WMD's Finally FOUND!

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by randyvs

 

First of all, stop calling them silencers. They are suppressors. They are legal in my state and they really don't make the gun that quiet. You can still tell it's a gun shot. There are a number of reasons to use a suppressor. It makes the recoil more manageable, allows the operator to not wear hearing protection (depending).

No, first of all. I'll call it a suppository if I decide. What you do with that is of your own accord.

Silencers for rifles don't do much anyways.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Stan ? Hey hello Stan ? My god man do you understand this mans weapon had a

SILENCER

on it ?

See Stan good assassins don't get caught with their silencer deployed home boy.

how does a silencer make a gun capable of 'mass destruction'?

Doesn't even matter this guy is going away for very long time. The cops could have very well just tossed that charge in on top of the other major high power felonies that come with having a silencer on a weapon.

No this guy is friggen done .

edit on 16-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Still doesn't make it right. If i had a penny for every silencer that LEO's owned and feds i'd be a wealthy man set for life.

I can't get your first link to work but all I can get from the 2nd is that he was arrested with:
silenced rifle (care to bet it was a fakey?)
sawed off shotgun (a.k.a. "cop killers")
pyrotechnics (?) are we talking pop bottle rockets or something actually dangerous?

The pyrotechnics could be the source of the WMD charge.
But if it is for the rifle then I sure hope this type of charge doesn't become popular.
Next thing it will be high capacity mags are WMDs.

I don't trust the government to execute sensible prudence when it comes to the 2nd Amendment or "anti-terrorism".
laws. They always have to make a big show to justify their insane arsenals and budgets.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Interesting note: This is in line with NC General Assembly rules:
in part:

The term "weapon of mass death and destruction" includes:
any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is included within this definition..

That is just plain paranoid thinking.
Some things government does you just have to shake your head and wonder what are they substituting for brains in their heads.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Interesting note: This is in line with NC General Assembly rules:
in part:

The term "weapon of mass death and destruction" includes:
any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such firearm is included within this definition..

That is just plain paranoid thinking.
Some things government does you just have to shake your head and wonder what are they substituting for brains in their heads.

edit on 17-6-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

I thought so, too.

But then I was talking to a buddy of mine who works in politics, and he pointed out to me that this terminology (WMD) precedes the whole Bush/Iraq fiasco, and that the meaning was rather bastardized by THEM, not vice versa.

So in a way, it's not as crazy when taken in that context. Their definition of 'wmd' was just a 'weapon that could kill a lot of people'.

I can still see the sentiment against these kinds of laws. In some ways they are obviously absurd. But learning the history and context of the terms really made me look at it with less bewilderment.

So, anything that can be used to kill a large number of people (or life forms) is a weapon of mass destruction.

I bet if i tried really hard, I could kill 10 or more people with a spork.

Spork = WMD!


And people wonder why our country is going down the toilet.

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
So, anything that can be used to kill a large number of people (or life forms) is a weapon of mass destruction.

I bet if i tried really hard, I could kill 10 or more people with a spork.

Spork = WMD!


And people wonder why our country is going down the toilet.

Well, to be fair, this is a law that's nearly two decades old in NC.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I can't get your first link to work but all I can get from the 2nd is that he was arrested with:
silenced rifle (care to bet it was a fakey?)
sawed off shotgun (a.k.a. "cop killers")

Link works fine for me: www.citizen-times.com...

The second link was about the kid with the sawed off shotgun. The first was about the guy with a silencer/suppressor.

reply to post by stanguilles7

Well, to be fair, this is a law that's nearly two decades old in NC.

WTF are you kidding me ? Hey gimme a link or something for that if possible ? Not to question your integrety but out of plain curiousity ?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Well, to be fair, this is a law that's nearly two decades old in NC.

WTF are you kidding me ? Hey gimme a link or something for that if possible ? Not to question your integrety but out of plain curiousity ?

edit on 17-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I'm basing that on what my friend told me, so i dont have the source. He mentioned it was from the mid 90's might be wrong.

heres the law in question, perhaps you can find something more definitive.

www.ncga.state.nc.us...

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
It was not the gun that was deemed a WMD - it was the silencer attatched to it.

While I personally do not consider this a type of WMD, others might - as there is really only one reason to want a silencer on your weapon.

However, in this state it is illegal to own a silencer.

Not owning a weapon.

Actually, no. They reduce recoil to a point that allows for physically challenged people and weaker children and women who can't otherwise handle a weapon to enjoy the ability of going target shooting.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Good enough OP and thank you. I'll have a look at that for sure on the morrow.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

You could kill more people from a church tower with a rifle with a silencer on before they found you, so yes it would cause mass destruction to the victims family's etc.

By the same token, a man with a good grip and a penchant for nightly walks could kill a number of people he encounters on his travels before he was caught.

Hands are not weapons of mass destruction however.

This case, if it follows though and sticks, will set a precedent.

And there is a saying, never let a fool set a precedent.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I hate the US laws. State to state things change. Some states you can own fully automatic weapons, machine guns, and sub machine guns. Others you can not, some you can own silencers, grenade launchers and .50 cal sniper rifles others you can not. Some you can own mortars and artillery pieces others you can not. Yet every one of these stories makes national news, even when you can legally own these things in some areas of the states. Look it up, how does this make any sense to any of you?

The part that bugs me is this man could have come from a state where owning a gun with silencer is totally the norm and he got busted in a state where it is obviously not okay.

