|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 27, 2006, 11:03 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 570
|
Quote:
Tell me, Rambo...what would you do with a fully-automatic, non-mounted weapon? Why do you think that the U.S. has gone with single shot carbine ever since Vietnam? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to leverage effective fires with a fully automatic shoulder-fired weapon? So my question to you is [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] would you do with it that you feel SO strongly about?
__________________
Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān" |
|
March 27, 2006, 11:43 PM | #27 |
Member
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 29
|
I would shoot it, at a range, and have a kicka*s time doing it.
And yes, I know -exactly- how difficult it is to leverage effective fires with a fully automatic shoulder-fired weapon. A local range has 5 or so different types of fully automatic weapons for rental, and I have fired this: http://www.colt.com/law/smg.asp And this: http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/index...artNumber=MP51 At LENGTH. I've also popped off some rounds from a WWII Thompson that one of the guys who works there brought in one day, but not nearly as many as from the other two guns. Needless to say, I'm a pretty good shot Regardless what kind of weapon it is... Even if I were a terrible shot however, who cares? I can still have a great time shooting it. Since when does one have be dead-on-balls accurate with a firearm to have fun shooting it? I'm not sure where you're from, but that isn't how it works around here. Do you go home from the range with a sad puppy face if you don't get bullseyes on all of your targets? Boo hoo. Anyway, it is a terrible fallacy to argue against my passion concerning the subject simply based upon the notion that I don't really NEED a weapon of that sort, if indeed that is what you are doing (I'm pretty sure it is). For instance, you don't really NEED to be posting on this forum, neither do you really NEED to be using the Internet in general, or do you even NEED a computer at all. You probably do LOTS of things you don't NEED to do, and possess LOTS of things you don't NEED to possess (especially if we're talking about the basic Freudian needs here), everybody does. In short, for you to use such logic would make you a colossal hypocrite, because surely there are many things in your life that you particularly like to have or do, even though you don’t really need to have or do them. Keep it coming, pal; this is so easy, it’s like taking candy from a baby |
March 28, 2006, 07:39 AM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Posts: 76
|
Process?
Could someone explain the process of acquiring an NFA weapon? I know about subguns.com and the classified ads there. If I saw one I wanted and could afford, what would I need to do? I don't currently have an FFL.
|
March 28, 2006, 11:28 AM | #29 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
You don't need any kind of federal license to buy a full auto firearm. You do need to obtain a Form 4, application to transfer a NFA firearm, and have it signed by your local chief law enforcement officers. This step is sometimes the big one, or the impossible one if the CLEO just won't sign. (You can incorporate as corporations don't need the CLEO signature, but that invites additional scrutiny from BATFE.)
Then you wait for approval. If the transfer is interstate, the gun must be sent to a class 3 dealer in your state or, if you have a C&R license and it is a C&R item, it can be transferred directly to you. On that 1930's business, the idea was to use the public demand to "do something" about gangster guns in the prohibition era to effectively ban all guns and stifle any possible revolt against Roosevelt's policies. The Roosevelt administration first asked for registration and huge transfer taxes on all guns and ammunition. ($10,000 for a machinegun, $5000 for a handgun, $1000 for a rifle, $500 for a shotgun, plus $10 per round on handgun ammo, $5 on CF rifle ammo, $2 on a shotshell, and $1 on a RF round (.22). All guns and ammunition would have had to be registered, and the administration could refuse registration and confiscate the guns of "unsuitable" people (like Republicans). Congress watered it down to the $200 on machineguns, and a few other weapons, where it is today. Jim |
March 28, 2006, 12:01 PM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Posts: 76
|
Jim Keenan: Thanks very much. I've read the long treatise by James Bardwell on subguns.com, but there's so much info there it's difficult to determine where a "John Q. Public" like me stands. It looks like this is the applicable area of his commentary:
"An individual otherwise able to own any gun under federal law can receive and own any NFA weapon (local law permitting, ATF cannot approve a transfer where federal, state or local law would be violated by the transferee possessing the weapon in question, see 26 U.S.C. sec. 5812(a)(6)) on a Form 4, "Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm". Non-FFL holders may only purchase an NFA weapon from a dealer or individual within their own state. If the weapon is located out of state it must be transferred to a class 3 dealer within the state, before transfer to the non FFL purchaser." Thanks again for your help. |
March 28, 2006, 12:49 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 570
|
Quote:
