Are stricter gun laws, BANS coming to the land of the free?

[Beetlegeuse]

Anybody who believes that the crafters of the US Constitution had no concept of rapid-fire weaponry is ignorant of firearm history. During the American Revolution, some obscure guy named GEORGE FUCKING WASHINGTON contracted with a gunmaker named Joseph Belton to buy 100 of his rifles employing a sliding hammer-and-frizzen device and the principle of superimposed charges that could discharge as many as 16 rounds as fast as you could reposition the action and pull the trigger.

There are no known surviving Belton rifles but this is a photo of an early 19th Century 12-shot adaptation of the Belton design made by Isaiah Jennings. Which was built commercially in a variety of configurations, some of which were sold to the New York state militia.

But General Washington backed out of the deal because he thought Belton was asking for "unreasonable compensation."

But wait, there's more!

Thomas Jefferson owned a 20-shot Girandoni rifle, which could fire all 20 rounds in under 30 seconds. He liked it so well that when he outfitted the Lewis & Clark expedition, he saw to it that they had two of them, which became their primary meat guns.

But wait, there's more!

In 1717, James Puckle invented what essentially was a 1.25-caliber, tripod-mounted, hand-cranked 'revolver' he hoped to market to the British navy to be used in repelling anyone who would board their ships by force. It was similar in function to Richard Gatling's revolving "machine" gun, which it predated by about 140 years.

The Puckle gun didn't work well but its lasting contribution to the evolution of the species was the term Puckle used to desctibe his invention in the sales brochure. He called it a "machine gun."

But wait, there's more!

In 1680, Michele Lorenzoni invented a lever-action flintlock that loaded ball and powder from separate internal magzines when the shooter cycled a lever underneath the action, and could be reloaded as fast as the shooter could cycle the lever.

A few years later an Englishman named John Cookson started manufacturing Lorenzoni rifles in London. Some of his guns from as early as 1690 still exist. By 1750 (and if your math is weak, 1750 comes before 1787), John Shaw (another Englishman) had moved to Boston -- the hotbed of the American Revolution -- and was manufacturing Lorenzoni-pattern rifles under the name "Shaw's Cookson Volitional Repeater."

And remind me how many of the Founding Fathers were living in Boston in 1750?

But wait, there's more!

Nobody knows for sure who designed it but some time in the early 17th Century (possibly as early as 1630), the Kalthoff iron works in Denmark was manufacturing a lever-actuated repeating rifle that was similar in its operation to the Lorenzoni.

Above, a surviving Kalthoff repeating flintlock rifle.
Below, an animation of how cycling the Kalthoff's operating lever loaded powder and shot from separate internal magazines. Yes, it had to be aimed upwards to facilitate its gravity-assisted operation.



But wait, there's more!

This is a German rifle whose origins are lost to history but it dates from about 1580. What's unique about it is that it fired two sequences of superimposed charges in rapid succession by means of a gunpowder-filled "touch hole" running the length of each of the bullets, which is exactly the same technology as is used in a Roman candle. And in the modern lexicon, any firearm that discharges more than one shot from a single operation of the trigger is called a "machine gun."

Behold, the 1580 machine gun:



But wait, there's more!

The image below is from a late 14th Century Chinese military historical work called the Huolongjing. It depicts a weapon it called the "divine fire arrow shield," which basically was a box full of big-ass bottle rockets with arrowheads on them, which could be fired either sequentially or in a single volley.



And this wasn't a depiction of a contemporary weapon, this was something that already was centuries old when this was printed. Which would put it back to within a century or two of the invention of gunpowder.

Except for the Girandoni, all of these were too fickle in operation or too expensive/difficult to build to be practical, but their impracticality isn't the point. The point is that all the way back to within a couple of hundred years of the discovery of gunpowder, history records that they weren't satisfied with single shot firearms. Not even from the very beginning. They wanted multi-shot arms, and the faster they fired, the better.

The problem was, the supporting technology necessary to make something like the AR-15 hadn't been developed yet. It wasn't that such a weapon was inconceivable, it wasn't lack of imagination, it was the primitive nature of science -- primarily chemistry and metallurgy -- that was impeding its development.

And in the case of the firearm, the linchpin was the self-contained, one-piece metallic cartridge. Except there was never going to be a practical metallic cartridge until someone invented the percussion ignition device (AKA the "percussion cap" or "primer"). But once those two bits of technology came to pass, the rest already was in place and it was off to the races.

If that's too much to get your head around, I can make the same analogy with aviation.

Man probably has dreamt of flying since the first time he looked up in the sky and saw birds on the wing. The Greek myth of Daedalus and Icarus and their wax wings probably dates from about the middle of the second millennium BC.

Da Vinci sketched conceptual helicopters and ornithopters in the 15th Century.

The Montgolfier brothers started sending farm animals aloft in their hot air balloons in the early 1780s. By 1783, using a more advanced prototype, Étienne Montgolfier became the first human to experience sustained flight.

In 1871, Alphonse Pénaud held a public demonstration of his latest invention, a self-propelled (unmanned) airplane that was the predecessor to the rubber-band powered toy airplane. It remained aloft for 11 seconds.

In 1891, Otto Lillienthal designed, built and flew what in modern terms would be called "a hang glider." Lillienthal was the world's first true aviator.

And in 1903, the Wright Brothers achieved man's 3500-year-old dream of sustained flight.

But aviation wasn't done there. Da Vinci conceived of and designed a crude helicopter 400 years earlier, but no one managed to build a practical 'copter until the late 1930s. Which might seem odd because the helicopter's method for generating lift is much more straightforward and intuitive than the principle that allows an airplane's wing work. Especially since the invention of the electric fan, everyone in the modern world could understand (at least a simplified explanation of) how a helicopter could achieve flight. So how come the airplane got there first?

