namelesstavern.net

Actually, people started buying up weapons immediately after he was elected

that was exactly what I was trying to say, but I think I said it wrong. I thought your machine gun comment was in response to my initial statement of "and you're STILL buying up guns even though he's never, ever mentioned taking away guns." What I was trying to say (in response to what I thought was your response to me about the administration talking about taking away assault weapons) was that when people ran to the store to buy up all every firearm in sight just because he was elected it wasn't specifically for machine guns - it was mostly pistols and rifles (at least around here.)

believe me, I'm well aware of how fast people ran to get a gun when he was elected - that was my whole point, really. I clearly just suck at talking.

Eziekial wrote:Actually, people started buying up weapons immediately after he was elected. I had to search over 4 months for my M1A and the cost had almost doubled. Ammo is hard to come by. If you don't believe me, check out the site cheaperthandirt.com and look how many of the cheaper ammos are out of stock or "limited supply". Look up .223 ammo (that's AR15 which is the civilian equivalent to the M16 or .308 which I need for the M14.

And it's not because "I can, dammit".

yeah this sort of thing has been all over the news. assault weapons at gun shows are basically disappearing. and reporters found out that it's akin to going to a store to buy a candy bar. for a few extra dollars most vendors wouldn't even ask for your ID, much less do a background check. it's pretty scary

and the ammo shortage is kinda also due to the war in Iraq FYI because distributors have to give first priority to the armed forces

Drem wrote:and the ammo shortage is kinda also due to the war in Iraq FYI because distributors have to give first priority to the armed forces

I think Ziek is the armed forces from what I recall

Eziekial wrote:Actually, people started buying up weapons immediately after he was elected. I had to search over 4 months for my M1A and the cost had almost doubled. Ammo is hard to come by. If you don't believe me, check out the site cheaperthandirt.com and look how many of the cheaper ammos are out of stock or "limited supply". Look up .223 ammo (that's AR15 which is the civilian equivalent to the M16 or .308 which I need for the M14.

And it's not because "I can, dammit".

So what exactly do you need an assault rifle for it its not because "I can, dammit"?

yeah the only purpose of an assault weapon is to kill multiple assailants in a short amount of time. there's no other way to cut it. it's a tool for killing human beings

"assault weapon" lol

are those the big scary black ones? omg

anything that's automatic imo. there's just no need unless you're storming a grizzly bear cave for lost gold or you're killing tons of people or somethin

The Second Amendment didn't ensure these rights so people could go hunting. They ensure these rights so when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Because we may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.

Drem wrote:anything that's automatic imo. there's just no need unless you're storming a grizzly bear cave for lost gold or you're killing tons of people or somethin

what do you mean by "automatic"?

automatic to me means you pull the trigger and the weapon continues firing until all rounds available are spent without releasing the trigger. This does not include weapons that fire in say 3 round bursts, however IMO there is no need for that either.

the term "assault weapon" is very misleading according to some reports a shotgun is an assault weapon

when is a weapon not an assault weapon?

isn't assault implicit in the very idea of a weapon?

Ah, Brin is getting close. If I could only post pictures

By the way, I just bought a .223 rifle from a fellow sailor who happens to be a law enforcement officer. guess what the wait time was or what paper work we had to file for the exchange. Bonus if you can guess what type of tender was used

Oooh, let me guess:

1) Wait: No waiting

2) Currency: Blow jobs


-Arlos

1: Bingo
2: WOOT!

Does it matter what the rate of fire is? I can show you videos of a man shooting a revolver faster than you can see and that includes reloading. As a member of the military, I've had a bit more training than the average person in the use of firearms. Also, in the course of training, I have talked to a lot of people in law enforcement / military who are experts in firearms and they never use the terms "assault". It's a bullshit term. A weapon is a weapon. They have different uses but at the end of the day they are just tools like any other. Some manic in Texas can go crazy with a chain saw and kill dozens and we call make a movie. Some nut ball in Virginia goes on a rampage on a college campus with a couple pistols and kills a bunch of kids and it's a day of morning.