Suppressors are not a problem as they make them out to be, and they do help with the noise levels a lot..

This is one stupid law that some yin/yangs are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill about IMO..

WMD's are "massive killing weapons", although not more defined, it is greater then a certain number, more in the range of a "massacre" level, and not simply shootings of even a few or more (technically)..

A WMD is, like taking poison oak, sumac, or Ivy, linseed oil, charcoal powder, and using a specific way to turn it into a "smoldering device" would then be considered a "real" WMD, as it fall under the heading as a "Bio Weapon"...

155 howitzer rounds (standard 98 pound HE) are "not" considered a WMD (yet they can bring a building down.. go figure huh?)

A fully automatic G.E. electric 7.62 chain gun is also not considered a WMD (again go figure..)

Yet when you want to use a suppressor THAT is considered a WMD?.... hell to use one, you even lose a portion of the FPS in the process, which means it will mess with the range and foot pounds on the transfer to the target when hit.. it's more of a medium and short range option, not a long "reach out and touch someone" type of accessory, I've even seen a suppressed shotgun, which kinda makes more sense since the weapon is pretty dang loud and is also a close range weapon, as well as for urban combat assault accessories..

The feds and their stooges (those paid or receiving funds from the government including police departments) are the terrorists as far as I can see lately, what a crock of ka,ka...

Originally posted by Snakedoctorjw
UMM, Yea that is Bull#~!
You must FIRST (like in ALL states) get a BATF tax stamp and approved by you local Sheriff

I'm not sure I agree with you there. Did you know that each and every State has their own laws and regulations? I'm from California, but on a visit to Oregon, I found that you can only buy booze from an actual liquor store and not the local quicky mart, you don't pay sales tax, and you can't pump your own gas even if you want to. You do pay higher real-estate taxes though. We may be one Country, but each State has their own laws and things are different in different parts of the country.
Like you, I don't follow the laws of places I don't live in. The second line sounds right on paper and is how it's supposed to work, but that's not how it actually works here.

I looked into the laws here in California on how to get the Class III permit (Full-auto, Suppressors, and Short barrels.) as soon as I was of age. Do they not call it Class III anymore? I've not heard of the BATF tax stamp, but it was a long time ago. Like 1997ish, so things have probably changed since then. (but not for the better in these parts.)
I had, and now, have no criminal record, and no reason to not be able to purchase a Class III item. Back then, I had all the forms and money for fees all lined up and was ready to fill everything out until I was told flat out by the dealer that:
#1 It would have to be approved by the county sheriff.
#2 It would be denied.
#3 That all the money for the fees would be wasted.
#4 No mention of Federal anything.

In Cali, that's where it stops unless you had a damned good reason to have it approved, like a jewelry store owner/anyone who carries a lot of cash to the bank, stuff like that. And while we're on the subject, a concealed carry permit as well.
Those are the only reasons one would be issued a permit, and that was more the concealed carry that would be approved, not Class III. The dealer said he knew of nobody, even talking amongst the other dealers in the area, that was issued a Class III permit. I thanked him for his honesty and saving me the money.

Nowadays, in my area, I often hear of people getting caught with illegal firearms of the type I was trying to purchase legally. The people who try to go through the legal channels to purchase them can't, but the criminals seem to have no problem doing so. All I can think of when I hear it is "Way to go Gun Control."

(which is the Buncombe county and one crooked ass Sheriff Department)

Again, the Sheriff Department is where it stops in California. (Check your local laws and regulations before ordering folks.)

Once that is done you can have, own, shoot with, and enjoy the SUPPRESSED sounds of hunting and target practice!

Congratulations on living in a state that will allow you to do so. Also, what state do you live in by the way, just by chance I should I decide to get out of here? Maybe I'll consider moving there.
Do you pay yearly fees on what you own, or is it a one time purchase? (A question from Cali Assault Rifle Ban.) Cali Pre-ban owned arms required:
#1 Registration with the state.
#2 A $200/year Tax per firearm. (Banishment through excessive taxation. I know a few people who just couldn't pay it but didn't want to break the law.)
just to legally keep what you already legally owned,
or
#3 Surrender them to the state with zero compensation. (I know a lot more people who just put them away and don't take them out anymore.) Banning a firearm once it's been legal to purchase and own does absolutely nothing.

I own a rifle that was completely legal when I bought it. At the time of purchase, I could do anything I wanted to it with no problem and purchased just about every part and upgrade for it I could find. Now, due to the fact that it has a removable magazine, I have to put it back to it's original condition if I want to take it out to the range. That's all I get. That doesn't mean that I don't still have all those parts anymore. I just can't have them on the rifle when I take it out to the range. The Assault Rifle ban accomplishes absolutely nothing other than being able to charge me with more crimes should I take it out with everything I have on it. It still shoots the same ten rounds semi-auto. What's the difference???

Kinda wish people used that space between their ears to search before looking stupid!

This is coming from talking to friends from other states, them not knowing my local laws, not knowing how it works here in this state, them telling me they'd never move here and asking how I do it, so I don't mean to be offensive, but I kinda wish people would fill that space between their ears learning a little bit about how others are forced to live because of stupid laws before just calling them stupid.

It could go a long way toward others taking you a little more seriously in the future.

reply to post by Snakedoctorjw


Sorry. That last part was not meant for you in particular, but everyone in general. People in different places live under different laws and most people just don't seem to understand that. It was just my thoughts after reading what you said.