User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:27:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread is quite a clusterfuck. 99% of MG owners would gladly see the Hughes amendment overturned if it mean more MGs. I imagine a lot of the people on this board could buy an MG if they so pleased. Buy an old honda instead of a new truck. Don't buy that boat. Don't have kids. Don't have a girlfriend. Live in a cheaper apartment. Sell all of your AR15's. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice those things in order to get an MG. Now imagine someone who was so passionate about MGs that they are willing to give up those things. Now you have an MG owner. Do you think a person who loves MGs this much would be upset at the idea of being able to buy more? If I told you your corvette $40,000 was now worth $1000, but you could buy any sports car you ever dreamed of for $1000, would you be upset, or would you run out and load up on Ferrari's and Porsche's? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:31:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely. If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Where in the hell did you get the fucked up idea I that drive a brodozer? I don't, and I've never spent anywhere close to $30k on a vehicle (or $20k for that matter). I suppose I could quit feeding and clothing and housing my family and then I could afford a machine gun - opportunity costs, you know. Do I smell a rat whose "investment" might be threatened if Hughes would be repealed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:32:16 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:34:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That attitude is as bad as any gun grabber May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. Their are ~300,000 members of AR15.com. Their are ~170,000 transferable machineguns. If everyone here has unlimited money, their still aren't enough to go around. That is all irrelevant though. Machineguns are the types of weapons the 2nd Amendment was written to protect from infringement. The fact that criminals will use them in crime does not allow for the government to legally curtail their use. Let me say it again......You have every right to own a machine gun!!!! You just can't afford it! Chances are there are 100s of other semi-auto shotguns and rifles and handguns that you can't afford as well ....but it has nothing to do with the 2 Amendment .......either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and someone thinks that making machine guns cheap and readily available in the hood is a good idea? Oh so because thugs MIGHT get ahold of and use one, the rest of us law abiding should continue to have MG's out of reach? May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. Their are ~300,000 members of AR15.com. Their are ~170,000 transferable machineguns. If everyone here has unlimited money, their still aren't enough to go around. That is all irrelevant though. Machineguns are the types of weapons the 2nd Amendment was written to protect from infringement. The fact that criminals will use them in crime does not allow for the government to legally curtail their use. Let me say it again......You have every right to own a machine gun!!!! You just can't afford it! Chances are there are 100s of other semi-auto shotguns and rifles and handguns that you can't afford as well ....but it has nothing to do with the 2 Amendment .......either. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:36:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where in the hell did you get the fucked up idea I that drive a brodozer? I don't, and I've never spent anywhere close to $30k on a vehicle (or $20k for that matter). I suppose I could quit feeding and clothing and housing my family and then I could afford a machine gun - opportunity costs, you know. Do I smell a rat whose "investment" might be threatened if Hughes would be repealed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely. If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Where in the hell did you get the fucked up idea I that drive a brodozer? I don't, and I've never spent anywhere close to $30k on a vehicle (or $20k for that matter). I suppose I could quit feeding and clothing and housing my family and then I could afford a machine gun - opportunity costs, you know. Do I smell a rat whose "investment" might be threatened if Hughes would be repealed? I'm not saying it's reasonable to set your family needs aside. I'm saying sometimes you can't have X and Y. You have to choose one over the other. I can see how you'd miss that point, but it remains valid nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:36:58 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:39:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's great, really. But the point remains. People choose to spend their discretionary income on things other than machine guns. Some of those people cry about it here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Disgusting. I know!! Why anyone would drive a brodozer is beyond me, but it's a free country! Driving a brodozer is almost as bad as being an obvious, trolling douchebag. It can only be topped by the statist licking of boot heels. That's great, really. But the point remains. People choose to spend their discretionary income on things other than machine guns. Some of those people cry about it here. And some of us have obligations that limit our discretionary income to where we can only scrape up a couple thousand dollars a year for guns & ammo expenditures. Perhaps us peasants could enjoy FA toys a little bit too if it weren't for Hughes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:41:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And some of us have obligations that limit our discretionary income to where we can only scrape up a couple thousand dollars a year for guns & ammo expenditures. Perhaps us peasants could enjoy FA toys a little bit too if it weren't for Hughes. Agreed and understood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:43:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Hughes is overturned they lose all validation in life and they have to face the poor choices they made in choosing machineguns over other things in life. They don't like that realization. However, as I mentioned a page or so back...THEY SHOULD SELL NOW BEFORE THEY LOSE ALL THEIR MONEY. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This thread is quite a clusterfuck. 