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.

 Easy E wrote:
I love the "Red Dawn" fantasies in this thread.

My favorite scene from the remake of Red Dawn is still that speech at the end. Just photoshop a turban onto Josh Peck's head and give him a beard and you've probably got a great remake of some speech some Afghani guy gave in a cave somewhere

The irony was delicious.

 Grey Templar wrote:

nfe wrote:
The assumption that US civilians would be a more effective opposition to the US military than the insurgencies that have been fighting it and its allies overseas is disappointingly hubristic.

No, it's really not. Read up on insurgencies. The US is one place you would never want to fight an insurgency in.

I wouldn't want to fight one anywhere. I wouldn't make blanket assumptions about the relative effectiveness of the insurgents anywhere, either. Especially not if I was going to be comparing what are frequently the recently deposed actual military, highly trained paramilitaries, and people with fully, if outdated, military hardware fighting a force commanded by a democracy observing international law (to a degree, anyway) with an imagined militia that may or may not materialise in any significant numbers fighting a tyrannical dictatorship/martial state that's ruthless enough to have gone to war with its own people.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[



Repeating firearms existed prior to, or developed/produced, during the American Revolution.


Puckle Gun-1718

Giradoni Air Rifle-1779 (famously carried during the Lewis and Clark Expedition)

Kalthoff Repeater-Late 17th Centurt

Cookson Repeater-Late 17th Century

Belton Flintlock-circa 1777: This one was demonstrated to members of the Continental Congress.


So, this tired, old argument of the Founding Fathers crafted the Second with only single shot, muzzle loading flintlock muskets in mind doesn't hold water.

Actually, it goes a bit further than that. George Washington himself owned a 15-shot pistol he was quite proud of. Ben Franklin owned a matching set of repeating rifles that "technically" had detachable magazines (totally crude by today's standards though). Franklin stated that his biggest disappointments with those rifles were that they were so rare and expensive that the every-man would never be able to have one, and that he hoped it would one day change. Looks like he got his wish.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many guns can I buy/sell as a private person before I become a dealer?

It's more to do with intent than anything else. If you are trading in firearms with the express purpose of making a profit (i.e. running a business) without a Federal Firearms License, you do so at your own risk. It's a felony under Federal Law. And it's easier to get caught than many might think.

How much money can I make before it’s a business?

 Easy E wrote:
I love the "Red Dawn" fantasies in this thread.

The problem is, the fantasy involves killing their own countrymen. SAD!

One of the greatest, underrated films of the 1980's.

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many guns can I buy/sell as a private person before I become a dealer?

Honestly I think people just get distracted by the wording, and by that I mean people who want to ignore the discussion see "loophole" and realize they have an out from actually talking about the topic because it's not really a loophole. A loophole defines an ambiguity or absence in law that allows something that logic/reason/rationality would suggest shouldn't be allowed under said law. For example a law that bans the distribution of alcohol to minors but does not define what distribution means as the law is concerned.

Technically there is no loop hole in gun control laws as it pertains to gun shows. It's just a normal hole, and to be fair I think it's important to recognize this is a hole not just for gun sales but sales of a lot of things. There are innumerable ways to operate as a "private seller" who is for all intents and purposes an unregistered and unlicensed business that completely avoids most of the taxes and regulations associated with being a business. The "gunshow loop hole" is really the same thing, because the laws and regs that define what a business is are pretty easy to avoid if you dash in a little communism, operate out of your garage/shed, wave an American flag, and talk about freedom and how much this big rifle will help you protect yours

That’s what I was trying to get at regarding the arguments about the loophole itself when I made my earlier post.

A building full of guns needs checks or not depending on who is selling all those guns.

 d-usa wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many guns can I buy/sell as a private person before I become a dealer?

It's more to do with intent than anything else. If you are trading in firearms with the express purpose of making a profit (i.e. running a business) without a Federal Firearms License, you do so at your own risk. It's a felony under Federal Law. And it's easier to get caught than many might think.

How much money can I make before it’s a business?

Are you selling guns for a living? Are you doing it for the express purpose of turning a profit or supplement your income? It that your primary occupation? Do you have a Federal Firearms License and a local business license?


The amount of money made or invested is irrelevant. It's the intent that is the key.

Do you get the picture now?

So there is no quantifiable means to determine if a seller should be required to do a background check. It’s a case of “I know a dealer when I see one”.

 d-usa wrote:
So there is no quantifiable means to determine if a seller should be required to do a background check. It’s a case of “I know a dealer when I see one”.

If you have a FFL, you are required to perform a check prior to transference of the firearm to the buyer.

We established that. What we are talking about now is that there is no real guideline to determine at which point you need a FFL.

One of the criteria mentioned is “are you supplementing your income”. If I’m short 50 bucks and I am going to get my water turned off tomorrow, I am selling the gun to supplement my income. So does that make me a dealer? What’s the dollar limit elevating me from random citizen selling his gun and FFL supplementing his income by selling his gun?

 d-usa wrote:
We established that. What we are talking about now is that there is no real guideline to determine at which point you need a FFL.

One of the criteria mentioned is “are you supplementing your income”. If I’m short 50 bucks and I am going to get my water turned off tomorrow, I am selling the gun to supplement my income. So does that make me a dealer? What’s the dollar limit elevating me from random citizen selling his gun and FFL supplementing his income by selling his gun?

Also curious here. Asking for a friend....

 whitedragon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We established that. What we are talking about now is that there is no real guideline to determine at which point you need a FFL.

One of the criteria mentioned is “are you supplementing your income”. If I’m short 50 bucks and I am going to get my water turned off tomorrow, I am selling the gun to supplement my income. So does that make me a dealer? What’s the dollar limit elevating me from random citizen selling his gun and FFL supplementing his income by selling his gun?

Also curious here. Asking for a friend....

Is that a friend, or a "friend"

Also, is that seriously what the law says? I have no idea what it says but if its that that's a really stupid yard stick. Selling anything supplements income, unless we're using some weird definition of supplement income.

Is it a date, or is she supplementing her income?

 d-usa wrote:
We established that. What we are talking about now is that there is no real guideline to determine at which point you need a FFL.

Oh ok, sorry, my mistake

 d-usa wrote:
Is it a date, or is she supplementing her income?

I vote we all just leave the thread now, cause it's just not going to get any better from here XD

EDIT: Exalt.

Desubot wrote:He certainly could of just driven into the crowed in some car. and car is really easy to get.

If I remember correctly you usually need show competence to get a license, you are not allowed to use it while intoxicated, and need insurance, regular checks so your car complies with safety standards, and the license to be allowed to use a car can also be revoked if can't comply with those points. Guns are not that controlled.

nfe wrote:The assumption that US civilians would be a more effective opposition to the US military than the insurgencies that have been fighting it and its allies overseas is disappointingly hubristic.

The majority of the population would just hop along with whatever the tyrannic government would do. There is no one switch, law, or incident that makes the government evil and then everyone magically gets their rifles and does the patriotic thing they fantasise about. It's a process and at the end you are on the "tyrannic" side of spectrum without having passed a big warning sign that shows you when you need to act.

After 9/11 the US government did restrict right in all kinds of ways and the population went along with it (± some protests against the Patriot Act and expanded use of national security letter that literary forbid you to talk about them (that sounds like a First Amendment issue). And if you look at how the military and law enforcement are often deified or portrayed as doing the right thing/being the good guys, a lot of "patriots" would probably end up following and working for the needs of a tyrannic government instead of opposing it. Just look at this NRA ad.

So would a reasonable change be to outlaw these conversion kits or conversions in general or add ons to semi-automatic rifles to make them fully or near fully automatic be something that would fly?

I see these kids being illegal soon with only moderate opposition. A number of republican lawmakers are already stating that “accessories” don’t have the same protections as weapons themselves.

Again, if these "common sense gun laws" are the solution, then why do countries like Canada that have already passed them, and laws far more stringent then them, still say more laws are required?

Why do we always need more of it?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So would a reasonable change be to outlaw these conversion kits or conversions in general or add ons to semi-automatic rifles to make them fully or near fully automatic be something that would fly?

Converting a firearm from semi to full auto is already illegal.

Bumpfire stocks do not alter the mechanical function of the trigger. It is still semi auto. One trigger pull, one shot fired.

