Guns, Love Em or Leave Em

All things outside of Burning Man.

Postby CapSmashy » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:10 pm

**burn** wrote:
CapSmashy wrote:It takes all of 30 seconds to check the history of proposed legislation and see how many times it has been introduced in the past and what happened to it.


Every time a bill is re-introduced the chances of it being passed are renewed. The new seat holders change the dynamic of a current vote, regardless of how many times it has died in the past.


Committee membership has not changed between the 110 and 111 session. Other tha industry paranoia, there is nothing to indicate HR 45 will do anything but die in committee again.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.
User avatar
CapSmashy
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found

Postby **burn** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:43 pm

Hmmm.

When Bush was President, most of the constituents were Republican, and statistically gun owners.

Having the majority of the constituents being Democrats now, along with having a Democrat President and Attorney General, I think maybe it will help slip slide it along. Maybe the committee thinks there would be less backlash now.
Risky

The Booby Bar in
http://terminalvillage.com
**burn**
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:19 pm
Location: carousing in the corner

Postby gyre » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:49 pm

If the democrats haven't learned that their constituents don't support restrictions on personal defense, then we'll wave by to them before they fix everything the republicans fucked up and we'll really be screwed.
They better wise up though.

Don't they remember why Gore didn't have a big enough majority to prevent the vote rigging?

NO ONE wants to be like Chicago.


Then again, if guns are outlawed, I'll get to carry around automatic weapons, just like all the crooks do now.

It works just like banning drugs.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby CapSmashy » Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:07 am

**burn** wrote:Hmmm.

When Bush was President, most of the constituents were Republican, and statistically gun owners.

Having the majority of the constituents being Democrats now, along with having a Democrat President and Attorney General, I think maybe it will help slip slide it along. Maybe the committee thinks there would be less backlash now.


They thought the same in 1993 when they pushed through the AWB and the results in 94 were a disaster for Democrats in the mid terms.

And Bush and the Republicans were not much better for gun owners. Bush supported the AWB and opposed the ruling for Heller. The last comprehensive revision of the AWB was written by and cosponsored by 8 Republicans.

Even an absolute retard adviser to Obama would know that anything gun related is far to hot to even breath on in secret. The hold the democrats have in government right now is tenuous at best. If they can not get solid, positive results form the current economic moves, the Democrats are dead in the water in the 2010 elections.

This reason alone is probably why you are not hearing a peep out of any of the Democratic leadership concerning guns. The absolute flood of fear mongering propoganda flowing out from the NRA and other gun groups (that so far have only served to drive pricing to obscene levels and alienate gun people like me from their organizations) is to date pretty much baseless in origin but the sheer scale of it might be serving as the necessary means to keep even the rabid anti-gun politicians in check and quiet.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.
User avatar
CapSmashy
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found

Postby CapSmashy » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:35 pm

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pel ... 02-26.html

[i]Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “noâ€
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.
User avatar
CapSmashy
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found

Postby CapSmashy » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:35 pm

I wonder if the NRA and other groups will update their rhetoric reports to include this?
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.
User avatar
CapSmashy
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:22 pm

are you suggesting the NRA, (unlike any other special interest groups) uses hyperbole, innuendo, and partial truths to promote their agenda?

damn them........
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby gyre » Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:30 pm

They are stupidly ineffective.
They don't recognize the existence of democratic gun owners.
If their point of view was correct, guns would already be gone.

If the three stooges ran a lobbying group...
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby can't sit still » Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:49 pm

Here's an interesting vid of a very articulate woman who's parents were killed by a crazy guy with a gun;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7893819675
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:33 pm

can't sit still wrote:Here's an interesting vid of a very articulate woman who's parents were killed by a crazy guy with a gun;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7893819675


very good.
especially the last comment, it's spot on....IMHO.......
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:34 pm

gyre wrote:They are stupidly ineffective.
They don't recognize the existence of democratic gun owners.
If their point of view was correct, guns would already be gone.

If the three stooges ran a lobbying group...


I'm not clear on what and who you're referring to ......
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby gyre » Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:14 pm

ygmir wrote:
gyre wrote:They are stupidly ineffective.
They don't recognize the existence of democratic gun owners.
If their point of view was correct, guns would already be gone.

If the three stooges ran a lobbying group...


I'm not clear on what and who you're referring to ......

The nra.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:40 pm

gyre wrote:
ygmir wrote:
gyre wrote:They are stupidly ineffective.
They don't recognize the existence of democratic gun owners.
If their point of view was correct, guns would already be gone.

If the three stooges ran a lobbying group...


I'm not clear on what and who you're referring to ......

The nra.


wow,
then, not sure why you say those things.....can you elaborate?

certainly I've not noted them demonizing gun owners that are dems.......
just for being dems......

I think they are pretty effective.........

and, how would their views make guns be gone?......

hhmmm
enlighten me.

