How does the guy from FPS Russia get the automatic weapons for his videos?
IIRC, It's a few different methods, but most of them are either his own collection(he's not short of a shilling) or the collections of friends on loan, or loans from local businesses and manufacturers in exchange for the promotion and publicity. His old weapons manager had an FFL and some other connections, but he died earlier this year. I think he's either gained his own FFL now, or has another person in his operation with one.
You'd be genuinely stunned at what FFL holders can purchase from manufacturers, or make themselves.
Secondly, did anyone else listen to Biden on NPR this week talking about guns? When the reporter pressed him on the fact that assault weapon deaths are minor compared to handguns so why ban them he want on some wild analogy tangent about banning cigarettes to fight global warming. At that point the reporter seemed to realize Biden had nothing (you can hear the 'this guy is crazy' lilt In her voice) and awkwardly moved on.
Biden's not a bad guy, but the ignorant, stupid shit that falls out of his mouth when he talks about gun control is simply ridiculous. And also sometimes illegal, or at the least extremely dangerous.
Domestic deaths from bazookas are pretty rare, so we should legalize ownership.
Secondly, did anyone else listen to Biden on NPR this week talking about guns? When the reporter pressed him on the fact that assault weapon deaths are minor compared to handguns so why ban them he want on some wild analogy tangent about banning cigarettes to fight global warming. At that point the reporter seemed to realize Biden had nothing (you can hear the 'this guy is crazy' lilt In her voice) and awkwardly moved on.
Biden's not a bad guy, but the ignorant, stupid shit that falls out of his mouth when he talks about gun control is simply ridiculous. And also sometimes illegal, or at the least extremely dangerous.
Yes, though "you don't need 30 rounds, get a shotgun" is the quote of the fucking year.
Yes, though "you don't need 30 rounds, get a shotgun" is the quote of the fucking year.
Nah, my personal favorite is “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”
Though, it's a close tie with the time that he claimed that an AR-15 is too heavy, has too much recoil, and is too complicated for women to operate.
I thought fully automatic weapons were illegal in the US?
Not illegal as such. Acquiring one requires a special registration process including an in depth background check and a fee. Many places also require written approval from local law enforcement.
I thought fully automatic weapons were illegal in the US?
Not illegal as such. Acquiring one requires a special registration process including an in depth background check and a fee. Many places also require written approval from local law enforcement.
Also, I'm pretty sure that certain types of FFL holders can get all sorts of crazy shit - I saw it explained in either a video or a post from one of the FPS russia team, one of them held a particular type of FFL that allowed them a very broad variety of firearms.
Also, the AWB failed, which means that AR prices are propably about to drop through the floor, as everyone who bought them pre-ban as investment items tries to offload them, probably flooding the market.
Correct. A class three Dealers License allows one to purchase and sell Fully automatic weapons. Class three Manufacturers and Importers licenses do what they say on the tin.
Having a class three dealers license is going to cost you something like $1000 a year and the ATF will just about crawl up your ass during the background check, so there aren't all that many folks who bother.
Edit: Class three dealers also pay a $500 per year special occupation tax.
Besides the obvious implications, I've been thinking about what actually constitutes "manufacturing" the receiver. Obviously if you made one and gave it to a friend you'd go to jail, but when its all done on the computer, what would count as being the maker? Would they just have to turn it on and set up the program to print it? Or could you do that and all they would have to do is be the one to click print? I mean if that's the case I could see some sort of weird loophole where a website could use some sort of remote access where you're not actually buying anything from them, but paying them in order to use their printer remotely. All they would have to do is have a basic button saying print that would forward that command to the printer, making you the manufacturer and effectively making it legal to sell an AR-15 receiver online without an FFL? Hell, the could sell parts kits separately so you could get the whole gun from them. This is just a thought though, and I'm sure if it became popular then laws would be passed but it sounds technically legal to me.
Here is something that I just don't get. The CDC says there were 11,078 gun homicides in 2010. The FBI says there were 8,775. That is a pretty big difference and I have no idea why that would be.
This does explain why I've seen both numbers (rounded to either 11k, 9k, or 8k, depending on which slacktivist you listen to), but I don't know why that would be. My guess would be that they have different classifications for homicide, as opposed to manslaughter or other such crimes.
This does explain why I've seen both numbers (rounded to either 11k, 9k, or 8k, depending on which slacktivist you listen to), but I don't know why that would be. My guess would be that they have different classifications for homicide, as opposed to manslaughter or other such crimes.
The other thing you have to look for is if it's "firearm homicide" vs "Firearm Murder". They're not the same thing necessarily - for example, a homicide can include, say, a cop shooting an armed suspect(hopefully armed, anyway, but that's another issue), accidental shootings, self-defence, manslaughter, etc, etc. Firearm Murder is how many are either convicted or charged(can't remember which) of Murder, who used a firearm to do the deed.
I don't know if that accounts for the discrepancy or not, but it is something to watch for.
Okay, so if we needed further proof that the principles of populism, democracy, and just about everything else I love from the 18th and 19th centuries are dead, this happened. I can't even call it a partisan divide, Reid voted against it, and it was introduced by a Republican. And on top of that, this is the Senate. These are the guys who are supposed to keep the House sane. And it's not like they did this quietly, like they are doing with CISPA -- the lamestream media was all over this.
All I can do is hope that this fucks them over for the mid-terms, but it's the Senate so not all of them will be going up for re-election, and who know if the electorate will even remember this by then.
How did they hit the targets for the practical portion of the test?
You don't have to prove you can shoot to get a permit. Just pass a quiz.