Intuitive or no, the helicopter's means of achieving lift is far less efficient than the airplane's wing, which means the helicopter is more power-hungry. In time it was found that a helicopter needed an engine that could produce at least one horsepower from no more than two pounds of weight. The Wright brothers' first airplane's engine made just eight horsepower but weighed 200 lbs. So the linchpin in the advent of the practical helicopter was the development of an internal combustion engine that could produce sufficient horsepower to its weight. The airplane got there first because its more efficient method of generating lift let it get by with a less sopisticated engine.

And so it was with firearms. They knew from the start what they wanted, they just couldn't get there yet because they had to wait on the supporting technologies. The rest was a matter of incremental steps. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?

The only reason George Washington ever got involved with that Belton character and his superimposed charge rifles in the first place was because Washington's friend, a certain Dr. Benjamin Franklin, had written to him stating that he had seen Belton's guns and was impressed with their potential. And he suggested that Washington might benefit by acquainting himself with Belton's work. So it's not like it wasn't already common knowledge.

And anyone who claims that the founding fathers could not have conceived of anything like a rapid firing repeating firearm is at the very least ignorant of history.

And just because you've got a bug up your ass about the AR-15 doesn't qualify you to dictate firearms law to the law-abiding.

[Beetlegeuse]

If the Second Amendment does not protect the AR-15 (and the entire family of "modern sporting rifles" along with it) then it necessarily must follow that the First Amendment does NOT cover any form of electric or electronic media, to include the electrostatic printing press, the inkjet printer, the laser printer, radio, television or the Internet. Because no one had figured out any practical use for electricity before Joseph Henry's electromagnet in 1831, And James Clerk Maxwell didn't begin even formulating his seminal work on electromagnetism until 1855. In 1787, they still were clueless, every man-jack of 'em.

And I can guaran-goddam-tee you that neither James Madison nor any of the ensemble cast who contributed to the drafting of the Constitution ever dreamed that the individual right that they considered so precious as to enumerate it first would some day be used to protect pornography or a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine and proclaimed to be art.

So if the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the AR-15, AR-10, AR-180, the AK-47, the HK43, and the rest, then ipso facto, the only two forms of speech protected by the 1st will be the spoken word and grayscale documents printed on one of these:


The Constitution is not a "cafeteria-plan" document; you don't get it both ways.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

So should all arms be available to civilians?
Why stop at just guns?

Civilians thus should be able to have chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons and radiological weapons.

Surely we are all not safe unless we each have our own nuclear bomb!!!

[Hughinn]

So should all arms be available to civilians?
Why stop at just guns?

Civilians thus should be able to have chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons and radiological weapons.

Surely we are all not safe unless we each have our own nuclear bomb!!!

According to the men who wrote the constitution,

Law abiding citizens ought to be able to own any weapons they want, and can afford.

They knew this to be the only way to guarantee individual liberty would prevail against a growing government despot.

They were very clear about why the right own and bear weapons was essential to be a free(er) people.

[Cuz]

So should all arms be available to civilians?
Why stop at just guns?

Civilians thus should be able to have chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons and radiological weapons.

Surely we are all not safe unless we each have our own nuclear bomb!!!

I know you’re not being serious and its funny but none of us are askin for any of that we simply don’t want our AR style rifles taken away because once in a blue moon some lunatic mass murders people. Im all for strict gun purchases but somehow a criminal will acquire a weapon one way or another i feel.

[wango]

So should all arms be available to civilians?
Why stop at just guns?

Civilians thus should be able to have chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons and radiological weapons.

Surely we are all not safe unless we each have our own nuclear bomb!!!

Only reporting what I read. A certain fictional novel ended with the threat and the usage of nuclear weapons on our own soil by Americans. Considering how much has been followed in that book, I think you have a valid point. And how did the book start? Page one, by the fact that guns were being confiscated.

To the members here, my point is that the book has been closely followed. Things that one would have once thought were improbable in the book, have happened.

[Hughinn]

Only reporting what I read. Turner Diaries ended with the threat and the usage of nuclear weapons on our own soil by Americans. Considering how much has been followed in that book, I think you have a valid point. And how did the book start? Page one, by the fact that guns were being confiscated.

To the members here, my point is that the book has been closely followed. Things that one would have once thought were improbable in the book, have happened.

Is the point of your statement that when you push something too far, too hard and for too long, drastic responses are possible?

That maybe, just maybe, the government of wokeness backing the fuck off and letting people live thier lives the way they want might be a good idea?

That maybe respecting people individual liberties and beliefs might be better than ramming it down thier throats?

Imagine that.

[Honkey_Kong]

Only reporting what I read. Turner Diaries ended with the threat and the usage of nuclear weapons on our own soil by Americans. Considering how much has been followed in that book, I think you have a valid point. And how did the book start? Page one, by the fact that guns were being confiscated.

To the members here, my point is that the book has been closely followed. Things that one would have once thought were improbable in the book, have happened.

I really don't think this is the place to be discussing that novel.

[wango]

Is the point of your statement that when you push something too far, too hard and for too long, drastic responses are possible?

That maybe, just maybe, the government of wokeness backing the fuck off and letting people live thier lives the way they want might be a good idea?

That maybe respecting people individual liberties and beliefs might be better than ramming it down thier throats?

Imagine that.

There was no point other than bringing up another member’s post regarding the ownership of nuclear weapons. And per a book that is in fact a book (we don’t like the idea of banning books do we), nuclear weapons were used as a threat and as a weapon. So maybe that “seed of an idea” has already been planted and can be grown into reality. A frightening idea.

[wango]

I really don't think this is the place to be discussing that novel.

