Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Hmm.. this is delving into the 'use of deadly force' debate. When is it constituted? If someone pushes you? If someone slaps you? Where's the line in the sand?
So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?
- Thread starter canndo
- Start date
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
I'll agree with that.
kbmed$
Member
Banning any weapon that we are now allowed to own is Redic have fun being disarmed and unable to protect yourself..there will always be a black market for anything.you want if you have the money..all banning will do is create more problems not to mention the pure fact that those with those weapons after the ban will easily rob, murder, or control others much easier..I for one have my ccw and always carry and carried openly before I had a ccw if someone comes to my homet do anything harmful towards me or mine best belive they will be maimed for life I don't shoot to kill I want them to remember what they did for the rest of there piss bag ife
Short of getting a time machine and going back in time, I am not sure how else I can prove it. Easily verifiable facts, people on a machine gun forum going on about it, and actual flyers from the old days.
Here are some for $500 AFTER the 1986 Ban.
I ordered 10 AR receivers before the election. I think it was Obama supporters saying over and over "no one wants to take your guns." that convinced me 100% it was going to happen. Looks like it was a good bet.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
No, no. That was in response to the Dr's comment "the most insane lie I've ever heard". It was probably better unsaid.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Just my feeble attempt at humor. I am sure that in the big picture of "gun control", the 3 of us are close to agreement.I know.I took it that you were backing me up somewhat.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
y7es yes yes. all these ads directed towards lawer infursmint offisurs is all well and good, but outside the extremely narrow range of people legally authorized to purchase/manufacture/import these arms and dedicated collectors, these ads are useless.Short of getting a time machine and going back in time, I am not sure how else I can prove it. Easily verifiable facts, people on a machine gun forum going on about it, and actual flyers from the old days.
Here are some for $500 AFTER the 1986 Ban.
I ordered 10 AR receivers before the election. I think it was Obama supporters saying over and over "no one wants to take your guns." that convinced me 100% it was going to happen. Looks like it was a good bet.
the only other market for these arms is mercenaries and tin pot dictators in their banana republics where ads in the back of Soldier of Fortune are the primary source of their "security forces" arms.
or do you propose that before 1986 everyone who wished could buy and mount a silencer on their submachinegun, flip the lever to "Rock 'n' Roll" and head out to the local shooting range for an afternoon of fully automatic fun?
perhaps this explains why street gangs and bank robbers were almost always equipped with fully automatic weaponry throughout the 70's and early 80's.
ohh wait. that was only in the movies.
before the hollywood machinegun shootout, machineguns hadnt been used in a crime (or at least were not reported as such) since the age of bonnie and clyde and al capone. see thats why the hollywood shootout was big news. they had MACHINEGUNS which was up till then considered a problem of the distant past, since the average jerkoff couldnt get his mitts on a machinegun since 1968.
yeah but im probably wrong, since ANYBODY could buy machineguns out of bubblegum machines up till 1986. they werent regulated at all. nope. not at all.
ya know what else is TOTALLY LEGAL to own, sell trade transfer and posses... fissionable materials!
yep, people who are permitted by the licensing and regulatory oversight of the nuclear regulatory commission can totally own trade and possess plutonium, and uranium in all their myriad isotopes. and its 100000% totally legal! course these people who are so blessed are research facilities like Los Aalamos, and Lawrence Livermore labs, and atomic energy companies like GE, and the US Navy and uranium mining and refining concerns. but its totally legal. FOR THEM! and only for them.
the same holds true for machine guns, ever since 1968, and to a lesser extent since 1934.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I believe the line is "contact". A deliberate and unwanted instance of physical contact constitutes assault.
Mind you, I'm no lawyer and haven't slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night. cn
Are you intentionally being retarded to cover up being wrong, or are you just retarded?
Please note the ad with pink writing. 100% FULLY TRANSFERABLE. Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that means anyone can buy it. Note the price.
2nd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers READ THE FUCKING ACT. Even WIKI plainly states
"It is a common misconception[SUP][13][/SUP] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:"
You don't understand how it works, I get that. Your arguing with me just makes you look stupid(er). You are failing to give even basic evidence of what you say, yet I am giving you a lot of information that proves you wrong. The only thing I even kind of stated wrong was referring to the ATF taking months to approve transfers as a 'waiting period'. I know the difference, but phrased it incorrectly.
Crimes being committed has nothing to do with the legality of machine guns. Tanks are legal and easy to get (easier than machine guns haha) but you don't see anyone rampaging through a parade with one.
The simply fact is that, until 1986, machine guns were easy to acquire and cheap. The only reason they are not now is because there is a ban on registering post 1986 machine guns and if the ban went away then machine guns would drop to the $1-2000 level overnight which was my original point I believe, and you are wrong. Machine guns are no harder to get today than they were in 1986, they just cost more. The only thing that changed was the ban on new guns being sold.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I like your style, but I only shoot to kill. While revenge is nice, it's not worth risking my life. If they risked my life before getting maimed, there's a chance they'd go psycho. Injuries can cause massive amounts of adrenaline, which makes them even more dangerous.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Federal Firearms Regulations
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.