99% of MG owners would gladly see the Hughes amendment overturned if it mean more MGs. I imagine a lot of the people on this board could buy an MG if they so pleased. Buy an old honda instead of a new truck. Don't buy that boat. Don't have kids. Don't have a girlfriend. Live in a cheaper apartment. Sell all of your AR15's. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice those things in order to get an MG. Now imagine someone who was so passionate about MGs that they are willing to give up those things. Now you have an MG owner. Do you think a person who loves MGs this much would be upset at the idea of being able to buy more? If I told you your corvette $40,000 was now worth $1000, but you could buy any sports car you ever dreamed of for $1000, would you be upset, or would you run out and load up on Ferrari's and Porsche's? I bought the machineguns I own because I wanted machineguns, not an investment. And unfortunately, Hughes is going nowhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:43:25 PM EDT
[#10]
 Oh lawdy, I can't believe I missed this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:12:29 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying it's reasonable to set your family needs aside. I'm saying sometimes you can't have X and Y. You have to choose one over the other. I can see how you'd miss that point, but it remains valid nonetheless. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Where in the hell did you get the fucked up idea I that drive a brodozer? I don't, and I've never spent anywhere close to $30k on a vehicle (or $20k for that matter). I suppose I could quit feeding and clothing and housing my family and then I could afford a machine gun - opportunity costs, you know. Do I smell a rat whose "investment" might be threatened if Hughes would be repealed? I'm not saying it's reasonable to set your family needs aside. I'm saying sometimes you can't have X and Y. You have to choose one over the other. I can see how you'd miss that point, but it remains valid nonetheless. You're STILL missing the whole point of this entire thread. I take care of my obligations and I do choose to spend what discretionary income I have on guns and ammunition so I can teach my 4 kids to shoot and appreciate the Second Amendment NOW while they're growing up. I'd need 10 or 15 times as much discretionary income as I have in a year just to buy one transferable M16. That's not going to happen until they're grown up and out on their own, which is too late. If not for the Hughes Amendment, I would probably have an M16 or some other FA toys already and could pass that appreciation along to another generation. I wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to choose family obligations over MGs if we didn't have shitty laws that artificially restrict the pool of available MGs and drive the price to the point of unobtanium. If not for the bad law that is Hughes, many of us could have X and Y. Hughes is a bad law, is arbitrarily and unevenly applied, and needs to be shitcanned so new MGs can be affordably manufactured by the trainload and enjoyed by the multitudes, not just the select few who can afford to outbid each other on the artificially limited supply of existing (pre-86) MGs. How many transferables are currently on the registry, less than 200,000? How many gun owners are there in the USA, MILLIONS? I will own one, no matter how long it takes, or how much it costs. The whole point of this is that the supply of FA guns shouldn't be artificially limited by Hughes. If every AR15 manufacturer was able to offer FA versions of their current offerings to anyone legally able to own a gun, how many do you suppose they could sell at say, a premium of 25-50% over the price of the semi-auto version? DIAS & Lightning Links should be $50 items, not $10,000 items. Let the collectors have their bidding wars on the old historically important collectible NFA stuff. Let the rest of us go to our LGS and buy newly manufactured M16, M4, AK, Uzi, H&K, & many other full-auto guns, as many as we want, whenever we want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:16:10 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weird that we pay almost the same price as the .gov for ARs now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shit. A factory fresh m240 costs $16k today. That is a hell of a lot cheaper than $175k, but still very pricey. Quoted: the .mil pays 16k for a belt fed? seriously ? Quoted: An M2 is between 11 and 12k, I'm sure a 240 is much less. Quoted: A hair less than 5k. Quoted: That would make sense, but I've heard the 16 figure thrown out before. Individual price maybe? Quoted: You'd have to look at the individual contract price for replacements. I'm just quoting fedlog price. We had an "accident" with a new M2A1 recently, and that's where we get prices for calculating the cost of the incident. All that stuff is going online now. WebFLIS 1005-01-412-3129 - $6,000 for an M240B 1005-01-127-7510 - $3,830 for an M249 1005-00-322-9715 - $12,685 for an M2HB 1005-01-128-9936 - $503 for an M16A2 1005-01-231-0973 - $646.50 for an M4 I'm sure most of those come with additional equipment, so there is that.
Weird that we pay almost the same price as the .gov for ARs now. Government guns come standard with all the fixin's. Aimpoint, buis, etc. all in one box and ready to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:21:28 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Government guns come standard with all the fixin's. Aimpoint, buis, etc. all in one box and ready to go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shit. A factory fresh m240 costs $16k today. That is a hell of a lot cheaper than $175k, but still very pricey. Quoted: the .mil pays 16k for a belt fed? seriously ? Quoted: An M2 is between 11 and 12k, I'm sure a 240 is much less. Quoted: A hair less than 5k. Quoted: That would make sense, but I've heard the 16 figure thrown out before. Individual price maybe? Quoted: You'd have to look at the individual contract price for replacements. I'm just quoting fedlog price. We had an "accident" with a new M2A1 recently, and that's where we get prices for calculating the cost of the incident. All that stuff is going online now. WebFLIS 1005-01-412-3129 - $6,000 for an M240B 1005-01-127-7510 - $3,830 for an M249 1005-00-322-9715 - $12,685 for an M2HB 1005-01-128-9936 - $503 for an M16A2 1005-01-231-0973 - $646.50 for an M4 I'm sure most of those come with additional equipment, so there is that.