I was addressing DD’s comment. The book in fact exists. The book has in fact influenced action. The book does in fact discuss gun control (this thread) and nuclear weapons (another member’s comment). I’m discussing a book and it’s ideas, is that not allowed here? I haven’t passed judgement, nor tried to offend. People (adults) are free to read books and draw their own conclusions in the USA, as far as I understand.

Edit: in hind sight can see how the name of the book could reflect negatively upon this forum and agree with you 100%.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

So should all arms be available to civilians?
Why stop at just guns?

Civilians thus should be able to have chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons and radiological weapons.

Surely we are all not safe unless we each have our own nuclear bomb!!!

According to the men who wrote the constitution,

Law abiding citizens ought to be able to own any weapons they want, and can afford.

They knew this to be the only way to guarantee individual liberty would prevail against a growing government despot.

They were very clear about why the right own and bear weapons was essential to be a free(er) people.

I know you’re not being serious and its funny but none of us are askin for any of that we simply don’t want our AR style rifles taken away because once in a blue moon some lunatic mass murders people. Im all for strict gun purchases but somehow a criminal will acquire a weapon one way or another i feel.

I am being totally serious.

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.
Arms. Not guns. But arms.

Hughinn thinks citizens should be able to own ANY weapon they want.

Cuz is kinda drawing the line at AR style rifles and under.

My point is...
Where is the line drawn?

Obviously I think nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and biological weapons and radiological weapons should be off limits.
I also think surface to air missiles should be out. (My house doesn't get attacked by Apache helicopters very often...)

But Hughinn's phrasing makes it seem like nuclear weapons are fine.

Obviously the 2nd amendment doesn't go into specifics.
Many 2A folk take that to mean any gun should be fine.

But why stop at guns???

So where should the line be drawn?

Should Bezzos own an aircraft carrier and 20 fighter jets?
Should Musk own a nuclear warhead?



PLEASE NOTE: I am not attacking anyone. If I am misrepresenting what you meant then feel free to clarify.

I am totally interested in how pro-gun people feel about if and where the line is.

[Beetlegeuse]

The entire raison d ' être for the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' deep-seated fear of a standing army. Because any 'ruler' who could maintain control of a standing army could control the populace sufficiently to keep himself in power in perpetuity. Which was something they had seen happen in Europe (or knew had happened in the not-too-distant past) many times over.

Unless the public were sufficiently armed to resist effectively.

So what they envisioned was the general population possessing whatever weapons the army of the government might be bringing to bear against them.

That's what 2A was created for.

And that's also why from the start there was a federal law limiting the funding of the federal army for a period of 24 months. Which persisted until the late 19th Century. Every two years, the Congress had to vote on whether to disband the army or to fund it for an additional two years. And if they were inclined to continue funding it, how big of an army were they willing to pay for? And the Congress was always famously niggardly with its military appropriations.


So it also bears mention that before the 1934 National Firearms Act, anybody with the coin could buy a Tommy gun from the Sears & Roebuck catalog (and have it shipped direct to them through the US mail) or walk into an Ace Hardware and buy a Colt Monitor, no paperwork and no questions asked.



And there was never any problem with civilian ownership of machine guns. That is until Prohibition, when the big-league mobsters started investing in Thompson submachine guns because cops with 6-shot .38 revolvers could never outgun a single mobster with a Tommy gun, no matter how many of them there were.

Frankly, you would have to be an idiot to believe that the mobsters were going to acquiesce to the new gun laws and give up their machine guns, but the Roosevelt government went ahead with the NFA anyway, just because they could. In 1934, the demoncrats held both houses of Congress and Roosevelt was the first all-socialist, all-the-time POTUS, so passing the bill was a mere formality.

Never let a crisis go to waste. And if there isn't a crisis big enough, instigate one.


And the NFA didn't outlaw machine guns. That's a common misconception. It just placed a tax of $200 on them. This was during the Great Depression, when $200 was quite a substantial sum of money, and they thought that that amount would be adequate to curtailing how many people could afford to buy one. Except the price hasn't gone up, not even once. Right now there are about a quarter of a million privately-owned machine guns in the US, and they clearly are no threat to the public safety. To date there have been exactly two (2) homicides committed in the US with a lawfully-possessed machine gun.

87 years on, ~250,000 "transferable" machine guns in circulation, and a whopping two machine gun homicides. And in both cases the perpetrator was a law enforcement officer. One of them used a machine gun he owned and the other used a police weapon he lawfully was in possession of at the time of the crime.

[Hughinn]

There was no point other than bringing up another member’s post regarding the ownership of nuclear weapons. And per a book that is in fact a book (we don’t like the idea of banning books do we), nuclear weapons were used as a threat and as a weapon. So maybe that “seed of an idea” has already been planted and can be grown into reality. A frightening idea.

More frightening, is why anyone would want to do that?

What could push it that far?

[Hughinn]

I am being totally serious.

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.
Arms. Not guns. But arms.

Hughinn thinks citizens should be able to own ANY weapon they want.

Cuz is kinda drawing the line at AR style rifles and under.

My point is...
Where is the line drawn?

Obviously I think nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and biological weapons and radiological weapons should be off limits.
I also think surface to air missiles should be out. (My house doesn't get attacked by Apache helicopters very often...)

But Hughinn's phrasing makes it seem like nuclear weapons are fine.

Obviously the 2nd amendment doesn't go into specifics.
Many 2A folk take that to mean any gun should be fine.

But why stop at guns???

So where should the line be drawn?

Should Bezzos own an aircraft carrier and 20 fighter jets?
Should Musk own a nuclear warhead?



PLEASE NOTE: I am not attacking anyone. If I am misrepresenting what you meant then feel free to clarify.

I am totally interested in how pro-gun people feel about if and where the line is.

No sir.

I meant, "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. There really isn't a reasonable argument to make as to what that means.

Weapons are one thing. But time and time again I see the weapons ban and gun control people frothing at the mouth to take people's guns away.

