cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This is bat country. cnSeriously you are comparing a bat assault to a gun?
This is bat country. cnSeriously you are comparing a bat assault to a gun?
Thanks, I'm not sleeping tonight. Be prepared for the phone call!This is bat country. cn
I'd be happy with a belt-fed 12-gauge, lol. cnThanks, I'm not sleeping tonight. Be prepared for the phone call!
Seriously that is one ookie picture! Sort of like Stephen King's version of The Birds! I almost forgot, that is ONE time I'd want a full auto weapon (and many clips).
Splooge!!! I've shot some belt-fed rifles and it's hella fun, shooting a belt fed 12ga would be off the wall fun! Bring on the pumpkins!I'd be happy with a belt-fed 12-gauge, lol. cn
machine guns have, since 1934, required a poermit and a tax stamp (which was prohibitively expensive at the time) in 1968 the tax stamp and permit ALSO required a federal firearms license but yes it was otherwise legal... for all 61,000 FFL holders in the US, and NOBODY ELSE!200 dollar tax stamp and you could buy a new automatic weapon before 1986 at retail prices. They are only the prices they are now because the supply shrinks and the demand grows. You realize that Mac10's are still only a few thousand to buy a legal one. You can any number of machine guns for under 10,000. Let us just accept that you don't know what you are talking about, and I do.
http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx
There are machine guns for sale and the prices. Just because YOU didn't know where to buy a machine gun didn't mean they weren't for sale. Most people couldn't find depression glass in those days either, but there was a shit ton of it.
I think you are confused about how the law worked. FFL's could sell new machine guns to people without licenses until 1986. You can't order any gun from a manufacturer now unless you are a FFL. The same thing applied then. The local gun shop(an FFL) buys guns from a distributor(an FFL) who gets it from a manufacturer. This hasn't changed except that FFL's could be run out of houses without harassment before Clinton. While the rules were different for machine guns, it wasn't that much different. All machine guns could be registered before 1986 for $200 and sold to civilians. They just had to be purchased from the manufacturer by an FFL just like every other gun is.machine guns have, since 1934, required a poermit and a tax stamp (which was prohibitively expensive at the time) in 1968 the tax stamp and permit ALSO required a federal firearms license but yes it was otherwise legal... for all 61,000 FFL holders in the US, and NOBODY ELSE!
61,000 out of 300 MILLION people can legally buy a machine gun. and it's only a couple grand too, for a shitty mac 10.
in 1986 they simply declared no NEW machineguns could be imported or manufactured for sale to people who are not federal agents, cops or the pentagon. wow, that is a real game changer for the 299939000 of the rest of us who havent been able to buy a machinegun at all since 1968.
yeah you got it all sewn up. why not expoound on the cost of a fully automatic Thompson M1A1 in 1928($200 bucks which was fat sacks of lucre at the time, plus $200 in stamp tax, so the tax was 100% plus permit fees), and then in 1968 (round $500-600 plus $200 tax, plus fees and licensing for the FFL), and then in 1986? ($1800 + the stamp tax of $200, plus the FFL license) but the only machineguns a non-FFL holder could get were the shitty illegal shit guns like the mac's and the prices for those hasnt changed much since the 70's except for inflation.
the 1986 "no new machineguns" law only restricts the already tiny LEGAL machinegun market, and since the market is already a gun-dealers-only club it is irrelevent to the 99.9999995% of people who cannot exercise their rights because they arent part of the club.
the ban on importation of new black african slaves has really caused an increase in the prices of farm labourers and household negroes alike. you cant buy a shiney new coloured servant for anything like a reasonable price any more. i blame the new EEOC rules laid out in 1993 for the drastic reduction in my slave labour force. the emancipation proclamation had nothin to do with it, and if you think it did then you just dont know anything about human chattle.
It is hard to find figures. I posted the wiki insert that stated it. I also found references to prices in the old days.I assume you have some facts and figures to back this statement up?
Hey cancer survivor...........cut it out, I LOVE MY GUNS, guns are not the problem, its a people problem! crazy people always do crazy things! did you ever Shoot a gun??? thats some good fun! dont blame guns for what people do with them! you have a Nice day....
Nice Saiga!Hey cancer survivor...........
I love to shoot guns also.......I got to shoot this 12 gauge the other day... it was fun................nitro..
It is hard to find figures. I posted the wiki insert that stated it. I also found references to prices in the old days.
Here is a forum talking about this exact thing:
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1246980
You are talking $1000 for a fully automatic M16 in the 80s.
Here is a flyer from that page:
Semi auto and full auto weapons were roughly the same price before 1986 besides the tax. They would be now too. This would put fully automatic AK's under $1000.
so you propose that before 1986, ANYONE could buy any automatic weapon they chose, simply by paying the tax stamp from a licensed gun dealer.I think you are confused about how the law worked. FFL's could sell new machine guns to people without licenses until 1986. You can't order any gun from a manufacturer now unless you are a FFL. The same thing applied then. The local gun shop(an FFL) buys guns from a distributor(an FFL) who gets it from a manufacturer. This hasn't changed except that FFL's could be run out of houses without harassment before Clinton. While the rules were different for machine guns, it wasn't that much different. All machine guns could be registered before 1986 for $200 and sold to civilians. They just had to be purchased from the manufacturer by an FFL just like every other gun is.