Weird that we pay almost the same price as the .gov for ARs now. Government guns come standard with all the fixin's. Aimpoint, buis, etc. all in one box and ready to go. Thank you for making my point. For the approximate $2k I get to spend on guns & such each year, I could have four M16 or three M4. I'd be more than happy to be able to buy one or two every year though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:44:10 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That attitude is as bad as any gun grabber May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and someone thinks that making machine guns cheap and readily available in the hood is a good idea? Oh so because thugs MIGHT get ahold of and use one, the rest of us law abiding should continue to have MG's out of reach? That attitude is as bad as any gun grabber May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. LOL. Slow day over on DU, eh? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:46:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FIFY Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I was dictating new gun policy regarding the NFA I would do this. 1) Remove SBRs, SBSs, AOWs and Suppressors from the NFA. 2) Repeal Hughes 3) Pass "Shall issue" rules for CLEO signing, if they cannot show cause, they have to sign. Replace CLEO Signoff with a NICScheck/CCW exemption 4) Maintain current tax background check and registration for MGs. This is 2015, not 1934 5) Make possession of an MG by a person previously convicted of a violent felony or use of an MG in the commission of a felony a mandatory life sentence. This would open up the registry for new MGs, drop the cost of MGs and maintain a "reasonable" barrier preventing every aspiring rapper from buying one at Walmart. FIFY Did you a solid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:49:54 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you a solid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I was dictating new gun policy regarding the NFA I would do this. 1) Remove SBRs, SBSs, AOWs and Suppressors from the NFA. 2) Repeal Hughes 3) Pass "Shall issue" rules for CLEO signing, if they cannot show cause, they have to sign. Replace CLEO Signoff with a NICScheck/CCW exemption 4) Maintain current tax background check and registration for MGs. This is 2015, not 1934 5) Make possession of an MG by a person previously convicted of a violent felony or use of an MG in the commission of a felony a mandatory life sentence. This would open up the registry for new MGs, drop the cost of MGs and maintain a "reasonable" barrier preventing every aspiring rapper from buying one at Walmart. FIFY Did you a solid. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:52:27 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely. If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. So, machineguns only for the rich, wealthy, and privileged, right? Not for the common folk? The NFA makes some pigs more equal than others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:54:54 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, machineguns only for the rich, wealthy, and privileged, right? Not for the common folk? The NFA makes some pigs more equal than others. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely. If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. So, machineguns only for the rich, wealthy, and privileged, right? Not for the common folk? The NFA makes some pigs more equal than others. You can't afford a $30k truck? Careful, some folks (especially in austin) will make fun of you and say mean things 
I'd stick with "FNFA FBHO" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:59:30 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, machineguns only for the rich, wealthy, and privileged, right? Not for the common folk? The NFA makes some pigs more equal than others. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely. If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. So, machineguns only for the rich, wealthy, and privileged, right? Not for the common folk? The NFA makes some pigs more equal than others. Soon, you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:01:14 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Government guns come standard with all the fixin's. Aimpoint, buis, etc. all in one box and ready to go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shit. A factory fresh m240 costs $16k today. That is a hell of a lot cheaper than $175k, but still very pricey. Quoted: the .mil pays 16k for a belt fed? seriously ? Quoted: An M2 is between 11 and 12k, I'm sure a 240 is much less. Quoted: A hair less than 5k. Quoted: That would make sense, but I've heard the 16 figure thrown out before. Individual price maybe? Quoted: You'd have to look at the individual contract price for replacements. I'm just quoting fedlog price. We had an "accident" with a new M2A1 recently, and that's where we get prices for calculating the cost of the incident. All that stuff is going online now. WebFLIS 1005-01-412-3129 - $6,000 for an M240B 1005-01-127-7510 - $3,830 for an M249 1005-00-322-9715 - $12,685 for an M2HB 1005-01-128-9936 - $503 for an M16A2 1005-01-231-0973 - $646.50 for an M4 I'm sure most of those come with additional equipment, so there is that.
Weird that we pay almost the same price as the .gov for ARs now. Government guns come standard with all the fixin's. Aimpoint, buis, etc. all in one box and ready to go. Since when? I have unboxed brand new M16A3's, didn't come with shit. Navy musta gotten the shaft. Then again when I was loaned to the army my M68 and light were issued separate from my rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:03:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No disrespect, but I just don't have time to answer every single followup to my posts. I've already outlined some of the issues I think we'll have to contend with. I still think that you'd see a significant amount more full autos in the hands of criminals, just as you see more AR15s in their hands now than in the mid 70s and 80s. It's just a matter of looking at the numbers. More guns in the hands of civilians = more in the hands of criminals. That's a reality we have to live with and one we have to be prepared to address if we want full autos to be in everyone's house. Maybe the NFA worked, at least to keep most of them out of the hands of criminals in the past. Two legally owned incidents certainly seems to support that. Abolish hughes, but still subject to the NFA? Maybe that will work. Who knows? Its a discussion that needs to be had. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from anything. I own MGs, but I've supported the lawsuit. And generally, I'm against regulation and support "shall not be infringed." But I'm conscious of the dangers certain arms present in bad hands. And I think any regulation in place needs to be effective and narrowly-tailored. Frankly, I just think we need to analyze things a bit further than blindly yelling "freedom!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Look, none of this is to say I don't support ending the ban. I've donated to the lawsuit in favor taking it down. And I hate the NFA. But I think its disingenuous of us as gun owners to look at this blindly. There are issues we need to work through and problems we need to address or be ready to. What issues or problems? I've heard this before but no one has said what they are or might be. Frankly, it's nothing more than trying to dissuade people from this course of action. No disrespect, but I just don't have time to answer every single followup to my posts. I've already outlined some of the issues I think we'll have to contend with. I still think that you'd see a significant amount more full autos in the hands of criminals, just as you see more AR15s in their hands now than in the mid 70s and 80s. It's just a matter of looking at the numbers. More guns in the hands of civilians = more in the hands of criminals. That's a reality we have to live with and one we have to be prepared to address if we want full autos to be in everyone's house. Maybe the NFA worked, at least to keep most of them out of the hands of criminals in the past. Two legally owned incidents certainly seems to support that. Abolish hughes, but still subject to the NFA? Maybe that will work. Who knows? Its a discussion that needs to be had. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from anything. I own MGs, but I've supported the lawsuit. And generally, I'm against regulation and support "shall not be infringed." But I'm conscious of the dangers certain arms present in bad hands. And I think any regulation in place needs to be effective and narrowly-tailored. Frankly, I just think we need to analyze things a bit further than blindly yelling "freedom!" There is a very pertinent thread about the failure of Gun Control in France and by extension Europe. By their government estimates there are TENS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL GUNS in the hand of people in various European countries. Up to and including MACHINE GUNS and BELT FEDS. Almost none of it was legally acquired, some was obtained post WW2, and more has flown in the country since the fall of Berlin Wall. AKs machine pistols, handguns of every sort. Anyone who says, well bans....BLAH BLAH BLAH. The only thing slowing down a criminal from obtaining a firearm is time and money, the law is not even a speedbump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:56:18 AM EDT
[#22]
it's sad. It must be like owning a towing company. you really need the business and need the money, but eventually you realize you've been secretly hoping for someones misfortune. I can understand their position . .. but I hope they don't actively campaign against ending the NFA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:27:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Hughes is overturned they lose all validation in life and they have to face the poor choices they made in choosing machineguns over other things in life. They don't like that realization. However, as I mentioned a page or so back...THEY SHOULD SELL NOW BEFORE THEY LOSE ALL THEIR MONEY. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This thread is quite a clusterfuck. 99% of MG owners would gladly see the Hughes amendment overturned if it mean more MGs. I imagine a lot of the people on this board could buy an MG if they so pleased. Buy an old honda instead of a new truck. Don't buy that boat. Don't have kids. Don't have a girlfriend. Live in a cheaper apartment. Sell all of your AR15's. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice those things in order to get an MG. Now imagine someone who was so passionate about MGs that they are willing to give up those things. Now you have an MG owner. Do you think a person who loves MGs this much would be upset at the idea of being able to buy more? If I told you your corvette $40,000 was now worth $1000, but you could buy any sports car you ever dreamed of for $1000, would you be upset, or would you run out and load up on Ferrari's and Porsche's? That a pretty broad brush you color everyone who has ever bought a transferable machinegun. I guess I find it pretty disheartening that there has been somebody on this board since close to the beginning who thinks that all of us that chose to collect a particular type of firearm define our lives by what we own or purchase regardless of what it is, be it a collectible car or an expensive piece of art. There is a lot more to life than material possessions and there are certainly a lot more problems in the world to get this worked up about than something that quite frankly is as immaterial to anybody living a full and happy life as buying or owning a machinegun. Even, if the government came and took every machinegun I own its not going to keep me from enjoying my life or make me think that owning them was a bad decision as I have enjoyed them quite a bit over the years. At the end of the day they are just inanimate pieces of metal sitting in a big locked metal box 99% of the time. I would be more far upset if somebody took or killed my dog than physically any losing machinegun I own, much less some sort of paper financial loss on a gun I have no plans to sell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:44:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's great, really. But the point remains. People choose to spend their discretionary income on things other than machine guns. Some of those people cry about it here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[quote ]Quoted: Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely.[/quote ] If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Disgusting. I know!! Why anyone would drive a brodozer is beyond me, but it's a free country! Driving a brodozer is almost as bad as being an obvious, trolling douchebag. It can only be topped by the statist licking of boot heels. That's great, really. But the point remains. People choose to spend their discretionary income on things other than machine guns. Some of those people cry about it here. Why the hell should drilling a third hole, or making a LL, or a DIAS be illegal? Why is the availability of these items limited to existing pre-'86 inventory? With a machine shop I could build my own brodozer. I still could not legally build my own machinegun. DO you see the difference, or is obvious troll obvious? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:46:51 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying it's reasonable to set your family needs aside. I'm saying sometimes you can't have X and Y. You have to choose one over the other. I can see how you'd miss that point, but it remains valid nonetheless. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely. If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Where in the hell did you get the fucked up idea I that drive a brodozer? I don't, and I've never spent anywhere close to $30k on a vehicle (or $20k for that matter). I suppose I could quit feeding and clothing and housing my family and then I could afford a machine gun - opportunity costs, you know. Do I smell a rat whose "investment" might be threatened if Hughes would be repealed? I'm not saying it's reasonable to set your family needs aside. I'm saying sometimes you can't have X and Y. You have to choose one over the other. I can see how you'd miss that point, but it remains valid nonetheless. No, it does not. Your point falls apart as soon as the artificially limited supply of FA gets mentioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:55:26 AM EDT
[#26]
If your business model and/or investment activity is reliant upon an unconstitutional mandate or electing people who would destroy this country they can fuck themselves with a horse dildo fitted with razor blades and covered in salt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:00:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That a pretty broad brush you color everyone who has ever bought a transferable machinegun. I guess I find it pretty disheartening that there has been somebody on this board since close to the beginning who thinks that all of us that chose to collect a particular type of firearm define our lives by what we own or purchase regardless of what it is, be it a collectible car or an expensive piece of art. There is a lot more to life than material possessions and there are certainly a lot more problems in the world to get this worked up about than something that quite frankly is as immaterial to anybody living a full and happy life as buying or owning a machinegun. Even, if the government came and took every machinegun I own its not going to keep me from enjoying my life or make me think that owning them was a bad decision as I have enjoyed them quite a bit over the years. At the end of the day they are just inanimate pieces of metal sitting in a big locked metal box 99% of the time. I would be more far upset if somebody took or killed my dog than physically any losing machinegun I own, much less some sort of paper financial loss on a gun I have no plans to sell. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: This thread is quite a clusterfuck. 