The Obama Gun Effect

[wmbwinn]

Any of you reading the news regularly would be aware that gun and ammo sales have increased around 500% since Obama won the election. If you want links, I can provide them but you can do a news search and find many articles.

Anyway, here is a NRA ILA blurb on the issue:

"Obama Selects Janet Reno's Anti-Gun Point Man As Next Attorney General

Friday, November 21, 2008

So much for "I support the Second Amendment," and so much for the notion of "change."

Media reports say President-elect Barack Obama has selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General, and that Holder may already have accepted the offer. Holder, as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration, said that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects the right to have a firearm when serving with a militia. After leaving office, Holder stuck to that assertion when he signed Janet Reno's brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, which stated, "The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

At the Justice Department, Holder advocated a waiting period, limiting gun purchases to one per month, and so-called "gun show loophole" legislation--the fine print of which would have driven gun shows out of business. Holder made it clear that he, Clinton, and Reno were more interested in stopping gun sales than in regulating them. When ABC's George Will asked him about guns being used for self-defense more often than to commit crime, and Right-to-Carry states having lower crime rates than other states, Holder dismissed the facts that Mr. Will raised, with the flippant statement, "I'm not sure that we need more than the 200 million or so guns that we have on the streets."

In the same interview, Holder claimed that gun control was responsible for crime declining in the 1990s, when criminologists, law enforcement professionals, and sociologists attributed the trend to other factors entirely. We wonder what Holder would say today, since the federal ban on "assault weapons" and standard-equipment magazines holding more than 10 rounds has expired, the number of privately owned guns has risen by 35-40 million, and yet, murder and total violent crime have declined even more than before.

After leaving the Justice Department, Holder kept his anti-gun bona fides up-to-date by writing a column in the Washington Post advocating a law that would ban any gun sale without a background check--even between family members and close friends--and also "give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." Holder claimed--since his column appeared just a month after the September 11, 2001 attacks--that his national gun registration scheme would help protect us from terrorists, when, in reality, this was just political opportunism at its worst.

Obama's selection of a Clinton Administration veteran with an anti-gun record as long as his own, signals that the new president is just as committed to his promise of respecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as he is to his promise of change: "Yes We Can" get elected by lying to the American people. "

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4243

[Mavdog]

reads like a promo piece from the gun retailers association.

if congress wants to regulate guns, congress will regulate guns.

it's not up to the attorney general nor the president to decide.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

reads like a promo piece from the gun retailers association.

if congress wants to regulate guns, congress will regulate guns.

it's not up to the attorney general nor the president to decide.

Right. And I especially like this beauty:

Obama's selection of a Clinton Administration veteran with an anti-gun record as long as his own, signals that the new president is just as committed to his promise of respecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as he is to his promise of change: "Yes We Can" get elected by lying to the American people. "

As if gun control is Job Number One for the Attorney General.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

reads like a promo piece from the gun retailers association.

if congress wants to regulate guns, congress will regulate guns.

it's not up to the attorney general nor the president to decide.

You guys are missing the boat. I pointed out that the effect of Obama in the White House and a Dem controlled Congress is causing suppliers of guns and ammunition to be OUT OF STUFF.

Guys like me are buying it all up...

Heck, it is a good investment just to buy and hold because the value on this stuff is going through the roof.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You guys are missing the boat. I pointed out that the effect of Obama in the White House and a Dem controlled Congress is causing suppliers of guns and ammunition to be OUT OF STUFF.

Guys like me are buying it all up...

Heck, it is a good investment just to buy and hold because the value on this stuff is going through the roof.

great, keep up the spending, it helps the economy.

as for the 'good investment', guess it depends on the future regs. do you expect to be a person who engages in illegal commerce?

[Dirkadirkastan]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson

The whole reason we have a right to bear arms is so we can overthrow the government every once in awhile. Anyone down?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You guys are missing the boat. I pointed out that the effect of Obama in the White House and a Dem controlled Congress is causing suppliers of guns and ammunition to be OUT OF STUFF.

Guys like me are buying it all up...

Heck, it is a good investment just to buy and hold because the value on this stuff is going through the roof.

I was looking online for ammo at Cabelas, and EVERY time I clicked the Add to Cart link, I was told the selected ammo was on back order...

I too am buying as much ammo as I can, while I can.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson

The whole reason we have a right to bear arms is so we can overthrow the government every once in awhile. Anyone down?

Thomas Jefferson smoked a shitload of pot, and assumed everyone else did the same.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thomas Jefferson smoked a shitload of pot, and assumed everyone else did the same.

