The official TST I like guns thread.

[~Brian~]

That's crazy... And I'm guessing the chances of that ban being lifted are slim to none..

[99corvette]

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

That's crazy... And I'm guessing the chances of that ban being lifted are slim to none..

yea, pretty sure it won't happen and if it ever did, well I feel bad for the guys out there that own 100k plus machine guns. I beleave the last transferable mini gun sold for 300k, I remember when I was a kid seeing it for sale 75k, and I thought that was crazy then. This is the same mini gun used in a bunch of movies.

[cmr076]

Originally Posted by 99corvette

because they can't be made anymore for public sales, prices will never fall unless they change the 1986 machine gun ban. When my father was a ffl dealer he told me the only difference from a semi colt ar15 and a colt m16 was the 200 dollar tax stamp and paper work, price was the same on the gun. No one back then really wanted to spend that 200 bucks, now and days a semi colt ar15 cost 1000? a factory colt m16 sells for 15000k

they SHOULD cost the same amount, they are nearly identical.

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

That's crazy... And I'm guessing the chances of that ban being lifted are slim to none..

i would go with none, even slim seems far fetched... it would be cool though.

[~Brian~]

Originally Posted by cmr076

they SHOULD cost the same amount, they are nearly identical.



i would go with none, even slim seems far fetched... it would be cool though.

What would have to happen for it to be lifted?

[cmr076]

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

What would have to happen for it to be lifted?

zombie apocalypse.



(kidding... kinda')


if I were a lawyer, and I were going to try and fight it, I would say it is unconstitutional because it infringes on the 2nd amendment, 2A doesnt mention anywhere what type of guns one can keep and bear (i think thats a weak case though). the problem is no lower court will overturn the ban and no superior court will even touch its appeal with a 100ft pole. think about the evolution of gun laws... pre 1986 FA guns were available, since then a ban on fullauto's, the assault weapon ban (clinton), a waiting period (where applicable) background checks, bans on certain features, prohbitions on ownership by "domestic abusers." (i dont disagree with this one). Now think about how many PRO gun laws there are... right. Everyone "cares" but nobody cares enough to put in the enormous amount of money it would take to fight.

the funny part is (and correct me if im wrong someone) is that since 1986 there has only been ONE documented crime committed with a class 3 weapon (a murder suicide) and it was a LEO that was behind the trigger.


::EDIT::

another angle would be to say that the astronomical cost of NFA guns discriminates against the "common" man, being that one average class 3 firearm is like half of a minimum wage employees annual salary!


:: DOUBLE EDIT::

just re-read this and thought you might find the history lesson interesting:

"If one were to challenge the 1936 US vs Miller ruling in the supreme court and overturn it, then all of the existing gun bans would fall apart. They are all based on 1936 US vs Miller. The entire argument on behalf of the government at the time was that "the sawn off shotgun that Mr. Miller was in possession of was not used by the military and therefore not used by the militia" and therefore the government could "regulate" guns. Again the overturn of this ruling would dissolve all existing gun bans 1989 import ban, 1986 machinegun ban, California 50-cal ban, etc...."

[~Brian~]

So can we start fighting that ruling?

[PhillySVT]

Despite the fact that I have alot of money in full auto's post ban(meaning I paid alot for them) I would love that the ban be overturned. Even though I would lose my ass on some stuff. I would love to pay under 10k for a full auto.

[99corvette]

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

So can we start fighting that ruling?

As much as I would love to see this overturned too, can't see it happening. nfa world got screwed when this ruling happen, the nra did nothing about this, so I can't see this being overturned if the nfa world doesn't have the nra backing them. Now I will say you have a lot more people going towards nfa stuff, like suppressor, sbr and sbs, but those have no ban on them other then the class three paper work. So I still can't see the nra backing this if it ever went too court, which I think it would get shut down way before it ever made a court room.