99% of MG owners would gladly see the Hughes amendment overturned if it mean more MGs. I imagine a lot of the people on this board could buy an MG if they so pleased. Buy an old honda instead of a new truck. Don't buy that boat. Don't have kids. Don't have a girlfriend. Live in a cheaper apartment. Sell all of your AR15's. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice those things in order to get an MG. Now imagine someone who was so passionate about MGs that they are willing to give up those things. Now you have an MG owner. Do you think a person who loves MGs this much would be upset at the idea of being able to buy more? If I told you your corvette $40,000 was now worth $1000, but you could buy any sports car you ever dreamed of for $1000, would you be upset, or would you run out and load up on Ferrari's and Porsche's? That a pretty broad brush you color everyone who has ever bought a transferable machinegun. I guess I find it pretty disheartening that there has been somebody on this board since close to the beginning who thinks that all of us that chose to collect a particular type of firearm define our lives by what we own or purchase regardless of what it is, be it a collectible car or an expensive piece of art. There is a lot more to life than material possessions and there are certainly a lot more problems in the world to get this worked up about than something that quite frankly is as immaterial to anybody living a full and happy life as buying or owning a machinegun. Even, if the government came and took every machinegun I own its not going to keep me from enjoying my life or make me think that owning them was a bad decision as I have enjoyed them quite a bit over the years. At the end of the day they are just inanimate pieces of metal sitting in a big locked metal box 99% of the time. I would be more far upset if somebody took or killed my dog than physically any losing machinegun I own, much less some sort of paper financial loss on a gun I have no plans to sell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:00:35 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I could buy new MGs at realistic prices plus tax stamp, I'd own quiet a few. The excessive price due to the limited supply is what stops me now, not the paperwork & stamp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't like the NFA any more than the next guy, but it won't be repealed. The most I can ever see happening is allowing new manufacture again with a stamp, and that's an unlikely wild stretch. In this case, the "wow factor" would ultimately be lost. People want what is rare. Make it more affordable, and you would start seeing them everywhere. Happened with sound supressors and SBR's/SBS's. Ammo prices would skyrocket. Wait times for future processing would skyrocket. Collections would be horribly de-valued. Market would finally settle and seeing a machinegun at a range would become as commonplace as an AR. I figure people would buy MGs about as often as they buy suppressors. Just the paperwork and stamp are such a PIA, most wont do it for a happy switch. If I could buy new MGs at realistic prices plus tax stamp, I'd own quiet a few. The excessive price due to the limited supply is what stops me now, not the paperwork & stamp. Hell that would be enough incentive for me to GTFO of here tomorrow..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:16:21 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ I went to law school. I understand exactly how it's being challenged and on what grounds. The lawsuit is happening, yes. it remains to be seen if a judge is going to buy into the arguments that have been made and overlook 30-80 years of precedent. Did you read the answer by the ATF? I thought they made some good arguments, just as I thought we made some good arguments. This isn't a "done deal" at all yet. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the weapons in criminal hands stuff. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil. Sorry, but I dont see it...I worked for a PD in the shadow of both Newark and Jersey City...in 25 years I came across a total of ONE Illegally-converted FA firearm (Uzi) and that was in the possession of a Postal Worker with anger issues (Yeah,m i know, Cliche') Locked up shitloads of Bangers with guns.....None of them were FA, was in regular contact with the Gang Units in both NPD, JCPD, and other agencies in the area, the cast majority of guns seized from them were handguns, with a scattering of Semi AK's, ONE Ar and a Cetme... We dealt with pretty much every major ethnic gang (Bloods, Crips, Nietas, Ms-13, LKN) and has some high up Pagans who lived in Town...including one chapter president. The Media and TV makes it seem like every gang-banger out there is running a Converted Tec, or Ak, on the East coast at least up north here, it just isnt all that common. Will there be a SMALL Uptick? Probably, from Thefts, but i dot think we're ever going to see any Explosion of crime involving MG's if Hughes were to be repealed.... If the Gangs wanted MG's that bad, the Cartels would be importing them up from Mexico..... Maybe guys from your area, Cali and the Southwest can weigh in who are on the Street as well. The reality is, few people (As evidenced by the last Eighty years of NFA History) are going to go through all the Hoop jumps to Form 4 or Form 1 an MG, then use it to commit a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:16:40 AM EDT
[#30]
U
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That attitude is as bad as any gun grabber May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. Their are ~300,000 members of AR15.com. Their are ~170,000 transferable machineguns. If everyone here has unlimited money, their still aren't enough to go around. That is all irrelevant though. Machineguns are the types of weapons the 2nd Amendment was written to protect from infringement. The fact that criminals will use them in crime does not allow for the government to legally curtail their use. Let me say it again......You have every right to own a machine gun!!!! You just can't afford it! Chances are there are 100s of other semi-auto shotguns and rifles and handguns that you can't afford as well ....but it has nothing to do with the 2 Amendment .......either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and someone thinks that making machine guns cheap and readily available in the hood is a good idea? Oh so because thugs MIGHT get ahold of and use one, the rest of us law abiding should continue to have MG's out of reach? May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. Their are ~300,000 members of AR15.com. Their are ~170,000 transferable machineguns. If everyone here has unlimited money, their still aren't enough to go around. That is all irrelevant though. Machineguns are the types of weapons the 2nd Amendment was written to protect from infringement. The fact that criminals will use them in crime does not allow for the government to legally curtail their use. Let me say it again......You have every right to own a machine gun!!!! You just can't afford it! Chances are there are 100s of other semi-auto shotguns and rifles and handguns that you can't afford as well ....but it has nothing to do with the 2 Amendment .......either. Ok, so riddle me this. I want a P90 and an MP7. I've got $100,000 sitting. I can clearly afford to buy one of each. Where do I get one? And don't try to pull the "get an FFL/SOT and buy a post sample". I'm not in the business of selling MG's and doing demos to police depts. I'm not lying to the ATF and saying I am to enhance my personal collection. So please, show me where I can write a check for the two guns I'd like to buy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:27:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually the only two murders from a legal machine gun happened after Hughes was already passed, one was like 93 I think and the other was 98 I think and one was a committed by a LEO. So the only two murders by a legal MG didn't happen until after their regulation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
um, no.
Machine guns are big and expensive, regardless of the legal environment. Criminals want small, cheap, concealable guns. A crap-tastic jennings .25 auto will do a find job of getting compliance from a victim, which is what criminals want. Good guys care about stopping power and such, bad guys don't. Pre-86, there was one, (maybe two) murders using legally owned full auto in the history of the NFA act. And the US is far safer than it has been in a VERY long time. Actually the only two murders from a legal machine gun happened after Hughes was already passed, one was like 93 I think and the other was 98 I think and one was a committed by a LEO. So the only two murders by a legal MG didn't happen until after their regulation. #1 15 Sept 1988, Dayton PD Officer Waller used his Personally owned .380 MAC-11 to kill an Informant (IIRC it was a contracted hit) #2 14 Sept 1992, Dr. Shou Chao Ho also in ohio used HIS .380 MAC-11 to murder his Wife Even in the 80's in Miami during the "Drug Wars" less than 1% of crimes were committed with MG's |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:28:15 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryLooks like they killed the thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:36:02 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone should punch that bitch in his nuts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I should have, err. It was a guy asking where he could donate to the anti-anti NFA fight, he also bitched about working hard to earn 6 figures a year, and how its isn't fair, "mah investments" and then ends with asking if there was a more private forum or group he could join to fight FOR the NFA. [div style='margin-left: 40px;']How can I donate to fight this ‘NFA lawsuit’ I have too much skin in this game to let some idiots ruin it all. No outcome from this is good for me, or other collectors I know. Yet we’ve let a bunch of trailer dwelling keyboard commandos put us in fear of even voicing our opinions! It’s like soviet russia!! We have to toe the party line in public and say that we’d like to see our collections value evaporate overnight – some of us with six figures and more of investments – just to be able to buy some new crappy Mac-10s for $500 a piece. If we say what we really think, the mob of yokels crucifies us. God help us when every tom dick and harry at the range can show up and blast dirt. I worked hard in my medical career to be able to own nice things that not every jackass can have. What if people could walk into the dealership and buy the classic corvette I have for $5000? Is that fair, considering mine cost ten times that? Is that acceptable to even consider allowing as an outcome?!?! This is unacceptable. First, is there a more private board for true NFA collectors where we can discuss these issues in private? Second, what can we do to fight this? Filing ‘amicus briefs’ from our side, etc? Someone should punch that bitch in his nuts. Back when the Hughes Vote footage surfaced, we had some fuckwit in here, claiming to work for an SOT that pretty much said the exact same thing...Cant recall the SN, i THINK he got booted for some of his remarks, but it was Essentially, MG's are too highbrow for you unwashed masses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:37:51 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, so riddle me this. I want a P90 and an MP7. I've got $100,000 sitting. I can clearly afford to buy one of each. Where do I get one? And don't try to pull the "get an FFL/SOT and buy a post sample". I'm not in the business of selling MG's and doing demos to police depts. I'm not lying to the ATF and saying I am to enhance my personal collection. So please, show me where I can write a check for the two guns I'd like to buy. Isn't 1Bigdog just Zaminsky's other screen name? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:37:55 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most rentals at this point are post samples. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While the value of MG's that are currently owned may decrease, right now it seems to me that the real value in them for SOTs, FFLs, etc. that have them are to rent them. The local PSA has 6 or 7 MGs that are constantly being rented. I am sure they have paid for themselves pretty easily. Every rental place I've seen uses Post-Samples...WAY too much wear and tear to subject a transferable to |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:38:38 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 weak.
Txl Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
......I remember back in 2012 when I was stationed at Fort Campbell, some of the gun dealers around me were hoping Obama got re-elected, so their sales would go up.
Now with the Hollis vs Holder suit, it seems to have some of the more fucktarded SOTs around the country worried...... On Saturday, I was at a semi-local NFA dealer, and heard a conversation between the two guys behind the counter, that while they thought it was private, wasn't so private afterall. I overhead the guy saying how if the NFA were repealed, or if post-86 MGs were legal again, he'd loose lots of money, or possibly go out of business, and that he hopes the lawsuit fails.
Is this really the type of people that dealers specalizing in NFA items, actually are? I bet there's more than a few dealers and MG owners on this forum that hope Hollis vs Holder fails as well.  NAMES???? I'm not naming any names. I'm not exposing myself to drama, or some butthurt gun dealer trying to sue me. weak.
Txl We've had members here sued in the past....can't blame him |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:48:36 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...and when the first Form 1'd M-16 (with a punisher skull on the side of the lower) kills a bunch of schoolkids, that the lights will get turned off for good... imagine the first gang rape with a Spikes Dueling Dicks lower and Dickmod handguard,
I didn't know F/A weapons have the ability to just go out and kill things, that must explain the security measures as every National Guard armory I've been in. All this time I thought it was to prevent criminals from stealing those weapons, but that security is really there to keep the guns from walking out of the gun racks, out of the vault, and out of the armory and going to the nearest elementary school and killing chillren. Your logic is as fucked up as the same people who advocate to not use SBRs and suppressors for HD guns, because they look scary amirite? I've avoided posting in this thread but your heeerrrrppppp duuurrrrrrppppp is too much for me to ignore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:51:11 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where in the hell did you get the fucked up idea I that drive a brodozer? I don't, and I've never spent anywhere close to $30k on a vehicle (or $20k for that matter). I suppose I could quit feeding and clothing and housing my family and then I could afford a machine gun - opportunity costs, you know. Do I smell a rat whose "investment" might be threatened if Hughes would be repealed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Car was less than the price of a transferable M16 but that is immaterial to this subject. WTF does "opportunity cost" have to do with the fact that our congresscritters fucked us over by sneaking a bad amendment into a bill they "passed" in a shady manner, thus preventing the manufacture of affordable, transferable MGs? They churn out AR receivers by the tens of thousands in this country with some less than $50 each. Am I supposed to believe that one with an extra hole in it is worth tens of thousands of dollars? No, it's not, unless someone artificially restricts the supply of the ones with that extra hole with bullshit like the Hughes Amendment. You missed the point entirely. If you can afford a $30k brodozer, you can afford a machine gun. So if you really wanted one, you could have one. Where in the hell did you get the fucked up idea I that drive a brodozer? I don't, and I've never spent anywhere close to $30k on a vehicle (or $20k for that matter). I suppose I could quit feeding and clothing and housing my family and then I could afford a machine gun - opportunity costs, you know. Do I smell a rat whose "investment" might be threatened if Hughes would be repealed? Nope, that odor you are experiencing, is similar to that of a mythical creature who resides under bridges and typically feeds on goats, when it isnt having relations with Alpacas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:16:01 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
#1 15 Sept 1988, Dayton PD Officer Waller used his Personally owned .380 MAC-11 to kill an Informant (IIRC it was a contracted hit) #2 14 Sept 1992, Dr. Shou Chao Ho also in ohio used HIS .380 MAC-11 to murder his Wife Even in the 80's in Miami during the "Drug Wars" less than 1% of crimes were committed with MG's Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
um, no.
