Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/27/2004 7:24:08 AM EST
I have in my safe a 100% NIB blue label Colt HBAR.....Hell I don't think the bolt has been pulled back more than 3 or 4 times.

So with the ban coming to a end and I assume the price of prebans to hit the shitter,75-80% of what it may of brought 6-12 months ago......Do I load it up and shoot it hat
Your thoughts are welcome
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 7:25:18 AM EST
Take it out and blast it.



Rifles are made to be fired, not collected.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 7:27:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By MadProfessor:
Take it out and blast it.



Rifles are made to be fired, not collected.


DITTO
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 7:36:52 AM EST
after the ban expires, buy a used one to shoot. Keep that one new as an investment. If another ban passes next year, it will appreciate in value.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:20:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By _DR:
after the ban expires, buy a used one to shoot. Keep that one new as an investment. If another ban passes next year, it will appreciate in value.



While we are being pessimistic, maybe the next ban has a no grandfather/no transfer clause.....................
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:44:55 AM EST
Easy there, Mongo. No need to get "nasty"...
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:55:22 AM EST
If you can afford to keep it, I would keep it and not sell it. Not for investment purposes, but just in case they come out with a total ban. Whether to fire it or not is up to you.
Personally if I could afford two, I'd shoot the new one to break it in and made sure everything worked, clean it well, then put it away. I'd then get another to shoot the hell out of, modify, etc.

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:58:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 8:58:24 AM EST by _DR]

Originally Posted By mongo001:

Originally Posted By _DR:
after the ban expires, buy a used one to shoot. Keep that one new as an investment. If another ban passes next year, it will appreciate in value.



While we are being pessimistic, maybe the next ban has a no grandfather/no transfer clause.....................



This is true. However...that would mean the gubmint would have a mandatory turn-in and/or have to come and remove each banned firearm by force from the homes of Americans. This did not happen in 1986 with the NFA, it did not happen in 1989 with the imported AW ban, it did not happen in 1994 with the AWB that is about to expire. Grandfathering and/or registration with any new ban is far more likely. While Australia did mandate a compulsory gun buyback program, it was extremely unpopular, I doubt very seriously that would ever fly here, unless Diane Feinstein & all her friends controlled the Whitehouse, Congress and Senate. I do see the likely possibility of a ban on rifles and pistols with any military features whatsoever(no pistol grip this time), with limited capacity magazines, perhaps even non-detachable only, as in Kalifornia, this time around, if the Dems win the election and maintain a majority in one of the two houses. Many republican lawmakers are going south on us.

I would say any new ban will allow grandfathering of existing weapons, with or without registration. Of course, if they permit grandfathering, but restrict or ban sale of semi-auto replacement parts, then eventually semi-autos would be relegated to safes and museums and not the firing range where the public is concerned. An unlikely, if possible scenario.

Of course it is all conjecture at this point. Let's hope for the best, and be vocal with our legislators.

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:00:00 AM EST
Put a stupid aftermarket grip on it!
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:23:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By mongo001:

Originally Posted By _DR:
after the ban expires, buy a used one to shoot. Keep that one new as an investment. If another ban passes next year, it will appreciate in value.



While we are being pessimistic, maybe the next ban has a no grandfather/no transfer clause.....................



This is true. However...that would mean the gubmint would have a mandatory turn-in and/or have to come and remove each banned firearm by force from the homes of Americans. This did not happen in 1986 with the NFA, it did not happen in 1989 with the imported AW ban, it did not happen in 1994 with the AWB that is about to expire. Grandfathering and/or registration with any new ban is far more likely. While Australia did mandate a compulsory gun buyback program, it was extremely unpopular, I doubt very seriously that would ever fly here, unless Diane Feinstein & all her friends controlled the Whitehouse, Congress and Senate. I do see the likely possibility of a ban on rifles and pistols with any military features whatsoever(no pistol grip this time), with limited capacity magazines, perhaps even non-detachable only, as in Kalifornia, this time around, if the Dems win the election and maintain a majority in one of the two houses. Many republican lawmakers are going south on us.

I would say any new ban will allow grandfathering of existing weapons, with or without registration. Of course, if they permit grandfathering, but restrict or ban sale of semi-auto replacement parts, then eventually semi-autos would be relegated to safes and museums and not the firing range where the public is concerned. An unlikely, if possible scenario.

Of course it is all conjecture at this point. Let's hope for the best, and be vocal with our legislators.