For the more sheep-like there's ofcourse the military taking care of you:

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...113002217.html

Obviously, people don't need weapons, after all, their noble governments will defend them...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

great, keep up the spending, it helps the economy.

as for the 'good investment', guess it depends on the future regs. do you expect to be a person who engages in illegal commerce?

no, silly. The stuff that was purchased and owned legally will continue to be legal. It will be "grandfathered in" and then the price goes through the ceiling as the supply is limited to that which is already here, excluding further production and/or imports.

[wmbwinn]

The following is the message I received after a large order of ammunition (I have deleted the email address and other identifying information):

"On 12/04/08 we shipped orders out that were placed on November 24th of 2008

At this time we are not accepting walk-in customers. Please place your order online. Sorry for the inconvience.

At this time we are recieving a lot of calls about order status, if prices are current and if items are in stock. Prices are correct as shown on the webpage and the items are in stock at this time. Please email us and not call so that we can better handle your orders. Email us at youdon'tneedtoknowwhoIorderedfrom@noneofyourbusine ss.com so that your questions can be answered in a timely manner. This way we can better serve you by processing orders and shipping them out. It may take up to 24 business hrs for us to reply to your email but please be patient as we are doing our very best to handle the volume of emails, calls and orders.

Due to the volume of orders that we are receiving at myfavoriteonlineammunitionsupplier.com , the shipment of your order may be delayed by 10-14 business days. Although we will do all we can to fulfill your order, we are experiencing product shortages that may result in backorders or delays of specific product from your order.
We apologize for this inconvenience and please be patient."

This is what is going on all over the firearms and ammo industry right now. We are all picking up our stuff now rather than hoping we can pick it up later...

[wmbwinn]

Here is another webpage's response to ammunition orders:

"AMMUNITION IS CURRENTLY IN SHORT SUPPLY DUE TO NUMEROUS FACTORS INCLUDING THE WAR EFFORT.
BELOW IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN STOCK.

[none listed at all]
MORE AMMO COMING SOON."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

no, silly. The stuff that was purchased and owned legally will continue to be legal. It will be "grandfathered in" and then the price goes through the ceiling as the supply is limited to that which is already here, excluding further production and/or imports.

what? "grandfathered" that would allow for commerce in regulated/prohibited items?

quite a fantasy.

keep on buying, the gun retailers like getting your money.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

great, keep up the spending, it helps the economy.

Great point you just summed up your view of economics.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what? "grandfathered" that would allow for commerce in regulated/prohibited items?

quite a fantasy.

keep on buying, the gun retailers like getting your money.

you should quit speaking of things you know nothing about. Do some research. The various gun bans including assault weapon bans all allowed for a "grandfather clause" that stated that all previously imported/produced/owned weapons that existed prior to the ban are legal. Thus, it is common language in the gun industry to speak of a weapon as "pre-ban" or "post-ban" based on its production/importation date.

Besides, the "assault weapons" bans have all been easy to circumvent quite legally. The last (now expired) ban described the weapons and made certain characteristics illegal. The companies just removed the "objectionable" characteristics and kept on selling the ARs, AK47s, M14s, FALs, etc., etc.

All you had to do to have an "assault weapon" (the name assault weapon is funny and inaccurate because no military uses these "assault weapons" as they are semi automatic and the military weapons are fully automatic) is to remove the following features:
-magazine larger than 10 round capacity
-pistol grip
-threaded barrel end (or you can just weld the suppressor on the end of the threaded barrel which makes it legal as well)
-grenade launcher and grenade launcher attachment
-knife (bayonet, bayonet lug)
-barrel of a minimum length
-overall gun length of a certain length
-etc.

Anyway, the last ban was a joke. The guns kept flowing.

Anyway, every ban/restriction ever put in place included a "grandfather clause"

[wmbwinn]

posted just for your educational benefit:

Guns.

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.

Gun Owners.

The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9

"Less Gun Control."

Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime.

The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15

Notes

1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jl...aw_final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/). See also FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel...stat101705.htm).
13. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics."
14. Note 12.
15. BJS (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm).


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=126

[wmbwinn]

more efforts to educate the ignorant masses:

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSh...ad.aspx?ID=158

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you should quit speaking of things you know nothing about. Do some research. The various gun bans including assault weapon bans all allowed for a "grandfather clause" that stated that all previously imported/produced/owned weapons that existed prior to the ban are legal. Thus, it is common language in the gun industry to speak of a weapon as "pre-ban" or "post-ban" based on its production/importation date.

