HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A watered down, try-to-ma...

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:03 PM

A watered down, try-to-make-everyone-happy Assault Weapons Ban is worse than no ban.

False complacency is dangerous. An ineffectual AWB is worse than nothing since it simply causes us to lose focus until next time.

If I had my druthers, I'druther all guns were melted into slag. I know that won't happen and I am not asking for it. I mention it just so you know where I'm coming from - and what a guy like me is willing to tolerate and unwilling to tolerate.

If we "ban" only fully automatic weapons but allow semi automatics, what have we accomplished?

If we ban large clips/magazines/barrels, but don't make simple ownership of ones already in one's possession illegal and confiscatable, what have we accomplished?

Any AWB going forward needs to be a SERIOUS AWB. Not some pap to placate the gun owners and manufacturers and sellers.

Connecticut has , right now, on the books, a good example of the kind of AWB we *don't* need.




90 replies, 4017 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply A watered down, try-to-make-everyone-happy Assault Weapons Ban is worse than no ban. (Original post)
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 OP
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #1
Hoyt Dec 2012 #2
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #3
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #4
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #6
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #15
Recursion Dec 2012 #88
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #7
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #10
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #16
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #20
hack89 Dec 2012 #11
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #14
hack89 Dec 2012 #17
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #22
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #24
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #25
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #26
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #29
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #31
Recursion Dec 2012 #89
hack89 Dec 2012 #38
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #39
shadowrider Dec 2012 #69
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #81
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #80
hack89 Dec 2012 #83
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #21
hack89 Dec 2012 #27
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #34
hack89 Dec 2012 #37
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #82
hack89 Dec 2012 #84
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #90
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #41
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #47
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #51
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #52
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #55
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #59
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #63
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #67
uppityperson Dec 2012 #54
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #57
uppityperson Dec 2012 #58
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #61
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #62
shadowrider Dec 2012 #70
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #40
Iggy Dec 2012 #77
Xithras Dec 2012 #48
Recursion Dec 2012 #87
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #12
X_Digger Dec 2012 #19
bossy22 Dec 2012 #28
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #30
jmg257 Dec 2012 #44
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #5
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #68
cali Dec 2012 #8
Kaleva Dec 2012 #23
former9thward Dec 2012 #43
Kaleva Dec 2012 #50
former9thward Dec 2012 #73
Kaleva Dec 2012 #78
former9thward Dec 2012 #79
Kaleva Dec 2012 #85
former9thward Dec 2012 #86
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #60
former9thward Dec 2012 #72
frazzled Dec 2012 #9
libdem4life Dec 2012 #36
hack89 Dec 2012 #13
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #18
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #33
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #45
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #49
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #53
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #32
shadowrider Dec 2012 #71
graham4anything Dec 2012 #35
former9thward Dec 2012 #42
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #64
former9thward Dec 2012 #74
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #75
forestpath Dec 2012 #46
Kaleva Dec 2012 #56
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #65
99Forever Dec 2012 #66
Iggy Dec 2012 #76

Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:04 PM

1. K&R (I vote for slag too)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:15 PM

2. I agree. A lot of the fun cultists have invested in his capable mags, and multiple assault weapons.

They need to be banned, and turned in. Rewarding bad behavior is not a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:18 PM

3. The time for placating gun nuts has passed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:18 PM

4. If you make them "illegal and confiscatable," how do you propose to ENFORCE that law?

Without enforcement, such a law is no less pointless than the previous laws that you rightly disparage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:27 PM

6. I do not propose raids on legal gun owner's houses. I DO propose serious penalty for failure . . . .

. . . . to surrender them. So serious, that surrendering will seem a good option.

And not jail time, maybe, but perhaps taking away the person's right to won *any* weapon, including a butter knife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:37 PM

15. I think you'd see such a law widely ignored, frankly.

I also think you'd see widespread reluctance in very many local jurisdiction to do much to even passively enforce such a law (that is, to make an arrest even when presented with all but the most blatant evidence of illegal possession). In a great many parts of the country, there is virtually zero local law enforcement support for such measures...and the LEOs tend to be friends with a lot of gun owners. It would be a federal law...and federal law enforcement personnel are not high in number.

Perhaps we'll see how something like this plays out..but I think we'll have to break the GOP hold on the House first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:50 AM

88. Oh, you'd see the hammer come down on minorities who ignore the ban, anywhere

I can promise you that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:28 PM

7. Same way we did here in Australia.

 

Had an amnesty period, and don't really care what you've got burried in your backyard. But if you're caught with it later, you're screwn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:32 PM

10. I have little doubt...

...that literally millions and millions of US gun owners would take that risk and ignore the ban. the net result? A barrier between those people and law enforcement, eliminating cooperation where it previously existed. Oh, and not the slightest reduction in rates of gun-related violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:38 PM

16. You mean there is no barrier between gun owners and the rest of us now? Cooperation???? Hahahaha

We already have that. If that's the worst of it, then I say we go for it right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