Nobody ever asks why people own guns to begin with. And everytime the Left takes a grab at guns, people buy more of them.

The real question would be to me as far as the line, why would a man like Elon want a nuclear bomb?

[wango]

More frightening, is why anyone would want to do that?

What could push it that far?

You can’t be sure of an individual (s) reasons, can you? I mean seriously, how could I say exactly why or why not someone did or will do something? I can’t profess that. But, present them with ideas as to how to possibly react to a given set of circumstances with a possible outcome? Literature and now the “media” can be very powerful in its potential influence. That’s my intent of the word “frightening “. Is your interpretation the same as someone else’s? Is your response going to differ?

So many variables to consider. Freedom of thought and speech is a beautiful yet difficult ideal to “manage”, particularly as the population of different ideologies continues to expand.

Not to diss the founding fathers, but could they really have imagined applying their ideals to this current situation?

[Hughinn]

You can’t be sure of an individual (s) reasons, can you? I mean seriously, how could I say exactly why or why not someone did or will do something? I can’t profess that. But, present them with ideas as to how to possibly react to a given set of circumstances with a possible outcome? Literature and now the “media” can be very powerful in its potential influence. That’s my intent of the word “frightening “. Is your interpretation the same as someone else’s? Is your response going to differ?

So many variables to consider. Freedom of thought and speech is a beautiful yet difficult ideal to “manage”, particularly as the population of different ideologies continues to expand.

Not to diss the founding fathers, but could they really have imagined applying their ideals to this current situation?

Even the idea of"managing" freedom of thought and speech is a contradiction of those ideas themselves

And yes. They did imagine it. Otherwise they wouldn't specifically have called for an armed population. They wanted specially for the people to be able to protect thier freedom of speech and thought against being "managed" by despotic authoritarian regime's, like the democrat party today

That was thier specific intentions when they wrote "shall not be infringed". It couldn't be clearer. The second amendment was made to protect the first. Because the push to irradicate the second amendment is all to make it possible to "manage" the first. Thereby squelching the possibility of mobilized and organized dissent. And eliminating a government of the people. Because mobilized and organized dissent eventually becomes : a rival to power.

Democrat leadership does not want any rival. Hence the coordinated attack on the first two amendments. While simultaneously convoluting election processes to the point of ridiculousness.

[Ernst]

Only reporting what I read. Turner Diaries ended with the threat and the usage of nuclear weapons on our own soil by Americans. Considering how much has been followed in that book, I think you have a valid point. And how did the book start? Page one, by the fact that guns were being confiscated.

To the members here, my point is that the book has been closely followed. Things that one would have once thought were improbable in the book, have happened.

Flashback to a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate reminding gun owners that he might nuke us should we resist confiscation.

One article called Swalwell a 'human cringe tornado.'

[Cuz]

Let me be clear. Fully automatic rifles are illegal since the late 80s i think. Not 100 on the date. So now they want to ban “semi” automatic rifles. So you might as well ban all of the semi autos with that logic, which would shotguns, rifles, and pistols. So then what do you have left? You have single shot, revolver, lever action, and bolt. Thats it. I dont think thats right at all. What happens when someone shoots alot of people with a lever style rifle you know what comes next. Ill fight for my gun rights. And no fool down the street will determine by a red flag law whether or not ill own a firearm. Things are gettin serious folks

[Beetlegeuse]

... Fully automatic rifles are illegal since the late 80s i think....

No, they aren't.

Let me be clear. Machine guns are not and never have been "illegal."

The bill to which you refer was the 1986 (euphemistically-named) Firearm Owners Protection Act, also referred to as the Hughes Amendment.

What the Hughes Amendment said, specifically, was that no fully-automatic firearm manufactured on or after the day that the bill was signed into law would be "transferable." "Transferable" in this sense refers to a change of ownership between private/civilian (non-military, non-LEA) parties. To say a machine gun is "transferable" is to say that anyone with the money to buy it and who can manage to get his BATFE Form 4 approved by the ATF (which requires paying the $200 tax) may lawfully buy that machine gun from its present private/civilian owner and lawfully possess it and use it (although its 'use' might be limited by state or local ordinance).


The bill was signed into law on the 19th of May. So any machine gun that was privately-owned on the 18th of May, 1986, remains transferable and can be sold or bartered between individuals.


The net effect of the Hughes Amendment is that the supply of machine guns that Joe Sixpack could buy for duck hunting, etc, has been frozen in time since 1986. But the demand, predictably, has skyrocketed. And what happens to prices when supply is fixed but demand increases substantially? They go up, usually bigly. On the open market, a well-used machine transferable gun will fetch 20x what it costs in 2021 dollars to buy a brand-spanking new non-transferable equivalent. One in pristine condition can bring 50x what it would cost to buy new and untransferable.

I can go to this website right this instant, give them my CC number and buy a transferable, honest-to-Hashem, fully-automatic, Israeli-made Uzi 9mm submachine gun. Once the purchase clears my bank, they will provide me with the serial number and other Form 4-necessary details. I fill out the Form 4, send it to the ATF with a check for $200, and in six to nine months I'll either have my tax stamp or a letter of rejection from the ATF. If I get a tax stamp (which comes on an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper bearing the weapon's identifying information), I show it to the dealer and he gives me my 'new' machine gun.

All perfectly legal. The only hitch is I just paid $19,000 for a gun that's probably half a century old and that sold new for $1200 but its price is DRAMATICALLY inflated by the Hughes Amendment.



Idiots like Chairman Xiden keep spouting the lie that we shouldn't expect to be able to own an "assault weapon" because we are not allowed to own bazookas, tanks or fighter jets, which is pure BULLSHIT. Civilians can and do own bazookas, tanks and fighter jets. It's just that they cost a shitload of money and the Feds make you jump through all manner of regulatory hoops to make it happen.