Besides, the "assault weapons" bans have all been easy to circumvent quite legally. The last (now expired) ban described the weapons and made certain characteristics illegal. The companies just removed the "objectionable" characteristics and kept on selling the ARs, AK47s, M14s, FALs, etc., etc.

All you had to do to have an "assault weapon" (the name assault weapon is funny and inaccurate because no military uses these "assault weapons" as they are semi automatic and the military weapons are fully automatic) is to remove the following features:
-magazine larger than 10 round capacity
-pistol grip
-threaded barrel end (or you can just weld the suppressor on the end of the threaded barrel which makes it legal as well)
-grenade launcher and grenade launcher attachment
-knife (bayonet, bayonet lug)
-barrel of a minimum length
-overall gun length of a certain length
-etc.

Anyway, the last ban was a joke. The guns kept flowing.

Anyway, every ban/restriction ever put in place included a "grandfather clause"

allowing for "banned" weapons to be commercialy traded doesn't qualify as a ban at all does it?

iow if a product can be sold, there wouldn't be too much of a constriction of supply to the demand.

you better hope for a real ban with teeth to it for your "investment" to produce a return.

the gun merchants appreciate your business.

[chumdawg]

You gun guys crack me up. You buy all these weapons and all this ammo, and you will likely never use it in a meaningful situation. Much to your teenage-hardon consternation, I'm sure.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

allowing for "banned" weapons to be commercialy traded doesn't qualify as a ban at all does it?

iow if a product can be sold, there wouldn't be too much of a constriction of supply to the demand.

you better hope for a real ban with teeth to it for your "investment" to produce a return.

the gun merchants appreciate your business.

you continue to demonstrate your complete ignorance. Let me give you a few examples to make it simple for you.

The Israeli Military Industries (IMI) exported to the USA in 1989 the Hadar II. It was a "Sporting Firearm" based on the highly effective IMI Galil (a military weapon). It was altered in several ways to satify the US laws to have it qualifed as a "Sporting Firearm". It had a small 5 round magazine, a heavier wood stock with no pistol grip, no threaded barrel, and no bayonet (knife) attachment, and no grenade launcher attachment.

The Feinstein Ban was legislated and it listed several COMPANIES that could no longer import guns to the USA. IMI was on the Ban list because IMI also makes the Uzi.

So, the Hadar II was only imported into the USA in 1989 (one year only). The gun sold for around 700 dollars back then.

Once the ban was in place, the gun now sells for about 2300 dollars. The demand for the gun remains high enough to push the low availability to drive the price up.

The Hadar II imported in 1989 is a completely legal gun and can be traded/sold in the USA with no restriction (at least no restriction other than the usual laws that govern all gun sales). IMI simply cannot import more of them. IMI can import the parts for the gun so long as they don't import the receiver (the central piece of the gun). US companies can make receivers that are clones of the IMI receiver. Section 922r of the NFA laws states that a gun can be assembled from an imported parts kit so long as no more than ten parts in the gun are imported. So, you can use ten IMI parts and find the other parts made in the USA and legally assemble the gun.

The Galil itself is another lesson for you. The Galil is Israeli's recreation of the famous AK47. The Galil is perhaps the premier class of AK47 inspired weapons in the world. There are a few equally impressive AK47 inspired weapons and which one is "best" is a matter of opinion.

Anyway, the Galil is made by IMI. The civilian versions of the Galil that were exported by Israel to the USA before 1989 are completely legal guns (they are "pre ban" in regard to the Feinstein ban) and can be bought/sold/traded with no restrictions other than the usual restrictions in play for all weapons. The civilian versions of the Galil differ from the military Galil in that:
1)not fully automatic
2)no grenade launcher

Anyway, if you have an original 100% IMI Galil imported into the USA before 1989, then you have a gun that routinely trades for 3K to 4.5K; they previously sold for around 1000 dollars when they arrived in the states...

Anyway, there are a few examples for you to ponder.

The guns that are already here which guns arrived legally remain legal and can be traded legally. When new supplies of new guns are banned, then the guns already here double or triple in value.

[chumdawg]

I bet you also collect Superman comics.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You gun guys crack me up. You buy all these weapons and all this ammo, and you will likely never use it in a meaningful situation. Much to your teenage-hardon consternation, I'm sure.

I hope to have no "meaningful situations" ever develop that would cause me to need a weapon.

I, however, enjoy shooting paper targets. I enjoy fine tuning the guns, legally modifying the guns for better accuracy, etc.

I use more typical bolt action and single shot weapons for deer hunting.