20. Um...no, that's not what I meant at all.

I thought I was perfectly clear: I'm referring to the existing cooperation between the large majority of gun owners and law enforcement. that cooperation would cease in the face of a widely-ignored gun ban. The former group would suddenly have something to hide from the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:35 PM

11. You also bought back all those now illegal guns

I doubt the US government really wants to spend billions of dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:37 PM

14. I would vote for that

Buy 'em back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:40 PM

17. So how do you get all the criminals to turn in their weapons?

seeing how they don't obey laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

22. Most mass shootings were done by guns owned by law abiding citizens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:47 PM

24. Yes, and...?

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun-related homicides in any given year. If the goal is to reduce the latter figure in a meaningful way, targeting spree killers is rather obviously not how to go about it. If, on the other hand, you're more concerned with mass shootings, then I'd have to call that a skewed priority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:49 PM

25. In Australia, the assault weapons ban decreased gun-related murders by 59%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:50 PM

26. Are you claiming that nearly 60% of murders previously were committed by those weapons?

Or is this a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:57 PM

29. There might be a link

Also, there were 11 mas shootings in the 10 years before the ban. Thare has been only one massshooting in the 16 years following the ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:01 PM

31. Then that could possibly lead one to believe...

...that a ban, with buyback, might reduce mass-shootings in the US, assuming that unaccounted-for differences between the respective cultures don't factor in. Oh, and assuming that sufficient numbers of US owners of the banned weapons elect to accept the buyback, of course...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:51 AM

89. We've had a larger decrease in gun murders over the same time period

And we kept the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:11 PM

38. What about the other 95% of gun deaths that are not mass shootings?

don't they count?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:03 PM

39. Probably over 99%, and they don't seem to count.

And reducing mass-murder by bomb, arson, and other means doesn't count either.

And of course, touching the third-rail means good-bye WH, good bye Senate, and good bye SCOTUS. You can forget healthcare, forget addressing GW, forget gay marriage, forget blocking an overturn of Roe v Wade. Hello austerity for the 99% and hello Drill, Baby, Drill. Hello President Ryan. This country is teetering on the edge, the levee holding back extreme wingnutism is fragile...and the anti-gun zealots want to dynamite it. God help us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:12 AM

69. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:52 PM

81. You know something. If you collectively really are...

 

...such arseholes in America then the best thing for the rest of the world is total republican victory followed by the inevitable total breakdown in society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:47 PM

80. Well since a good many more of those deaths...

 

...are "accidental" shootings, getting rid of guns (or a large proportion of them) helps more than just the victims of mass murder.

Even ignoring mass murders entirely, banning semi-automatic weapons resulted in a nearly 60% reduction in gun related homicides here in Australia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #80)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:11 PM

83. No - most are murders

surely you are familiar with the bloody gang violence that permeates America's inner cities?

That is the real problem to be solved - the day to day criminal violence. Most places in America are just as safe as Australia - where I live there have been exactly two murders in 15 years. Violence is very concentrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

21. Cops in schools is going to cost billions, billions per year in fact

There's roughly 100,000 public schools in the USA, at one cop per school that's probably at least five billion per year.

And one cop isn't going to to much good in a larger school, some of them have thousands of students.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:52 PM

27. I would spend the money on physical security for school

locks, doors, cameras, etc - make it harder for a shooter to get into a school and gain enough time for the cops to arrive or to get students into safe rooms.

The proposed AWB will not be retroactive. Even if it was, it won't address handguns so schools will still be under the same threat they are under right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:10 PM

34. Then you're getting up into DoD level expenditures

Making schools physically secure is going to cost a great deal of money, hundreds of billions, this is particularly true if you're trying to avoid making the schools look like armed fortresses or prisons.

Look at the money spent on the TSA and they have yet to catch a terrorist through their efforts. There's a lot more schools than commercial airports in this country.

Lanza shot his way through a window to gain entry to the school, short of replacing all windows with bullet resistant ones there's no way to stop someone doing that unless the windows are all made smaller than a small adult can get through.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:06 PM

37. What other choice is there?

guns are not going to magically disappear. It is very unlikely that any legislation will actually ban anything and include actual confiscation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:53 PM

82. FUCKING GROW UP AMERICA! /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #82)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:12 PM

84. My irony meter just blew up. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:27 PM

90. This place is endlessly amusing, innit?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:16 PM

41. You're wrong.

Just having bars on the front door would have prevented the gunman from entering the school, even after shooting out the glass in the door.About $250. And the gunman was able to walk into the classrooms because the teachers didn't have the keys needed to lock the doors from the inside. A lack of fucking keys. About $2 each.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:51 PM

47. You think?

Whole bunch of windows on that school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:20 PM

51. A fence would keep him away from the windows,

Students would be relatively safe lying on floor, or in hallways. The security measures only need to hold long enough for police to arrive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:29 PM

52. But I thought putting bars on the door would be sufficient?

Will the fence have razor wire on top?

