07/02 as a repair. Cadiz Gunworks will replace it for you for a small fee if you buy their version.
 
2013-09-03 09:28:02 AM  
I bought a house out of an estate sale, contents included. The place was a wreck and when cleaning it out we discovered a 50 caliber anti-aircraft gun and a collection of hand grenades. The guy who lived there would have been great on Fark but he did not live long enough. he lived with his mom, collected weapons (some he even fired in the house as we found bullets in the walls), made his own ammo and from what the neighbors told me, he hated everyone.

//The cops came and took all the weapons away when I reported them.
 
2013-09-03 09:28:23 AM  

Skyd1v: For about 9 bucks you can piece together an adapter from the spare parts bins at your local hardware store.

/not that I would ever do that


That's the only thing I never understood in all these zombie movies is that you always invariably get the one guy who knows his guns and yet they never bring up the suppressor can when every single person I know who knows guns is aware of how to do this.
 
2013-09-03 09:28:47 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Making it harder got get guns?
I'm ok with this.



that hurt my brain...:)
 
2013-09-03 09:30:39 AM  
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.
 
2013-09-03 09:31:07 AM  
Or we could just stop treating corporations like people
 
2013-09-03 09:32:00 AM  

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

I can see why an ignorant person might be concerned about person that passes a background check even more intensive than the usual one for buying a regular rifle legally transferring and owning a $15,000 machine gun, but why exactly should owning a silencer be illegal?

In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway,  where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common.  Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right:  a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders.  That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.

Only Hollywood silencers make guns go FFFT, FFFT, FFFT!  Ban Hollywood silencers, by all means.  They're only used by scumbags.

Incidentally, you probably already own one.  They're mandatory to stick on the back of your car.  The device that Hiram Maxim invented he called a 'silencer', but you also frequently call them 'muffler'.


Hollywood has a lot of credulous people believing a lot of false things about guns.  They're literally the worst source of gun information you could possibly find.
 
2013-09-03 09:33:13 AM  

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.


I am a resident of Louisville, Kentucky. I was informed that receiving a response on the ATF form from the local sheriff's office could take up to two weeks. The form was signed and returned to me within four business days.

/May actually have a suppressor in October.
//Was considering a second, but not sure if it will be practical now.
 
2013-09-03 09:33:24 AM  

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

I can see why an ignorant person might be concerned about person that passes a background check even more intensive than the usual one for buying a regular rifle legally transferring and owning a $15,000 machine gun, but why exactly should owning a silencer be illegal?

In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway,  where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common.  Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right:  a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders.  That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.

Only Hollywood silencers make guns go FFFT, FFFT, FFFT!  Ban Hollywood silencers, by all means.  They're only used by scumbags.

Incidentally, you probably already own one.  They're mandatory to stick on the back of your car.  The device that Hiram Maxim invented he called a 'silencer', but you also frequently call them 'muffler'.


Please contact your friend this Mr.Maxim. I would like to purchase a silencer muffler for my wife. She is louder than a machine gun (I'm guessing) and her report is lengthy indeed. Thank you.
 
2013-09-03 09:34:20 AM  
But officer, these guns are part of my worship service! Here at the church of high caliber everyone gets a suppressed mp-5 for bingo night. Do you seriously expect us to mark bingo cards with *pens*?
 
2013-09-03 09:34:39 AM  

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

I used to respect you. Moron.

That post was meant to be a joke, but I completely farked it up and now it just looks like straight trolling. I think it's because I'm in a staff meeting and I barely made it out of bed this morning.

I'd go ahead and disregard anything I post today...


It really is a limitation of text that there's no actual "sarcasm" font.  Someone should invent that.  Maybe like.. backwards italics?  To indicate a reverse emphasis?

That being said, it really is unfortunate how many people base all their firearm/accessory knowledge off what they see in TV and film.
 
2013-09-03 09:34:55 AM  
Patience is a virtue of the pyscho, subby.

/look up bump firing on youtube, its legal. Sleep well gun grabbers
 
2013-09-03 09:35:40 AM  
It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.
 
2013-09-03 09:38:41 AM  
The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. 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. With a trust, my firearms remain the property of my family. Another advantage of a trust is that it eliminates the need for chief law enforcement officer sign-off. Many times the CLEO will not sign due to their personal opinions of "It should be criminal to own a machine gun or a silencer anyway." with no regard for the actual legality of the issue.

Is it possible for this avenue to be exploited by someone who cannot pass a NICS check becoming a part of a trust and gaining access to a NFA regulated firearm? Yes. Is it likely? No. Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

1. allow holders of NFA items to will said items to family members or keep the provision that members of the trust may continue to hold the NFA item in an instance of death.

2. provide recourse for an applicant who is denied lawful ownership of an NFA item due to CLEO refusal to sign-off based on personal/political beleifs.
 
2013-09-03 09:38:48 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Skyd1v: For about 9 bucks you can piece together an adapter from the spare parts bins at your local hardware store.

/not that I would ever do that

That's the only thing I never understood in all these zombie movies is that you always invariably get the one guy who knows his guns and yet they never bring up the suppressor can when every single person I know who knows guns is aware of how to do this.


This is what bothers me about things like walking dead. Nobody thought to roll around Atlanta at night in a golf cart mode Prius with suppressed weapons and night vision gear. Or engineer industrial-scale murder with road or farm equipment.
 
2013-09-03 09:38:57 AM  
I just use a pillow for all my silenced shooting. It muffles the shot quite well, and all the feathers flying everywhere gives it a real "John Woo" feel to it.
 
2013-09-03 09:39:24 AM  

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

I used to respect you. Moron.

That post was meant to be a joke, but I completely farked it up and now it just looks like straight trolling. I think it's because I'm in a staff meeting and I barely made it out of bed this morning.

I'd go ahead and disregard anything I post today...


meh, my sarcasm detector picked it up just fine.
 
2013-09-03 09:40:18 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 09:40:25 AM  
For a new regulation that allegedly does nothing, people sure are awfully butthurt about it.
 
2013-09-03 09:40:37 AM  

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


Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...
 
2013-09-03 09:40:40 AM  

MythDragon: I just use a pillow for all my silenced shooting. It muffles the shot quite well, and all the feathers flying everywhere gives it a real "John Woo" feel to it.


You are confusing the consequences of your hearing loss with an actual muffling of the gunshot.

/I have the same problem.
 
2013-09-03 09:42:26 AM  

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

Here comes the derp.


Oh, you guys had it covered in the Boobiess.
 
2013-09-03 09:42:42 AM  

technofiend: This is what bothers me about things like walking dead. Nobody thought to roll around Atlanta at night in a golf cart mode Prius with suppressed weapons and night vision gear. Or engineer industrial-scale murder with road or farm equipment.


Thank you!

I think the first people I'd try to gather together in a situation like that would be folks who run a meat packing plant, and range owners.
 
2013-09-03 09:43:07 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 09:43:11 AM  

MythDragon: I just use a pillow for all my silenced shooting. It muffles the shot quite well, and all the feathers flying everywhere gives it a real "John Woo" feel to it.


I've never understood why hitmen don't just wear ear muffs like at the gun range. Seems a lot cheaper and more practical than using a silencer.
 
2013-09-03 09:44:05 AM  

Onkel Buck: Patience is a virtue of the pyscho, subby.

/look up bump firing on youtube, its legal. Sleep well gun grabbers


It's legal, but good luck hitting anything with it. At a buck a round it's only fun once.
 
2013-09-03 09:44:50 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MythDragon: I just use a pillow for all my silenced shooting. It muffles the shot quite well, and all the feathers flying everywhere gives it a real "John Woo" feel to it.

I've never understood why hitmen don't just wear ear muffs like at the gun range. Seems a lot cheaper and more practical than using a silencer.


I just use a 50 gallon drum lined with foam.
 
2013-09-03 09:44:57 AM  

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

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...


Sure, building out the receiver as full auto is probably not healthy for your future freedom...merely pointing out that there are relatively easy and cheap ways to legally obtain all of the parts needed to assemble a full-auto firearm.
 
2013-09-03 09:46:49 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MythDragon: I just use a pillow for all my silenced shooting. It muffles the shot quite well, and all the feathers flying everywhere gives it a real "John Woo" feel to it.

I've never understood why hitmen don't just wear ear muffs like at the gun range. Seems a lot cheaper and more practical than using a silencer.


The good ones don't need a gun
 
2013-09-03 09:49:50 AM  
Who said Americans were impatient?  USA!  USA!  USA!
 
2013-09-03 09:50:20 AM  

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

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...

Sure, building out the receiver as full auto is probably not healthy for your future freedom...merely pointing out that there are relatively easy and cheap ways to legally obtain all of the parts needed to assemble a full-auto firearm.


Bumpfire, ftw.
 
2013-09-03 09:50:54 AM  
Is this a "We just need better enforcement of existing laws" week, or is it an "Existing laws are stupid and unenforcable" week?  What with the excitement of the long holiday it seems I've lost track.
 
2013-09-03 09:51:46 AM  

Brew78: That being said, it really is unfortunate how many people base all their firearm/accessory knowledge off what they see in TV and film.


Meh, it's a general all around problem.
I still occasionally run into people who believe that hoverboards are real but have been banned for safety reasons.
 
2013-09-03 09:52:34 AM  

c0penhaqen: Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.


Difficulty: United States v. Huet.

That you have a felon in your house does not abridge your 2nd Amendment rights.
 
2013-09-03 09:53:02 AM  
Make no mistake about it, the ultimate goal is to eventually make it impossible to own NFA items, just like the registry was closed in '86.
 
