Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

We wrote:
Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.

But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).

This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.

Offended? No. It's pretty funny.

That's my take too...

Another thing that was funny when I visited Europe... was that bewbs were everywhere. At least they got that right!

My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.

The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.

On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.

I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.

DAaddict wrote:
My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.

The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.

On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.

I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.

I'm sorry but what firearm commercially available is belt fed again?
Military grade weapons are illegal now.

No they are not you just need the proper license for them. An Example being that a Barret m82a1 cost ~$11k (.50 cal bmg semi auto).

http://shop.blueridgearsenal.com/model-82a1-rifle-system-inch-barrel-round-with-leupold-mark-4514x50mm-scope-monopod-p-31107.html

if you live in VA

 sebster wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.

The more puzzling thing is that of the crowd that thinks they need to own guns in case the government suddenly goes tyranical, very few make any noise about any of the various civil rights issues.

Your honor.. I object to this line of reasoning! Various civil rights infractions doesn't equate to full-bore tyranny.

How many are vocal about the continued operation of Gitmo?

Still vocal here in the states... but, since Obama been president, the MEDIA is quiet on this front (and you still don't think there's bias? )

Or the use of torture in the war on terror?

We don't torture... (okay, we don't know about the black sites)

Or the use of drones to kill people without trial, including Americans.

This... I kinda do have a problem with in principle. To me, the current administration is treating these sorts of things as if they're "police actions"... which is a very bad precedent in my opinion. If we're going to use these sorts of weaponary, then we need to be in a "Declared War" state with the full backing of Congress. As to American citizens in the Warzone? Sorry, they're fairgame.... they should've been aware of the risks.

But they're almost entirely silent on those issues, leaving it up to pinkos like the ACLU.

There's plenty of other groups very vocal about certain policies.

Instead they just buy guns, go out shooting and figure they're ready for the day when they have to start shooting fellow Americans.

Which we have every right to do so!

DAaddict wrote:
My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.

The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.

On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.

I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.

I've got a Remington .22lr that has an integral tube magazine that holds more than 20 rounds. I also have a .22 that looks like an M4 and uses detachable magazines that hold more than 20 rounds. Should both those require gov't permission and an additional cost to me to own? If not both, which one, or neither?

I also have a black rifle that is semi-automatic and uses magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. It was created as a civilian version of a military rifle (the mil version is capable of full auto fire, the civlian version is not). It has a bipod and a bayonet lug. Do you consider it "military purposed' though it clearly was NOT purposed that way? Define 'military grade'? The US army issues 9mm pistols, are 9mm pistols now to fit the "military grade" rules? I also own a Mosin which WAS created as a military rifle over 50 years ago. It holds less than 10 rounds (but does have a cool bayonet). Is this what you are trying to cover?

And again, you have proposed new rules that limit freedom I currently enjoy.

1. What is your goal?
2. How do your proposed rules enable that goal?

 Frazzled wrote:

DAaddict wrote:
My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.

The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.

On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.

I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.

I'm sorry but what firearm commercially available is belt fed again?
Military grade weapons are illegal now.

Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
No they are not you just need the proper license for them. An Example being that a Barret m82a1 cost ~$11k (.50 cal bmg semi auto).

http://shop.blueridgearsenal.com/model-82a1-rifle-system-inch-barrel-round-with-leupold-mark-4514x50mm-scope-monopod-p-31107.html

if you live in VA

You have to go through a special licensing process, including monitoring. Good luck finding someone who has one. Further and more importantly, has anyone with such a license ever beein involved in a crime with one? (I'll answer that for you-no)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

DAaddict wrote:
My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.

The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.

On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.

I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.

I'm sorry but what firearm commercially available is belt fed again?
Military grade weapons are illegal now.

Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.

So..you're basing your knowledge on... a tv show?

OT are those those Red Jacket jerkwads that make the horrifically bad Saigas? CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!

Knob Creek is a bi-annual meeting of people who own such weapons. I didn't just find one, I found a lot!

 Ahtman wrote:
Knob Creek is a bi-annual meeting of people who own such weapons. I didn't just find one, I found a lot!

Yes its awesome.

And now more interesting legislation from "fringe groups." Its like they woke up and wiped their ass with the Bill of Rights

http://fox2now.com/2013/01/22/gun-owners-must-contact-schools-in-proposed-legislation/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 Frazzled wrote:


And now more interesting legislation from "fringe groups." Its like they woke up and wiped their ass with the Bill of Rights

http://fox2now.com/2013/01/22/gun-owners-must-contact-schools-in-proposed-legislation/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Just saw that...