And will the fence resist having a car or truck driven through it at speed?

You really haven't thought this through, securing something like an elementary school against a determined and intelligent attacker is not a trivial task.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:51 PM

55. Its done in courthouses and other govt buildings around the country

There's no reason schools can't also be better secured.
inre cars and trucks: Isn't your arguement that banning assault weapons would prevent all mass murders? If you're now suggesting that mass killers will find alternate means, then you are making my case for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:13 PM

59. Certainly there are quite a few well secured buildings in the USA..

It's also rather expensive to get them that way, particularly if they weren't designed from the ground up to be secure.

Evidently you think the killer(s) will be walking and not driving to the school with their assault rifles, I have no idea why you would assume that.

Your problem is that you're thinking like a law abiding member of society, in order to stop a suicidal crazy person determined to instigate a mass killing you have to anticipate what that crazy person might do, like driving a car through a fence in order to breach it.

I'm not even remotely a security expert and I have managed to render your proposals ineffective with almost no thought.

Of course schools can be made more secure but to think it's going to be done for $250 to put bars on the front door is so naive I have difficulty believing you are actually serious.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:08 PM

63. There are any number of ways a school (continuing that example) could be attacked.

Yes, its possible an attacker builds a mortar, installs it in a fortified bunker, and lobs cannoballs at the school for several hours. However, that possibility is infinately small.
We have to look at the likely possibilities, which would vary from school to school. The likelyhood of an attacker tunnelling under a ground level school to plant a bomb is small. A school built above ground, or that has an accessable crawl space has a higher risk.
Some schools may already have a low risk to an attack by vehicle. Some schools may have vulnerable spots, but which could be protected by landscape elements like trees and concrete benches. A bridge near my house is protected from 800' freighters by concrete dolphins around the bridge supports.
Some schools may be so old that any expensive security devices are better off on hold, until a new school is built. In that case, there may be temporary measures that are suitable.
And, as I noted, this can be paid for with money taken from some combination of military or homeland security budgets, or gun tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:40 AM

67. All of the scenarios will require analysis and design by trained (expensive) personnel

The whole idea of a crazed gunman attacking a school is a low probability event but with 100,000 public schools even fairly low probability events are going to happen from time to time.

Paying for it all is going to be another battle, one probably more difficult even than figuring out how to stop a killer in the first place.

Get the schools secured and the next attack may come at a school bus, those often have more than 20 kids on board and they are horribly vulnerable to a mass killer with guns.

Our society is headed down a rabbit hole of ever escalating violence and expensive ameliorating strategies that will serve to reduce all our freedoms other than the one to have a gun.

The rest of the developed world is looking at us in bewilderment, wondering why our culture is going insane when in reality it's only a relatively small minority of fearful individuals who are driving the insanity, those individuals are the ones that have been snapping up assault rifles this week. Something that bothers me a considerable amount is that most of those people look a lot like me, I even know some of them and for the most part they aren't evil at their core but they have bought into actively evil propaganda promulgated by the NRA and the Republican party for pecuniary and political gain.

I haven't the foggiest idea how to solve that problem.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:49 PM

54. Would a lock on the classroom door have stopped someone with this much firepower?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:06 PM

57. It stopped him from entering classrooms that were locked.

I don't know the door details of that particular school, but most schools already have pretty solid classroom doors to prevent fires from spreading. Yes, there's all kinds of scenerios where he might shoot through walls, etc. All the security has to do is slow him down enough until police arrive, and prevent him from getting into the classrooms where he picks off kids huddled in the corner at point blank range. He didn't get in the classrooms that were locked, all the kids in those classrooms survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:09 PM

58. You didn't answer my question. Would a door lock stop someone with that much firepower?

Yes, they might try a door and more on, but my question is would a simple lock stop someone with that much firepower? If they wanted to, could they not simply shoot out that $2 lock?

He passed by locked doors, this is different than not being able to enter. Could he have shot out a $2 lock?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:31 PM

61. The doors already have locks built in,

if they're the same as doors I'm familiar with. Its part of the door latch. They cost much more than $2 - that was reference to the cost of a key, the lack of which prevented the unlocked doors from being locked. The doors themselves are probably a thick, heavy, wooden core, encased in a steel shell. That is what fire code usually calls for. The door frames the doors are mounted in are even heavier steel. It is possible, with his .223, that he could eventually blast his way in. More than likely though, one of three things happens first: his gun overheats and jams after that many rounds are fired, he is injured by flying shrapnel from the door or riccocheting bullets, or the police arrive and kill him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:43 PM

62. Here is link:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_door

A heavy machine gun might blast through the door in a couple minutes. It would take him a while with an assault rifle. These are perfectly common doors, installed in schools and commercial buildings around the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:16 AM

70. A determined shooter will not waste time trying to shoot out a door lock

not when he/she can simply walk down the hall and find open ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:11 PM

40. I agree 100%.

We've already got physical security measures in places like courthouses, govt offices, and legislative buildings. I don't think doing so at schools is a problem at all. Very simple and inexpensive measures would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, or at least greatly reduced the casualties. The money to do this can be taken from the military, homeland security, or a gun tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:06 PM

77. SO WHAT??

 

let's say one cop at $80K per year salary per school-- that's $8 Billion per year.

Apparently you "forgot" Iraq cost us $8 Billion PER MONTH for years. why is that expenditure acceptable to you-- and not $8 billion per year? or even if the cost was $12 Billion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:03 PM

48. "Billions"? Try a hundred billion dollars, in all probability

While determining an exact average is nearly impossible (some guns are almost worthless, while others are worth thousands), let's say, for the sake of argument, that the average firearm in the U.S. is worth around $500. That's probably low, but you can extrapolate on your own from there.

According to the FBI, there are around 200 million firearms in the U.S. that are owned by purely private people (that factors out the police, etc).

200,000,000x500 = $100,000,000,000, or $100 billion dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:48 AM

87. I dunno. If it's the only way to pass a stimulus... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:36 PM

12. Did that include a buy back program?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:42 PM

19. You also had a buy-back, at MSRP prices.

Good luck coming up with the funds for THAT in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:55 PM

28. Different cultures

Gun rights influence is alot greater in the u.s. then it was in australia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:58 PM

30. Maybe

Unfortunately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:26 PM

44. You think that would be hard? Pass laws with penalities severe enough

To make law abiding gun owners think REAL hard about becoming felons and losing everything vs. hording their stash for 'self defense'. Count on complaints by neighbors, let the ATF go through all those 4473 forms and see who bought what...watch those warrants be issued.

It won't take much...really. Just the ight laws, some stepped up law enforcement, attrition, and the willingness to see it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:22 PM

5. Full autos are covered under the 1934 Gun Control Act

Yes, you could have a 50 cal machine gun, but boy you will be filling paperwork for months... Oh and the background check...my god.

Just so we are accurate. The law has worked so well that it's been decades since oh...a tommy was used in a crime.

I would like to see that law cover all semis. Won't happen. But proof, pudding and all that.

Will it happen? Not in this environment. If we get a limit on magazines and close the gun show loophole...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:40 AM

68. It's been many decades since an incredibly rare and valuable (not to mention archaic)

 

Thompson was used in a crime. But I will bet you whatever you like that several crimes were committed just last night with any number of fully automatic pistols and rifles.

That Act made the legal ownership of full-auto weapons very difficult. Criminals aren't concerned with legally owning them, they just steal, buy, or modify them.

Don't you live in LA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:29 PM

8. fully automatic weapons are already banned and have been since 1934

I think any movement is toward greater gun control is a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

23. No they are not banned. It is legal for most any law abiding adult to own one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:22 PM

43. Yeah go to your local gun store and try and buy one in the same manner you would buy any gun.

You well know that you have to have a special license to get one, pay a huge tax and they are regulated as long as you own one. Very few people have them and they have not been involved in these mass killings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:18 PM

50. Nothing you say supports the statement that they are banned.

The tax isn't huge. It's $200.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:03 PM

73. For the purposes of this debate they are effectively banned and you know it.

They are not freely available and are not treated as other guns and you know it.

10 Requirements to Buy a Machine Gun.

Have about $4,000+ cash ready to spend. You will need to pay for the gun, at least one $200 revenue stamp tax, and some money to a Class III dealer to complete the transfer for you.

1. For Machine Guns, the firearms must have been made prior to 1986. Since there are only a certain amount of these weapons still in circulation, the prices continue to rise as each year passes.

2. You must make sure it is legal to own these items in the state you reside in. These rules only address Federal Law, not State and Local Laws.(i.e. don't even apply if you are in places like New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, and about nine others).

3. You must be an American Citizen at least 21 years of age.

4. You must be of sound mind (not crazy or mentally incompetent).

5. You must not be an abuser of alcohol or illegal drugs.

6. You must not have been convicted of any felonies

7. You must pay a $200, one time, Federal Tax (also known as a Federal Transfer Tax or a Tax Stamp).

8. You must complete what is called a BATF Form 4 and submit to the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

The application requires that you get a signature from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer stating that he or she has no knowledge that you intend to use the firearm, suppressor, or short barreled rifle for anything other than lawful uses.

9. You will need to get fingerprinted and photographed and submit these with your BATF application.

10. Generally, you must wait about 3 months after you have submitted everything before it gets approved. The FBI has to process everything, verify your identity and background, etc.

You may not take possession of the item(s) before the transfer is approved.