2013-09-03 09:57:30 AM  
I wonder if even ONE person has successfully done this.

Regardless of how they obtained it felons are still prohibited from possessing a firearm.

This is just a way to deny NFA transfers by requiring all of them to have CLEO signoff.  The administration can pretend that they did nothing to stop anyone legally allowed from obtaining firearms.
 
2013-09-03 09:57:37 AM  

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


Suppressors (which if you've ever actually heard one used outside Hollywood fiction) are a safety device that protects people's hearing when firing at a range. Not only should they be legal, their use should be encouraged. OSHA should be all over that shiat for indoor ranges to protect the hearing of the employees.

plausdeny: a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders.


And even at 30 dB reduction, they're still very loud, and you still need to wear hearing protection.

hoo_hoo_fred: meh, my sarcasm detector picked it up just fine.


I've heard that same horse shiat said too many times with complete seriousness and exactly that way to automatically assume it's sarcasm.
 
2013-09-03 09:58:15 AM  
Same problem with felons using Zombies to buy guns. When it was discovered that Lepers and Zombies are not the same the guys using Lepers got treated for those rashes and stuff falling off and having to explain it to your girlfriend at the STD clinic.

This looks like a good faith effort to keep (now's a good time to close your ears SOTUS) ficticious corporate (now you can open your ears again) persons showing their flesh and blood presence on a government form, with a similar logic that allows the Fetus to Vote in those states which ban brown or student or old people from voting.
 
2013-09-03 09:59:36 AM  

c0penhaqen: Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.


I'd rather just remove that requirement so that police chiefs can't supplant the law with their own personal opinions.
 
2013-09-03 10:02:25 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 10:03:22 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Bumpfire, ftw.


For the lose.

Anyone who needs to hook a part of their Bushmaster to their belt in order to clumsily engage automatic fire is going to get owned by someone with a Ruger II. Yes, technically you are on autofire. From the hip. With a special hook. That would never become a problem in a firefight.
 
2013-09-03 10:03:27 AM  
i75.photobucket.com

Don't care, going back to lolcats.
 
2013-09-03 10:04:33 AM  
Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.
 
2013-09-03 10:05:07 AM  

technofiend: IdBeCrazyIf: Skyd1v: For about 9 bucks you can piece together an adapter from the spare parts bins at your local hardware store.

/not that I would ever do that

That's the only thing I never understood in all these zombie movies is that you always invariably get the one guy who knows his guns and yet they never bring up the suppressor can when every single person I know who knows guns is aware of how to do this.

This is what bothers me about things like walking dead. Nobody thought to roll around Atlanta at night in a golf cart mode Prius with suppressed weapons and night vision gear. Or engineer industrial-scale murder with road or farm equipment.


OHHHH combine with reaping blades..... 1500hp of spinning death.
 
2013-09-03 10:05:52 AM  

Devo: Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.


Gun rights advocates generally oppose idiotic regulation based upon no actual demonstrable need, which is the case for the regulation under discussion.
 
2013-09-03 10:05:58 AM  
Sounds like everyone will have to live under New Jerseys laws regarding getting a FIC & Handgun permit.
 
2013-09-03 10:09:36 AM  

Devo: Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.


Did you read the article?  Are you familiar with the NFA process of obtaining machine guns, silencers?  Are you aware of any actual instances where the "loophole" Obama is saving us from resulted in an NFA item falling into the hands of a prohibited person?  Let alone any instances where said NFA item was used in the commission of a crime.
 
2013-09-03 10:09:49 AM  

whatsupchuck: Is this a "We just need better enforcement of existing laws" week, or is it an "Existing laws are stupid and unenforcable" week?  What with the excitement of the long holiday it seems I've lost track.


It is "Let's pass us some laws to stop somethin' I saw on the teevee! Herp!" week.
 
2013-09-03 10:10:12 AM  

pedrop357: I wonder if even ONE person has successfully done this.



According to the ATF, no.  No one has ever done this.  One person has tried and the ATF denied them.


Devo: Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.


Gun rights advocates are against adding additional regulation to and already cumbersome and lengthy process (my last NFA process took seven months start to finish) that is designed to prevent an issue that the ATF itself says has never happened, and can't happen anyways because the person taking possession of the NFA item still has to fill out a From 4473 and get a background check.
 
2013-09-03 10:10:38 AM  
What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.
 
2013-09-03 10:11:01 AM  

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

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...

Sure, building out the receiver as full auto is probably not healthy for your future freedom...merely pointing out that there are relatively easy and cheap ways to legally obtain all of the parts needed to assemble a full-auto firearm.


You have to wonder then why are they going after the far more difficult and expensive ways to obtain machine guns and suppressors? They're not targeting the 'loophole', they're focusing on the least likely way a criminal will get this hands on a machine gun. It really does look like they're just doing this to piss off gun owners, and not combat crime in any manner.
 
2013-09-03 10:11:12 AM  

Lutrasimilis: HotIgneous Intruder: Bumpfire, ftw.

For the lose.

Anyone who needs to hook a part of their Bushmaster to their belt in order to clumsily engage automatic fire is going to get owned by someone with a Ruger II. Yes, technically you are on autofire. From the hip. With a special hook. That would never become a problem in a firefight.


You should re-review your bumpfire setup. I can bumpfire with the weapon shouldered and no "attachment" etc.
 
2013-09-03 10:11:17 AM  

Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.


And an empty water bottle.
 
2013-09-03 10:12:50 AM  

Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.


Pillows work once. Water bottle sucks, water bottle stuffed with something like choreboy sponges work OK. Oil filters are still the best.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:11 AM  

pyrotek85: n0nthing: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...

Sure, building out the receiver as full auto is probably not healthy for your future freedom...merely pointing out that there are relatively easy and cheap ways to legally obtain all of the parts needed to assemble a full-auto firearm.

You have to wonder then why are they going after the far more difficult and expensive ways to obtain machine guns and suppressors? They're not targeting the 'loophole', they're focusing on the least likely way a criminal will get this hands on a machine gun. It really does look like they're just doing this to piss off gun owners, and not combat crime in any manner.


It's propaganda.  If you're against it then you want to make it easy for criminals and turrsts to get machine guns that can shoot down airplanes silently from the hip.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:38 AM  

c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. 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.


Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.
 
2013-09-03 10:16:31 AM  

heili skrimsli: And even at 30 dB reduction, they're still very loud, and you still need to wear hearing protection.


Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.
 
2013-09-03 10:17:46 AM  

Kit Fister: Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.

Pillows work once. Water bottle sucks, water bottle stuffed with something like choreboy sponges work OK. Oil filters are still the best.


If you have several bottles you can cut and then stack them creating baffles which increases the efficacy and duration that you can use it. With that and duct tape you can make it through a 10 round clip before it needs replaced, but its such a damn hassle you might as well use an oil filter.
 
2013-09-03 10:19:00 AM  

EvilEgg: dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist.  That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.


Both sides are bad, so vote Democrat?
 
2013-09-03 10:19:05 AM  

youmightberight: You should re-review your bumpfire setup. I can bumpfire with the weapon shouldered and no "attachment" etc.


I just reviewed the guys showing off their various setups on Youtube. I haven't seen anyone pull it off without having to bind the weapon to them in some way, or else to hold the weapon in a less controllable manner.
 
2013-09-03 10:19:13 AM  

Kit Fister: Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.

Pillows work once. Water bottle sucks, water bottle stuffed with something like choreboy sponges work OK. Oil filters are still the best.


Oil filters are silly unless you're really good at point shooting or at point blank range.
 
2013-09-03 10:19:28 AM  

Fark It: EvilEgg: I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist. That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.

At least the GOP does it the hard way and goes through the legislature.  Obama is doing this with a stroke of his pen.  And you can actually count instances of voter-fraud (not that that justifies voter disenfranchisement).  Felons obtaining NFA weapons and using them in crimes via the NFA registry, OTOH.....


If this EO does nothing, and curtails no-one's rights, then why complain about it?
 
2013-09-03 10:21:31 AM  

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


I think it should be illegal to own a car with a muffler.
 
2013-09-03 10:21:47 AM  
give me doughnuts: If this EO does nothing, and curtails no-one's rights, then why complain about it?

Who said it does nothing?  It does nothing to curtail an actual problem with firearms getting into the hands of criminals.  It does  a whole heck of a lot to make it more difficult, or impossible, for law abiding people to get certain firearms.
 
2013-09-03 10:23:23 AM  
Also, suppressors shouldn't be NFA items.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:29 AM  

dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.

Pillows work once. Water bottle sucks, water bottle stuffed with something like choreboy sponges work OK. Oil filters are still the best.

Oil filters are silly unless you're really good at point shooting or at point blank range.


Laser sight works fine.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:35 AM  

Onkel Buck: Patience is a virtue of the pyscho, subby.

/look up bump firing on youtube, its legal. Sleep well gun grabbers


Ahemm, you will be told what is "legal" and what is not.
Inch by inch, increment by increment.
Derp by derp.
Move along.
 
2013-09-03 10:25:24 AM  
And you know, those laws will really stop criminals.....
 
2013-09-03 10:25:47 AM  
Rule of thumb, if you want it, there is a Nanny agin' it.
 
2013-09-03 10:25:47 AM  

alienated: 4/10, subby. You'll get some bites


1, Skim article - Check.
2, Scroll down to comments section. - Check
3, Copypasta the Weeners FTFA. - Check
4, Submit said copypasta as 'clever' headline to Fark. - Check
5, Instant Green Light - Check.

Da phark?

0/10 for lack of any cognitive thinking.

/Really, Fark?
//Seriously?
 
2013-09-03 10:26:43 AM  

smokingcrator: heili skrimsli: And even at 30 dB reduction, they're still very loud, and you still need to wear hearing protection.

Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.


Sounds great. Instead of standing next to a jet engine with no protection, it's like attending a loud rock concert with no ear protection. Lord knows why one wouldn't want to use both if you're shooting for any extended period of time...
 
2013-09-03 10:29:07 AM  

smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.


This is a horribly misguided sentiment. What you really ought to be doing is understanding the actual risk your weapon presents to your hearing.

Firing an M1 Garand (old school battle rifle firing .30-06) generates 168db of sound pressure, so one hearing protection device that reduces 30db will only take it down to 138db, which is still above the threshold of audible pain (130db) and well above the threshold for hearing damage at 85db. To safely fire such a weapon would require at a minimum both earmuffs and earplugs.

Silencers are only one way to reduce sound pressure, but a smart person uses all available tools at their disposal to protect their hearing.

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.
 
2013-09-03 10:29:28 AM  

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.


No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.
 
2013-09-03 10:30:10 AM  
redmid17:

Sounds great. Instead of standing next to a jet engine with no protection, it's like attending a loud rock concert with no ear protection. Lord knows why one wouldn't want to use both if you're shooting for any extended period of time...

Yup. I shoot virtually everything suppressed and I use 30 db muffs with plugs. The only thing I would consider shooting without protection is my suppressed .22 with subsonic ammo.
 
2013-09-03 10:30:44 AM  

redmid17: smokingcrator: heili skrimsli: And even at 30 dB reduction, they're still very loud, and you still need to wear hearing protection.

Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.

Sounds great. Instead of standing next to a jet engine with no protection, it's like attending a loud rock concert with no ear protection. Lord knows why one wouldn't want to use both if you're shooting for any extended period of time...


Heck even .22s will damage your hearing, despite what some people will say. It's not as loud, but it's still enough to cause damage. Outdoor vs indoor shooting makes a difference too, some guns are so damn loud I'd never want to be shooting indoors with one.
 
2013-09-03 10:32:45 AM  

Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.


What?
 
2013-09-03 10:32:55 AM  

heili skrimsli: c0penhaqen: Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

I'd rather just remove that requirement so that police chiefs can't supplant the law with their own personal opinions.


Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

That replaces a "veto through inaction", ie., the CLEO can just refuse to sign the form, with an "active VETO", ie., the CLEO must fill out an additional form detailing why the person shouldn't be allowed, if they are opposed to that person getting a machine gun, and they have to submit it to the ATF within, say, 30 days of receiving notification.

That way, the CLEO has to come up with an actual, articulable *REASON* why, which can be rebutted by the attempted purchaser.

And I'd apply that to both trusts *AND* private NFA transfers.

/Actually, I'd prefer to first repeal the Hughes Amendment, and then when the sky doesn't fall, as it won't, I'd also want to repeal or highly modify NFA '34 to make it more open.
 
2013-09-03 10:34:01 AM  

AltheaToldMe: alienated: 4/10, subby. You'll get some bites

1, Skim article - Check.
2, Scroll down to comments section. - Check
3, Copypasta the Weeners FTFA. - Check
4, Submit said copypasta as 'clever' headline to Fark. - Check
5, Instant Green Light - Check.

Da phark?

0/10 for lack of any cognitive thinking.

/Really, Fark?
//Seriously?


It worked, didn't it?

/Subby.
 
2013-09-03 10:34:23 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.


I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?
 
2013-09-03 10:34:31 AM  

Fubini: smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.

This is a horribly misguided sentiment. What you really ought to be doing is understanding the actual risk your weapon presents to your hearing.

Firing an M1 Garand (old school battle rifle firing .30-06) generates 168db of sound pressure, so one hearing protection device that reduces 30db will only take it down to 138db, which is still above the threshold of audible pain (130db) and well above the threshold for hearing damage at 85db. To safely fire such a weapon would require at a minimum both earmuffs and earplugs.

Silencers are only one way to reduce sound pressure, but a smart person uses all available tools at their disposal to protect their hearing.

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.


And that's why I use ear protection when using loud machinery like the lawmower. It's not painful loud, but I know that if I have to shout to someone standing next to me in order to speak with them, then it's loud enough to do damage.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:07 AM  
I'd also point out that people submit articles with the actual headlines copypasta'd, so it's not like this is something unique or different.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:10 AM  

smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.


And I should point out that the sound pressure delivered to the shooter is not just a function of weapon type and cartridge. A poorly designed .22 rifle can produce 145db of sound pressure at the shooter.
 
2013-09-03 10:37:03 AM  

dittybopper: I'd also point out that people submit articles with the actual headlines copypasta'd, so it's not like this is something unique or different.


That is true by definition.
 
2013-09-03 10:37:53 AM  

umad: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.

I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?


It's a feature not a bug. Even the focus on long guns in general is silly, since far more murders are committed with handguns.
 
2013-09-03 10:38:25 AM  

Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-09-03 10:39:02 AM  

Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. 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.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.


Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession.  Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home.  She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in.  She has access to it, and therefore possession.  OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out.  While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find.  But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust.  Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.
 
2013-09-03 10:41:29 AM  

smells_like_meat: Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.

What?


HE SAID, 30 EARS OF BAT shiat WILL KILL YOU BETH.
 
2013-09-03 10:41:36 AM  

smells_like_meat: Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.

What?


Maybe I should have phrased that better: all hearing damage (however slight) is cumulative.

Firing modern firearms with one form of hearing protection (just earmuffs or just earplugs) only nets about a 20-30db reduction in sound pressure. Unfortunately, most firearms generate sound pressures in the range of 140-170db, so one form of protection only gets you down to 110-140db. This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

Put simply: firing a modern handgun or rifle with only one form of hearing protection results in hearing damage  every time you pull the trigger. It's not enough to deafen you immediately, it's not enough to notice in a before/after comparison, but it does cause damage. If you shoot guns like that for years on end, that damage accumulates and generates a significant loss of hearing ability.
 
2013-09-03 10:45:09 AM  

Fubini: Maybe I should have phrased that better


It was a joke.
 
2013-09-03 10:45:31 AM  

Kredal: Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. 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.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession.  Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home.  She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in.  She has access to it, and therefore possession.  OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out.  While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find.  But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust.  Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.


Now lets's see how long before someone says that you're just being paranoid. Cops/ATF wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer on someone, and they do so for far less.
 
2013-09-03 10:45:45 AM  

redmid17: smells_like_meat: Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.

What?

HE SAID, 30 EARS OF BAT shiat WILL KILL YOU BETH.


BUT PAT SAID THERE WOULD BE NO METH.
 
2013-09-03 10:46:51 AM  

Fubini: This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.


That 85 db for damage assumes a constant, time weighted average over 8 hours on essentially a daily basis. 140 db is where you can starting seeing damage from very short sound impulses.
 
2013-09-03 10:48:09 AM  

dittybopper: AltheaToldMe: alienated: 4/10, subby. You'll get some bites

1, Skim article - Check.
2, Scroll down to comments section. - Check
3, Copypasta the Weeners FTFA. - Check
4, Submit said copypasta as 'clever' headline to Fark. - Check
5, Instant Green Light - Check.

Da phark?

0/10 for lack of any cognitive thinking.

/Really, Fark?
//Seriously?

It worked, didn't it?

/Subby.


Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread. (Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed). But dude...you're completely obsessed. You dominate every firearm discussion thread and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics... I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry. It also discounts the value of your opinion.

My two cents.
 
2013-09-03 10:52:25 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.


The ATF  is intentionally hamstrung because of the shiat they pulled on the public back in the 1970's and 1980's, as documented by the US Senate subcommittee on the Consitution.

This is the kind of thing that should get anyone mad, regardless of how you personally feel about guns:

The Subcommittee received evidence that BATF has primarily devoted its firearms
enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals
who lack all criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gun
confiscation quota have repeatedly enticed gun collectors into making a small number of
sales-often as few as four-from their personal collections. Although each of the sales was
completely legal under state and federal law, the agents then charged the collector with having
"engaged in the business" of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law permits
a felony conviction upon these charges even where the individual has no criminal knowledge or
intent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential sentence of five
years in federal prison

...
In several cases, the Bureau has sought
conviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and interpretations of law which
the Bureau had not published in the Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552. For instance,
beginning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that (pg.22) a dealer who sells to
a legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knows
that that individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other unqualified purchaser.
This position was never published in the Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indications
which Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in violation of existing law
...
The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the Bureau has formulated a
requirement, of which dealers were not informed that requires a dealer to keep official records of
sales even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than merely failing to publish this
requirement. At one point, even as it was prosecuting a dealer on this charge (admitting that he had
no criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I. Hayakawa to indicate that there
was no such legal requirement and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collection
without recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau has stated that that is not the
Bureau's position and that such sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by licensed firearms dealers as stating
that such sales were in fact legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the Bureau
has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5 U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended
to prevent "secret lawmaking" by administrative bodies.


That's the reason why the ATF was "hamstrung":  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.

Even if you think guns should be completely outlawed, I'm sure you would agree that secret rule-making by government agencies in order to advance that is unAmerican, and sets a really, really bad precedent.
 
2013-09-03 10:52:38 AM  

pyrotek85: Kredal: Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. 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.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession.  Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home.  She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in.  She has access to it, and therefore possession.  OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out.  While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find.  But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust.  Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.