Police routinely carry automatic weapons.
Our military carry automatic weapons.

Are you ok with me having an automatic weapon while I'm walking around in uniform and when I go home at night with the weapon?

Eziekial wrote:Ah, Brin is getting close. If I could only post pictures

By the way, I just bought a .223 rifle from a fellow sailor who happens to be a law enforcement officer. guess what the wait time was or what paper work we had to file for the exchange. Bonus if you can guess what type of tender was used

no paperwork is required by first sale doctrine when buying any weapon from an individual

this is the gun show loophole people are annoyed with even though there is no corrolation between gunshow guns and gun crimes

To be fair, though, there ARE laws against selling to felons or to crazy people. Good reasons for them too. As I've said before, I am in no way against law-abiding responsible citizens buying and owning firearms, but a loophole that allows people with a history of violent crime or dangerous mental illness to buy firearms with no checks or restrictions whatsoever would seem to be wide open for abuse.

-Arlos

Arlos, you make it seem like the world if full of crazy and dangerous people on every corner. Seriously, if that was true we are better off just nuking the world and starting over.

The true is, very few people are crazy or violent. As a society, we have to allow some risk to be free. We can't be "selective" with freedom. That leads to one group selecting themselves over another and eventually subjugation of all people by the few in power. We have established the mechanism for exclusion by allowing the government to decide who, what and when. Think back to how you all felt with W at the helm and his warrantless wiretapping on US citizens. We may feel like we have turned a corner and are in an age of transparency but just as quickly as that curtail was drawn back, so can it be closed to conceal under a new administration.

Zeek, I'm not suggesting any drastic new laws or anything, just that gun show sales should have to follow the same rules as everywhere else. If you're a law-abiding citizen, they're no barrier whatsoever to obtaining the weapons. You might just have to wait a few days, which I don't consider a serious attack on your freedom and liberty, especially as once you HAVE the weapon, you can take it wherever you want (with the obvious exception of concealed handguns into public, etc.)

I'm not saying there's mass quantities of loonies and violent people prowling around, but as the Virginia Tech shootings taught us, they *DO* exist. Now, I know that wasn't a gun show, but they were one of the states that didn't do a mental health background check.

In any case, as I said, I would never be for trying to take your guns away or prevent you from buying and owning guns legally, not so long as the 2nd amendment exists, anyway. As I have stated multiple times, all I think should be required is passing a gun safety test to be able to take them home as opposed to storing them at a gun range, say. Classes would be available, but not required, as lots of people, especially ex-military or people who grew up around guns wouldn't need the classes to pass the test, and thus shouldn't have to pay for them.

Anyway, going back to the original point, I am, as I said, in no way asking for any new restrictions to you or anyone else law-abiding from buying weapons. I just think that gun shows should have to abide by the same laws as gun stores, and no, I don't see that as an attack on liberty.

-Arlos

Republicans are fucking stupid. I think that's been proven over and over again.

Arlos wrote:Zeek, I'm not suggesting any drastic new laws or anything, just that gun show sales should have to follow the same rules as everywhere else. If you're a law-abiding citizen, they're no barrier whatsoever to obtaining the weapons. You might just have to wait a few days, which I don't consider a serious attack on your freedom and liberty, especially as once you HAVE the weapon, you can take it wherever you want (with the obvious exception of concealed handguns into public, etc.)

I'm not saying there's mass quantities of loonies and violent people prowling around, but as the Virginia Tech shootings taught us, they *DO* exist. Now, I know that wasn't a gun show, but they were one of the states that didn't do a mental health background check.

In any case, as I said, I would never be for trying to take your guns away or prevent you from buying and owning guns legally, not so long as the 2nd amendment exists, anyway. As I have stated multiple times, all I think should be required is passing a gun safety test to be able to take them home as opposed to storing them at a gun range, say. Classes would be available, but not required, as lots of people, especially ex-military or people who grew up around guns wouldn't need the classes to pass the test, and thus shouldn't have to pay for them.