Now please tell me this is the same as any other gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #73)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

78. Pretty close to what one has to do to get a Concealed Pistol License in Michigan

A. State Requirements

Applicants for a Michigan Concealed Pistol License must:

1. Be at least 21 years of age

2. Be a citizen of the United States or an immigrant alien lawfully admitted into the United States

3. Be a resident of the State of Michigan for at least 6 months prior to application. An applicant is a state resident if one of the following applies:

The applicant possesses a valid, lawfully obtained Michigan driver's license or state identification card
The applicant is lawfully registered to vote in Michigan
The applicant is on active duty status with the United States Armed Forces and stationed outside of Michigan, but Michigan is the home of record
The applicant is on active duty status with the United States Armed Forces and is permanently stationed in Michigan, but the home of record is another state

Note: The 6-month residency requirement may be waived by the concealed pistol licensing board for new residents licensed by another state.

4. Have successfully completed a pistol safety training course

5. Not be subject to any of the following:

An order requiring involuntary hospitalization or alternative treatment
An order finding legal incapacitation
A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity

6. Not be subject to a conditional bond release prohibiting purchase or possession of a firearm

7. Not be subject to a personal protection order

8. Not be prohibited from possessing, using, transporting, selling, purchasing, carrying, shipping, receiving, or distributing a firearm under MCL 750.224f

9. Have never been convicted of a felony in Michigan or elsewhere

10. Have no felony charge pending in Michigan or elsewhere

11. Have not been dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces

12. Have not been convicted of one of the following misdemeanors in the 8 years immediately preceding the date of application:

Failing to stop when involved in a personal injury accident, MCL 257.617a
Operating while intoxicated, second offense, MCL 257.625(9)(b)
Drunk driving, commercial vehicle, MCL 257.625m(4)
Reckless driving, MCL 257.626
Driving while license suspended or revoked, second or subsequent offense, MCL 257.904
Operating aircraft while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance with prior conviction, MCL 259.185
Hindering or obstructing certain persons performing official weights and measures duties, MCL 290.629
Hindering, obstructing, assaulting, or committing bodily injury upon director or authorized representative, MCL 290.650
Operating an ORV under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense, MCL 324.81134(5)-(6)
Operating a snowmobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense, MCL 324.82127 punishable under section MCL 324.82128(1)(b) or (c)
Operating a vessel under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense, MCL 324.80176 punishable under MCL 324.80177(1)(b)
Possessing a controlled substance, controlled substance analogue, or prescription form, MCL 333.7403.
Operating a locomotive under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, or while visibly impaired, MCL 462.353(4)
Displaying sexually explicit matter to minors, MCL 722.677
Assault or domestic assault, MCL 750.81
Aggravated assault or aggravated domestic assault, MCL 750.81a
Breaking and entering or entering without breaking, MCL 750.115
Fourth-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b
Accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a
Vulnerable adult abuse, MCL 750.145n
Solicitation to commit a felony, MCL 750.157b
Impersonating a peace officer or medical examiner, MCL 750.215
Illegal sale of a firearm or ammunition, MCL 750.223
Illegal use or sale of a self-defense spray, MCL 750.224d
Sale or possession of a switchblade, MCL 750.226a
Improper transportation of a loaded firearm, MCL 750.227c
Failure to have a pistol inspected, MCL 750.228
Accepting a pistol in pawn, MCL 750.229
Failure to register the purchase of a firearm or a firearm component, MCL 750.232
Improperly obtaining a pistol, making a false statement on an application to purchase a pistol, or using false identification to purchase a pistol, MCL 750.232a
Intentionally aiming a firearm without malice, MCL 750.233
Intentionally discharging a firearm aimed without malice, MCL 750.234
Possessing a firearm on prohibited premises, MCL 750.234d
Brandishing a firearm in public, MCL 750.234e
Possession of a firearm by an individual less than 18 years of age, MCL 750.234f
Intentionally discharging a firearm aimed without malice causing injury, MCL 750.235
Parent of a minor who possessed a firearm in a weapon-free school zone, MCL 750.235a
Setting a spring gun or other device, MCL 750.236
Possessing a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug, MCL 750.237
Weapon-free school zone violation, MCL 750.237a
Indecent exposure, MCL 750.335a
Stalking, MCL 750.411h
Fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e
Reckless, careless, or negligent use of a firearm resulting in injury or death, MCL 752.861
Careless, reckless, or negligent use of a firearm resulting in property damage, MCL 752.862
Reckless discharge of a firearm, MCL 752.863a

Note: The applicant must not have violated a law of the United States, another state, or a local unit of government of this state or another state substantially corresponding to a violation described above.