I like to collect military surplus weapons (again all legal). I have guns going back to the Franco American war. I don't have all the guns used since then, but I have a high percentage of the guns used since then (at least the ones that I can own; obviously, I own none of the ones I can't own; and I have no level 3 NFA weapons which I could obtain if I really wanted to by obtaining a legal permit). Many of the guns I own are modified military weapons that are no longer fully automatic and otherwise are modified to not be level 3 NFA weapons

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I bet you also collect Superman comics.

no, only guns

Otherwise, I'm not a collector

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I hope to have no "meaningful situations" ever develop that would cause me to need a weapon.

I, however, enjoy shooting paper targets. I enjoy fine tuning the guns, legally modifying the guns for better accuracy, etc.

I use more typical bolt action and single shot weapons for deer hunting.

I like to collect military surplus weapons (again all legal). I have guns going back to the Franco American war. I don't have all the guns used since then, but I have a high percentage of the guns used since then (at least the ones that I can own; obviously, I own none of the ones I can't own; and I have no level 3 NFA weapons which I could obtain if I really wanted to by obtaining a legal permit). Many of the guns I own are modified military weapons that are no longer fully automatic and otherwise are modified to not be level 3 NFA weapons

Just wondering if collecting those weapons makes your dick feel really big and hard.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Just wondering if collecting those weapons makes your dick feel really big and hard.

I just wonder why you would be interested in the condition of my reproductive organs...

[chumdawg]

Not your genitals...just trying to get into the mind of a guy obsessed with guns.

Don't feel embarrassed. I guess we all have to obsessed by something.

[wmbwinn]

Earlier, I alluded to section 922r restrictions as to what you can legally do with imported parts kits. You can legally buy imported parts kits for just about any imaginable military weapon. Here is page 941 of that statute:

[[Page 941]]

Sec. 178.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun
using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this
section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under
section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily
adaptable to sporting purposes.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution
by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or
agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political
subdivision thereof; or
(2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of
testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the
provisions of Sec. 178.151; or
(3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into
or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the
replacement of any part of such firearm.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term imported parts are:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(16) Pistol grips
(17) Forearms, handguards
(18) Magazine bodies
(19) Followers
(20) Floorplates


[T.D. ATF-346, 58 FR 40589, July 29, 1993]

The link is:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/regulations/27cfr178.html

Anyway, the above legislation is what makes it possible to have military style weapons in the US market so easily.

All you have to do is:
1)buy a parts kit (for maybe a AK47). The parts kit (so long as it has no receiver in the kit) can be shipped directly to your own house. The USA laws do not regard the parts kit as a gun at all. The gun is defined by the receiver and the receiver is absent in the parts kit
2)buy a US made receiver clone. Many US companies make cloned receivers. You can get a "flat" which is a stamped steel cut out, drilled, marked AK47 receiver for under 20 dollars...
3)Fold the "flat" and apply the rivets.
4)Go online and find a US made buttstock, US made forestock, US made trigger, US made disconnector, US made hammer, US made gas piston.
5)assemble the gun with no more than ten parts out of the imported parts kit.
6)take it to a gunsmith to make sure it is ready and properly headspaced and safe. Or just have the gunsmith build it for you in the first place.
7)So long as you are compliant with the laws in your finished product (not fully automatic, barrel long enough, overall gun length long enough, etc.), then you have a completely legal AK47. And, it was cheap to build...

Many of the weapons I have are made in a fashion similar to what is described above. They are all 100% legal.

I have guns (or at least the parts kit core) from Russia, Bulgaria, China, Yugoslavia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Chile, Israel, Czechoslovakia, Britain, and probably others slipping my mind right now.

It is a fun hobby.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Not your genitals...just trying to get into the mind of a guy obsessed with guns.

Don't feel embarrassed. I guess we all have to obsessed by something.

most men have a hobby they are obsessed with. we share an obsession for Mavs basketball.

I don't appreciate having such an obsession compared to a sexual turn on though.

[chumdawg]

What would you intend to do with that weapon that you carefully made in accordance with the laws? Do you want to...kill somebody? Ummm...few things more erotic than killing somebody. That charges you up, doesn't it?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What would you intend to do with that weapon that you carefully made in accordance with the laws? Do you want to...kill somebody? Ummm...few things more erotic than killing somebody. That charges you up, doesn't it?

You are a sick man, Chum. I already told you what I "get out of it". I enjoy shooting paper targets. I enjoy putting the guns together, learning how they work, taking them apart, cleaning them, improving them, etc. They are a benign hobby for me.