Machine guns are big and expensive, regardless of the legal environment. Criminals want small, cheap, concealable guns. A crap-tastic jennings .25 auto will do a find job of getting compliance from a victim, which is what criminals want. Good guys care about stopping power and such, bad guys don't. Pre-86, there was one, (maybe two) murders using legally owned full auto in the history of the NFA act. And the US is far safer than it has been in a VERY long time. Actually the only two murders from a legal machine gun happened after Hughes was already passed, one was like 93 I think and the other was 98 I think and one was a committed by a LEO. So the only two murders by a legal MG didn't happen until after their regulation. #1 15 Sept 1988, Dayton PD Officer Waller used his Personally owned .380 MAC-11 to kill an Informant (IIRC it was a contracted hit) #2 14 Sept 1992, Dr. Shou Chao Ho also in ohio used HIS .380 MAC-11 to murder his Wife Even in the 80's in Miami during the "Drug Wars" less than 1% of crimes were committed with MG's Didn't an LEO in Jersey used a fullauto to kill his neighbor, back in the 80's or 90's? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:49:39 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't mean to come across that way. I was referring to the people that completely against Hughes going away because they are afraid their "investment" will lose value, but at the same time aren't willing to diversify their "investments" with other asset classes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread is quite a clusterfuck. 99% of MG owners would gladly see the Hughes amendment overturned if it mean more MGs. I imagine a lot of the people on this board could buy an MG if they so pleased. Buy an old honda instead of a new truck. Don't buy that boat. Don't have kids. Don't have a girlfriend. Live in a cheaper apartment. Sell all of your AR15's. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice those things in order to get an MG. Now imagine someone who was so passionate about MGs that they are willing to give up those things. Now you have an MG owner. Do you think a person who loves MGs this much would be upset at the idea of being able to buy more? If I told you your corvette $40,000 was now worth $1000, but you could buy any sports car you ever dreamed of for $1000, would you be upset, or would you run out and load up on Ferrari's and Porsche's? That a pretty broad brush you color everyone who has ever bought a transferable machinegun. I guess I find it pretty disheartening that there has been somebody on this board since close to the beginning who thinks that all of us that chose to collect a particular type of firearm define our lives by what we own or purchase regardless of what it is, be it a collectible car or an expensive piece of art. There is a lot more to life than material possessions and there are certainly a lot more problems in the world to get this worked up about than something that quite frankly is as immaterial to anybody living a full and happy life as buying or owning a machinegun. Even, if the government came and took every machinegun I own its not going to keep me from enjoying my life or make me think that owning them was a bad decision as I have enjoyed them quite a bit over the years. At the end of the day they are just inanimate pieces of metal sitting in a big locked metal box 99% of the time. I would be more far upset if somebody took or killed my dog than physically any losing machinegun I own, much less some sort of paper financial loss on a gun I have no plans to sell. Seems like the Hughes Amendment ought to be renamed "The MachineGun Investment Protection Act", at least for a few statist bootlicking turd trolls here and a whole bunch over on SubGuns. I prefer liberty and freedom and the repeal of Hughes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:09:06 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
imagine the first gang rape with a Spikes Dueling Dicks lower and Dickmod handguard,
I didn't know F/A weapons have the ability to just go out and kill things, that must explain the security measures as every National Guard armory I've been in. All this time I thought it was to prevent criminals from stealing those weapons, but that security is really there to keep the guns from walking out of the gun racks, out of the vault, and out of the armory and going to the nearest elementary school and killing chillren. Your logic is as fucked up as the same people who advocate to not use SBRs and suppressors for HD guns, because they look scary amirite? I've avoided posting in this thread but your heeerrrrppppp duuurrrrrrppppp is too much for me to ignore. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...and when the first Form 1'd M-16 (with a punisher skull on the side of the lower) kills a bunch of schoolkids, that the lights will get turned off for good... imagine the first gang rape with a Spikes Dueling Dicks lower and Dickmod handguard,
I didn't know F/A weapons have the ability to just go out and kill things, that must explain the security measures as every National Guard armory I've been in. All this time I thought it was to prevent criminals from stealing those weapons, but that security is really there to keep the guns from walking out of the gun racks, out of the vault, and out of the armory and going to the nearest elementary school and killing chillren. Your logic is as fucked up as the same people who advocate to not use SBRs and suppressors for HD guns, because they look scary amirite? I've avoided posting in this thread but your heeerrrrppppp duuurrrrrrppppp is too much for me to ignore. Just use the "ignore" feature.....it'll keep your blood pressure down...... The fight against Hughes is just as much against public perception, the media's "spin factory", and scared officials who only care about re-election as it is anything else......and what I said (above) , that you quoted, will be what they mention in their reason to leave it where it is......Some will state that by reversing it, now "even deadlier military grade weapons" will be cheaper, and more easily available....."Imagine what this could have done at Newtown".....what Judge is going to risk his/her future political aspirations against that?.....then they will find a legal reason to leave it standing...... I remember when Hughes was passed......it put a lot of good friends basically out of business......put a major crimp in my plan to own MG's......and I'd love to see it gone...... If you can't see that, and consider what I'm saying "hurp durp whatever", then I guess our opinions on the matter will remain at odds.....but since this is a "discussion" forum, its ok......... People who have elected to go after fellow MG owners in this fight apparently don't know who the enemy is....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:49:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
#1 15 Sept 1988, Dayton PD Officer Waller used his Personally owned .380 MAC-11 to kill an Informant (IIRC it was a contracted hit) #2 14 Sept 1992, Dr. Shou Chao Ho also in ohio used HIS .380 MAC-11 to murder his Wife Even in the 80's in Miami during the "Drug Wars" less than 1% of crimes were committed with MG's Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
um, no.