But that's only if the weapons on them are still functional when you buy them. It they've been made unfireable, sometimes referred to as DEWAT, an abbreviation for deactivated war trophy, but really isn't applicable because these aren't GI "bring backs," then you can buy bazookas, tanks and fighter jets with less government paperwork than registering and licensing a new automobile.

[almostgone]

Going the dealer sample route is even more expensive and exhausting.

[Cuz]

Going the dealer sample route is even more expensive and exhausting.

Right. Isnt the license like 16000 or something to own fully auto?

[Cuz]

No, they aren't.

Let me be clear. Machine guns are not and never have been "illegal."

The bill to which you refer was the 1986 (euphemistically-named) Firearm Owners Protection Act, also referred to as the Hughes Amendment.

What the Hughes Amendment said, specifically, was that no fully-automatic firearm manufactured on or after the day that the bill was signed into law would be "transferable." "Transferable" in this sense refers to a change of ownership between private/civilian (non-military, non-LEA) parties. To say a machine gun is "transferable" is to say that anyone with the money to buy it and who can manage to get his BATFE Form 4 approved by the ATF (which requires paying the $200 tax) may lawfully buy that machine gun from its present private/civilian owner and lawfully possess it and use it (although its 'use' might be limited by state or local ordinance).


The bill was signed into law on the 19th of May. So any machine gun that was privately-owned on the 18th of May, 1986, remains transferable and can be sold or bartered between individuals.


The net effect of the Hughes Amendment is that the supply of machine guns that Joe Sixpack could buy for duck hunting, etc, has been frozen in time since 1986. But the demand, predictably, has skyrocketed. And what happens to prices when supply is fixed but demand increases substantially? They go up, usually bigly. On the open market, a well-used machine transferable gun will fetch 20x what it costs in 2021 dollars to buy a brand-spanking new non-transferable equivalent. One in pristine condition can bring 50x what it would cost to buy new and untransferable.

I can go to this website right this instant, give them my CC number and buy a transferable, honest-to-Hashem, fully-automatic, Israeli-made Uzi 9mm submachine gun. Once the purchase clears my bank, they will provide me with the serial number and other Form 4-necessary details. I fill out the Form 4, send it to the ATF with a check for $200, and in six to nine months I'll either have my tax stamp or a letter of rejection from the ATF. If I get a tax stamp (which comes on an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper bearing the weapon's identifying information), I show it to the dealer and he gives me my 'new' machine gun.

All perfectly legal. The only hitch is I just paid $19,000 for a gun that's probably half a century old and that sold new for $1200 but its price is DRAMATICALLY inflated by the Hughes Amendment.



Idiots like Chairman Xiden keep spouting the lie that we shouldn't expect to be able to own an "assault weapon" because we are not allowed to own bazookas, tanks or fighter jets, which is pure BULLSHIT. Civilians can and do own bazookas, tanks and fighter jets. It's just that they cost a shitload of money and the Feds make you jump through all manner of regulatory hoops to make it happen.

But that's only if the weapons on them are still functional when you buy them. It they've been made unfireable, sometimes referred to as DEWAT, an abbreviation for deactivated war trophy, but really isn't applicable because these aren't GI "bring backs," then you can buy bazookas, tanks and fighter jets with less government paperwork than registering and licensing a new automobile.

Thanks for clearing that up. So the pre 1986 lowers are what you need the special license for to the best of my knowledge. They might as well be illegal bc the avg citizens arent gonna afford that type of license ive never really deeply researched that so excuse me if im a little off

[wango]

No, they aren't.

Let me be clear. Machine guns are not and never have been "illegal."

The bill to which you refer was the 1986 (euphemistically-named) Firearm Owners Protection Act, also referred to as the Hughes Amendment.

What the Hughes Amendment said, specifically, was that no fully-automatic firearm manufactured on or after the day that the bill was signed into law would be "transferable." "Transferable" in this sense refers to a change of ownership between private/civilian (non-military, non-LEA) parties. To say a machine gun is "transferable" is to say that anyone with the money to buy it and who can manage to get his BATFE Form 4 approved by the ATF (which requires paying the $200 tax) may lawfully buy that machine gun from its present private/civilian owner and lawfully possess it and use it (although its 'use' might be limited by state or local ordinance).


The bill was signed into law on the 19th of May. So any machine gun that was privately-owned on the 18th of May, 1986, remains transferable and can be sold or bartered between individuals.


The net effect of the Hughes Amendment is that the supply of machine guns that Joe Sixpack could buy for duck hunting, etc, has been frozen in time since 1986. But the demand, predictably, has skyrocketed. And what happens to prices when supply is fixed but demand increases substantially? They go up, usually bigly. On the open market, a well-used machine transferable gun will fetch 20x what it costs in 2021 dollars to buy a brand-spanking new non-transferable equivalent. One in pristine condition can bring 50x what it would cost to buy new and untransferable.

I can go to this website right this instant, give them my CC number and buy a transferable, honest-to-Hashem, fully-automatic, Israeli-made Uzi 9mm submachine gun. Once the purchase clears my bank, they will provide me with the serial number and other Form 4-necessary details. I fill out the Form 4, send it to the ATF with a check for $200, and in six to nine months I'll either have my tax stamp or a letter of rejection from the ATF. If I get a tax stamp (which comes on an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper bearing the weapon's identifying information), I show it to the dealer and he gives me my 'new' machine gun.

All perfectly legal. The only hitch is I just paid $19,000 for a gun that's probably half a century old and that sold new for $1200 but its price is DRAMATICALLY inflated by the Hughes Amendment.



Idiots like Chairman Xiden keep spouting the lie that we shouldn't expect to be able to own an "assault weapon" because we are not allowed to own bazookas, tanks or fighter jets, which is pure BULLSHIT. Civilians can and do own bazookas, tanks and fighter jets. It's just that they cost a shitload of money and the Feds make you jump through all manner of regulatory hoops to make it happen.