13. Have not been convicted of one of the following misdemeanors in the 3 years immediately preceding the date of application:

Operating under the influence, MCL 257.625
Refusal of commercial vehicle operator to submit to a chemical test, MCL 257.625a
Ignition interlock device reporting violation, MCL 257.625k
Circumventing an ignition interlocking device, MCL 257.625l
Operating a commercial vehicle with alcohol content, MCL 257.625m(3)
Operating an aircraft under the influence, MCL 259.185
Operating an ORV under the influence, MCL 324.81134
Operating an ORV while visibly impaired, MCL 324.81135
Operating a snowmobile under the influence, MCL 324.82127
Controlled substances, MCL 333.7401 to 333.7461
Operating a locomotive under the influence, MCL 462.353(3)
Disorderly person, MCL 750.167
Embezzlement, MCL 750.174
False pretenses with intent to defraud, MCL 750.218
Larceny, MCL 750.356
Second-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356d
Larceny, vacant building, MCL 750.359
Larceny, by conversion, MCL 750.362
Larceny, defrauding lessor, MCL 750.362a
Malicious destruction of property, MCL 750.377a
Malicious destruction of real property, MCL 750.380
Receiving stolen property, MCL 750.535
Malicious use of telephones, MCL 750.540e

Note: The applicant must not have violated a law of the United States, another state, or a local unit of government of this state or another state substantially corresponding to a violation described above.

14. Have not been found guilty but mentally ill of any crime and has not offered a plea of not guilty of, or been acquitted of, any crime by reason of insanity

15. Have never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness

16. Not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment

17. Not be under a court order of legal incapacity in this state or elsewhere

18. Not be detrimental to the safety of his or her self or any other person if issued a Concealed Pistol License

B. Federal Requirements

Pursuant to MCL 28.426, a Concealed Pistol License may not be issued to a person prohibited under federal law from possessing or transporting a firearm. The federal requirements to possess or transport a firearm include that the applicant:

1. Not have been convicted in any court of, or under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (i.e. felony, or any misdemeanor punishable by more than 2 years)

2. Not be a fugitive of justice

3. Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)

4. Not be adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution

5. Not be an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

6. Not be discharged from the United States Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions

7. Not have renounced his or her citizenship

8. Not be subject to a court order prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

9. Not be convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

79. To buy a automatic weapon you need the signature of the Chief law enforcement person.

In your jurisdiction. Not necessary for any other gun. If he refuses to sign you are out of luck unless you wish to spend thousands of dollars fighting it in court. Getting a machine gun even if you can meet all the rules will take months and thousands of dollars for the weapon and taxes. Not remotely comparable to other weapons. This is a red herring anyway since automatic weapons have not been used in any mass killings anywhere. Since 1934 there have only been two people killed by automatic weapons (both by law enforcement personnel).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:34 PM

85. Something I wouldn't have any trouble getting.

There are 16 states in the country that are "may issue" or "no issue" in regards to concealed carry. Michigan is a "shall issue" state but until a few years ago, one needed the permission of the local chief law enforcement officer to get a permit to conceal carry a handgun.

Cost is relative. I'm on SSDI and I can't afford an automatic weapon nor can I afford the costs associated with getting a CPL. Heck, I can't afford a basic handgun and some ammo fire it either.

But you are correct. The prices of legal automatics makes them unaffordable for the great majority of citizens. For the poor, most any gun is pretty much unaffordable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:36 AM

86. I live in a state where there are no rules for concealed carry (AZ).

If you can legally own a gun then you can conceal carry it with out anything further. I have zero interest in owning an automatic whether I could afford it or not. If they banned them completely it would not bother me. Since they have to be before 1986 they eventually will disappear as time goes on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:14 PM

60. Interesting. I own a legal full auto. Now, tell me more about how these are "banned".

 

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:48 PM - Edit history (2)

Max-11/9mm, fun little bullet hose. With the right accessories, it's very controllable and can hit tin cans out to about 100yds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:58 PM

72. Interesting you are trying to mislead others about the availibilty of these weapons.

For the purposes of the gun control debate they are effectively banned and you know it.

10 Requirements to Buy a Machine Gun.

Have about $4,000+ cash ready to spend. You will need to pay for the gun, at least one $200 revenue stamp tax, and some money to a Class III dealer to complete the transfer for you.

1. For Machine Guns, the firearms must have been made prior to 1986. Since there are only a certain amount of these weapons still in circulation, the prices continue to rise as each year passes.

2. You must make sure it is legal to own these items in the state you reside in. These rules only address Federal Law, not State and Local Laws.(i.e. don't even apply if you are in places like New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, and about nine others).

3. You must be an American Citizen at least 21 years of age.

4. You must be of sound mind (not crazy or mentally incompetent).

5. You must not be an abuser of alcohol or illegal drugs.

6. You must not have been convicted of any felonies

7. You must pay a $200, one time, Federal Tax (also known as a Federal Transfer Tax or a Tax Stamp).

8. You must complete what is called a BATF Form 4 and submit to the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

The application requires that you get a signature from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer stating that he or she has no knowledge that you intend to use the firearm, suppressor, or short barreled rifle for anything other than lawful uses.

9. You will need to get fingerprinted and photographed and submit these with your BATF application.

10. Generally, you must wait about 3 months after you have submitted everything before it gets approved. The FBI has to process everything, verify your identity and background, etc.

You may not take possession of the item(s) before the transfer is approved.