There's no chance in Poppa Nurgle's donkey-cave that this'll pass here...

DAaddict wrote:


Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.

So your own definition of 'military grade' is something that is not really military grade. Nice.

No one can justify owning a car or motorcycle capable of going more than 75mph except for fun and/or breaking speeding laws. Yet no special restrictions on the ownership of these exists (compared to other cars).

How about you answer the questions:

1. What is your goal?
2. How do your proposed rules, which limit freedoms I currently hold, meet your goal?

Just because YOU deem it ludicrous is no reason to infringe on my freedoms.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
No they are not you just need the proper license for them. An Example being that a Barret m82a1 cost ~$11k (.50 cal bmg semi auto).

http://shop.blueridgearsenal.com/model-82a1-rifle-system-inch-barrel-round-with-leupold-mark-4514x50mm-scope-monopod-p-31107.html

if you live in VA

You have to go through a special licensing process, including monitoring. Good luck finding someone who has one. Further and more importantly, has anyone with such a license ever beein involved in a crime with one? (I'll answer that for you-no)

you don't need a license for that rifle i linked. anything larger than a .50 cal requires ATF registration.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
No they are not you just need the proper license for them. An Example being that a Barret m82a1 cost ~$11k (.50 cal bmg semi auto).

http://shop.blueridgearsenal.com/model-82a1-rifle-system-inch-barrel-round-with-leupold-mark-4514x50mm-scope-monopod-p-31107.html

if you live in VA

You have to go through a special licensing process, including monitoring. Good luck finding someone who has one. Further and more importantly, has anyone with such a license ever beein involved in a crime with one? (I'll answer that for you-no)

you don't need a license for that rifle i linked. anything larger than a .50 cal requires ATF registration.

SO its already taken care. Whats your point then Buckaroo?

I was just replying to your "military grade weapons are illegal now"

 Ninjacommando wrote:
I was just replying to your "military grade weapons are illegal now"

Then define military grade? You're talking about a rifle, and a big giant honking rifle.

"Assault rifles" is a term thrown about, but the only assault rifles are available to the military.

You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

You guys are talking in circles here...

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

Only with a very specific license.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

You guys are talking in circles here...

I'm a lawyer. I don't know what "straight talking" means.

$200 and 60 days of waiting

 Ninjacommando wrote:
$200 and 60 days of waiting

More effort than that.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
$200 and 60 days of waiting

More effort than that.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

fine you have to fill out form 4 (5320.2) then $200 and a 60 day wait


but if you want a Military vehicle now then look no further than the Low cost TOYOTA HILUX!

Dictators giving you a problem? slap a UB-16-57UMP on the sucker and shoot randomly at his city!



Soviet era planes got you down? Mount a machinegun on its back and call it good



The TOYOTA HILUX solving all of your rebel needs, one pickup at a time.

 Frazzled wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

You guys are talking in circles here...

I'm a lawyer. I don't know what "straight talking" means.

Touche my good man... touche.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
$200 and 60 days of waiting

More effort than that.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

fine you have to fill out form 4 (5320.2) then $200 and a 60 day wait


but if you want a Military vehicle now then look no further than the Low cost TOYOTA HILUX!

Dictators giving you a problem? slap a UB-16-57UMP on the sucker and shoot randomly at his city!

Spoiler:

Soviet era planes got you down? Mount a machinegun on its back and call it good

Spoiler:

The TOYOTA HILUX solving all of your rebel needs, one pickup at a time.

@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?

 Ninjacommando wrote:
$200 and 60 days of waiting

Nice of you to ignore parts like:

the reverse of the form and must have the “Law Enforcement Certification” completed by the chief law enforcement officer.

In many places that is a 'may issue' and not a 'shall issue' which means ownership is impossible for residents of those municipalities.

 whembly wrote:


@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?

no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 whembly wrote:


@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?

no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.

Oh... I see.

There's a bunch of weapons that the Military gets that ARE illegal to own. I think that's was Fraz was referring to...

You're referring to FULLY AUTOMATIC (which can be military issued) which we can own provided licensing and local law enforcement official's sign off.

Hence my earlier point... we're talking in circles.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 whembly wrote:


@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?

no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.

It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.

Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."

 Hordini wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."

They've made it almost impossable to aquire these weapons, and they know where you live if you do own one.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 whembly wrote:


@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?

no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.

It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.

Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?

Military grade staplers should be banned. After all, who needs a military grade stapler?