A nationwide no transfer clause, similiar to what Kalifornia has right now, would pretty much put a halt to the collector/preban value of any "preban" rifles. As unlikely as a no grandfather clause is, Feinstein says that should such a ban occur, she WILL take your guns.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:27:08 AM EST
Hmmm ....had not considered a no transfer clause. Is there any precedent for this type of legislation?
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:33:16 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:49:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By mongo001:
Feinstein says that should such a ban occur, she WILL take your guns.



The bitch can try, and she's welcome to.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:51:10 AM EST
I am not a fan of safe queen's. If it can shoot, it should shoot.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:32:25 AM EST
How on earth have you resisted its seductive call to shoot it up until now is my question. Go on and shoot it man!
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:51:27 AM EST
Damn good thing that AR isn't in my safe because I would load it up and pop its cherry just as fast as you can say "no don't!"
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:54:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:57:32 AM EST
get a 1000 rd case of xm193.....

then shoot the HBAR

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:02:26 AM EST
Ewwwwwwwww.

It's a Colt!

Sell that POS, and get something else.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:03:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Spooge5150:
Ewwwwwwwww.

It's a Colt!

Sell that POS, and get something else.



SHAME!!!!
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:07:00 AM EST
Keep it as a safe queen! Because you never know what the future holds!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:13:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:14:23 AM EST
I'd keep her as a safe queen. I never understood the concept of the "safe queen" until I started handling more and more guns. I realized some just aren't there to beat up. But the second I ding the side of it, lock n' load.

- BUCC_Guy
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:19:29 AM EST
Just give ME the damn gun and be done with it.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:34:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:54:00 AM EST
I'd rather work at a 7-11 for minimum wage in UT/NV/AZ/NM than make $100,000/year and live in CA. YMMV
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:58:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By TriggerFish:
I'd rather work at a 7-11 for minimum wage in UT/NV/AZ/NM than make $100,000/year and live in CA. YMMV




lol, but even $100,000 a year in cali is not that much
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:31:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By _DR:
Hmmm ....had not considered a no transfer clause. Is there any precedent for this type of legislation?



It's the fact of life in the PRK.

-Troy



I did not realize they could not transfer prebans in PRK. Well there is a precedent then, that's not good.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:35:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 12:35:36 PM EST by _DR]

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By TriggerFish:
I'd rather work at a 7-11 for minimum wage in UT/NV/AZ/NM than make $100,000/year and live in CA. YMMV




lol, but even $100,000 a year in cali is not that much



true, my brother spent $550,000 for a 2000 sq ft house in San Diego when his company transferred him there. Here in DFW we could buy at least a 5000 sq ft house in a very nice neghborhood for that kind of cash.

What goes on in that state defies reason.

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 1:03:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By _DR:
Hmmm ....had not considered a no transfer clause. Is there any precedent for this type of legislation?



It's the fact of life in the PRK.

-Troy



I did not realize they could not transfer prebans in PRK. Well there is a precedent then, that's not good.



People cannot transfer within the state, but PRK allows them to be transferred out of state. That is why a national no transfer clause would be very bad.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 2:28:30 PM EST
I'd shoot the hell out of it personally.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 2:49:59 PM EST
Shoot the shit out of it. Have fun and enjoy it!! It is a nice rifle beggin for play.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:23:11 PM EST
Shoot it and enjoy.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 3:31:58 PM EST
If you can afford more than one, I say hedge your bets. I've got a NIB 6520. It's going to stay that way for now............ban expiration or no.

Sam
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 10:46:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By TriggerFish:
I'd rather work at a 7-11 for minimum wage in UT/NV/AZ/NM than make $100,000/year and live in CA. YMMV




Just got back from a friend's wedding in San Diego.

There's no difference, lifestyle-wise, between making minimum wage in Arizona and $100,000 in California.

No one, in Arizona, would be paying $1400/month rent on a tiny 1 bedroom apartment, nor taking out a $250,000 mortgage (an ugly 80%/20% balloon at that) for a 1 bedroom condo.

Only real difference, when it comes right down to it, is that he can go outside between May and October, and not burst into flames.

I'll wear sunscreen for a few months if that's what it takes.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:54:57 PM EST
I have to say, the day that my government tells me to turn in my gun is the day I no longer recognize them as my government. If Feinstein were to get her way and the government did pass another ban that required me to turn in ANY of my guns, I would invite them to personally come and get them!
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 7:36:24 PM EST


I have to say, the day that my government tells me to turn in my gun is the day I no longer recognize them as my government. If Feinstein were to get her way and the government did pass another ban that required me to turn in ANY of my guns, I would invite them to personally come and get them!




I agree. The day they ban them, is the day I go hunting with in the inner-belt....
Top Top