I'm not a member of the NRA, by the way........but, I do love guns.......
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby cowboyangel » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:51 pm

I Love Texas!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmTvAZvJ5Mc[/youtube]
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
User avatar
cowboyangel
 
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Postby gyre » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:01 pm

I've read many years of the nra magazine and I'm on their mailing list.
They don't demonize democratic gun owners.
They just don't recognize them as gun owners at all.
They do demonize them for their "anti-gun" positions.

I was saying that if what they think was true, there wouldn't be enough support to protect any rights.
The republican party only cares about gun rights for the rich.
Anyone with enough money can still own assault weapons or any other automatic weapon.
But they have driven the cost out of reach for most people.
It is so bad that most people owning illegal automatic weapons do so for economic reasons only, not crime.
In my state most real personal defense support comes from the democrats.

In the nra scenario, none of these people exist, including me.

Complaints from the nra have little effect on democratic representatives, as they expect no support from that quarter anyway.
Cranky democrats do get their attention though.

As a result of this attitude, many other groups have formed, splintering lobbying efforts.

I would join these guys before the nra.
http://www.jpfo.org/
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:11 pm

gyre wrote:I've read many years of the nra magazine and I'm on their mailing list.
They don't demonize democratic gun owners.
They just don't recognize them as gun owners at all.
They do demonize them for their "anti-gun" positions.

I was saying that if what they think was true, there wouldn't be enough support to protect any rights.
The republican party only cares about gun rights for the rich.
Anyone with enough money can still own assault weapons or any other automatic weapon.
But they have driven the cost out of reach for most people.
It is so bad that most people owning illegal automatic weapons do so for economic reasons only, not crime.
In my state most real personal defense support comes from the democrats.

In the nra scenario, none of these people exist, including me.

Complaints from the nra have little effect on democratic representatives, as they expect no support from that quarter anyway.
Cranky democrats do get their attention though.

As a result of this attitude, many other groups have formed, splintering lobbying efforts.

I would join these guys before the nra.
http://www.jpfo.org/

wow, that's interesting info, and, insight............
I've not noted them excluding gun owners for party, but, I'm not a member.........

I don't think I understand the 'gun rights for the rich' part.........

and,
automatic weapons are legal in certain states, only.........
I understand the license is expensive, if, that's what you refer to, but, I'm not sure you can pin that on the republicans...........
I'd say greedy politicians, in general, wanting "fees"..........
and, the prices are generally set by the "market" as far as purchase, IMHO.......

well, if the self defense/gun ownership support comes from dems in your state, good on 'em........here, that's not the case. I'm sure it varies by state...........

And, sure, I'd see why dem politicians ignore the NRA, they don't support dem politicos, if they're anti-gun...........makes sense...........to me, anyway............

Though not a member , I was ashamed at their caving and such on the Brady and AWB bills..............

Of course, I'm sort of a rogue, as such......so, groups in general scare me.............
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby gyre » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:31 pm

The market supply of automatic weapons is directly under the control of the government.
I can buy or produce an automatic weapon for hundreds of dollars, but it cannot be legally licensed.
I must buy from the limited supply designated by the government.
This isn't a problem for those with tens of thousands of dollars in their budget.
The laws already artificially will cost me many times market value for an AK47, and it will still make more sense than other choices.
Guess which manufacturers love those laws?

But I can't convert it to full auto and comply with atf regulations.

They continue to alter rules and interpretations in the atf and at state levels.
If there is an attempt to restrict ownership, this is where it will show first.
And it wasn't good under bush (unless you had bags of money).


And what the hell is up with california anyway?
It's easier for me to get a carry permit in massachusetts than most parts of california.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby **burn** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:35 pm

In addition to JPFO, I also recommend Second Amendment Foundation and Gunowners of America.
Risky

The Booby Bar in
http://terminalvillage.com
**burn**
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:19 pm
Location: carousing in the corner

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:16 pm

gyre wrote:The market supply of automatic weapons is directly under the control of the government.
I can buy or produce an automatic weapon for hundreds of dollars, but it cannot be legally licensed.
I must buy from the limited supply designated by the government.
This isn't a problem for those with tens of thousands of dollars in their budget.
The laws already artificially will cost me many times market value for an AK47, and it will still make more sense than other choices.
Guess which manufacturers love those laws?

But I can't convert it to full auto and comply with atf regulations.

They continue to alter rules and interpretations in the atf and at state levels.
If there is an attempt to restrict ownership, this is where it will show first.
And it wasn't good under bush (unless you had bags of money).


And what the hell is up with california anyway?
It's easier for me to get a carry permit in massachusetts than most parts of california.


How is the market supply of full auto weapons controlled by the gov.?
there are many manufacturers, FN, Uzi, AK, Colt, on and on.........

I understand if you register as a manufacturer, you can make a few "prototypes" before coming under fed regulation.