But that's only if the weapons on them are still functional when you buy them. It they've been made unfireable, sometimes referred to as DEWAT, an abbreviation for deactivated war trophy, but really isn't applicable because these aren't GI "bring backs," then you can buy bazookas, tanks and fighter jets with less government paperwork than registering and licensing a new automobile.

Beetle, serious question. So when I see and hear of the gang bangers out here (think boys in the hood) with them, how difficult and expensive is it for them to purchase them illegally?

[wango]

Even the idea of"managing" freedom of thought and speech is a contradiction of those ideas themselves

Totally agree and that is perfectly stated. However, I just was familiarized with something called 8chan, where almost everything is allowed. But even there I was given the impression that content was still “managed”

And yes. They did imagine it. Otherwise they wouldn't specifically have called for an armed population. They wanted specially for the people to be able to protect thier freedom of speech and thought against being "managed" by despotic authoritarian regime's, like the democrat party today

That was thier specific intentions when they wrote "shall not be infringed". It couldn't be clearer. The second amendment was made to protect the first. Because the push to irradicate the second amendment is all to make it possible to "manage" the first. Thereby squelching the possibility of mobilized and organized dissent. And eliminating a government of the people. Because mobilized and organized dissent eventually becomes : a rival to power.

Democrat leadership does not want any rival. Hence the coordinated attack on the first two amendments. While simultaneously convoluting election processes to the point of ridiculousness.

I think that you are robbing the founding fathers of the ability to evolve their beliefs over time and to be able to modify their statements in response to progress. I’m guessing that there was a great amount of compromise in the making of those documents and some regrets of many of the individuals in having made those compromises. These were imperfect men, capable of errors, not Gods. To say definitively that they could foresee all future changes and create a perfect document? That would be improbable to me.

[Beetlegeuse]

Cuz, I apologize for the terse reply earlier but -- and please don't take this personally -- it sometimes gets under my skin that "gun guys" know so much that is just plain wrong. Misinformation in the gun community about gun laws is bad enough but I think about 2/3rds of what gun guys "know" about shooting science -- ballistics and fizziks and all the rest -- is wrong. Even most gun bloggers don't have the slightest clue how ill-informed they are (about fizziks anyway), and they apparently see no need to take the effort to dispel their ignorance.

I dunno, maybe it's because all us gun folk really are nothing but a bunch of in-bred, mouth-breathing microcephalic rednecks....

[Hughinn]

Beetle, serious question. So when I see and hear of the gang bangers out here (think boys in the hood) with them, how difficult and expensive is it for them to purchase them illegally?

Forgive me for interjecting wango. I know you've been trying to engage the beetle.

But with respect to you, i must say, it becomes tiresome. Just reflect on the all the debating me and the the deadlift dog have had. It's exhausting. And I know, I'll never convince him to throw off the years of conditioning he's had. I just hope he thinks a little more. And thats all. But the price is high. And I think he's a bmf in his own way and in his own sandbox, so I just want to give him a perspective he may not have understood before. So that when life throws an unpredictable curve, like it always does, he'll think before swinging away.

With that in mind, if I can respectfully answer your question: the criminals purchasing weapons is solely a matter of money. Because criminals will always have access to weapons, for the right price. So the boyz in the hood, will always have AK and automatic weapons when they want them. And so will the armed legions of the ruling establishment. But laws will only prevent the common man from having equal footing in this regard.

That was why the second amendment was the second amendment. And not the tenth. Our founders hoped that common, hardworking men could find equality, in the truest sense of the word, in at least one place on earth.

The old west had a saying. "God created all, men. Samuel Colt made them equal". Harsh words for softer times. But the, meaning rings true.

[wango]

Forgive me for interjecting wango. I know you've been trying to engage the beetle.

But with respect to you, i must say, it becomes tiresome. Just reflect on the all the debating me and the the deadlift dog have had. It's exhausting. And I know, I'll never convince him to throw off the years of conditioning he's had. I just hope he thinks a little more. And thats all. But the price is high. And I think he's a bmf in his own way and in his own sandbox, so I just want to give him a perspective he may not have understood before. So that when life throws an unpredictable curve, like it always does, he'll think before swinging away.

With that in mind, if I can respectfully answer your question: the criminals purchasing weapons is solely a matter of money. Because criminals will always have access to weapons, for the right price. So the boyz in the hood, will always have AK and automatic weapons when they want them. And so will the armed legions of the ruling establishment. But laws will only prevent the common man from having equal footing in this regard.

That was why the second amendment was the second amendment. And not the tenth. Our founders hoped that common, hardworking men could find equality, in the truest sense of the word, in at least one place on earth.

My “engagement” with beetle is none of your business. Respectfully of course.
And your answer was nothing. If it was a matter of money as beetle said, they could be purchased legally. So you’re saying they are willing to pay over the added cost? Are they buying pre-1986 guns or new guns? Do you know this info? I thought beetle might because since I posted that question I’ve been trying to find ways to purchase an automatic weapon easier and reading about the Hughes amendment. I dug clicking on that link, who would have thought? You just might ask why? I’d reply because when beetle talks, I listen because he interests me with knowledge that I’ve never thought about before.

In the future, if I’m specifically asking another member, please respect that I am asking that question for a reason and don’t assume to know what my motives are. You’ve done that already regarding another question I had of beetle and like this one you misinterpreted the reason of my question.

In addition. I can and will be reasonable. Another member mentioned that I should perhaps not refer to a certain book. I thought about it and agreed that it might reflect negatively on the forum if an outsider were to misconstrue the mention of it here. My post was edited.