Pretty sure Kentucky makes you prove you can shoot a target, but anyway. I'm pro-second amendment and I really can't see a blind person carrying resulting in anything good.
Different states have different requirements. I know in CT, to get a permit your class includes a live fire portion where you are shown how to load and handle the weapon without putting holes in things except the proper targets. I am in favor of that being required. I mean, who would object? You are getting to go shoot guns! And it at least puts someone with some experience in some power to say 'you aren't capable of doing this safely' but doesn't put that monopoly in any one power: if one instructor is being an ass or discriminatory you can always go to another one that is fair. Can't do that with your local government very easily.
At any rate, I am uncertain if blind people who are against blind carry permits are saying that purely from their perspective of blindness, or if they are in general less than pleased about anyone owning a gun in the first place.
But I'm not going to make this about accusing. I will say that if someone can develop a system that can be shown to allow them to identify and accurately hit a target despite a visual impairment/handicap, then they should be allowed to execute their rights. If they can't prove practically able to accomplish the task, they should be denied until a point at which they can satisfy that requirement.
Like if an amputee can figure out a way to drive a car safely and according to the rules of the road, great... let them drive. If someone who is legally blind can use some form of super echolocation/sight enhancement/whatever Daredevil superpowers they have formed... I mean who are we to say?
There's certainly a lot of rules that are... more strict. Just look at the requirements to keep a current medical for the FAA to let you fly... pretty strict standards.
I mean, who would object? You are getting to go shoot guns!
What kind of permit are we talking, though? Maybe they're some collector-type that wants it in a case on a shelf. Never going to be fired. Do you need a permit for that?
I mean, who would object? You are getting to go shoot guns!
What kind of permit are we talking, though? Maybe they're some collector-type that wants it in a case on a shelf. Never going to be fired. Do you need a permit for that?
I think we're only discussing Concealed Carry Deadly Weapon here. To my knowledge no one needs a permit to display a firearm in their home. I can be wrong of course.
Yeah no-one argued that you could buy and own and display one, and even use one in your home for whatever use you have, just carrying one around as a concealed carry.
Has the US dabbled with making firearm taxes insanely high and permits super expensive which expire and need to catalogue which firearms are connected to which permit?
i.e. Cost prohibitive barrier of entrance.
I'm just thinking of how Singapore keeps the traffic low, as the cost of maintenance, upkeep and using a car plus the car price is insanely high (with concessions for work related vehicles).
Comments
That's a nice strawman you've got there.
You'd be genuinely stunned at what FFL holders can purchase from manufacturers, or make themselves. Biden's not a bad guy, but the ignorant, stupid shit that falls out of his mouth when he talks about gun control is simply ridiculous. And also sometimes illegal, or at the least extremely dangerous. Who are you even talking too?
Though, it's a close tie with the time that he claimed that an AR-15 is too heavy, has too much recoil, and is too complicated for women to operate.
Also, the AWB failed, which means that AR prices are propably about to drop through the floor, as everyone who bought them pre-ban as investment items tries to offload them, probably flooding the market.
Having a class three dealers license is going to cost you something like $1000 a year and the ATF will just about crawl up your ass during the background check, so there aren't all that many folks who bother.
Edit: Class three dealers also pay a $500 per year special occupation tax.
Besides the obvious implications, I've been thinking about what actually constitutes "manufacturing" the receiver. Obviously if you made one and gave it to a friend you'd go to jail, but when its all done on the computer, what would count as being the maker? Would they just have to turn it on and set up the program to print it? Or could you do that and all they would have to do is be the one to click print? I mean if that's the case I could see some sort of weird loophole where a website could use some sort of remote access where you're not actually buying anything from them, but paying them in order to use their printer remotely. All they would have to do is have a basic button saying print that would forward that command to the printer, making you the manufacturer and effectively making it legal to sell an AR-15 receiver online without an FFL? Hell, the could sell parts kits separately so you could get the whole gun from them. This is just a thought though, and I'm sure if it became popular then laws would be passed but it sounds technically legal to me.
Gun Control - You can't. Stop trying.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
I don't know if that accounts for the discrepancy or not, but it is something to watch for.
(Sorry don't know bbcode for green, you may mock me)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
And if you're looking for more ridiculous examples of our out-of-control gun situation, here's today's "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. THEY INJURE ELEPHANTS" article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/circus-elephant-drive-by-shooting/2066975/
All I can do is hope that this fucks them over for the mid-terms, but it's the Senate so not all of them will be going up for re-election, and who know if the electorate will even remember this by then.
At any rate, I am uncertain if blind people who are against blind carry permits are saying that purely from their perspective of blindness, or if they are in general less than pleased about anyone owning a gun in the first place.
But I'm not going to make this about accusing. I will say that if someone can develop a system that can be shown to allow them to identify and accurately hit a target despite a visual impairment/handicap, then they should be allowed to execute their rights. If they can't prove practically able to accomplish the task, they should be denied until a point at which they can satisfy that requirement.
Like if an amputee can figure out a way to drive a car safely and according to the rules of the road, great... let them drive. If someone who is legally blind can use some form of super echolocation/sight enhancement/whatever Daredevil superpowers they have formed... I mean who are we to say?
There's certainly a lot of rules that are... more strict. Just look at the requirements to keep a current medical for the FAA to let you fly... pretty strict standards.
i.e. Cost prohibitive barrier of entrance.
I'm just thinking of how Singapore keeps the traffic low, as the cost of maintenance, upkeep and using a car plus the car price is insanely high (with concessions for work related vehicles).