The only people who can buy new guns now are FFLs, they can then sell them to civilians. You seem to be confused about how FFL's work.
The part that you seem to not realize is that every person who owned a machine gun before 1986 could then sell it to any civilian who payed the $200 tax stamp. Comparing 1928, when automatic weapons just came out is pretty asinine and has nothing to do with what I said. I said before 1986 the prices of machine guns were much lower. You could get a M60 for 1500 NIB and a $200 tax stamp. They are $30k for a ragged out one now. The only difference is the supply was limited by the government.
The only thing I can drag up that talks about it is posts on class 3 forums and Wiki
Wiki:
However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.
Also, your example of the thompson machine gun tries to state something completely incorrect. In 1935 a thompson machine gun was about $50. With inflation, and counting the $200 tax stamp that is about $4,000. Currently, they sell from $20k for a junky one to $60k for something good. If you can't do the math and see that price is many times higher than it should be due to demand then I don't know what to tell you. If they were making new ones that could be registered, they would go for about $1500-2000. They would be the same price as a dealer sample + markup. A fully automatic dealer sample is usually in the same price range as a semi automatic one.
"In 1934, the National Firearms Act placed a $200 tax on the transfer of ownership of a machine gun. Since then the BATF has added a raft of other regulations like requiring law enforcement sign off and fingerprints. The $200 tax was specifically intended to be so high most people wouldnt pay it. In 1934, Thompson Submachine guns sold for $50 and were considered overpriced. (Think H&K today) No one was willing to pay four times the price of an already overpriced machine gun PLUS the cost of the gun just to own a machine gun."
If the emancipation proclamation had outlawed all new slaves but left slaves who were already slaves as slaves than the price of slaves would of gone up as the supply shrank over time. Why do you insist on using intentionally incorrect examples?
Guns don't kill people. People do.
At what point do we start prohibition? Kitchen knives?
Dissenting opinion. Violent crime is the more useful metric imo. When folks carry their handguns in a concealed manner, they aren't specifically arming to avoid getting killed. Avoiding getting hurt is a big factor, and the term "violent crime" neatly captures this. Are you suggesting that avoiding getting hurt (with the understanding that the same scenario risks one getting killed, and the two can only be sorted in retrospect) is not a valid reason to arm oneself? cn
I agree. Did you have a stroke, or something?That's funny - the statements don't even have anything to do with each other. The spoons may not have made that guy fat but the manufacturer of the food that he ate might very well have. So the gun manufacturer may not be an accomplice but the amunition manufacturer is.
I don't think that my post makes any sense.
Yes. Fists count too. They are potentially deadly weapons. I should have the right to defend against them in the way that works for me. (Assuming I did not stand my ground in a brisk forward trajectory, to be sure.) cnWhat is "hurt" what is "violent"? are we talking about unarmed violence as well? such as one person hitting another with their fists? No, I can't see any metric being used but the simple, easily identified metric of death.
I'll bet that it's not.machine guns were cheap before 1986? thats the biggest most insane lie i ever heard.
I am not proposing anything, I am TELLING you. This is how it is.so you propose that before 1986, ANYONE could buy any automatic weapon they chose, simply by paying the tax stamp from a licensed gun dealer.
BULLSHIT!
the 1934 law made the licensing requirements and the tax onerous, and the arms were expensive already (list price for a thompson in 1934 was $180 not $50) even before the tax was added
starting in 1968 you HAD TO BE A FFL HOLDER TO BUY A MACHINE GUN but manufacturers could make and sell all they liked to FFL holders, and in fact many people tried to get an FFL just so they could buy a machine gun. the ATF did not approve of this.thats whjy theres only 61000 FFL holders in the nation even today. you cant just "git one and machine gun up" the only FFL currently available for most people is the curio and collector license which is easy to get but does NOT permit owning of machine guns at all.
in 1986 the feds decided to stop permitting the importation and manufacture of NEW machine guns, and prohibited the transfer of any machine gun not already licensed and registered before 1986 (still legal to own but you might as well be buried with it like a pharaoh since nobody else may legally own that gun EVER) even if you have an FFL. only those with the super special platinum privileges FFL may buy or import machine guns which are not already registered before 1986. just as some FFL holders may import and manufacture machine guns, grenades and other implements of war for the military and police. but ONLY for authorized agencies, and they are NOT allowed to sell them to ANYONE except authorized agencies, or firearms museums, and other platinum privileges cardholders.
if you have one of the platinum privileges cards every machine gun you have made/imported after 1986 can never be transferred save to another platinum privileges card holder.
yes it's complicated, but it is in NO WAY as you described, and wholesale prices for arms exporters/importers and dealers are NOT retail prices. your image is nothing but a cunard