Just please don’t make assumptions about me or my reasoning. If it wasn’t for valuing what you all here are so passionate about, I wouldn’t ask what I ask or read what I read. I am doing that to understand not judge. I’m currently getting to know antifa and was quite blind to CHAZ when it occurred, so getting a better grasp of that. With all of the talk about nuclear, I was trying to find out the feasibility of making nuclear weapons (oops, should edit that too, lol). Between my past purchases of books and some of the searches I do, I should expect to be on some sort of watch list.

Peace & respect to you Hughinn, sincerely.

[almostgone]

Right. Isnt the license like 16000 or something to own fully auto?

I think the kicker is the minimum $2500 ITAR tax.

IIRC, the fees do vary for Class 3, vs Class 7 vs Class 9.
Of course, if you run out of qualified potential customers, I imagine things could get expensive.


For a regular citizen, then it's not that expensive, but you'll need the rest of that 16,000 to put a down payment on a select fire

[Hughinn]

I think that you are robbing the founding fathers of the ability to evolve their beliefs over time and to be able to modify their statements in response to progress. I’m guessing that there was a great amount of compromise in the making of those documents and some regrets of many of the individuals in having made those compromises. These were imperfect men, capable of errors, not Gods. To say definitively that they could foresee all future changes and create a perfect document? That would be improbable to me.

While I see where your coming from Wango. I have to totally disagree with you in this matter. And I must, in principle respectfully reject your notions on the matter entirely.

While technology and circumstances can change, basic human interactions between individuals and groups does not. And is not so much different now, than from the days of the cro magnon and neanderthal. Political theories and interactions haven't changed much since the days of egypt and Rome. Philosophy, government and humanity is not much different today than in days of aristotle and Socrates. And while the forefathers may not have forseen certain technology, they did certainly see the prospects and different possible paths of humanity.

In regard to your assertions of "regret" "compromise" and beliefs "evolving" , I must also disagree absolutely and entirely. But respectfully. Because I do see what your trying to say, but...

These are the same men that said "give me liberty, or give me death". And wrote that a government should fear it's people, not the other way around.
These men signed a declaration of independence that would have certainly been a death warrant, should thier struggle against all odds be lost. They did so with cool deliberation and forethought, placing the value of personal liberty above any notion of security, safety or compromise.

I don't think any reasonable man, could take the words of such men, either spoken or written, to mean anything other than exactly what they say.

The beliefs, values and convictions of those men, nor thier intentions cannot reasonably be doubted or questioned by any sensible person. They're amazingly clear and concise. One could disagree with what they believed based on ones own opinions. But they left no doubt as to what they thought. These men did what they said, and said what they meant. And they did not speak or write in parables or riddles, but in plain English.

Our own convictions however is another story.

If our forefathers didn't forsee one thing, it was the total emasculate nature of what we'd become. I imagine could they see today the things we've allowed our government to do, they'd roll over in shame. If they could look upon our delusional concepts of "equality" and "democracy", they would certainly look away with disgust. The ability of our society to make our young american men capons is truly something I'm certain in my heart the forefathers would utterly detest.

But, that's just the opinion of what many would call an uneducated (by default that also means un-indoctrinated) man, with callused hands and grease under his fingernails. But I'm an American. And there really is no question as to what our forefathers meant in thier intentions. The only question is whether or not we posses the fortitude to honor those intentions in our own modern times. And that's it.

[Hughinn]

My “engagement” with beetle is none of your business. Respectfully of course.
And your answer was nothing. If it was a matter of money as beetle said, they could be purchased legally. So you’re saying they are willing to pay over the added cost? Are they buying pre-1986 guns or new guns? Do you know this info? I thought beetle might because since I posted that question I’ve been trying to find ways to purchase an automatic weapon easier and reading about the Hughes amendment. I dug clicking on that link, who would have thought? You just might ask why? I’d reply because when beetle talks, I listen because he interests me with knowledge that I’ve never thought about before.

In the future, if I’m specifically asking another member, please respect that I am asking that question for a reason and don’t assume to know what my motives are. You’ve done that already regarding another question I had of beetle and like this one you misinterpreted the reason of my question.

In addition. I can and will be reasonable. Another member mentioned that I should perhaps not refer to a certain book. I thought about it and agreed that it might reflect negatively on the forum if an outsider were to misconstrue the mention of it here. My post was edited.

Just please don’t make assumptions about me or my reasoning. If it wasn’t for valuing what you all here are so passionate about, I wouldn’t ask what I ask or read what I read. I am doing that to understand not judge. I’m currently getting to know antifa and was quite blind to CHAZ when it occurred, so getting a better grasp of that. With all of the talk about nuclear, I was trying to find out the feasibility of making nuclear weapons (oops, should edit that too, lol). Between my past purchases of books and some of the searches I do, I should expect to be on some sort of watch list.

Peace & respect to you Hughinn, sincerely.

In That case sir, do accept my apology for interjecting my fat nose where it didn't belong.

I will refrain from further intrusion in the future.

And welcome to the club on that watch list. My own opinions and writing has landed me on that list 20 years ago. I have no doubt sooner or later I'll be visited by the cowardly bast@rds. And that's fine

[wango]

In That case sir, do accept my apology for interjecting my fat nose where it didn't belong.

I will refrain from further intrusion in the future.

And welcome to the club on that watch list. My own opinions and writing has landed me on that list 20 years ago. I have no doubt sooner or later I'll be visited by the cowardly bast@rds. And that's fine

Apologies appreciated, accepted and I in turn, apologize back to you.

Nah, intrude away. This is a forum, it’s what should happen. If I or someone else can’t handle it, we should step away. This old fella just gets grumpy some time. In the morning, I got my coffee perking me up, the cats on my lap, the suns coming up - it’s always a promising day. By the afternoon, I’ve read the paper & after non-stop contemplation of how f’d up this world continues to get as we all struggle for the right solutions, I’m fed up. I guess I should only post in the morning, lol.

To the OP, further apologies if I’ve caused a detour to the thread. But guaranteed, my questions/posts were out of interest and not meant to antagonize. For the record, I’m pro gun and enjoy the education that you guys give me on this topic.

[Cuz]

[RuhlFreak55]

does anyone care what the demonrats do?

Do. Not. Comply.

[Beetlegeuse]

From the UK Guardian, of all places. I can't agree with all of their conclusions but some of them are spot-on. Such as the press bears some responsibility for the mass murders because the mass murderers often are looking for something that the press obligingly gives them: fame.

Everything about America’s gun debate is wrong – here’s why

We’ve been reporting on gun violence for years. The mass shooting debate is not just biased; it is actively harmful and racist ...

[Beetlegeuse]

5 governors say they’ll fight or block Biden’s anti-gun executive actions



And there's sure to be more than just those five, they're just not so eager to tip their hand as these guys.

[Beetlegeuse]

Fakebook's Marxist Zuckerberg, who wants all your guns to be confiscated (and your trigger fingers to be amputated) spent $24 million -- just in 2020 -- on personal security for he and his family.


Guns for me but not for thee.

[Beetlegeuse]

Somebody remind me of the last time an auto manufacturer, brewer, distiller, or the makers of hammers, kitchen knives or baseball bats was sued into oblivion because their product was used in the commission of a crime.

President Biden Thinks Religion is a Gun Control Wishing Well

By Larry Keane

As an Irish Catholic, I’ve said my fair share of “Our Father” and “Hail Mary” prayers. I’ll confess, though, I never prayed the rosary that the Almighty would grant me a wish to sue an industry out of existence.

President Joe Biden, himself an Irish Catholic, though, is a different story. While others pray for strength, guidance or wisdom, the Theologian-in-Chief daydreams of repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). President Biden told an audience he has visions of his prayers being answered to be able to bankrupt an entire Constitutionally protected industry, during the White House Rose Garden announcement on gun control.

Prefacing prayer with a big, fat lie is a strange way to attempt to claim the moral high ground.

“The only industry in America — a billion-dollar industry — that can’t be sued — has exempt from being sued — are gun manufacturers,” President Biden ̶f̶a̶l̶s̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶i̶m̶e̶d̶ lied.

“But this is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list — the Lord came down and said, “Joe, you get one of these” — give me that one,” he continued. “Because I tell you what, there would be a ‘come to the Lord’ moment these folks would have real quickly.”

Interestingly, being granted that one wish is apparently more important to him than reducing the criminal and accidental misuse of firearms. That tells you a lot about his priorities. President Biden knows his gun control agenda is not moving on Capitol Hill. The return of legally-baseless litigation to achieve his gun control agenda is why repealing the PLCAA is the one thing he most wants.

Dear God…

The firearm industry doesn’t have unique protections. Firearm manufacturers can be sued. It’s happened. This lie by the president was so far out there that even CNN – normally a liberal media apologist – said it deserved penance.

“Facts First: This is false,” CNN reported. “Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.”

The bipartisan law – PLCAA – was passed in response to a flood of lawsuits that were seeking to hold firearm companies liable for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties. These lawsuits that began in the late 1990s were pursued by an unholy alliance of big city Democrat mayors, trial lawyers and the Brady Center. The lawsuits’ real goal, however, was putting manufacturers and retailers out of business based on events for which they had no control or use litigation cost and the threat of bankrupting judgments to coerce the industry into court ordered settlements to impose gun control measures repeatedly rejected by Congress and the American public. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Reich famously coined this strategy “regulation through litigation.”

The PLCAA keeps activist lawyers from placing the blame on manufacturers and retailers for the criminal misuse of legal, non-defective firearms that are lawfully sold. According to ATF, firearms recovered by law enforcement in connection with crimes were on average originally lawfully sold a decade earlier.

President Biden knows all of this, but it doesn’t propel his antigun agenda. Instead of being truthful, he insists on repeating false statements and half-truths. He also knows that the firearm industry isn’t unique when it comes to certain protections. The pharmaceutical companies making the COVID-19 vaccines are shielded from lawsuits.

Vaccine makers are producing drugs protected by the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. which gives the Health and Human Services Secretary authority to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing the vaccines. That protection, like the PLCAA, doesn’t include “willful misconduct.”

Medical device manufacturers, the airline industries and even online service and content providers are protected from frivolous lawsuits when defamatory information posted is by others.

Mea Culpa

This isn’t new for President Biden. He told voters in South Carolina in July 2019 that gun manufacturers are “the enemy.” He peddled the same lies during the presidential campaign. It wasn’t new then, either. Hillary Clinton told the same lies in 2015 during her ill-fated presidential campaign. She was slapped with a “false” Truth-o-Meter label from Politifact then.

President Biden’s trouble with the truth might be more reflective of his realization that the political landscape that’s shifted. Bill Schneider wrote in The Hill that the political calculus is changing and the issue of gun ownership is still divisive. He noted, though, that protecting gun rights drives voters.

It’s more than that, though. Jennifer Carlson wrote in The Washington Post that the Number 1 myth about gun owners is they’re all conservative. That’s not true. She noted that one-in-five gun owners identify as liberal and cited NSSF’s data indicating 8.4 million people purchased a gun for the first time last year. Not every one of them is a Caucasian male. African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American purchases rose sharply.

These gun owners and the rest of the American public deserve to be treated with the dignity that they can handle the truth. President Biden feeding them lies about the law that keeps activist lawyers from suing gun makers is nothing more than not allowing lawsuits against Ford for the deaths caused by drunk driving.

If there are honest debates to be had, they must start with honest statements.

[Honkey_Kong]

[Cuz]

That is a super nice piece

[Honkey_Kong]

That is a super nice piece

God bless the 2a