[chumdawg]

You can deny it all you want. But there's no denying the image you have of a guy jerking off alone in his room to his *amazing* collection of things that can freakin' KILL people.

[wmbwinn]

By the way, Chum, I posted the article showing that the men involved in the death of the young boy firing the Uzi have been charged with many violations of NFA and ATF laws. I told you earlier that I thought many laws had been broken in that situation and I was right.

I believe you posted the article as a "got ya" article to support gun restrictions.

The issue was not the gun. The issues were:
1)stupidity
2)lawlessness
3)neglect

Anyway, I posted it as a separate thread earlier. You probably saw it and ignored it since you no longer had any point to make...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You can deny it all you want. But there's no denying the image you have of a guy jerking off alone in his room to his *amazing* collection of things that can freakin' KILL people.

I'm not the sick man you are describing.

It is a meticulous, time consuming, enjoyable hobby.

The only 'thrill' I get out of it is hitting a paper target dead center every time. Otherwise, the enjoyment is just in the process of collecting, building, improving, etc.

I also have the equipment to load my own bullets. That is a fun hobby also. It is the hobby of a person who wants to shoot accurately.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

By the way, Chum, I posted the article showing that the men involved in the death of the young boy firing the Uzi have been charged with many violations of NFA and ATF laws. I told you earlier that I thought many laws had been broken in that situation and I was right.

I believe you posted the article as a "got ya" article to support gun restrictions.

The issue was not the gun. The issues were:
1)stupidity
2)lawlessness
3)neglect

Anyway, I posted it as a separate thread earlier. You probably saw it and ignored it since you no longer had any point to make...

I don't guess there was any more point to be made that wasn't made before. The dad had a hardon for guns, and as a result his kid ended up dead. I'm sure if you asked the dad, you'd fiind that that was the only salient point.

[wmbwinn]

The National Rifle Association has denounced the Barack Obama transition team’s questionnaire asking potential appointees about their own gun ownership.

The 63-question personnel form includes this query: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University, told Politico.com that there was no such question for potential appointees when George W. Bush took office in 2000.

“It kind of sticks out there like a sore thumb,” he said.

Light hypothesized that the Obama camp might want to avoid the spectacle of a Cabinet-level or other high-ranking appointee who is found to have an unregistered handgun.

But the NRA, which spent millions in an attempt to defeat Obama, is crying foul over the question.

“Barack Obama and his administration are showing their true colors and true philosophy with regard to the Second Amendment,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s top political official.

“It shows what we’ve been saying all along — this guy doesn’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental constitutional right.”

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina also denounced the question.

“It’s very odd and very concerning to put out a question like that,” he said.

DeMint’s campaign organization sent an e-mail to supporters vowing to endorse legislation that bars federal hiring discrimination on the basis of gun ownership.

The question put to potential appointees is just the latest Obama move to irk opponents of gun control, NewsBusters contributing editor Tom Blumer pointed out.

Among other things, Obama has voted to allow lawsuits designed to bankrupt firearms firms, voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting, endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership, voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense, and supported a proposal to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The above is interesting to me for several reasons. One reason is that most states and cities do not require any gun registration in the first place. So, if a man from Texas was being considered by Obama for a cabinet position and he owned a gun, the answer would be: "yes, I own a gun. No, the gun has never been registered as such is not required. No, the gun has never been used in a crime."

The only Federal requirement for gun registration is for level 3 NFA weapons and destructive devices.

So, to me it points out two issues:
1)Obama is anti-gun (which we all knew anyway despite his avoidance of talking)
2)he doesn't understand gun registration

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't guess there was any more point to be made that wasn't made before. The dad had a hardon for guns, and as a result his kid ended up dead. I'm sure if you asked the dad, you'd fiind that that was the only salient point.

I'm sure the Dad's greatest issue is, as you pointed out, the death of his son. But, I bet he is also concerned about the legal charges against him and the others involved.

You just can't outlaw stupid. Stupid happens anyway...

[chumdawg]

But the NRA, which spent millions in an attempt to defeat Obama, is crying foul over the question.

Millions? So sad, so sad...

[wmbwinn]

There is something else I "get out it". I enjoy the history of the weapons. I enjoy studying the history surrounding the weapons.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You just can't outlaw stupid. Stupid happens anyway...

And people die when "stupid" gets combined with guns.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There is something else I "get out it". I enjoy the history of the weapons. I enjoy studying the history surrounding the weapons.

Yeah, and you get a big fat hardon the more deadly those weapons get.