Now please tell me this is the same as any other gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:31 PM

9. Starting to take back the issue is the most important thing

For too many years, the laws and attitudes have titled ever more toward a "pro-gun, no regulation, concealed-carry" status. Anything we can get passed that puts the brakes on this onslaught will help turn us around. We can add legislatively to anything, but if we wait for the "perfect" law, we'll be waiting forever. In the meantime, more will die, and the Wayne Pierres of the world will win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:22 PM

36. Absolutely. That's how it got this bad. Change the Conversation, quickly.

300,000,000 guns X $100 flat fee each for legal re-registering, due to national emergency and for the purpose of protecting elementary school children...2 or more Officer Friendlys at every school. How to do this exactly, I haven't thought out, but could it be done? Yes. And does it pay the bill...yes.

Tax bullets 200% and new weapon purchases 20%. I have no idea what kind of revenue that would bring in...but it is definitely possible. We did it with cigarettes.

Then we'll start sponsoring all those Lefty Hollywood types to start a series of concerts across the nation, for contribution to the school funds.

This is a no-brainer. There must be the will, however. And, a new gun organization to rival the NRA for sane, legal, responsible, gun owners. One that works hand in hand with equally sane, legal and responsible educators, law enforcement, religious, and political leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:37 PM

13. So have we been lied to the past 10 years about the AWB they have tried to pass?

the one they intend to reintroduce?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:40 PM

18. Yeah, actually, I think we have.

Lots of exceptions and ambivalence. "No" doesn't mean "no".

An AR 15 with a flash arrester is an assault rifle. The identical gun without it is not.

THAT sort of bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:05 PM

33. This is why I think the meat of the AWB is actually the restriction on hi-cap magazines.

Like I said below, I'm interested in how much hot lead a weapon can send out the barrel per minute or per second. Dial that down.

I don't care about pistol grips or collapsible stocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:28 PM

45. The high-cap magazines are a red herring.

They have a tendancy to jam, as the Aurora shooter's did. They add extra weight to the gun, making wielding it more difficult. The ban is easily defeated by "jungle taping" magazines together. And swapping out standard magazines only takes a couple seconds.
Extra-capacity magazines don't have a legitimate purpose, and there's reasons why even the military doesn't use them. But don't expect banning them to have any impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:09 PM

49. What would you suggest? N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:41 PM

53. Suggestions:

Banning private sales, so person to person sales have to be done through a dealer as broker. Dealer handles paperwork for background check, and holds the gun for the waiting period. Whatever licensing and registration to make that work. Big penalties for breaking the law. Since dealers would be expected to charge a fee for the service, they would stand to make a fair amount of money, and just might support it. This would reduce the numbers of guns on the streets, in the hands of robbers, gangs, teen thugs, etc...whom are commiting the majority of homicides. They are already breaking the law by owning a gun, the best way to prevent them from having a gun is to make them more difficult to get. I'm not naive to believe it will eliminate all guns on the street, but should make a measurable difference.

Suicides... are about 60% of all gun deaths. A longer waiting period may help. Better mental health care will help. Some may pick other ways of attempting to kill themselves, but perhaps survive less lethal methods.

Mass murder... are statistically small numbers, even though they make big headlines. Again, better mental health care would help. Better early warning...there was all kinds of red flags about Columbine killers, that police, school, courts, and mental health care professionals ignored. Better security at large gathering places can be improved. This will also deter mass murderers using other weapons than just guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:03 PM

32. What I'm interested in is the speed at which a particular weapon can send hot lead out the barrel.

Full-autos, already illegal, except in limited, strictly-enforced circumstances - they're already out of circulation for most spree-killers.

Semi-autos - clearly a problem, as illustrated in Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tuscon, etc.

I'm not as concerned about revolvers, break-action shotguns, or even pump-action shotguns, bolt or lever-action rifles, or anything that's single-shot.

For semi-autos, it's time for magazine caps. Five or ten shots max, then you have to reload. That limits the speed at which hot lead comes out of the barrel.

As far as other "assault weapon" traits, like pistol grips, collapsible/folding stocks, heat shields, flash-suppressors, evil black paint jobs, I don't care. If your gun has racing stripes on it, I don't care. I'm concerned with the quantity of hot lead that comes out of the barrel - if you can fire a hundred shots in less than a minute from an ammo drum, that's overkill (in some cases, literally.) Time to replace the drum with a ten-shot magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:22 AM

71. You do realize

A pump action shotgun can do far worse damage than a semi-auto, right?