Anyway, going back to the original point, I am, as I said, in no way asking for any new restrictions to you or anyone else law-abiding from buying weapons. I just think that gun shows should have to abide by the same laws as gun stores, and no, I don't see that as an attack on liberty.

-Arlos

Passing a gun safety test, is a new restriction whether you believe so or not. Surely it is a restriction with good intention in mind, but then, most restrictions are. The fundamental issue with this however, is what other constitutional right do you need to pass a test for in order to exercise? Should we test news anchors for bias before allowing private corporations to put them on TV? Should we test voters for the ability to name more than 1 of the candidates before they cast their vote?

Restricting the private sale of firearms between two individuals opens a ridiculous can of worms that has nothing to do with firearms. It has everything to do with private property rights, and the lack of interstate commerce, which is required for Congress to have any power to legislate on it. Which they have. If I desire to sell a rifle to a man in Utah, I can, but I have to ship the rifle to a dealer (FFL) in Utah, who does a back ground check on the buyer before transferring the rifle to him. This is interstate commerce, and regulated as such. If I want to sell a rifle at a gunshow in the next town over, I'm making a private intrastate transaction that Congress has little if any power to control. Gun shows are not "loopholes." They're a gathering of private individuals conduction private transactions, intrastate. Dealers also sell guns at gun shows, and they DO background checks on their buyers, as required by law. I can understand why this is confused by those who report on gun shows, since it would take a little bit of research instead of simple hysteria to get it straightened out.

Drem wrote:

Eziekial wrote:Actually, people started buying up weapons immediately after he was elected. I had to search over 4 months for my M1A and the cost had almost doubled. Ammo is hard to come by. If you don't believe me, check out the site cheaperthandirt.com and look how many of the cheaper ammos are out of stock or "limited supply". Look up .223 ammo (that's AR15 which is the civilian equivalent to the M16 or .308 which I need for the M14.

And it's not because "I can, dammit".

yeah this sort of thing has been all over the news. assault weapons at gun shows are basically disappearing. and reporters found out that it's akin to going to a store to buy a candy bar. for a few extra dollars most vendors wouldn't even ask for your ID, much less do a background check. it's pretty scary

and the ammo shortage is kinda also due to the war in Iraq FYI because distributors have to give first priority to the armed forces

This is simply not true. You can't "slip Bubba a $20" and get out of a back ground check. If a FFL dealer is selling firearms, whether at his storefront or at a gunshow, he is required by law to do Federal NICS back ground checks. He isn't going to risk the multiple $100k fines, the 10 year federal prison terms, for a "few extra dollars." FFL dealers are some of the most audited regulated business people in the country. The BATFE is relentless in their pursuit of fraudulent FFL dealers, and punish them to the full extent of the law for even minor paperwork mistakes. As I explained above, if you see a gun bought at a gunshow with no back ground check, then it was a private transaction between two individuals. Congress doesn't have the power to regulate it any further than what the law says about whether the buyer can legally own a firearm: IE not a felon, over 18, no domestic assault, etc. If you sold a car to a habitual drunk driver, is it your responsibility to do a background check on him? Of course not. Even so, many many private individuals who buy and sell firearms ask for ID, or refuse the sale if it doesn't appear legitimate.

Gidan wrote:automatic to me means you pull the trigger and the weapon continues firing until all rounds available are spent without releasing the trigger. This does not include weapons that fire in say 3 round bursts, however IMO there is no need for that either.