Machine guns are big and expensive, regardless of the legal environment. Criminals want small, cheap, concealable guns. A crap-tastic jennings .25 auto will do a find job of getting compliance from a victim, which is what criminals want. Good guys care about stopping power and such, bad guys don't. Pre-86, there was one, (maybe two) murders using legally owned full auto in the history of the NFA act. And the US is far safer than it has been in a VERY long time. Actually the only two murders from a legal machine gun happened after Hughes was already passed, one was like 93 I think and the other was 98 I think and one was a committed by a LEO. So the only two murders by a legal MG didn't happen until after their regulation. #1 15 Sept 1988, Dayton PD Officer Waller used his Personally owned .380 MAC-11 to kill an Informant (IIRC it was a contracted hit) #2 14 Sept 1992, Dr. Shou Chao Ho also in ohio used HIS .380 MAC-11 to murder his Wife Even in the 80's in Miami during the "Drug Wars" less than 1% of crimes were committed with MG's Thank you! Guess I was off on my dates but we are all making solid points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:51:30 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and someone thinks that making machine guns cheap and readily available in the hood is a good idea? Yeah it's not like they can't them them right now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:52:49 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would never happen, but if the NFA did get completely repealed, what do you think would happen to the value of all of those 25k+ MG's? This. It's disturbing how many people show their true colors when there is money involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:53:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That attitude is as bad as any gun grabber May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and someone thinks that making machine guns cheap and readily available in the hood is a good idea? Oh so because thugs MIGHT get ahold of and use one, the rest of us law abiding should continue to have MG's out of reach? That attitude is as bad as any gun grabber May the weight of your chains crush your fucking soul. If you want a machine gun today, you can have a machine gun. Nothing is stopping you. If you do not own one then it is only because you just do not want to go through the hassle and expense to get one. The thugs are not going to go through the finger printing and background checks to get one. Eliminate that requirement and any bad guy worth his salt will have a gat. The average hood rat can't hit the broad side of a barn with a semi auto. Put 30 rounds at the pull of a trigger in his hands and a bunch of people will be dead every time. You think people want to take your guns away from you now......... just wait until 4 people are dead every time some piece of crap holds up a seven eleven. That's why we are making the case to let us form 1 MG's. Also, you do know that any hood rat can make a lightning link and in turn have a MG from a cheap ass AR15 right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:57:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. It's disturbing how many people show their true colors when there is money involved. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would never happen, but if the NFA did get completely repealed, what do you think would happen to the value of all of those 25k+ MG's? This. It's disturbing how many people show their true colors when there is money involved. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:58:28 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fight against Hughes is just as much against public perception... People who have elected to go after fellow MG owners in this fight apparently don't know who the enemy is....... Do you even Constitution bro? the only MG owners who are being chastised in this are those MG owners who looked at their MGs solely as "investments" and don't want their "investments" to depreciate in value. That is by far the minority of MG owners, but they do exist. The OP overheard one at the NFA dealer he was at and there have been a few post in this thread. ETA: Go back to subguns, or DU. For the chillren... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:03:22 PM EDT
[#48]
I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this. They are after all, in business to make money.
Don't fool yourselves, the industry has loved every minute of President Obama's presidency too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:19:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I was dictating new gun policy regarding the NFA I would do this. 1) Remove SBRs, SBSs, AOWs and Suppressors from the NFA. 2) Repeal Hughes 3) Pass "Shall issue" rules for CLEO signing, if they cannot show cause, they have to sign. 4) Maintain current tax, background check and registration for MGs. 5) Make possession of an MG by a person previously convicted of a violent felony or use of an MG in the commission of a felony a mandatory life sentence. This would open up the registry for new MGs, drop the cost of MGs and maintain a "reasonable" barrier preventing every aspiring rapper from buying one at Walmart. This is good except I think "3) Pass "Shall issue" rules for CLEO signing, if they cannot show cause, they have to sign." is a state issue, not a federal one. As much as I hate it I don't see the tax stamp going away. What if the tax stamp was payable at the time of purchase for SBRs, SBSs, AOWs and Suppressors and approval would be through NICS. Form 1s could be submitted by mail or through an online system but there would be no review period, if you paid online you would get your stamp at the end of the transaction. And I don't think the value of most collectable MGs would drop, I think it would only hit some of the converted AR lowers (early 80s not Colt Factory MGs), the tube guns and Macs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:50:39 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't an LEO in Jersey used a fullauto to kill his neighbor, back in the 80's or 90's? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
um, no.
Machine guns are big and expensive, regardless of the legal environment. Criminals want small, cheap, concealable guns. A crap-tastic jennings .25 auto will do a find job of getting compliance from a victim, which is what criminals want. Good guys care about stopping power and such, bad guys don't. Pre-86, there was one, (maybe two) murders using legally owned full auto in the history of the NFA act. And the US is far safer than it has been in a VERY long time. Actually the only two murders from a legal machine gun happened after Hughes was already passed, one was like 93 I think and the other was 98 I think and one was a committed by a LEO. So the only two murders by a legal MG didn't happen until after their regulation. #1 15 Sept 1988, Dayton PD Officer Waller used his Personally owned .380 MAC-11 to kill an Informant (IIRC it was a contracted hit) #2 14 Sept 1992, Dr. Shou Chao Ho also in ohio used HIS .380 MAC-11 to murder his Wife Even in the 80's in Miami during the "Drug Wars" less than 1% of crimes were committed with MG's Didn't an LEO in Jersey used a fullauto to kill his neighbor, back in the 80's or 90's? Departmentally owned and issued, not Personal..and yes, there have been a few of those over the years |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