To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
(Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, "FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons", and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,and Explosives (ATF) National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, "The Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective" [Hardy, 1986]) ) ~ http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
IF you live in a state that is "machinegun friendly" (HA HA HA HA !) you might be able to buy a machinegun
IF you can find a dealer authorized to do the transfer and
IF you can find a machinegun that is for sale, which was registered and licensed before 1986, and
IF you can convince your local PO PO to sign the form, and
IF you sumbit to a "thorough background check" (convictions wants and warrants, or are we talking national security level shit?) and
IF you are approved and
IF you wait for... yep. as much as a year, and
IF you jump through all those hoops you just might be able to have your very own machinegun without a special firearms license from the feds... ohh wait, all that shit only matters
IF the atf approves your request and
IF you can show why you deserve to be allowed to own aa machinegun.
sounds like a special license to me. sounds exactly like a Federal Fireaarms License. amazing.
there might be one or two people who can acquire a machinegun legally without getting an FFL, but i cant imagine anybody going through all the bullshit to get the FFL without actually just getting the FFL which allows them to buy trade and sell machineguns without having to jumpo through the same hoops every time they add to their collection or acquire a new gun for their movie property house. (thats the only non-lawer infursemint offisur reason to own machine guns in california, if you dont rent props for the movies or run a miulitary museum you dont get to own machineguns, not even ones rigged to chamber and fire only blanks.)
1) 39 states allow machine guns.
2) There are dozens of dealers who specialize in this in each 39 of those states. I am 10 miles from the closest one for me and I don't live in a big city, we ain't even got a hydro shop.
3) You can buy machine guns online and have them shipped anywhere you want. I provided a link for you, remember?
4) You can actually legally force them to sign it. Also, if you incorporate you don't need a signature at all.
5) The background check is roughly the same as getting a gun and a passport. You know if you have done something wrong.
6) Most people are approved.
7) 3-6 month wait for the paperwork generally.
You don't have to show that you deserve a machine gun, the ATF only looks at the background check. It isn't that painful. I suppose not having been through the process you might think so, but it isn't. It is the same process for getting a silencer. It isn't a big deal. Remember the first time you did something like hydro, brewing, ect and you thought "wow, this seems like a lot" but once you did it you realized it was all pretty simple? This is no different. Just because you aren't familiar with it doesn't make it hard or impossible.
You are missing a giant point. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have registered machine guns and who aren't dealers. Dealers get to buy the $500-1000 new machine guns and beat the shit out of them without worry, they sell the registered ones because they are worth a lot of money.
FFL's don't work that way. The only FFL you can get without a store to sell guns from is a FFL03(aka C&R). Clinton cracked down on having a FFL unless you basically had a store front and lots of gun sales. No selling guns from your garage using a FFL. The C&R actually cuts down on the hoops you have to jump through to buy a lot of machine guns and in another couple decades will cover all of them.
There isn't a license, just a tax stamp you have to apply for.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so theres no actual federal licenses to own a machine gun, just a tightly controlled program that ensures the everyone who owns a machinegun:
is qualified in the eyes of the regulatory authority to own operate or use such an item
registers THEMSELVES and their machinery with the regulatory authority
updates the regulatory authority on any status changes which could affect their qualifications to operate the object
updates the regulatory authority on where, how and why they operate the regulated object
adheres to the regulatory authority's approved practices in dealing with the object
adheres to all other federal and state laws pertaining the the object
does not use the object in the furtherance of any unlawful activity
prevents anyone but Authorized Personnel from having access to the equipment
so you dont actually need a federal license for an aircraft, a blast furnace, an oil refinery, a nuclear power plant, or a toxic waste dump. it just LOOKS like you need a license to operate those facilities...
according to the ATF theres approximately 240,000 registered machineguns in the US of which the atf claims fully HALF are owned by local and state lawer infrursmint ajinceez, leaving 120,000 in the hands on "people".
unfortunately you must also subtract the arms held by
movie property houses (even if they only chamber and fire blank cartridges)
firearms museums
research and development labs
private military contractors
lawer infursment offisurs who keep these arms in their private collections
private security firms
so that leaves very few actual machine guns actually eligible to be owned by those who "Totally Dont Have A Federal Firearms License" but who in all actuality are more tightly regulated than the owners of aircraft, landfills, oil refineries or pharmacies, all of which require a license from the fed to own and operate.
but they dont call it a license so its totally different. it looks exactly like a federal license to own these firearms but its NOT called that. nope. totally different
you dont "apply" to pay a tax. you pay the tax. the tax is a canard to create a licensing program thats totally not licensing, nope, not at all...
just like the ATF doesnt keep a registry of firearms transactions since they are "required by law" to destroy all the transfer records within 24 hours of completion... except they DO keep them. forever. but it's not a backdoor registration program, nope. it's "Statistical Data", not a registry. it just looks exactly like a registry. totally different.