They can try to ban the product, of course, but as others have pointed out you can bump fire a semi auto without one anyway.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So would a reasonable change be to outlaw these conversion kits or conversions in general or add ons to semi-automatic rifles to make them fully or near fully automatic be something that would fly?

Outlawing 'conversions in general' won't fly.

I suspect it will be easier to put bans and limitations on aftermarket modifications, mostly because it's already really easy to put bans and limitations on aftermarket modifications.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
[



Repeating firearms existed prior to, or developed/produced, during the American Revolution.


Puckle Gun-1718

Giradoni Air Rifle-1779 (famously carried during the Lewis and Clark Expedition)

Kalthoff Repeater-Late 17th Centurt

Cookson Repeater-Late 17th Century

Belton Flintlock-circa 1777: This one was demonstrated to members of the Continental Congress.


So, this tired, old argument of the Founding Fathers crafted the Second with only single shot, muzzle loading flintlock muskets in mind doesn't hold water.

Actually, it goes a bit further than that. George Washington himself owned a 15-shot pistol he was quite proud of. Ben Franklin owned a matching set of repeating rifles that "technically" had detachable magazines (totally crude by today's standards though). Franklin stated that his biggest disappointments with those rifles were that they were so rare and expensive that the every-man would never be able to have one, and that he hoped it would one day change. Looks like he got his wish.

Franklin also liked the little French girls sitting on his lap in their salons when he was stationed there. My favorite line from his first almanac "if you ride a horse, sit close and tight; if you ride a woman, sit gentle and light". Wise man, horny pedophile, that guy. Good thing we have over two hundred years of experience to build upon and develop from those wise old dead guys. Too bad we forgot the "enlightenment" and "age of reason" idea they were always on about. I still think the turkey should have been our national bird. He was on to something there.

 Nostromodamus wrote:


They can try to ban the product, of course, but as others have pointed out you can bump fire a semi auto without one anyway.

Clearly, the solution is to ban all automatic weapons and go back to just muskets.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So would a reasonable change be to outlaw these conversion kits or conversions in general or add ons to semi-automatic rifles to make them fully or near fully automatic be something that would fly?

Converting a firearm from semi to full auto is already illegal.

Bumpfire stocks do not alter the mechanical function of the trigger. It is still semi auto. One trigger pull, one shot fired.

They can try to ban the product, of course, but as others have pointed out you can bump fire a semi auto without one anyway.

Its a workaround though designed to make the gun fire faster than a reasonable finger can trigger each round.

There was a really good episode of Law and Order where Jack McCoy brought charges against a gun manufacturer for purposefully making a weapon that could be easily modified into an automatic and marketing the weapon as such.

The ending was great XD

 easysauce wrote:
Again, if these "common sense gun laws" are the solution, then why do countries like Canada that have already passed them, and laws far more stringent then them, still say more laws are required?

Why do we always need more of it?

This guy speaks of a Canada that isn't really real outside of paranoid gun nuts' fever dreams. There is no war on guns in Canada. I could get a rifle or a handgun if I wanted, within reasonable restrictions.

 LordofHats wrote:
There was a really good episode of Law and Order where Jack McCoy brought charges against a gun manufacturer for purposefully making a weapon that could be easily modified into an automatic and marketing the weapon as such.

The ending was great XD

Which episode was that?

 LordofHats wrote:
There was a really good episode of Law and Order where Jack McCoy brought charges against a gun manufacturer for purposefully making a weapon that could be easily modified into an automatic and marketing the weapon as such.

The ending was great XD

If I remember correctly, the Judge throws out the jury verdict, berates McCoy for being a douche, and says that laws are to be made through Congress and not the Courts. Good ruling.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
There was a really good episode of Law and Order where Jack McCoy brought charges against a gun manufacturer for purposefully making a weapon that could be easily modified into an automatic and marketing the weapon as such.

The ending was great XD

If I remember correctly, the Judge throws out the jury verdict, berates McCoy for being a douche, and says that laws are to be made through Congress and not the Courts. Good ruling.

That's the one! They don't make TV that riveting anymore. No sir.

Which episode was that?

Gunshow, Season 10 Episode 1 (1999).