Whether or not I NEED to post to this forum is an invalid argument, because while I may not NEED to post to this forum, I am most certainly not complaining that there is a law preventing me from doing so...because there's not one, nor am I implying that I NEED to do so, or that the existing laws governing internet usage prevent me from exercising a constitutional right. Point being that you are ranting against the unfairness of government in restricting your use of fully-automatic weapons for pure entertainment value, whereas posting in this forum is simply partaking in a completely legal and non-regulated event; Apples and oranges. Do I go home with sad puppy faces if my rounds don't hit the target? No, but on the other side of that I don't consider 'training' to be shooting from the hip and having a rip-roaring time shooting a hundred poorly aimed rounds through my weapon because it's fun to do so... every round that leaves my weapon has a purpose, whether it be to hone target acquisition skills or dynamic shooting skills. If I don't hit the target then that's an indicator that more training is needed. So it appears that you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum here. I'm not arguing against your passion on the basis that you don't NEED a fully-automatic weapon. I am, however, arguing the logic of your decision to complain about the overly-restrictive government on the basis that the law makes it difficult for you to have fun. If you want to rant against the government's restrictive policies it should be on a more stable platform. Besides...if all you want to do is shoot it at a local range and have a kick@ss time doing it...why don't you just continue to rent the full-autos that you have already "trained" extensively on?
__________________
Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān" |
|
March 28, 2006, 05:52 PM | #32 | |||||
Member
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 29
|
Quote:
Reading comprehension > you. Quote:
The way I shoot usually follows this kind of pattern: 3/4 of the time, I'm doing my best and trying to hone my skills. The other 1/4 consists of having fun, within reason (and safety). For instance, "let's put the target all the way down range and see if we can hit it with the most inaccurate firearm we have." Obviously it is more important to you that you do your best on every shot, but I wouldn't necessarily say we're on other ends of the spectrum. Although, I'm extremely glad I'm not like you. Extremely. Quote:
Quote:
ANYWAYS, I seem to remember something about this country being founded on a concept...oh yeah, they called it freedom. The American Dream and such. I believe it has something to do with having faith that through hard work, perseverance, and determination, one can achieve a better life for oneself. Did that not include one's choice as far as recreational activities go? That is what this is, is it not? I consider it to be extremely recreational, and I happen to want to own and be able to use a fully automatic firearm for my recreational activities, but the government is very effectively stopping me from doing that. How is this not restrictive? Quote:
Plus, it would end up costing me more in the long run, I don't want to limit myself to one range, and a whole slough of other, more "practical" reasons that you are probably more receptive to, being the kind of person that you are. Going to have another go? I can do this for eternity Last edited by nrgetik; March 29, 2006 at 12:08 AM. |
|||||
March 28, 2006, 06:29 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2006
Location: Lima, ohio
Posts: 580
|
pickpocket, when the gov restricts its citizens to point at which you cannot do something or own something that does not hurt anyone else what do you call that? what if you loved to have your 9mm semi but the gov banned it or your colt sa 45lc? you dont NEED those do you, no you can just go to another caliber so then whats the point? thair is a reasn they call it freedom
__________________
(")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face! |
March 28, 2006, 06:37 PM | #34 |
Member
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 29
|
Thank you for putting it so concisely, gunslinger.
|
March 28, 2006, 06:56 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 254
|
chillout pickpocket, he wasn't tryin to start an argument. And besides, gunslinger is right
|
March 28, 2006, 11:18 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 570
|
If you guys say so. I don't think it was _my_ post that sounded arrogant and self-important, but ok.
Complain away, gentlemen. It's not as though the law came out last week.
__________________
Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān" |
March 29, 2006, 12:14 AM | #37 |
Member
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 29
|
Thanks for the go-ahead.
And you were implying that I was arrogant? Perhaps you should reevaluate things here. |
March 29, 2006, 07:09 AM | #38 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2006
Location: Lima, ohio
Posts: 580
|
pickpocket,who's post sounded arrogant and self-important?
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
(")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face! |
||
March 29, 2006, 10:41 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2005
Posts: 140
|
"You want a full-auto, join the military and become a machine gunner. "
That idea somewhat reminds me of of Hitlers statement that German civilians who wanted to use firearms should join the SS. |
March 29, 2006, 11:05 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2006
Location: West/Middle TN
Posts: 178
|
EDIT: He did not reccomend that the goverment should be overthrown, but that we have the right to fight unfair laws.
__________________
I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be the one controlling it. -Clint Eastwood |
March 29, 2006, 11:13 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 570
|
He doesn't already own his weapons and the gov't passed a law saying he couldn't own it any more... he's trying his hardest to find a LOOPHOLE in the pre-existing law so that he can get around it and purchase new ones. Two different things, the latter being a bit more irresponsible and inappropriate.
No, the law didn't come out last week, so crying about "how restrictive the government is and boohoo they won't allow me to own something I think is fun" is a bit pointless. That's what it's supposed to mean. Hitler quoters are my favorite...you guys can usually find something that Hitler said somewhere to support almost anything from pro-life to Bill O'Reilly. What exactly was your one-liner supposed to mean? Must be my mistake that the smiley at the end of my comment didn't accurately convey the humor behind it. There is almost nothing about gun control that I agree with...however, the restrictions on fully-automatic weapons is one that I do support. Why? Because they don't really serve a purpose. The fact that something is FUN is not a basis for legalizing it. If you have them, fine...but to watch people whine and cry about not being able to go buy new ones and that our "oppressive" government doesn't let us really "be free"...come on. If you really want to experience "not being free" then try living in a few other choice areas of the world and maybe your opinion about not being "free" will change somewhat. For you people who feel compelled to assume a sort of intellectual superiority and talk DOWN to others (i.e. I'm smarter than you and I'm going to beat you over the head with it) and those who feel it necessary to post pictures of weapons they've fired and thump their chest about it... grow up. Really..you should take things a bit more seriously (sarcasm)...after all, it IS the internet. If my response about "what would you DO with a full-auto" hurt your feelings, then please accept my apologies. Didn't realize this was a sensitive area. My point was that full-autos are generally impractical...so why put all that effort into getting around the law just to own one? For fun? Ok, then that's fine...but it certainly doesn't warrant the over-bloated response from you insulting not only my intelligence and reading comprehension but various other things. If you're going to insult someone, you should be sure of where they're coming from and where they've been first.
__________________
Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān" |
March 29, 2006, 11:15 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 570
|
TBlake -
Ok, that I can accept. That wasn't how I interpreted his post, but I'm open to being corrected.
__________________
Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān" |
March 29, 2006, 12:13 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2005
Posts: 140
|
Pickpocket,
I think you are a bit overly worried about offending people. I was joking about the Hitler thing, just as you were joking about the join the military thing. It is after all the internet, and my theory is that its unnesasary to worry about hurting someones feelings on the web, because if someone is so sensitive that they are offended by your statements, (or mine, which are often much worse), they really shouldn't be on this site. |
March 29, 2006, 01:19 PM | #44 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Posts: 76
|
pickpocket:
As the Supremes affirmed in the Miller case, the whole point to the Second Amendment is that the citizenry have the right to military-type guns. The military have/use fully automatic weapons, therefore the citizenry should have a right to fully automatic weapons, according to the Miller court. |
March 29, 2006, 02:59 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 570
|
U.S. v. Miller is one of the most mis-cited Second Amendment cases there is, and is usually cited as proof of the Supreme Court's hostility towards individual rights within the framework of the Second Amendment, not in support of it.
U.S. v. Miller upheld the following and nothing more:
One of the findings from the Miller court was that the 'idea' of a Militia included all males physicall capable of acting in the common defense, not whether or not one was actively engaged in doing so. This is important because the same court also found that these capable men - when called for service - were required to show up with weapons of their own and of the kind in common use at the time. The end result is that the Supreme Courts decision in U.S. v. Miller was based more on an absence of evidence than on any real inquiry into the meaning of the Second Amendment. Your statement that the citizenry have the right to own military-type weapons is technically incorrect. The official wording was that the Second Amendment protected only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia...which is the whole point of contention, now isn't it? The only real ground here for the ownership of automatic weapons is that the military currently uses fully-automatic weapons. However, there are only two shoulder-fired automatic weapons currently in use by the military and those are the MP5 (used by special forces) and the FN M249 SAW, which is a belt-fed weapon. The people who use these weapons are extensively trained, since the MP5 requires hundreds of hours of training for effective (not recreational) use; and there is a whole science behind machine gun employment. If the position is that we should be allowed to use those weapons in order to maintain an effective militia then my belief is that the requirements should be the same as those who recieve their training in the military or law enforcement. But from gunslinger's sig up there it seems he thinks that the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard...and they already have access to those weapons. The whole point of the Miller case wasn't that people should have access to "milititary type guns"...it was that if a weapon can't be shown to contribute to the rendering of an effective militia then it is not protected by the Second Amendment.
__________________
Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān" |
March 29, 2006, 04:59 PM | #46 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Posts: 76
|
pickpocket:
As near as I can tell, we're almost in agreement. The unorganized militia is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 years old. That's United States Code stuff, and is probably the basis for the draft, and the basis for the Supremes' definition of militia. The militia is clearly NOT the National Guard, which wasn't created until the 20th century. During WWII the unorganized militia in the form of older guys and younger guys was called up and instructed to bring their own arms in performing checkpoint duty near the coast. Since, in Miller, the Supremes recognized the right of the militia to have military arms, and didn't call them the National Guard, which then existed, it's obvious they're referring to the unorganized militia, which is the people described above. Interestingly, Miller could've probably gotten the sawed off shotgun charge dismissed if he'd have shown up for the Supreme Court hearing. All he had to do was prove a military use for such a weapon, which could've easily been done using trench warfare for example. IIRC Miller didn't make the hearing because he was in jail somewhere, and unrepresented. Our entire Constitution is comprised of checks and balances because our Founders believed that power can easily corrupt a man. I'm convinced that they intended for the 2nd Amendment to be the ultimate check and balance, ensuring that the people may never be disarmed via governmental tyranny. This was clearly enunciated by people like Madison, who talked of the value of all Americans being armed in Federalist #46. I also think that "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment context had a different meaning back then. It meant disciplined, drilled, and armed with military weapons. For several decades after our founding, all able-bodied men would meet on the village green for target practice and drill. We've fallen out of that habit, but that still doesn't change the fact that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment more appropriately should read "A population trained to effectively carry arms, being necessary to the security of a free state..." The meat of the Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Just because we don't meet on the village green anymore doesn't mean we can't effectively train ourselves. I already know how to march, being retired military, but I want to keep my shooting skills honed. My final point is that hundreds, if not thousands of Americans currently have Class III/NFA full auto weapons. They didn't receive any special training. They trained themselves, and there's not been any knee-deep bloodshed in the streets by any of them. The only difference is that they can afford the $15,000+ for a full auto M16, and the only reason those weapons are so expensive is because the government has artificially limited the number of these weapons to a dwindling supply. |
March 29, 2006, 05:03 PM | #47 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2006
Location: Lima, ohio
Posts: 580
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
just because the suprime court sead it doesent make it true look at the "Auxiliary weapon" something i would want if i was in a combat zone Quote:
Quote:
__________________
(")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face! |
||||||
March 29, 2006, 05:15 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 570
|
Yes, you and I are mostly in agreement.
The NFA doesn't prohibit the ownership of these weapons, it simply restricts the ability to purchase weapons covered by the Act. If you want to purchase one of these weapons, all you need is to submit the necessary paperwork and pay the $200 tax. The government understandibly wants to keep track of where these weapons are going, at least as much as they are able. One thing to consider is that the restrictions DO make it more difficult to get your hands on a full-auto weapon, whether your intentions be innocent or not. And I'm fairly happy that the odds against me having to use my carry weapon against someone with a full-auto are pretty slim. You're right, I think the Second Amendment was indeed meant as the ultimate check or balance. A well armed society is a polite society, after all.
__________________
Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān" |
March 29, 2006, 05:28 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2006
Location: Lima, ohio
Posts: 580
|
Quote:
__________________
(")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face! |
|
March 29, 2006, 05:31 PM | #50 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Posts: 76
|
But that "simply restricts the ability to purchase weapons covered by the act" is the rub. This artificial restriction causes the laws of supply and demand to kick in because of a dwindling supply of weapons. Hence $15000 for an M16, THE current military weapon. The $200 tax is nothing. If that was the only issue, there would be no issue.
And it's possible that you may have to face a full auto weapon at some point. Criminals don't bother with the $200 tax. On the other hand, I don't think there's ever been a single Class III/NFA who's ever used a full auto in a crime. Do you see my point? Criminals have them. The police have them. The military has them. Law abiding citizens generally can't, because of artificially inflated cost. |
|
|