as to "forcing" the local Po Po to sign your plea for plenary indulgence, you cannot force anyone to sign anything, especially not your county sheriff, or the local police chief. if they dont want to sign they dont have to, thats why their signature is required for YOU, they are not required sign shit. if they were required to sign or could be compelled to sign WHY HAVE THEM SIGN AT ALL?
i was licensed to handle explosives for several years, and licensed to use pesticides and herbicides for MANY years. those licenses were exactly the same, as the "not a license" license you must get to recvieve a machine gun, and i am more than familiar with the ATF's licensing process. nobody can own a machinegun without their permission, and anyone who receives their indulgence to own one will probably want a second one eventually, and that means going through the whole process again, unless you get the "Actually Called A License" license which allows you to own and operate machineguns that are not classified as "relics" and dont cost more than a 4 year degree at harvard.
even before 1986, actually getting ONE machinegun was exactly as intrusive and boithersome as getting the magic ticket that lets you buy dozens of them, but now, getting the magic ticket from the ATF is the ONLY way to get your mitts on an automatic weapon that doesnt require a military recruiter, or being a member of a federal goonsquad. the 61,000 people/organizations who hold federal licenses to operate gun shops and firearms manufacturing facilities are the ONLY ones who can actually own a machinegun these days save for a statistically insignificant miniscule infinitesimal number of people who still own machine guns manufactured between 1860 and 1986. and most of those "people" are movie prop houses and museums, not actual people.
edit:
"You are missing a giant point. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have registered machine guns and who aren't dealers."
really hundreds of thousands of people, private people who arent "licensed firearms dealers" who do not hold an FFL?
hundreds of thousands of people who each own one of the ~120,000 registered machineguns the atf claims are in "private hands" (which means not a state or local lawer infursement ajinsee) MINUJS the ones held by museums and movie property houses and r&d labs and the manufacturers themselves, PMC's and private security firms?
really hundreds of thousands of ordinary people... lawfully registered machineguns? REALLY?
even if EVERY lawfully registered machinegun not owned by a state or local law agency was in the hands of some schmuck, that would mean that a maxiumum, an absolute mathematical maximum of 120,000 people could own a machinegun. or is there some machine gun timeshare program i havent heard about.
It is no more a license than paying for the background check when you buy a regular gun. The ATF isn't allowed to even categorize class 3 owners like that, please state where you got your information.
There are machine gun timeshares actually. You can incorporate with multiple people and all of them are legal owners of the gun and can possess it. Not that you actually care.
I shoot machine guns pretty regularly because I made nice with the class 3 people who come to play at the gun range I shoot at. Gun ranges that let you shoot class 3 are harder to find. I KNOW how they are acquired, and I know people who have them. I also know gun dealers who have them that are non transferable, and I get to shoot them too. You don't know what you are talking about. This conversation makes me feel like I am talking to a 15 year old about life. You don't have the experience to actually have this discussion, yet you are very adamant in your ignorance.
I am done arguing with you. I have proven you wrong, and you are wrong. You are trying to argue against a provable fact. This isn't politics where you can argue your opinion, this is a true/false issue. You are still avoiding the very heart of the conversation. You assert I was incorrect in my initial statement:
"You are incorrect about machine guns. They were pretty cheap before 1986. It wasn't until government limited supply that the cost went up. "
Even if the rest of your bullshit was true(it isn't), it still wouldn't change the fact that you were 100% wrong to start. I am not abandon, I can explain myself and actually know what I am talking about.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
From what I see most (not all) of the gun control advocates live a more urban lifestyle and have no clue about people in the Ozarks or Appalachians or other rural areas.
If you want to pass legislation please keep it on your state level. We are not a one size fits all society, so we shouldn't try to do this on a federal level for several reasons. The most important being the 2nd. Besides, if you pass it on a state or local level (even better) then we use the US as a giant laboratory as designed. Your locality or state can pass laws then live with the consequences on a small scale instead of screwing the rest of the country. And if somehow, you get it right, the rest of the states can follow.
Central planners suck, they show themselves to be selfish and intolerant on a consistent basis.
If you want to pass legislation please keep it on your state level. We are not a one size fits all society, so we shouldn't try to do this on a federal level for several reasons. The most important being the 2nd. Besides, if you pass it on a state or local level (even better) then we use the US as a giant laboratory as designed. Your locality or state can pass laws then live with the consequences on a small scale instead of screwing the rest of the country. And if somehow, you get it right, the rest of the states can follow.
Central planners suck, they show themselves to be selfish and intolerant on a consistent basis.
Think about the children!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Statewide is still either too coarse, or too fine. What works in Berkeley won't work in Barstow or Alturas. cn
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I believe it to still be too course but prefer it over national laws. Ideally it would be handled at the local level but the squeaky wheel gets the grease and on this issue the extreme ends are the loudest and both are screaming on a national level.
Ringsixty
Well-Known Member
Let's go back to the days of single shot musket, I say.