Why Would A Reporter Misreport A Semiautomatic Rifle As Automatic?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 25-11-2009 @ 07:38 PM by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by ThaLoccster


I glued a pistol grip and a bayo lug to a baseball bat with a barrel shroud nailed to it. Assault weapon.

It's all essentially worthless semantics but it should be pointed out that what you're referencing is arbitrary legal descriptions, purely aesthetic which do not change the way in which the firearm functions, tossed together by a bunch of wholly gun-ignorant politicians who never once bothered to ask an expert the time of day let alone for any sort of feedback as to whether or not they were making asses of themselves with this bill of theirs.

It's kind of freaky that one can source a definition of an elephant written by several blind men and call it valid. I wonder how many other heads are full of this sort of information as "fact."

I think this calls for the famous "what is a barrel shroud" clip.

These are the retards who write the laws that fundamentally change the lives of millions.




reply posted on 25-11-2009 @ 07:46 PM by ThaLoccster
reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I'm not arguing the idiocy of the definitions, they are what they are. I didn't come up with them.

I'm just pointing out what would be considered an assault weapon per the definition of one.

I don't necessarily agree with the definitions, but its one of the many things I can't do much about but suck it up and move one.


reply posted on 25-11-2009 @ 08:03 PM by cookiesneedlovetoo
reply to post by Asktheanimals


You are wrong on one point here. You do not need a "class 3 weapons license" to own a fully automatic weapon. Any fully automatic weapon made before May 19, 1986 is fully transferable to civilians with a background check, a LEO letter and a $200 tax stamp payable to the BATF. If you register the gun to a trust or corporation you can bypass the LEO letter. This is all provided it is legal to own a full auto in your state. In my state it is legal and I do. There is a lot more detail I could go into but I am not going to hijack the thread.



reply posted on 26-11-2009 @ 04:15 AM by angrysniper
Originally posted by cookiesneedlovetoo
reply to post by Asktheanimals


You are wrong on one point here. You do not need a "class 3 weapons license" to own a fully automatic weapon. Any fully automatic weapon made before May 19, 1986 is fully transferable to civilians with a background check, a LEO letter and a $200 tax stamp payable to the BATF. If you register the gun to a trust or corporation you can bypass the LEO letter. This is all provided it is legal to own a full auto in your state. In my state it is legal and I do. There is a lot more detail I could go into but I am not going to hijack the thread.


If anyone is reading this and thinking "200 bucks, thats it?".. you might want to go look for some NFA weapons for sale right now, they're a bit pricey. Automatic weapons definitely require a bit of an investment to get into. Its a shame too, because if that law did get repealed some day a lot of people would be losing money they've invested in them under the pretense that no more would be made available in the market. They're a fixed resource.


reply posted on 26-11-2009 @ 04:54 AM by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by angrysniper


Taking ammo cost into consideration I thought getting myself a full auto .22 would be fun. Their are several. None under several thousand dollars.

A rich mans toy. Well, rich people and criminals who do t go about things the legal way.

Never mind that as far as destruction and death go semi is superior to full auto. Or that 30 intentional rounds fired are far more worthwhile for better or worse than 30 full auto rounds sprayed.

Was there even a "think of the children" type of catalyst that resulted in the full auto ban? It's one thing to pass a pointless law riding on waves of emotion stupidity but something else entirely to pass one "just because."


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 26-11-2009 @ 08:34 AM by Bachfin
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Ok I must admit after following this thread I can see your point and I now have a better understanding of assult rifles and semi-auto rifles.

When it comes to reporters tho I've always just thought of them as paid actors reading a script given to them by their editors, it's the people behind them that have the agendas.


reply posted on 26-11-2009 @ 03:30 PM by angrysniper
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by angrysniper


Taking ammo cost into consideration I thought getting myself a full auto .22 would be fun. Their are several. None under several thousand dollars.

A rich mans toy. Well, rich people and criminals who do t go about things the legal way.

Never mind that as far as destruction and death go semi is superior to full auto. Or that 30 intentional rounds fired are far more worthwhile for better or worse than 30 full auto rounds sprayed.

Was there even a "think of the children" type of catalyst that resulted in the full auto ban? It's one thing to pass a pointless law riding on waves of emotion stupidity but something else entirely to pass one "just because."


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



That really depends on range.. up close I'd much rather have full auto or tri burst available to me. Longer than 25 meters? Aim.


reply posted on 27-11-2009 @ 08:20 PM by cookiesneedlovetoo
reply to post by angrysniper


Yeah I neglected to point out that the average NFA automatic firearm is about the same price as a car. It does make the tax stamp look like a bargain though.

Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^