You're referring to automatic firearms as if they're sold willy nilly at gun shows, which is simply not the case. First, lets define Title 1 and Title 2 firearms. A Title 1 firearm is what you can go into WalMart, or Ace Hardware, or your local gunstore and purchase with a valid ID and clean background check. These include bolt actions, pump actions, shotguns and rifles and handguns of different varieties. And semiautomatic weapons. Title 2 firearms are much, much more heavily restricted. These include automatic weapons, which are the most restricted of all. So restricted in fact, that in 1986 Congress passed a rider on the FOPA bill called the Hughes Amendment that banned the new manufacture of any fully automatic weapons for civilian sales. Since May 1986 not a single new automatic has been sold to a civillian (except in one known case, where a congressman allegedly talked the ATF into accepting his registration form on a gun not yet in the registry.)

Now think about that for a second. An automatic, or a machine gun, would be highly desirable to a lot of people, yeah? But the amount of machine guns available to the public is limited to what was registered before 1986. So their price has skyrocketed. Currently, for an M16, which costs the exact same amount to manufacture as an AR15 (say $1000 retail) commonly sells for $16,000. Sixteen thousand dollars. Aside from the restricted price, a civilian who wants to own a Title 2 firearm needs to register it with the BATFE, which is a time consuming process including duplicate Form 4s, duplicate passport photos, duplicate FBI fingerprint cards, a signature from a chief law enforcement officer in the applicants jurisdiction stating there are no local ordinances banning the firearm he's attempting to buy, and $200 for the tax stamp affixed to the approved forms.

As an aside, the BATFE defines a machine gun as any gun firing more than 1 round with 1 action of the trigger, so yes, 3 round burst is also a machine gun and regulated as such. Even a malfunctioning semi automatic rifle that fires 2 rounds with one trigger pull because of worn parts is considered a machine gun. Ask David Olofson of Wisconsin, who was convicted of unlawful transfer of a machine gun because his semi automatic rifle malfunctioned at a shooting range in front of a couple police officers.


Ziek, I hope to god you don't actually shop from those bastards at Cheaper than Dirt. If you need .308, I can show you some much better places to shop.

Minrott, you missed my earlier explanation of that issue. Basically, I argued for no restrictions whatsoever on buying or owning guns (beyond the felon/crazy person limitation, obviously). It was a restriction from storing the weapons at your home, car, place of business, etc. If you didn't want to take the test, you could store the guns at a firing range or other similar location, and use it there to your heart's content.

But, given the obvious risk for injury to life and limb to people who can't be bothered to actually keep their guns in a safe manner (don't bother with trigger locks, etc. etc. etc.), it just seems like a combination of requiring someone to prove they know how keep guns safe plus harsher penalties to NOT doing so (since you proved you at least should know better) is not an unreasonable restriction, since if you don't want to bother, you can, as I said, keep your firearms at some approved storage location.

-Arlos

Minrott wrote:

Gidan wrote:automatic to me means you pull the trigger and the weapon continues firing until all rounds available are spent without releasing the trigger. This does not include weapons that fire in say 3 round bursts, however IMO there is no need for that either.

You're referring to automatic firearms as if they're sold willy nilly at gun shows, which is simply not the case. First, lets define Title 1 and Title 2 firearms. A Title 1 firearm is what you can go into WalMart, or Ace Hardware, or your local gunstore and purchase with a valid ID and clean background check. These include bolt actions, pump actions, shotguns and rifles and handguns of different varieties. And semiautomatic weapons. Title 2 firearms are much, much more heavily restricted. These include automatic weapons, which are the most restricted of all. So restricted in fact, that in 1986 Congress passed a rider on the FOPA bill called the Hughes Amendment that banned the new manufacture of any fully automatic weapons for civilian sales. Since May 1986 not a single new automatic has been sold to a civillian (except in one known case, where a congressman allegedly talked the ATF into accepting his registration form on a gun not yet in the registry.)

Now think about that for a second. An automatic, or a machine gun, would be highly desirable to a lot of people, yeah? But the amount of machine guns available to the public is limited to what was registered before 1986. So their price has skyrocketed. Currently, for an M16, which costs the exact same amount to manufacture as an AR15 (say $1000 retail) commonly sells for $16,000. Sixteen thousand dollars. Aside from the restricted price, a civilian who wants to own a Title 2 firearm needs to register it with the BATFE, which is a time consuming process including duplicate Form 4s, duplicate passport photos, duplicate FBI fingerprint cards, a signature from a chief law enforcement officer in the applicants jurisdiction stating there are no local ordinances banning the firearm he's attempting to buy, and $200 for the tax stamp affixed to the approved forms.

As an aside, the BATFE defines a machine gun as any gun firing more than 1 round with 1 action of the trigger, so yes, 3 round burst is also a machine gun and regulated as such. Even a malfunctioning semi automatic rifle that fires 2 rounds with one trigger pull because of worn parts is considered a machine gun. Ask David Olofson of Wisconsin, who was convicted of unlawful transfer of a machine gun because his semi automatic rifle malfunctioned at a shooting range in front of a couple police officers.

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with why they are sold, I was simply stating what an automatic weapon was. However to this point, not a single of the pro gun people has answered a simple question.



What possible use does a civilian have for owning an automatic weapon?



In regard to gun shows not being a loophole. Think again, that is exactly what it is. If you want to purchase a weapon, you need to have a background check done UNLESS you purchase it at a gun show in which you can completely bypass the requirement. This allows you to simply bypass the law which by definition, is a loophole in the law. Also you know damn well that not every transaction taking place at a gun show is "legal". There are a considerable number of shady deals worked out at them where individual run a business of selling weapons to those who are not able to legitimately buy them from a gun shop.

This is simply not true. You can't "slip Bubba a $20" and get out of a back ground check. If a FFL dealer is selling firearms, whether at his storefront or at a gunshow, he is required by law to do Federal NICS back ground checks. He isn't going to risk the multiple $100k fines, the 10 year federal prison terms, for a "few extra dollars." FFL dealers are some of the most audited regulated business people in the country. The BATFE is relentless in their pursuit of fraudulent FFL dealers, and punish them to the full extent of the law for even minor paperwork mistakes. As I explained above, if you see a gun bought at a gunshow with no back ground check, then it was a private transaction between two individuals. Congress doesn't have the power to regulate it any further than what the law says about whether the buyer can legally own a firearm: IE not a felon, over 18, no domestic assault, etc. If you sold a car to a habitual drunk driver, is it your responsibility to do a background check on him? Of course not. Even so, many many private individuals who buy and sell firearms ask for ID, or refuse the sale if it doesn't appear legitimate.

Simple solution, go to the next bubba at the gunshow who is not an FFL dealer and just buy it from him, he wont require any pesky background check and you can buy anything. BTW, did you know that it is illegal to sell tobacco or alcohol to a minor? I am not talking about just at a store, but even on the street. If a minor comes up to you and asks to buy your 6 pack, it is against the law to sell it to them even though this is a private translation between 2 individuals. There is a long standing tradition of government over site on the sale of items between private parties, weapons purchases should certainly not be excluded from this. Those laws are there to protect citizens of this country not to make your life harder.

Lets take this example. A multiple murder escapes from prison and is on the run. He wants to get a weapon. All he has to do is find a gun show with someone willing to sell to him no questions asked. Being a fairly easy thing to do, your escaped multiple murder now has a weapon and ammo to do with as he pleases. The law attempts to protect us from this, but due to that loophole, he is now on the street armed. If gunshows simply were required to follow the same law every gun shop is required to follow, this would have been avoided.

Minrott wrote:Passing a gun safety test, is a new restriction whether you believe so or not.

Not trying to pick on anyone but this is not true. I've got a friend of mine whom I'm trying to talk out of buying a hand gun (he only wants to buy it because another friend asked to go to a fireing range). He has gone to a couple of gun shops and talked to them about the process, other then the background check a few days delay, nothing else was required.

I was just given a 12 gauge shotgun w/ exposed hammers.

There is no paperwork involved, just saying, "here, you can have this."

Is that legal?