[~Brian~]

Well that sucks. Looks like I'll never have a SAW. :/

[99corvette]

well you can, I beleave theres like 10 on the books that are transferable. cost might be a problem, they go for 100-125k

[LostMarine]

Enjoying the nice weather:

[~Brian~]

Originally Posted by 99corvette

well you can, I beleave theres like 10 on the books that are transferable. cost might be a problem, they go for 100-125k

Like I said, I will probably never have a SAW... lol

[ohfivegoat]

picked up a Ruger new model blackhawk convertible in .357 and 9mm today from Claytons in Warrington and so far i love it.

[HaveBlue83]

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

Well that sucks. Looks like I'll never have a SAW. :/

Class 2 SOT = what u wanna convert today :D

semi SAW's are like 16K. take it back to open bolt and ur G2G

[CleanNeon98]

OK, I've been thinking about this for a while now. The backstory is a few years back, while I was out in the city, someone was breaking into my car at home, and my moms also and stealing things (I lost a camera bag with $5000+ worth of gear that night). My mom who was home at the time actually saw the guys rummaging through my car and said "im going to call the police" to which they responded "go ahead" and slowly walked away. The police came only 30 minutes later, and the suspects were long gone. Insurance screwed me out of my claim and instead of 5000, I got back a lousy $400.

My question is as follows: If I see someone on my property doing something like breaking into my car, or house, do I have a right to grab my weapon and try to secure the suspect? I obviously will not shoot if there is no weapon pointed towards me, but if I come out, make it apparent that I have a weapon, and to tell the suspect to get on the ground while I call police, will I be in the wrong? As I understand, as soon as they are in my house, I have the right to fire, but I may be wrong, and I don't know how this extends to outside property. I know if the suspect runs, my only option is pursuit, not shooting.

[cmr076]

Originally Posted by CleanNeon98

OK, I've been thinking about this for a while now. The backstory is a few years back, while I was out in the city, someone was breaking into my car at home, and my moms also and stealing things (I lost a camera bag with $5000+ worth of gear that night). My mom who was home at the time actually saw the guys rummaging through my car and said "im going to call the police" to which they responded "go ahead" and slowly walked away. The police came only 30 minutes later, and the suspects were long gone. Insurance screwed me out of my claim and instead of 5000, I got back a lousy $400.

My question is as follows: If I see someone on my property doing something like breaking into my car, or house, do I have a right to grab my weapon and try to secure the suspect? I obviously will not shoot if there is no weapon pointed towards me, but if I come out, make it apparent that I have a weapon, and to tell the suspect to get on the ground while I call police, will I be in the wrong? As I understand, as soon as they are in my house, I have the right to fire, but I may be wrong, and I don't know how this extends to outside property. I know if the suspect runs, my only option is pursuit, not shooting.

no, only draw when you are ready to shoot and only point your gun at something you are ready to eliminate. You arent a LEO and you cant take the law into your own hands. I know it sucks but I wouldnt hold someone at gunpoint and expect the cops to be OK with it when the show up.

[CleanNeon98]

Originally Posted by cmr076

no, only draw when you are ready to shoot and only point your gun at something you are ready to eliminate. You arent a LEO and you cant take the law into your own hands. I know it sucks but I wouldnt hold someone at gunpoint and expect the cops to be OK with it when the show up.

That really does suck. What if I have it in my waist and just show it (lift shirt) to try and scare them off?

[cmr076]

Originally Posted by CleanNeon98

That really does suck. What if I have it in my waist and just show it (lift shirt) to try and scare them off?

i guess you could... with the way our legal system always seems to work you would probably lose the gun and your LTCF for "threatening someone who accidentally got into the wrong car with a gun"

[Munky]

Originally Posted by cmr076

i guess you could... with the way our legal system always seems to work you would probably lose the gun and your LTCF for "threatening someone who accidentally got into the wrong car with a gun"

It's sooooo sad but sooooo true

[CleanNeon98]

Originally Posted by cmr076

i guess you could... with the way our legal system always seems to work you would probably lose the gun and your LTCF for "threatening someone who accidentally got into the wrong car with a gun"

It's a shame our legal system wants to protect criminals. It even amazes me that if there is a shootout involving the police, they take the criminal to the hospital to patch them up. They should leave them to die in the street like the pieces of **** they are.

Thanks for answering my question though!