Now lets's see how long before someone says that you're just being paranoid. Cops/ATF wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer on someone, and they do so for far less.


Paranoid?  I formed a trust for the same reason.
 
2013-09-03 10:52:40 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dittybopper: AltheaToldMe: alienated: 4/10, subby. You'll get some bites

1, Skim article - Check.
2, Scroll down to comments section. - Check
3, Copypasta the Weeners FTFA. - Check
4, Submit said copypasta as 'clever' headline to Fark. - Check
5, Instant Green Light - Check.

Da phark?

0/10 for lack of any cognitive thinking.

/Really, Fark?
//Seriously?

It worked, didn't it?

/Subby.

Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread. (Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed). But dude...you're completely obsessed. You dominate every firearm discussion thread and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics... I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry. It also discounts the value of your opinion.

My two cents.


This is actually an update, not a repeat, but don't let actually reading the link get in the way of that sentiment you got there.
 
2013-09-03 10:53:08 AM  

Kit Fister: dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.

Pillows work once. Water bottle sucks, water bottle stuffed with something like choreboy sponges work OK. Oil filters are still the best.

Oil filters are silly unless you're really good at point shooting or at point blank range.

Laser sight works fine.


And, considering use with a handgun, you'd also need to make sure the thing will unlock and cycle with the weight on the end and no Nielsen mechanism to help. You'd also have to worry about serious blowback if you had the oil filter's threaded side facing the breech, if turned the other way, you'd have to figure a reliable way to keep it aligned without worrying about deforming. Oil filter as suppressor isn't all that good an idea.
 
2013-09-03 10:54:03 AM  

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.


No he doesn't.  One of his advisors told him this would appease his gun grabber base.
 
2013-09-03 10:55:45 AM  

Zane256: Fubini: This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

That 85 db for damage assumes a constant, time weighted average over 8 hours on essentially a daily basis. 140 db is where you can starting seeing damage from very short sound impulses.


What about a few hundred of those short impulses over the course of a couple hours (like a typical day at the range)?
 
2013-09-03 10:55:53 AM  

pyrotek85: umad: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.

I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?

It's a feature not a bug. Even the focus on long guns in general is silly, since far more murders are committed with handguns.


Now, remember, "murder, OMG the CHILDREN" is just the villain in our quest to remove ALL gunz ALL the time.
 
2013-09-03 10:58:46 AM  

JesseL: Zane256: Fubini: This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

That 85 db for damage assumes a constant, time weighted average over 8 hours on essentially a daily basis. 140 db is where you can starting seeing damage from very short sound impulses.

What about a few hundred of those short impulses over the course of a couple hours (like a typical day at the range)?


At 85 dbs? No big deal. Any sound over 140 db without hearing protection, however, has the potential for hearing damage. Even a single gunshot without hearing protection can result in hearing damage.
 
2013-09-03 10:59:33 AM  

dr_blasto: Also, suppressors shouldn't be NFA items.


This.
 
2013-09-03 10:59:42 AM  
jasonwilliams400com.startlogic.com
Cop math...
 
2013-09-03 11:02:18 AM  

Fark It: At least the GOP does it the hard way and goes through the legislature. Obama is doing this with a stroke of his pen. And you can actually count instances of voter-fraud (not that that justifies voter disenfranchisement). Felons obtaining NFA weapons and using them in crimes via the NFA registry, OTOH.....


Yeah, how many crimes will this prevent anyway?

plausdeny: In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway, where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common. Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right: a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders. That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.


Agreed.  Unless it can drive the report down to levels to escape notice it's of no use to criminals and shouldn't be a regulated item at all.

technofiend: This is what bothers me about things like walking dead. Nobody thought to roll around Atlanta at night in a golf cart mode Prius with suppressed weapons and night vision gear. Or engineer industrial-scale murder with road or farm equipment.


What's the need for stealth?  Get a bunch of guys with rifles.  Get an 18-wheeler and set up a bunch of shooter's positions on top of the trailer.  Drive into zombie territory and make a ruckus.  If too many show up that they are getting close despite the guys with the rifles you move on a bit and repeat.  Why go zombie hunting when the zombies will perfectly well throw themselves on your guns anyway?

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

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...


It's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm anyway.  If you're going to break the law to get one he's pointing out an easier way to do it.

pedrop357: This is just a way to deny NFA transfers by requiring all of them to have CLEO signoff. The administration can pretend that they did nothing to stop anyone legally allowed from obtaining firearms.


Thank you.  I was wondering how this was actually an issue.

dittybopper: Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

That replaces a "veto through inaction", ie., the CLEO can just refuse to sign the form, with an "active VETO", ie., the CLEO must fill out an additional form detailing why the person shouldn't be allowed, if they are opposed to that person getting a machine gun, and they have to submit it to the ATF within, say, 30 days of receiving notification.

That way, the CLEO has to come up with an actual, articulable *REASON* why, which can be rebutted by the attempted purchaser.


Sounds like a good idea.  That gives you something to challenge if the reason is invalid.
 
2013-09-03 11:18:25 AM  
Cats also work
www.games10.de
www.dealspwn.com
 
2013-09-03 11:22:01 AM  
This "loophole" was always for people/corporations intending to buy several class2/3 weapons and or silencers.  Only one or two of each and it was still cheaper and easier just to go through the standard ATF bullshiat.  But especially the precision shooters often have to buy one muffler for each of their rifles, either do to different caliber or whatever.

gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?


It is called that, pretty much by pretentious douchebags who are concerned that Hollywood has forever ruined the term "silencer", OR they are techish and know full well that a "silencer" doesn't silence anything, but instead lowers the decibel level to a more acceptable range to prevent hearing damage.  Oh, and they are pretentious douchebags, too. These are the same people that refer to a rifle and it's bolt on accessories as a "weapons system," while people like me would call the same rifle a "stick with glass and a nightlight."

Henry Maxim invented the damn things, and he called them silencers.  Good enough for me, although I really prefer the term "muffler" like you would associate with a car engine because it's the exact same technology.
 
2013-09-03 11:23:47 AM  

smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction. 33 is about the max. So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection. It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.


And even at that reduction, if you shoot a lot, you're still doing damage to your hearing, especially if you're shooting at indoor ranges.

Wouldn't you take a 60 dB reduction in noise over a 30 dB reduction? I would.

dittybopper: Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.


The local cops in my town have no need to know what legal items I possess. At all. And that includes firearms.
 
2013-09-03 11:27:19 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread.


This is *NOT* a repeat.  It's about something that is happening *NOW*.  Read the date on TFA:  August 30th, 2013, for an ATF Notice of Proposed Rule-Making dated on August 29th.

I haven't posted anything about that NPR.


(Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed).

Thanks.

 But dude...you're completely obsessed.

No.  I post in other threads about other things, especially if it touches on things like radios, or SIGINT, or one of my biggest advocacy areas, Safe Haven laws.  It's just that you're suffering from observational bias:  You come into gun threads, or ones that may be tangentially related, and there I am.  Well, of course.  You don't see me in the ubiquitous threads about the Kardashians, because I couldn't care less about them, so I don't post in them.  Often enough, though, I'll be posting humorous or punning comments in threads unrelated to guns.  Like this one:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916608/Egyptian-authorities-detain-sus pe cted-spy-swan-Officials-figure-that-you-cant-spell-swan-without-letter s-NSA

In fact, I've posted in several different threads today:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7915701/-7235-pound-alligator-sets-Miss is sippi-record-Record-lasts-for-just-hours-when-727-pound-gator-is-taken -With-holy-shiat-pics-Alligator-trifecta-in-play

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916759/In-case-you-were-wondering-its- no t-illegal-to-sell-anti-NSA-shirts-that-use-NSA-logo

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916829/What-So-youre-not-actually-allo we d-to-shampoo-your-privates-on-a-bus-anymore

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916088/Its-worse-then-expected-NSA-has nt -been-spying-on-just-a-few-thousand-even-million-people-Theyve-been-sp ying-on-Brazilians

and this thread is the only one that is gun-related or that I mention guns in.

You dominate every firearm discussion thread

Consider this statement in conjunction with this statement of yours:  Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed

Would you rather the discussions be dominated by people who don't know what they Hell they are talking about, on either side?  And yes, I've had to correct some pro-2A posters in the past.

and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics...

Just for you, two of my cats:

i39.tinypic.com
Champion Mountcascade's Starlight, and just plain Freya.

 I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry.

Idolatry is the worship of something.  I don't worship anything or anybody.  I'm too old and cynical for that crap.  Everything and everybody is wrong in some way, including me.

It also discounts the value of your opinion.

Wait, because I'm well-informed, and because I try to spread the knowledge that I have (including correcting the misconceptions of those "on my side"), that discounts the value?

Have we truly slid into Idiocracy?

My two cents.

Don't expect any change.

/In both senses of the word.
 
2013-09-03 11:32:47 AM  

heili skrimsli: The local cops in my town have no need to know what legal items I possess. At all. And that includes firearms.


You seemed to have missed this part of my post:

/Actually, I'd prefer to first repeal the Hughes Amendment, and then when the sky doesn't fall, as it won't, I'd also want to repeal or highly modify NFA '34 to make it more open.

It's not politically feasible to do what you want right now.  One step at a time.
 
2013-09-03 11:33:30 AM  
Zero is now too high of a number?
 
2013-09-03 11:35:40 AM  
dittybopper:

Despite my dick-like phrasing, I'd just hate for you to see you become "Gun Bevets."
 
2013-09-03 11:35:59 AM  

StrangeQ: Or we could just stop treating corporations like people


Or we could treat them more like people... if corporations commit murder, they should be subject to the death penalty just like an individual would.
 
2013-09-03 11:36:17 AM  
What blows is that I have 5 suppressors in jail and waiting for another one right now.
 
2013-09-03 11:36:54 AM  
I've lost all ability to write coherent sentences. Enjoy your productive and informative conversation.
 
2013-09-03 11:38:25 AM  

Devo: Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

et's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

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".

 
2013-09-03 11:39:18 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dittybopper:

Despite my dick-like phrasing, I'd just hate for you to see you become "Gun Bevets."


The difference between ditty and Bevets is that ditty is correct. Well that and Bevets possibly being some type of religious trolling bot or cyborg or something.
 
2013-09-03 11:40:33 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dittybopper:

Despite my dick-like phrasing, I'd just hate for you to see you become "Gun Bevets."


You speak as if you're not already "anti gun Bevets" yourself.
 
2013-09-03 11:43:36 AM  
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.
 
2013-09-03 11:47:52 AM  
*sigh* and here I sit in a state where I can't have any of those things to begin with.

/need to move.
//soon
 
2013-09-03 11:48:26 AM  

EvilEgg: dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist.  That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.


We don't need to combat voter fraud because no one gets convicted of voter fraud just like we don't need to combat excesses by the banking industry because banking industry executives don't get convicted.
 
2013-09-03 11:48:58 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I've lost all ability to write coherent sentences. Enjoy your productive and informative conversation.


I knew what you meant.

And while I appreciate the warning, I don't think I'm capable of sinking down the level of Steve B.  Bevets truly is a one trick pony, and while I won't begrudge anyone their faith, I will say that often faith is something that can blind us to actual truths.  Not "truths" in the metaphorical sense, but "truth" in the sense of data that can be proven by rigorous, evidence based, logical argument.  Formal logic, not "because I say so" logic.

There have been times when I've started to post something, then looked for evidence to back up my claims, only to find that I was wrong in my understanding of the situation.  Usually I catch it before I post, but not always.  And I've posted "mea culpas" before.

Speaking of gun pictures, though, would you like to see a pic of my *OTHER* cat?
 
2013-09-03 11:53:53 AM  

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....
 
2013-09-03 11:54:30 AM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 11:56:57 AM  
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.
 
2013-09-03 12:00:30 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.


How did you manage to obtain a device after only an eight month wait?

/Submitted NFA paperwork in Februray.
 
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.
 
2013-09-03 01:40:50 PM  

EvilEgg: I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist. That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.


"It's ok to suck because you suck too!"

This is why I don't vote.
 
2013-09-03 01:42:05 PM  
 
2013-09-03 01:42:26 PM  

mbillips: 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.


They already *DO* that, but it's still rare.

Just like it was pretty rare back in the 1920's, despite the hysterical press and lurid Hollywood movies tell you.

Wait, a moral panic resulted in onerous regulations?  WTF?  That's *UNHEARD OF*!
 
2013-09-03 01:42:31 PM  

dittybopper


If the skeletons in your closet are made of metal, you might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.


Bumper sticker: "My other car is a hyper-alloy combat chassis"
 
2013-09-03 01:43:27 PM  

redmid17: 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 01:44:15 PM  

Giltric: 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.


Nope, a Colt 1908 pocket automatic in .380. Assuming that wasn't just a throwdown weapon planted by the FBI; they pretty much were using a "shoot first" policy toward the Dillinger gang by that point. And it may have just been something Hoover made up; the gun he displayed for years as Dillinger's gun was made five months after Dillinger's death. Hoover claimed he gave the original to Red Skelton, but it's since disappeared, if it ever existed.

"The Union Station Massacre" is a great book that documents what a complete tissue of lies the FBI's public statements were during the war on "Public Enemy" armed robbers and kidnappers in 1933-34. Hoover lied and covered up as a matter of course, and succeeded in growing the FBI from an obscure prosecutor's investigative arm to the national secret police.

Not that Dillinger and his ilk didn't deserve it, but the FBI were a bunch of incompetent college kids getting themselves killed until they brought in some veteran gunmen to basically murder the bank robbers. Hoover's BS about scientific investigation was just that; nearly all of the FBI's successes were based on tips developed by actual cops, or through illegal wiretaps and witness torture.
 
2013-09-03 01:44:22 PM  

PsiChick: //And thank you so much, gun lobbyists, for stopping the CDC from getting us those statistics.


The studies from the CDC are out.  They didn't go the way the White House was hoping.  So sorry about that.
 
2013-09-03 01:44:51 PM  

PsiChick: 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.


The stats are still out there and are better than what the CDC could offer....I mean unless you can show me a report by the CDC that breaks gun violence into two categories.....ie people with previous felonies who commit murder with a firearm and hunters who have killed their own wife in cold blood.


the majority of gun related murders (80+ percent) are committed by people with arrest records, people who have done time for previous felonies etc.

A majority of their victims (80+ percent) are also people with arrest records, people who have served time for previous felonies etc....

Criminals make up the majority of offender and victim lists. It is gangbanger on gangbanger crime, and people involved in the drug trade.

soccer moms and school kids are the outliers.
 
2013-09-03 01:45:35 PM  

Giltric: 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.


I guess one can get super hyper technical too. All three of them were prohibited persons and not able to register their weapons without violating their fifth amendment rights.
 
2013-09-03 01:46:32 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Making it harder got get guns?
I'm ok with this.


I take it you're a professional criminal.
 
2013-09-03 01:47:38 PM  

PsiChick: 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...


You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?
 
2013-09-03 01:47:51 PM  

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


"A right delayed is a right denied."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
 
2013-09-03 01:48:53 PM  

PsiChick: PsiChick: /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.


We have that information.  In fact, the CDC has it.  You can find it here:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

Choose "homicide" in the first section, and "firearms" in the second, and then you can play around with the different demographic groups in the third section to get a pretty good idea where the problem lays.

The older version of the website allows you to break it down by state also, but it only goes up to 2007.

That's what you wanted, right?
 
2013-09-03 01:50:58 PM  

utahraptor2: HotIgneous Intruder: Making it harder got get guns?
I'm ok with this.

I take it you're a professional criminal.


Maybe he's just an enthusiastic amateur.
 
2013-09-03 01:51:26 PM  

mbillips: Giltric: 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.

Nope, a Colt 1908 pocket automatic in .380. Assuming that wasn't just a throwdown weapon planted by the FBI; they pretty much were using a "shoot first" policy toward the Dillinger gang by that point. And it may have just been something Hoover made up; the gun he displayed for years as Dillinger's gun was made five months after Dillinger's death. Hoover claimed he gave the original to Red Skelton, but it's since disappeared, if it ever existed.

"The Union Station Massacre" is a great book that documents what a complete tissue of lies the FBI's public statements were during the war on "Public Enemy" armed robbers and kidnappers in 1933-34. Hoover lied and covered up as a matter of course, and succeeded in growing the FBI from an obscure prosecutor's investigative arm to the national secret police.

Not that Dillinger and his ilk didn't deserve it, but the FBI were a bunch of incompetent college kids getting themselves killed until they brought in some veteran gunmen to basically murder the bank robbers. Hoover's BS about scientific investigation was just that; nearly all of the FBI's successes were based on tips developed by actual cops, or through illegal wiretaps and witness torture.


Hah! awesome story, as opposed to cool story.

Think I will be making a request at the library now....

+1
 
2013-09-03 01:53:55 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

If the skeletons in your closet are made of metal, you might be a sufficiently advanced cyborg.


Bumper sticker: "My other car is a hyper-alloy combat chassis"


Think of the possibilities of a sexbot made from mimetic polyalloy:  Any shape you want, any size you want, and a hole or weener where ever you want it.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:48 PM  

redmid17: 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


Well they are still the weapons covered under the NFA, and they are, more or less WHY there is an NFA.   Automatic weapons were cheap and plentiful and easy to get before that and used regularly in crimes.   After that they were expensive and very hard to obtain and suddenly more or less disappaeared from the hands of criminals.  Even during the Mob wars fo the 60's or even the crack territory wars in the 90's when DC was seeing 500 murders a year,  exactly zero were by NFA-covered weapons
 
2013-09-03 01:55:39 PM  

Giltric: 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


NYC, or NYS?  Because there can be a very, very big difference.
 
2013-09-03 01:56:30 PM  

dittybopper: mbillips: 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.

They already *DO* that, but it's still rare.

Just like it was pretty rare back in the 1920's, despite the hysterical press and lurid Hollywood movies tell you.

Wait, a moral panic resulted in onerous regulations?  WTF?  That's *UNHEARD OF*!


Aside from organized criminals using them to massacre each other, machine guns were mostly useful as crowd control. Bank robbers in the Midwest used tommy guns as noisemakers to cause panic and suppress fire from police, because in many cases, they would basically take over a small town until they'd finished robbing the bank. The Barrows and other armed robbers used Monitors and military surplus BARs to outgun cops on occasion, including taking out an armored car in Barrow's case, but tommy guns weren't considered useful for that, because of their lack of range and penetrating power in car pursuits.

According to a (very dubiously sourced) biography of Lester "Baby Face Nelson" Gillis, Gillis switched from a tommy gun to a semi-auto .35 Winchester rifle after he was mortally hit in the Battle of Barrington, and then walked into pistol and shotgun fire in order to kill two FBI agents with it. Again, tommy guns were mostly useless if you had cover behind a car.
 
2013-09-03 01:57:13 PM  

redmid17: 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

i87.photobucket.com

/Now with preview
//Hotlinking is hard
 
2013-09-03 01:59:05 PM  

Giltric: mbillips: Giltric: 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.

Nope, a Colt 1908 pocket automatic in .380. Assuming that wasn't just a throwdown weapon planted by the FBI; they pretty much were using a "shoot first" policy toward the Dillinger gang by that point. And it may have just been something Hoover made up; the gun he displayed for years as Dillinger's gun was made five months after Dillinger's death. Hoover claimed he gave the original to Red Skelton, but it's since disappeared, if it ever existed.

"The Union Station Massacre" is a great book that documents what a complete tissue of lies the FBI's public statements were during the war on "Public Enemy" armed robbers and kidnappers in 1933-34. Hoover lied and covered up as a matter of course, and succeeded in growing the FBI from an obscure prosecutor's investigative arm to the national secret police.

Not that Dillinger and his ilk didn't deserve it, but the FBI were a bunch of incompetent college kids getting themselves killed until they brought in some veteran gunmen to basically murder the bank robbers. Hoover's BS about scientific investigation was just that; nearly all of the FBI's successes were based on tips developed by actual cops, or through illegal wiretaps and witness torture.

Hah! awesome story, as opposed to cool story.

Think I will be making a request at the library now....

+1


Also highly recommend William Helmer's "Public Enemies." The Johnny Depp movie did a great job of relaying the overall story of the era, but you can't trust any of the details it shows; they combined a lot of events/characters to make a better movie.
 
2013-09-03 02:02:11 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: 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.


And if someone pisses on you and tells you it's raining, do you listen to common sense, or their "interpretation" of the liquid raining down on you?  Do you honestly think the founding fathers, when they wrote "shall not be infringed" would say that it's completely within their intent to allow the government to force you to wait for nearly a year in every instance where you wanted to exercise a right?

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?
 
2013-09-03 02:04:07 PM  

Dimensio: PsiChick: 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...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?


No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

/Hunh, apparently the CDC report is out. Well, egg on my face there...
 
2013-09-03 02:06:14 PM  

PsiChick: Dimensio: PsiChick: 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...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

/Hunh, apparently the CDC report is out. Well, egg on my face there...


Care to wager how many times a family member has purchased an NFA weapon for a relative who used it in a crime?
 
2013-09-03 02:13:52 PM  

PsiChick: Dimensio: PsiChick: 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...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.


I am certain, then, that the policy change can be justified through demonstration that felons frequently obtain NFA-restricted devices through trusts of which they are members. I am also certain that demonstration will be made that this policy change will physically prevent individuals from obtaining NFA-restricted devices and physically handing them to felons.
 
2013-09-03 02:14:34 PM  

PsiChick: No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.


Straw purchasers are rarely prosecuted.

Even when felons fill out a 4473 and fail a background check they are rarely prosecuted.

One of the states claimed 73000 denied purchases due to one reason or another from peoples 4473/nics check...yet only 13 prosecutions.

Start enforcing the laws on the books.....why make every transfer of a firearm subjected to a background check (the proposed UBC) when the denied purchasers aren't even prosecuted as per the current background check system?
 
2013-09-03 02:16:50 PM  

Magorn: Automatic weapons were cheap and plentiful and easy to get before that and used regularly in crimes.   After that they were expensive and very hard to obtain and suddenly more or less disappaeared from the hands of criminals.  Even during the Mob wars fo the 60's or even the crack territory wars in the 90's when DC was seeing 500 murders a year,  exactly zero were by NFA-covered weapons


This is not really true. Automatic weapons were used before and after 1934 by criminals, but they were never in common use. (This is partly due to the fact that there were very few automatic weapons capable of being used by a single person prior to this date.)

We still do have crimes committed with fully-automatic weapons- one very high profile is the North Hollywood Shootout. The difference with this and prior to 1934 is that those weapons were not acquired legally. Practically, getting an automatic weapon for crime in this day and age means that the would-be gunman must have the knowledge how to convert a weapon to fire fully automatically, or they must be able to steal it, or they must pay another criminal to acquire it for them. Any one of these three things represents a steep barrier to entry for a criminal using a fully automatic weapon.

The 1934 NFA has been effective at stopping *legally acquired* machineguns from being used in crime. It hasn't eradicated their use. As to what the rate of usage is before and after, I have no idea.
 
2013-09-03 02:16:55 PM  

redmid17: PsiChick: Dimensio: PsiChick: 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...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

/Hunh, apparently the CDC report is out. Well, egg on my face there...

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


I will make a guess of "zero".

That way, if everyone else guesses to high, I win by default.

/It works on The Price is Right.
 
2013-09-03 02:19:42 PM  

PsiChick: Dimensio: PsiChick: 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...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.


Except that is won't stop anything, but make it more annoying for law abiding folks. Let us look at different ways the NFA item could be acquired by a felon:

1) Felon fills out Form 4. Denied by ATF. Doesn't get item
2) Family member of felon fills out Form 4. Approved. Gives NFA item to Felon --> Felony committed
3) Felon establishes trust. A copy of the trust with all Trustees and Beneficiaries are listed on the paperwork. Could be denied as the felon is listed on the trust. Assuming that the Form 4 gets approved, Felon goes to pick up item, fills out 4473 and then fails NICS check. Doesn't get item.
4) Same as 3, except other trustee goes to pick up item. Fills out 4473 and then passes NICS. Gives item to Felon --> Felony committed.
5) Same as 4 except the felon isn't list on the Trust. Trustee passes NICS and gives item to Felon --> Felony committed.

As you can see, no matter how you slice it, it there is a willing straw purchaser, the felon can get the item that way. A felon cannot, without assistance, create a trust and then get an NFA item transferred to themselves.
 
2013-09-03 02:23:38 PM  

Magorn: Automatic weapons were often used in lurid crime movies cheap and plentiful and easy to get before that and seldom used  regularly in crimes.


FTFY
 
2013-09-03 02:24:54 PM  
mbillips:

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 ...


Spoken like a Call of Duty warrior without any expertise. Suppressor frequently increase accuracy and will even increase velocity a tiny bit. A few unprotected gun shots can absolutely damage your hearing.

Frankly, once I shot suppressed, I decided never to go back. It is so much more pleasant to shoot suppressed firearms, and I still use hear protection.
 
2013-09-03 02:25:35 PM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 02:25:37 PM  

redmid17: PsiChick: Dimensio: PsiChick: 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...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

/Hunh, apparently the CDC report is out. Well, egg on my face there...

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.

Giltric: PsiChick: No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

Straw purchasers are rarely prosecuted.

Even when felons fill out a 4473 and fail a background check they are rarely prosecuted.

One of the states claimed 73000 denied purchases due to one reason or another from peoples 4473/nics check...yet only 13 prosecutions.

Start enforcing the laws on the books.....why make every transfer of a firearm subjected to a background check (the proposed UBC) when the denied purchasers aren't even prosecuted as per the current background check system?


I'd be a-okay with that. Better use of our time then going after potheads.

Dimensio: No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

I am certain, then, that the policy change can be justified through demonstration that felons frequently obtain NFA-restricted devices through trusts of which they are members. I am also certain that demonstration will be made that this policy change will physically prevent individuals from obtaining NFA-restricted devices and physically handing them to felons.


Good luck with that.

/I said that was the point. Never said it made any sense in the real world.
 
2013-09-03 02:28:47 PM  

PsiChick: redmid17: PsiChick: Dimensio: PsiChick: 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...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

/Hunh, apparently the CDC report is out. Well, egg on my face there...

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.
 
2013-09-03 02:31:59 PM  

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


Adam Lanza didn't use an NFA firearm.
 
2013-09-03 02:40:16 PM  

Fubini: 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.)


No, that gun is modified to fire fully automatic.  That's why it's got the front grip on it, and the extended magazine.  Google "Colt 1911 machine pistol".

I've had a Colt 1911 go cyclic on me, and you *NEED* a grip like that just to keep it pointing in the general direction of whatever you are shooting at.  Trust me.
 
2013-09-03 02:43:29 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.


And yet, that same principle applies--while he was not allowed to own firearms, his mother, who was, let him use those firearms and was unwitting source of firearms for his rampage.

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.
 
2013-09-03 02:44:47 PM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 02:56:59 PM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 03:00:33 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.


Adam Lanza could have used a lever action deer rifle and killed just as many people.

He started shooting at 9:35am, and stopped no earlier than 9:46am and perhaps as late at 9:49am  That's 11 to 14 minutes, or 660 to 840 seconds.  During that time, he shot 154 times.

That is an average of between 4.3 seconds per shot up to about 5.5 seconds per shot.

I was shooting my son's single shot .22 LR rifle over the weekend, and I'm sure I could maintain a rate of 1 shot every 5 seconds, aimed fire.

With a level action rifle, especially one in .357 or .44 Magnum, you could have a capacity of 12 or 13 rounds, and it doesn't take that long to cycle the lever with practice.  You can "top off" the fixed magazine at will, when it's convenient.

The other thing to consider is that he attacked an *ELEMENTARY* school.  All he really had to do was shoot the adults that got in his way first (principal, psychologist, head teacher), then shoot the teacher upon entering a class room, then kill the kids at his leisure, because they won't have the presence of mind, nor the actual strength, to overwhelm him, like a room full of 20 or 30 adults might have.

He could have managed that with a break-open double barrel shotgun, to be quite honest.

People are focused on the gun he used, which is a distraction from the mental health issues.  It's not the hardware that was the problem, in this case it was defective software.
 
2013-09-03 03:03:50 PM  

PsiChick: And yet, that same principle applies--


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.

If you don't know how apples and oranges that is from the Lanza incident, you aren't qualified to talk about NFA transactions.

PsiChick: 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.


And attackers have used NFA items how many times since 1934?
 
2013-09-03 03:04:23 PM  

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
Which, whatever else we may believe, I think we can all agree is a sin against God, nature, and John Moses Browning
 
2013-09-03 03:06:39 PM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 03:06:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-09-03 03:08:08 PM  

Magorn


Which, whatever else we may believe, I think we can all agree is a sin against God, nature, and John Moses Browning


Counterpoint: I think we could also make the case that this is a fairly pure example of hacking (in the traditional sense).
 
2013-09-03 03:08:54 PM  
They're Terkin are Gehrns!
 
2013-09-03 03:17:39 PM  

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 unlicensed individual of two or more rifles within five consecutive business days having the following characteristics: (1) semiautomatic; (2) a caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 mm); and (3) the ability to accept detachable magazines. "

www.atf.gov
 
2013-09-03 03:20:44 PM  

Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: And yet, that same principle applies--

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.

If you don't know how apples and oranges that is from the Lanza incident, you aren't qualified to talk about NFA transactions.

PsiChick: 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.

And attackers have used NFA items how many times since 1934?


Can you prove that the type of gun is an important factor in gun crime, then? Because most of us assume that, if someone wants to kill people, they'll go and use whatever's available.
 
2013-09-03 03:20:53 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Magorn

Which, whatever else we may believe, I think we can all agree is a sin against God, nature, and John Moses Browning


Counterpoint: I think we could also make the case that this is a fairly pure example of hacking (in the traditional sense).


It has a certain "there, I fixed it!" aesthetic. I'd love to try shooting one.
 
2013-09-03 03:28:35 PM  

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.
 
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.
 
2013-09-03 06:32:14 PM  

69gnarkill69: 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 image 480x360]
New hotness:
[img25.imageshack.us image 640x448]


EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.
 
2013-09-03 06:36:26 PM  

heili skrimsli: 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.


utahraptor2: 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.


Pretty sure he/she was riffing on an earlier poster who described the same scenario from the new homeowner's POV.
 
2013-09-03 06:43:20 PM  

mbillips: EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.



When my wife decided to spawn, we started early with firearms training for the little one.  One great thing about the Glock:  If you remove the slide assembly, the frame doesn't rust as a result of baby slobber.  Tactical Teether FTMFW!!!

i135.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-03 06:52:55 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: 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."


An ex-mil buddy of mine has one, and according to him while it's somewhat slower than true full auto (though not appreciably), it's quite a bit easier to control. I'd never fired an automatic weapon before (still haven't, actually. I need to remedy that), and after just a little practice I could unload a magazine into a pumpkin at 25yd with only a couple strays. Everyone I've talked to on the subject has said that'd be pretty farking difficult without a lot more upper body strength and practice than I have.

/Also, we spent more on ammo in an hour than he did on the stock.
 
2013-09-03 07:03:22 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: An ex-mil buddy of mine has one, and according to him while it's somewhat slower than true full auto (though not appreciably), it's quite a bit easier to control.


I've professionally fired a pretty wide variety of full autos over the years, and their cyclic rates vary, from around 350 RPM to 1200 rpm.  The Slidefires are close enough that I wasn't able to tell the difference without using equipment to measure the actual ROF.  Of course, I tend to run mine on an AR chambered in 5.45x39mm, due to the ammo cost difference.  In other words:  "Close enough for government work."  lol
 
2013-09-03 07:06:51 PM  

utahraptor2:  dittybopper:

Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

heili skrimsli: 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.


Fine: You  coming in to a conversation I was having with other people. Here, I've bolded the parts for you that are relevant to my argument. Including from other posts.

The CDC  was previously banned from studying gun violence. That was a  big shiatstorm that Obama addressed; I wasn't aware the results had come out yet. As I said: I goofed.

As for the rest? The people in this thread are implying that NFA guns are somehow not subject to the same issues non-NFA guns are. Re-reading, I am coming off as strange, because quite frankly I do not see the logic in that. If you're going to argue that NFA guns should be exempt from the rules of non-NFA guns, you  first have to prove that they are  fundamentally different in a relevant way. At no point was this proof ever offered. My fault in this argument was to not ask for this proof straight off and instead accept the assumption, which I do take responsibility for. Next time I have a discussion, I'm going to take a minute and walk out the logic before posting, instead of going with the obvious response.
 
2013-09-03 07:10:01 PM  

PsiChick: Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.


Also if you break gun violence down by race you'll see that black people shouldn't own guns, either.
 
2013-09-03 07:14:00 PM  

Molavian: Also if you break gun violence down by race you'll see that black people shouldn't own guns, either.


And if you read the CDC study you'll see that folks should have access to guns or alcohol, but not both, and getting rid of alcohol had a bigger impact.
 
2013-09-03 07:18:13 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: mbillips: EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.


When my wife decided to spawn, we started early with firearms training for the little one.  One great thing about the Glock:  If you remove the slide assembly, the frame doesn't rust as a result of baby slobber.  Tactical Teether FTMFW!!!

[i135.photobucket.com image 120x61]


Pffft.  I cut my teeth on steel, wood, and flint:

img144.imageshack.us

Kids have it too soft today.
 
2013-09-03 07:18:58 PM  

Molavian: PsiChick: Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

Also if you break gun violence down by race you'll see that black people shouldn't own guns, either.


The problem with breaking things down by race is that you're essentially breaking things down by poverty. So if you'd like to suggest we solve our poverty problem in America...yeah, let's do it!

Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.
 
2013-09-03 07:23:36 PM  
lulz
 
2013-09-03 07:24:15 PM  
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-03 07:42:22 PM  

PsiChick: Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.


Like getting rid of bars?
 
2013-09-03 07:44:46 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: And if you read the CDC study you'll see that folks should have access to guns or alcohol, but not both, and getting rid of alcohol had a bigger impact.


PsiChick: Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.


So we ban alcohol.  Problem solved.
 
2013-09-03 07:48:58 PM  

Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.


Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?
 
2013-09-03 07:57:42 PM  

Molavian: Noticeably F.A.T.: And if you read the CDC study you'll see that folks should have access to guns or alcohol, but not both, and getting rid of alcohol had a bigger impact.

PsiChick: Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.

So we ban alcohol.  Problem solved.


One solution has evidence of working, the other has evidence of not working...nope, no difference here! Those theories are  exactly the same!
 
2013-09-03 08:00:17 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.

Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?


We could replace The War on Drugs with The War on Alcohol.  This is really a Win/WIn.
 
2013-09-03 08:04:25 PM  

PsiChick: I'd be a-okay with that. Better use of our time then going after potheads.


I agree........

Kill the war on drugs. You could probably eliminate 7k gun related deaths a year*.


*numbers provided by Rectal Institute of Statistical Consulting LLC
 
2013-09-03 08:05:00 PM  

PsiChick: utahraptor2:  dittybopper:

Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

heili skrimsli: 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.

Fine: You  coming in to a conversation I was having with other people. Here, I've bolded the parts for you that are relevant to my argument. Including from other posts.

The CDC  was previously banned from studying gun violence. That was a  big shiatstorm that Obama addressed; I wasn't aware the results had come out yet. As I said: I goofed.

As for the rest? The people in this thread are implying that NFA guns are somehow not subject to the same issues non-NFA guns are. Re-reading, I am coming off as strange, because quite frankly I do not see the logic in that. If you're going to argue that NFA guns should be exempt from the rules of non-NFA guns, you  first have to prove that they are  fundamentally different in a relevant way. At no point was this proof ever offered. My fault in this argument was to not ask for this proof straight off and instead accept the assumption, which I do take responsibility for. Next time I have a discussion, I'm going to take a minute and walk out the logic before posting, instead of going with the obvious response.


Here's a clue for you about the CDC:

Neither of the Cs stand for crime.

As for the idea that you were having some sort of private conversation that I intruded upon, you posted publicly in a thread. Your ignorant, factually incorrect and intellectually facile comments are fair game for calling out, by me or anyone else who recognizes the bullshiat for what it is.
 
2013-09-03 08:09:04 PM  

Molavian: Noticeably F.A.T.: Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.

Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?

We could replace The War on Drugs with The War on Alcohol.  This is really a Win/WIn.


The war on alcohol worked out so well for us the first time, what with creating the organized crime and gangster culture that Hoover and his FBI lied about and manipulated to give us the NFA atrocity of 1934, and played that into the GCA of 1968 and the problem laden FOPA of 1986 that left us with the stink of the illegally passed Hughes Amendment.

Yep, the war on alcohol. Great idea.
 
2013-09-03 08:14:20 PM  
RTFA and it's stupid. I'm not a lawyer or gun nut so it's just a bunch of gibberish. Want my support? Write in English.
 
2013-09-03 08:18:58 PM  

Giltric: PsiChick: I'd be a-okay with that. Better use of our time then going after potheads.

I agree........

Kill the war on drugs. You could probably eliminate 7k gun related deaths a year*.


*numbers provided by Rectal Institute of Statistical Consulting LLC


...Ironically, that probably  would lower the homicide rate overall.

heili skrimsli: Here's a clue for you about the CDC:

Neither of the Cs stand for crime.