CA is governed by a bunch of feel good, fluff over substance, appologistic peaceniks............pandering to love and coom-bi-ah cultures............
communists...........
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby gyre » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:06 pm

Introduction of new weapons into the civilian supply is limited.
I can't remember all the details, but I can find out, if Burn or someone else doesn't have them handy.

As more people try to buy them, price goes up and up and up.
Many are at the absurd level now.

A full auto AK is $30 in some places outside the usa.

Many honest people have been caught in stings trying to legally buy affordable automatics.

It's like a course in creating a black market.
The cost of ammo is enough to restrict use of automatic weapons by anyone honest, as it is.
Try carrying five minutes of ammo for even a very slow weapon like the kalashnikov.
I bet you can't carry water too.


Two 40 round magazines are 4 pounds 13 ounces, a 75 round romanian magazine is five pounds.
Rate of fire is a leisurely 600 rounds per minute.
How many minutes can you carry?
And will you be able to stand up when you get there?
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:15 pm

well, IMHO, full auto is over rated........it's made as a last resort, when 300 bad guys are running at you, and, you gotta last ditch effort to scare them away........

3 shot burst or semi auto is much more effective, and, less ammo, again, IMHO...........

Does the government limit the number of full autos on the market? I can't see that.
I can see them limiting what is released from the military, and, IIRC, no full autos are released from the military..........
as such, anyway.......

Also, depends on the intended use or uses if said weapon.
a .22 is a great weapon, for hunting, and, single "elimination"...........
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby gyre » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:38 pm

That's the only reason they even make a non-auto kalashnikov.
My point about the weight.
Full auto is useful during a full on attack by more than one person and for fun.
And you still have to change magazines very often.
That takes time, during which you can't fire at all.
Very vulnerable.

The primary use of full auto is for amusement in this country.

I think some handguns have a faster rate of fire in semi than some automatics.
It's a completely silly distinction anyway.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby ygmir » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:47 pm

gyre wrote:That's the only reason they even make a non-auto kalashnikov.
My point about the weight.
Full auto is useful during a full on attack by more than one person and for fun.
And you still have to change magazines very often.
That takes time, during which you can't fire at all.
Very vulnerable.

The primary use of full auto is for amusement in this country.

I think some handguns have a faster rate of fire in semi than some automatics.
It's a completely silly distinction anyway.


I agree.........

and,
I think a lot of the rate of fire is dictated by case length.
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Postby gyre » Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:32 am

Some people can manufacture an automatic and possess it, but not sell it.
And there are many in limbo that are legal, but not transferable.
So the market supply is incredibly artificially restricted.
A tremendous windfall for some people.

Here's a non-assault rifle that they stopped the sale of.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abTGAP7tG0Y[/youtube]
I saw one recently for $15,000.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby CapSmashy » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:48 am

ygmir wrote:How is the market supply of full auto weapons controlled by the gov.?
there are many manufacturers, FN, Uzi, AK, Colt, on and on.........


For civilian ownership in the US the full auto market is finite and shrinking. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 made it illegal for a civilian to own any machine gun manufactured after the date became law.

I understand if you register as a manufacturer, you can make a few "prototypes" before coming under fed regulation.


You are under federal regulation from day one in terms of producing automatic weapons (or other NFA items) under a manufacturing license. You can build whatever you want provided it does not cross over into defined destructive devices.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.
User avatar
CapSmashy
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found

Postby CapSmashy » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:51 am

ygmir wrote:I can see them limiting what is released from the military, and, IIRC, no full autos are released from the military..........
as such, anyway.......


There are pretty much no weapons of any kind being released by the US military to the civilian market.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.
User avatar
CapSmashy
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found

Postby CapSmashy » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:02 am

gyre wrote:Some people can manufacture an automatic and possess it, but not sell it.
And there are many in limbo that are legal, but not transferable.
So the market supply is incredibly artificially restricted.
A tremendous windfall for some people.[/b]


Manufacturers can sell full auto to police or government entities.

A Class 3 dealer can purchase full auto weapons from the manufacturer for the purpose of law enforcement demonstration and maintain an inventory on these weapons for the purpose of governmental sales.

In both cases, either builder or dealer, you have to maintain your Special Occupational Tax (SOT) certificate which renews annually. Dealers pay $500 annually to maintain it and manufacturer's pay either $500 or $1000 based on their annual business receipts.

If you go brain dead and fail to file your SOT renewal in time and have a large inventory of NFA weapons and/or devices, you just royally fucked yourself as each of the items in now a separate NFA violation. And they will come after you in a very short order to get them and you.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.
User avatar
CapSmashy
 
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found

Postby can't sit still » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:11 pm

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby Toolmaker » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:06 am

Someone was telling me that Armalite has something Cali-legal, the AR-30. Something to look into if you live in CA.
This account has been closed as demanded by Wedeliver.
Toolmaker
 
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Postby ygmir » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:54 pm

I'm after something that fires .50BMG

and, I can't have it.........
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 27370
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

PreviousNext

Return to Open Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests