Gun discussion - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Sports, Hobbies and all things unrelated to Politics.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#15011949
@Drlee

Drlee wrote:Two observations from an old soldier. First. The worst wars are civil wars. They are bloody, heartbreaking and usually unnecessary. The second is that killing people with a firearm is not at all like the movies. It is ugly. It is violent and final. It is not glorious at all. Just the opposite It harms the killer's psyche forever. Even those who claim otherwise.


Amen to that Drlee. You said that right. Civil Wars are the worst and most wars it seems to me are preventable and un-necessary and just plain stupid man.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15011994
[KS mod note: I've cleaned up the last few pages of this thread. I was inclined to not resurrect it because of the number of borderline rule violations, but I'll let it stand for now. Consider this a warning that if the personal attacks, accusations and denigrating remarks about other users continue, this thread or substantial parts of it might disappear.

Also, do not encourage people to leave the forum.]
User avatar
By ingliz
#15012050
BigSteve wrote:A "machine gun" hasn't been commercially available to the public in the United States since 1934.

Wrong.

The National Firearms Act did not ban machine guns.

It priced them out of reach of the common man.

They were expensive firearms to begin with. The Thompson gun with one Type XX 20 shot "stick" magazine, for example, was priced at $200 in 1921. Adding the NFA $200 tax stamp made them too expensive for most people.

Note: $200 in 1934 was worth something over $3,500 in today's money.

commercially available to the public in the United States

Find a Class 3 dealer who has one for sale.

Pay a tax of $200 (ATF Form 1).

Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government.

Submit photographs.

Submit passport photos.

Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application.

Wait for the results of your background check to come back.

Keeping it simple, if you pass a background check and have the cash, anyone can own one of the 182,619 transferable guns registered prior to May 19th, 1986.*


:)


* It does get complicated for machine guns imported after 1968 but before May 19th, 1986. The 1968 GCA established that machine guns with no sporting purposes could not be sold to civilians. Dealers can however buy them and keep them after they give up their licenses. So you would have to set yourself up as a dealer to own one of them. They are cheaper than transferables, though.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15013853
Re: Gun discussion

Do any of you modify your firearms from stock?

I'm off to buy a Serbian AK tomorrow as a project, but it's only the 'one-off', it's your lucky day, 30% discount that makes it worth modifying.

I will be fitting a skeleton folder. 5 separate pieces to buy (receiver block, folding mechanism, receiver extension, pistol grip and stock assembly) and as I can't get what I need on the island, I will have to import the parts from the US via Italy and put up with the 5-8 week delivery delay due to America's labyrinthine export regulations.

I know I am doing it but it's a lot of bother and expense just to make something look pretty.


:lol:


* 30%? Despite being a good weapon, no-one is buying them because of the buttstock - Having an especially high comb if you are not employing proper technique, it belts you in the face + it's butt ugly.

As I always employ proper technique I could keep it as stock, but it is a really ugly stock.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15014299
As I always employ proper technique I could keep it as stock

It looks like I will have to keep it stock.

When I checked delivery costs before clicking to order, customer support sent me a message,"American restrictions prevent us shipping these parts to Malta. Have you an address in Italy we can deliver to?"

Very strange.


:lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#15027943
*** Update ***

Got the parts on the weapon. I am happy how it turned out but it was expensive. Finding ways around the US export laws is a pain. Trying to order a part from Israel (Galil type pistol grip) is a bureaucratic mess.

Never again.


:lol:
By Hindsite
#15028141
ingliz wrote:The 1968 GCA established that machine guns with no sporting purposes could not be sold to civilians.

I might need one that has a sporting purpose. Who knows?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15028159
@ingliz I did one better than you.

My wife thought we might need a gun for home defense, so I told her to tell her friend, quietly and discreetly, that we got a gun for home defense.

By now, everyone in 1/2 of Thailand should know it. Gossip is fast.

:D

See? The perception of defense can be as good as the actual defense, or even better since we don't have a gun in the house that an 8 year old boy could kill himself, or someone else with.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15028165
Godstud wrote:See? The perception of defense can be as good as the actual defense, or even better since we don't have a gun in the house that an 8 year old boy could kill himself, or someone else with.


"Can" be better? Not hardly, and certainly not when someone calls your bluff. Then you're pretty much fucked...
User avatar
By Godstud
#15028228
The odds of a gun being used against a family member are greater than the odds of a home invasion where you'd need the gun to defend yourself. Fears out-weight the reality.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15028265
Godstud wrote:The perception of defense

I didn't buy it for defence.

I collect firearms and this is a curiosity. An example of a single stack AK sporting variant with a double stack bolt. A child of its time. Designed specifically for the American market to get round the 'assault weapons' ban and Californication.

Designed to be modified by US owners.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15028594
Godstud wrote:The odds of a gun being used against a family member are greater than the odds of a home invasion where you'd need the gun to defend yourself. Fears out-weight the reality.


And sometimes that's not a bad thing:

Several years ago, there was a case where a Texas woman suffered pretty regular physical abuse at the hands of her husband. He was also quite physical with their two children. He would routinely smack her around when he got home from work (some sort of factory job).

One day she took one of his handguns and put it in her waistband in the small of her back. Her husband came home, immediately started berating one of their children before smacking the kid across the face, and then he walked into the kitchen and started in on his wife. He punched her in the face and knocked her to the floor.

When she got up, she had his Kimber .380 in her hand, and she emptied the magazine into his chest, killing him.

She was not charged...
User avatar
By Red_Army
#15028597
I think the first gun control legislation should restrict ownership from people who have a history of domestic violence or violence against women. It has the dual benefit of taking guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit violent crimes as well as disarming half of the police and military.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15028598
Red_Army wrote:It has the dual benefit of taking guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit violent crimes as well as disarming half of the police and military.


Good luck with that...
User avatar
By Drlee
#15028606
I think the first gun control legislation should restrict ownership from people who have a history of domestic violence or violence against women. It has the dual benefit of taking guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit violent crimes as well as disarming half of the police and military.


Though I would go much further, I agree completely. Your sarcasm about the police and military aside.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15028611
Drlee wrote:Your sarcasm about the police and military aside.


I'm not sure it's sarcasm. Police officers are many times more likely to commit domestic violence than the general population.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15028655
I see. I missed that. I also think it is true. I withdraw the sarcasm comment.
By Hindsite
#15028683
Rancid wrote:I'm not sure it's sarcasm. Police officers are many times more likely to commit domestic violence than the general population.

Is that a new left-wing talking point? You must have heard that on fake news.
User avatar
By Red_Army
#15028731
The funny thing is that they are not only more likely to domestically abuse, but that's just what is reported. In a situation where a cop is abusing his spouse how many of these cases do you imagine are ignored, downplayed, or talked down? This is exactly what I'm talking about though. When people talk about "common sense gun control" they are talking complete bullshit. Conservatives think cops/troops are beyond reproach even when they engage in the same behavior they are supposedly risking their lives to stop so nothing like restricting based on domestic abuse would ever pass muster with the NRA. They only want to stop "bad people with guns" (black and brown people).
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15028929
Red_Army wrote:They only want to stop "bad people with guns" (black and brown people).


It's ignorant comments like that which will help ensure that little is done about gun violence in this country.

I'm a gun owner, have my CWP and carry regularly, and I couldn't give a flying fuck what somneone's skin color is. As long as a person is safe and sane and obeys the law, they could be green and I wouldn't care.

But as long as there are those who wish to try to make this a racially charged debate, nothing of consequence will happen...
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
Blackface: Canada's Racist PM

I hate shit like this. Something someone does yea[…]

if you're so pro-socialist It's not so much tha[…]

I never claimed he did. I'll accept that as you[…]

That video by Colion Noir is absolutely outstandin[…]