As for the idea that you were having some sort of private conversation that I intruded upon, you posted publicly in a thread. Your ignorant, factually incorrect and intellectually facile comments are fair game for calling out, by me or anyone else who recognizes the bullshiat for what it is.


The CDC collects data on  any public health threat. How do you not know that?
 
2013-09-03 08:19:03 PM  

heili skrimsli: Molavian: Noticeably F.A.T.: Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.

Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?

We could replace The War on Drugs with The War on Alcohol.  This is really a Win/WIn.

The war on alcohol worked out so well for us the first time, what with creating the organized crime and gangster culture that Hoover and his FBI lied about and manipulated to give us the NFA atrocity of 1934, and played that into the GCA of 1968 and the problem laden FOPA of 1986 that left us with the stink of the illegally passed Hughes Amendment.

Yep, the war on alcohol. Great idea.


You're not seeing the bigger picture here.
 
2013-09-03 08:30:02 PM  

dittybopper: Giltric: 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

NYC, or NYS?  Because there can be a very, very big difference.


Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.
 
2013-09-03 08:39:07 PM  

Skyd1v: 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 dispositi ...


I think there has been separate reporting/forms on the FFLs side for people buying multiple handguns and people buying multiple "assault" weapons at once for a while now. I think they expanded it to include all long rifles in the border states, not just "assault" weapons.
 
2013-09-03 08:44:05 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: 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.


I've heard lots of people claiming that sheriffs can be very friendly but local PD not so much.
 
2013-09-03 08:49:05 PM  

Giltric: dittybopper: Giltric: 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

NYC, or NYS?  Because there can be a very, very big difference.

Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.


My favorite are the ones that buy property in farm country in the fall or winter, then biatch about the smell in the spring when the manure spreaders start working, followed closely by the ones that biatch about the sound of gunshots in the fall during hunting season.
 
2013-09-03 09:04:42 PM  
"You be wantin' my signature on what now, mon?"

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-03 09:07:15 PM  

dittybopper: Giltric: dittybopper: Giltric: 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

NYC, or NYS?  Because there can be a very, very big difference.

Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.

My favorite are the ones that buy property in farm country in the fall or winter, then biatch about the smell in the spring when the manure spreaders start working, followed closely by the ones that biatch about the sound of gunshots in the fall during hunting season.


The farmer started using pig shiat on the lot across the road from them just to turn the screws a bit.....
 
2013-09-03 09:29:00 PM  

heili skrimsli: 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.


She is hands down, the stupidest person who regularly posts on this site.
 
2013-09-03 09:38:22 PM  

zepher: Devo: Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

et's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nib ...


HAHAHAHAHA. oh god, hahahaha. yes. Very funny, would read again.
 
2013-09-03 10:00:40 PM  

umad: heili skrimsli: 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.

She is hands down, the stupidest person who regularly posts on this site.


Do Genevieve Marie and CruiserTwelve still post?

They might give her some competition.
 
2013-09-03 10:12:34 PM  

meanmutton: We don't need to combat voter fraud because no one gets convicted of voter fraud just like we don't need to combat excesses by the banking industry because banking industry executives don't get convicted.


You have a point.

paygun: No he doesn't. One of his advisors told him this would appease his gun grabber base.


Hey, I take the man at his word.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:42 PM  

PsiChick: One solution has evidence of working, the other has evidence of not working...nope, no difference here! Those theories are exactly the same!


You're right. Not in the way you think you are (at least, not according to the CDC), but you are right. According to the study you wanted done, reduced access to alcohol has been shown to reduce violence across the board (including gun violence), while gun bans have shown little to no evidence of reducing gun violence.
 
2013-09-03 11:59:32 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: One solution has evidence of working, the other has evidence of not working...nope, no difference here! Those theories are exactly the same!

You're right. Not in the way you think you are (at least, not according to the CDC), but you are right. According to the study you wanted done, reduced access to alcohol has been shown to reduce violence across the board (including gun violence), while gun bans have shown little to no evidence of reducing gun violence.


In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.
 
2013-09-04 02:01:44 AM  

PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.


It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.
 
2013-09-04 02:54:50 AM  

c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust.


That's why I did it that way. I want my wife to have legal access.

If it was registered just to me then she wouldn't even be allowed to have the combination to the safe my NFA items reside in.
 
2013-09-04 08:35:31 AM  

dittybopper: Secret Master of All Flatulence: mbillips: EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.


When my wife decided to spawn, we started early with firearms training for the little one.  One great thing about the Glock:  If you remove the slide assembly, the frame doesn't rust as a result of baby slobber.  Tactical Teether FTMFW!!!

Kids have it too soft today.


I wasn't trying to make things soft for my munchkins, I just hate rust on my guns.
 
2013-09-04 08:54:29 AM  

PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.



Prohibition never works.  If there's a demand, somebody will supply it, and people who want to misuse whatever simply will.  Add to that the fact that if you had your way, you would quite literally provoke a flat-out civil war.  How many people are you willing to kill in an effort to try yet again your already failed ideology?  People like you are an absolute threat to our basic freedoms and civil liberties.  We will not be disarmed, period.  We are a free people, and one way or the other, we will remain so until we die.

Awhile back, right after Newtown, I learned of a conversation at the proverbial water cooler between two members of different branches of government.  This was when there was actual talk of the Feinsteinian "go around to each house and collect them all" type of legislation.  Two professionals were calmly and rationally talking about quite literally exchanging fire with each other if things warranted it in their minds.  It reminded me of a convesation I had back in the '90s, shortly after the "29 Palms" survey became public knowledge.  I put the controverisal question to a young piss and vinegar "Ring Knocker", and was surprised by his response, which was, and I quote:  "Not only no, but HELL no, and I'd shoot the Son of a biatch that gave me such an illegal order."   There's a metric fark-ton of us out there that took and take the Oaths we've sworn seriously.  Your ideology produced hundreds of millions of corpses in the last century.  "Never again.  Not on our watch."
 
2013-09-04 12:21:38 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.


You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

Secret Master of All Flatulence: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.


Prohibition never works.  If there's a demand, somebody will supply it, and people who want to misuse whatever simply will.  Add to that the fact that if you had your way, you would quite literally provoke a flat-out civil war.  How many people are you willing to kill in an effort to try yet again your already failed ideology?  People like you are an absolute threat to our basic freedoms and civil liberties.  We will not be disarmed, period.  We are a free people, and one way or the other, we will remain so until we die.

Awhile back, right after Newtown, I learned of a conversation at the proverbial water cooler between two members of different branches of government.  This was when there was actual talk of the Feinsteinian "go around to each house and collect them all" type of legislation.  Two professionals were calmly and rationally talking about quite literally exchanging fire with each other if things warranted it in their minds.  It reminded me of a convesation I had back in the '90s, shortly after the "29 Palms" survey became public knowledge.  I put the controverisal question to a young piss and vinegar "Ring Knocker", and was surprised by his response, which was, and I quote:  "Not only no, but HELL no, and I'd shoot the Son of a biatch that gave me such an illegal order."   There's a metric fark-ton of us out there that took and take the Oaths we've sworn seriously.  Your ideology produced hundreds of millions of corpses in the last century.  "Never again.  Not on our watch."


...Uh, genius? I've been arguing against prohibition, using the  actual gangsters Prohibition created as an example, this entire thread. You may have picked the wrong person to pull the 'any restrictions = total gun ban' strawman on.

/And what the hell are you talking about, my ideology produced hundreds of millions of corpses? What, are you confusing me with a Nazi or something?
 
2013-09-04 12:42:10 PM  

PsiChick: Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.


You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.
 
2013-09-04 01:54:20 PM  

redmid17: PsiChick: Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.


Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?
 
2013-09-04 02:10:08 PM  

PsiChick: The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.


So you wanted the CDC study so you could promptly ignore it since it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm shocked.
 
2013-09-04 03:18:32 PM  

PsiChick: redmid17: PsiChick: Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?


Really, you can't think of anything, nothing even gleaned from this thread?
 
2013-09-04 06:37:04 PM  

redmid17: The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?

Really, you can't think of anything, nothing even gleaned from this thread?


Nope. If you're right, I'm sure you can give me a valid citation.
 
2013-09-04 09:24:15 PM  

PsiChick: redmid17: The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?

Really, you can't think of anything, nothing even gleaned from this thread?

Nope. If you're right, I'm sure you can give me a valid citation.


* Jesus first of all you have the war on drugs, the high rate of citizen imprisonment, and lack of a comparable safety net to other countries.
* You have a 2000 mile border with a third world country which has dozens of drug cartels operating with autonomy in large areas of the northern border. Prime recipe for easy drug trafficking, and that's not even counting the various routes from Carribbean routes.
* ~80% of homicides and homicides offenders have an arrest record, the vast majority of those tend to be very extensive. Criminals killing criminals.
* We have, and have always had, far more guns per capita than any other first world country. Even switzerland only has half as many guns per capita as we do, and our civilian number has been skyrocketing over the past decade.

A gun prohibition is not legally possibly without amending the constitution and is completely not viable beyond that. Addressing the root causes of poverty, crime rates, and adding a safety net will do far more than a gun ban. So easy bullet points:

1) end the war on drugs
2) focus on jail rehabilitation for non-violent offenses
3) actually enforce current firearms laws (ie felons, fugivitives, and domestic abusers trying to fill out 4473 - low hanging fruit) and give harsher sentences to people who commit violent offenses with a firearm (no chance of parole).
4) Make sure the taxes become more progressive
5) single payer healthcare system that includes mental health
 
Displayed 346 of 346 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report