See Aurora. Most of the people in the theater were killed by shotgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:18 PM

35. I note in some of the replies, the same old gunnies arguing the same stale point

 

it is like a hostage situation

the NRA thinks they are on equal footing.
No, its just a loud obnoxious vocal few people compared to the masses

I always say 10% of something is better than nothing
that is a water down bill
Then in January we will have another mass killing

so we get another 10%

someday all the 10% gains will equal=100%

it will take a decade, but things don't happen overnight

Or it can be done like Lincoln did...he just did it, then ratified it to make sure it sticks.
Obama just won reelection. The people want him to do whatever he wants to do.
That is why he won a landslide

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:18 PM

42. "If we "ban" only fully automatic weapons but allow semi automatics"

Fully automatic weapons have been banned since the 1930s. No one is trying to make them legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:37 PM

64. At the federal level, machine guns were not banned, just heavily restricted.

Depending on your state laws, they are still legal to own. Lots of folks do own them. Since the registry is no longer open, the supply is fixed thus leading to crazy prices due to supply and demand.

No "assault weapon" ban has ever addressed machine guns in any way, shape, or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:05 PM

74. They are completely illegal in 13 states.

A lot of people do not own them compared with other guns.

10 Requirements to Buy a Machine Gun.

Have about $4,000+ cash ready to spend. You will need to pay for the gun, at least one $200 revenue stamp tax, and some money to a Class III dealer to complete the transfer for you.

1. For Machine Guns, the firearms must have been made prior to 1986. Since there are only a certain amount of these weapons still in circulation, the prices continue to rise as each year passes.

2. You must make sure it is legal to own these items in the state you reside in. These rules only address Federal Law, not State and Local Laws.(i.e. don't even apply if you are in places like New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, and about nine others).

3. You must be an American Citizen at least 21 years of age.

4. You must be of sound mind (not crazy or mentally incompetent).

5. You must not be an abuser of alcohol or illegal drugs.

6. You must not have been convicted of any felonies

7. You must pay a $200, one time, Federal Tax (also known as a Federal Transfer Tax or a Tax Stamp).

8. You must complete what is called a BATF Form 4 and submit to the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

The application requires that you get a signature from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer stating that he or she has no knowledge that you intend to use the firearm, suppressor, or short barreled rifle for anything other than lawful uses.

9. You will need to get fingerprinted and photographed and submit these with your BATF application.

10. Generally, you must wait about 3 months after you have submitted everything before it gets approved. The FBI has to process everything, verify your identity and background, etc.

You may not take possession of the item(s) before the transfer is approved.

Now please tell me this is the same as any other gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:53 PM

75. I never claimed it was the same as any other gun.

I just stated the fact that it was still legal.

However, 3-6 apply to all guns (except the age for rifles/shotguns is 18).

My state Washington is one of the states that says no to machine guns. Folks just store them with friends out of state (Oregon, Idaho).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:33 PM

46. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:59 PM

56. Regulate the ammo for these guns

Regulate for sale to civilians rimless, semi-rimmed, and rebated center fire cartridges with a bullet diameter of less then 6.5mm in diameter and a case length of less then 50.8mm. Cases intended for sale to self loaders would also be covered by this.

I believe the above would affect almost all semi-automatic handguns but not revolvers. A number of common hunting rounds use rimless cartridges but the bullet diameter is 6.5mm or greater and their case length is 50.8mm (2 inches) or longer. The 7.62X39mm used in
semi-auto AK-47s and the SKS carbine has a case length of less then 50.8mm so it would be affected.

By regulate I mean that any civilian who wishes to purchase such would have to first go thru similiar procedures one does in many states in acquiring a CPL.

Here is a link to a site listing the requirements to get a CPL in Michigan:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:56 PM

65. Agreed. I want REAL gun control. No fig leaves

Sen. Feinstein said that she's been working on the ban for a year, and she thinks it will pass and work out this time, because she's worked with the NRA and manufacturers to develop a list of 900 guns EXEMPT from the ban. (heard her on a sunday show)


Great


I want real Australia-style gun control that will actually reduce the gun carnage. Nothing being discussed even comes close. Nothing being discussed would have prevented Sandy Hook.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:05 AM

66. Couldn't agree more.

The insanity has to end. Now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:01 PM

76. An Assault Weapon Ban Alone is Worthless:

 

The answer involves several, well coordinated, comprehensive efforts:

1.) Much more mental health care/monitoring of students to determine who has a problem and a plan to deal with the problem-- not for a few months, but for the entire time the student is in school. Bullying of gay or "different" kids must stop. there must be a zero tolerance policy for this, including stiff fines for parents who don't stop their bully kids. I'm sick of idiot parents who think this is amusing and it's OK for their kids to be bullies.

2.) Much better school security systems, including identifying who is driving up to a school, parking there (or nearby), why are they there, etc. Video surveiilance has to be part of this. Think schools can't afford this? BULLsh**; tell it to congress who just spent $2 Trillion on two worthless wars of choice. Time to priortitize how our money is spent.

3.) Ban the purchase of guns/ammo/gear without registration & permit at gun shows.

4.) Much stricter laws, and a long waiting period for those wanting to purchase semi-automatic weapons. I'd be in favor of making the
permit fees for these weapons much more expensive.

5.) ban large capacity magazines/clips.

Failure to make these changes means the absurd slaughter will continue in our nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread